Uniform is not just a dress but an ethos

Careful thought has to be given by the decision-makers on the needs of those serving in the police force

Three incidents in recent months have brought the uniform into focus. In one of them, we saw an ugly confrontation between two agencies, both pivotal for the maintenance of law and order in our country which led to one of them, the Delhi Police, agitating outside the headquarters and actually heckling the commissioner when he came out to assuage their feelings.  And last month, we saw an amazing sight of two “marshals” standing on either side of the chairman of Rajya Sabha, looking more like military men with caps and braids resembling those worn by our Generals; this dress code is now being “revisited” and, hopefully, will be undone.  Most recently, we have seen visuals of agitating JNU students being chased by the police with lathis. All these incidents raise some important questions on what exactly uniform means.

There are three uniformed forces in India, namely, the military, the paramilitary and the police, each with its own distinct and clearly defined responsibility. The first essentially exists to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country, the second to provide a second line of defence and to protect internal security, and the third, to supervise law and order. Clearly, the first comes into contact with the public the least and the third the most. This has a bearing on the pulls and pressures each is subjected to, the police being the most affected, and consequently, the responses, but in the discharge of their duties runs a common thread. While individual grievances may be voiced and will always be attended to, group agitation is not acceptable.

Just before India became independent, there was the Naval Mutiny of 1946 in which hundreds of ratings (sailors) besieged naval barracks and held officers (both British and Indian) captive for some time. The offenders were soon neutralised and many “mutineers” were either summarily dismissed or faced trial in courts. Then there was a group protest in the Navy in 1968 by sailors of the erstwhile Topass branch whose duty was to clean bathrooms and toilets on board ships. In the British Navy, from which the Indian Navy drew its ethos, these duties were shared equally by sailors of all branches and our hierarchy felt that by following the same practice we could optimise the size of the ship’s crew, an important need given the space constraints. An order to this effect, palpably unsuited to the Indian environment, was passed. It was disobeyed collectively but not violently by a large majority of sailors who considered the tasks demeaning. The directive was withdrawn but a large number of those who protested were dismissed from service.

In 1973, the Navy saw yet another group protest, albeit limited. In the then flagship of the Navy, INS Mysore, the entire crew refused to eat lunch. The ship was at sea and it was not clear if the collective act was localised or widespread and if the former, the reason thereof. Enquiries with shore headquarters revealed that it was limited to the flagship only. The ship’s officers including the Admiral tried to ascertain the reason for this group representation of grievance but none was forthcoming. The sailors went about their duties quietly and had their evening meal normally. Subsequent enquiries revealed that there was a general feeling among the crew that focus on discipline was over-emphasised in the ship by a new Captain whose reputation as a strict disciplinarian had preceded him.  Once again regardless of what led to this episode, the act of silent agitation was not allowed to pass muster and over a hundred sailors, suspected to be motivators or instigators, were discharged from service.

In 1984, one saw an act of group protest in the Army following military intervention in the haloed Golden Temple at Amritsar. A contingent of soldiers belonging to a regiment stationed at Ramgarh in Bihar began to move towards Delhi. They were soon neutralised and confined to barracks. There was no instance of violence but a large number of these soldiers were discharged or otherwise punished. These are some of the better known examples of collective protests in the military and how they were handled; there may well have been some more on a smaller scale and not so visible. The bottom line is that all of them were seen as unacceptable conduct and dealt with accordingly even as the grievances were recognised and mostly rectified.

This is the context in which we should view the recent incidents. The tasks of the police are so much more complex and difficult than those of other counterparts in uniform in view of their proximity and close interface with the civilian community and, indeed, the very nature of their responsibilities. Some interventions by them which may be seen as unduly harsh are inescapable. Whether, in response, a collective approach, bordering on agitation, is tolerable is a moot point but it is indisputable that criteria relevant to the military and para military cannot be strictly applied; some different norms have to be worked out. It is not as if this was the first such group representation of grievance in the police and various corrective actions must have been taken. There are also exhaustive reports on police reforms that have been in the public domain for some time without implementation; they merit urgent attention as highlighted by several former senior police officers. In this case, some preemptive measures by the hierarchy might have helped. Very careful thought has to be given by the decision- makers on what needs to be done to safeguard the interests of those serving in the police force as well as of the ethos of uniforms that they wear. Sadly, statements of the kind made by the IAS and IPS Officers Associations in the recent instance were neither necessary nor conducive to the desired end result.

The writer is a former Commander in Chief of the Eastern Naval Command. He has also been member of the National Security Advisory Board