Font size: 
For skeptics, this is the state of affairs in the Indian state of Kerala, where not so long ago, the current home minister claimed that he could make crude bombs as and when required, even if he were in police custody. The question is why a person would want crude bombs so urgently.
Welcome to Kerala, one of the most progressive Indian states, that elected the world's first communist government into power through the democratic style of the ballot. The current home minister of Kerala is no unique individual to Indian politics. In fact, there are even worse candidates across India - a country poised to become a leading economic powerhouse of the world. So what happens when such persons bask in power, becoming nothing less than the home minister of a state? Even more interesting would be to know the state of law and order under their jurisdiction.
On Oct.26, 2007 at about 9 a.m., M. C. Elias, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, stationed at Changanasery police station was dispatched to control a fight between two factions of students at the Perunna N.S.S. College in Kerala. Upon arriving at the college campus, students attacked him and hit his head with a stick. He died shortly thereafter. The government and the home minister expressed shock about the incident, and visited the crime scene. The chief minister and the home minister unanimously declared that rival political factions had carried out the murder, even before an investigation team was put in place. The chief of police immediately issued a statement from his office at the state capital Thiruvanandapuram, which is several hours drive from the place of incident, acknowledging the findings of his political masters.
The fact is that the fight was between two factions of student political groups, one led by a fundamentalist Hindu party and the other by the ruling communist party. No one was certain who killed the officer when the minister's and the chief of police made their declaration. Even five days after the incident, the investigation of the case is not over. However, the declarations served its purpose.
The police force headed by the director general of police, more eager to acknowledge and serve his political masters arrested a few suspects. Most of the arrested apparently had nothing to do with the crime. The only reason, the persons were arrested was that the ruling party instructed the police to do so. Obviously most of the detainees oppose the current government.
The next day, the detainees were produced in court where all were found bleeding and bruised - a sign of torture in custody. While the question of torture in custody was being debated, the government made yet another declaration that the deceased officer's family would be paid Indian rupees 600,000 (US$ 15,200). Any government support to an officer's family is a good gesture. However, the same government, paying a million rupees (US$ 25,400) for a 'comrade' killed while participating in a riot in prison, while undergoing a life sentence for a murder, raises the question of priority and rationale of spending government money.
It is in the backdrop of these and many other cases that the constitutional courts in India have repeatedly remarked that the police and the government must be accountable to the ordinary people and to the constitution of the country. In response, state governments condemn courts for interfering with the freedom of the legislature. This was the position taken by the state government of Kerala regarding the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a recently decided case, Prakash Singh v. Union of India.
The Kerala state government spent public money for legal advice to file a review petition against the judgment. Some other state governments also rallied behind the government of Kerala on this issue. However, the issue did not proceed any further. Half-heartedly the Kerala state government, instead of fully complying with the Court's orders, promulgated a bill, which is still to be enforced as law in the state. The question is when law and order is in doldrums in the state, why should any state government be reluctant to follow the Court's directives.
The answer to this question is simple. One of the primary concerns, addressed through the Court's order in Prakash Singh's case, was to rule out political interference in local policing. This is a deathblow to ministers like the one with knowledge of making bombs and others, irrespective of their parties and ideologies. It is an unwritten rule in India that the local police should first follow the mandate of the ruling political party and the local party office and then abide by the domestic laws, if the situation demands. This attitude reduces the local police in every state in India to be nothing less than pimps for the ruling parties. At the end of the day, this is what policing in India gets to be.
The ex-gratia payment made to Elias' family pales in comparison with that paid to the family of a sentenced criminal. This is probably one of the best examples to explain how the governments in India consider their employee's vis-à-vis their party cadres. A police officer, at the end of the day, is no substitute to a criminal, who would do anything for the party.
The incidents reported from Kerala, however give an impression that there would be tough competition for criminals who do the dirty work for the party, from none other than the local police. At least such untainted allegiance, whether it guarantees an out of turn promotion or not, would at least ensure the same quantum of compensation, if an officer is murdered on duty.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
