Handling civil dissent
Handling a large-scale demonstration or a mass agitation is always tricky and when public participation is large, police are reluctant to use force in dealing with them. Police usually try to stop the protestors from disturbing public peace or entering a prohibited area by putting up a human-chain and wait patiently for frenzy to abate. The classic example of this tactics relates to the students' protests in the 'Summer of 1968' in Paris when the Prefect of Paris resisted categorical orders of President de Gaulle to re-possess the Sorbonne and Odeon Theatre buildings by force, and ultimately succeeded in getting the buildings vacated without violent confrontation. (Something similar is even now going on in France with Ýellow Vest' protests).Nearer home, this tactics succeded in Bihar a few years back when police allowed the funeral procession of the slain Ranvir Sena chief to pass through to Patna despite some acts of vandalism by the processionists and averted an ugly confrontation. However, such forbearance does not always work and more often than not, police have to use force and the most important question for them is, what quantum of force to use and when. If police use force against dissenters while they are peaceful - as Delhi police did in beating up and chasing out Baba Ramdev and his sleeping followers in the winters of 2013 - they are roundly criticised, and rightly so. If they leave it too late, then situation can easily get out of hand, as happened a few years back in Mathura (Jawahar Bagh) and in Panchkula. So, the requirement is that the officers on the spot judge the situation correctly and apply appropriate force at the right time.
It must be noted that the state of law and order always affects the political fortunes of the ruling elite and this is precisely the reason why the British organised the Indian police as 'civilian army of occupation', as Dr A Gupta described it. In fact, even after Independence, in the name of maintainence of law and order, police has been used by the every ruling party to further its political ends. When Sant Bhindrawale's caravan drove across the Vijay Chowk, flaunting weapons like light-machine-guns (I was a witness to the spectacle), because it was politically expedient, he was given a free passage in the name of not creating a law and order problem. Very recently, we have seen the law and order excuse being used to refuse permission for helicopter to land or to hold an election rally, to serve the interests of the ruling party. Because of the political ramifications, no govt allows the police to use their own judgement in handling a large protest or agitation and issues such directions as suit its politics (or, puts a selected officer in charge of police operations, who is known to understand the ruling party's interests and has no qualms about putting the party's interests above all other considerations).
The SC directive of 2006 says that the functions of the (proposed) State Safety Commission would include laying down the broad policies and giving directions for the preventive tasks of the police (which includes maintenance of law and order). But for two reasons I believe that this will not be at all helpful in handling large-scale civil dissent aimed at wresting political power, such as JP's movement of 1970s, or destroying the legitimacy of the ruling elite - such as AAP's campaign of 2013-14. The first reason is that the Chief Minister/Home minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Commission will almost certainly hold diametrically opposite views on how much latitude should be given to the dissenters; the judge may not want to be seen as taking sides and so confine himself to spelling out the constitutional provisions and even otherwise, may not be able to give useful suggestions; and the non-political members might have experience of organising agitations but not of controlling them and may well be divided in their sympathies. So, the Commission's directions will only reflect some kind of compromise and it can hardly give clear-cut directions.
The second reason I have is that since the directions issued by the Commission are quite likely to be rather general and therefore somewhat ambiguous, they might well create doubts in the mind of the officer on the spot as to what exactly he is expected to do and thus cause confusion and hesitation But, the atmosphere during mass protests is highly charged and the smallest incident ( sometimes engineered by an agent provocateur) can give a violent turn to the situation within minutes and so,in order to keep on top of the situation, the officer on spot must be able to think on his feet and act quickly and decisively; if he is beset with doubts, it may cause delay in taking decisions, with fatal consequences.
For these reasons, I believe that it would be more in consonance with democratic norms if new Police Acts clearly lay down that while maintaining law and order: (1) the police must not place undue restrictions on peaceful civil dissent (the SC has laid down the guidelines); (2)police must maintain, as best as possible, balance between the freedom of expression of dissenters and the rights of others to go about their business without hindrance; and (3) in case of a disturbance, police make all attempts to minimise injuries to dissenters and non-dissenters and minimise damage to private and public property. The Police Acts must also make it clear that in the matter of maintaining of law and order, police shall not be subject to any directions from any quarters but if questions arise about restrictions placed by police on any proposed meeting or demomstration, or if it is alleged that police used excessive force, the complaint shall be enquired into by a committee of social workers of repute,with some experienced police officers acting as assessors, and the report of the committee shall be made public, forthwith.
(To be continued)
Comments may be posted here, there is no monitoring
Handling a large-scale demonstration or a mass agitation is always tricky and when public participation is large, police are reluctant to use force in dealing with them. Police usually try to stop the protestors from disturbing public peace or entering a prohibited area by putting up a human-chain and wait patiently for frenzy to abate. The classic example of this tactics relates to the students' protests in the 'Summer of 1968' in Paris when the Prefect of Paris resisted categorical orders of President de Gaulle to re-possess the Sorbonne and Odeon Theatre buildings by force, and ultimately succeeded in getting the buildings vacated without violent confrontation. (Something similar is even now going on in France with Ýellow Vest' protests).Nearer home, this tactics succeded in Bihar a few years back when police allowed the funeral procession of the slain Ranvir Sena chief to pass through to Patna despite some acts of vandalism by the processionists and averted an ugly confrontation. However, such forbearance does not always work and more often than not, police have to use force and the most important question for them is, what quantum of force to use and when. If police use force against dissenters while they are peaceful - as Delhi police did in beating up and chasing out Baba Ramdev and his sleeping followers in the winters of 2013 - they are roundly criticised, and rightly so. If they leave it too late, then situation can easily get out of hand, as happened a few years back in Mathura (Jawahar Bagh) and in Panchkula. So, the requirement is that the officers on the spot judge the situation correctly and apply appropriate force at the right time.
It must be noted that the state of law and order always affects the political fortunes of the ruling elite and this is precisely the reason why the British organised the Indian police as 'civilian army of occupation', as Dr A Gupta described it. In fact, even after Independence, in the name of maintainence of law and order, police has been used by the every ruling party to further its political ends. When Sant Bhindrawale's caravan drove across the Vijay Chowk, flaunting weapons like light-machine-guns (I was a witness to the spectacle), because it was politically expedient, he was given a free passage in the name of not creating a law and order problem. Very recently, we have seen the law and order excuse being used to refuse permission for helicopter to land or to hold an election rally, to serve the interests of the ruling party. Because of the political ramifications, no govt allows the police to use their own judgement in handling a large protest or agitation and issues such directions as suit its politics (or, puts a selected officer in charge of police operations, who is known to understand the ruling party's interests and has no qualms about putting the party's interests above all other considerations).
The SC directive of 2006 says that the functions of the (proposed) State Safety Commission would include laying down the broad policies and giving directions for the preventive tasks of the police (which includes maintenance of law and order). But for two reasons I believe that this will not be at all helpful in handling large-scale civil dissent aimed at wresting political power, such as JP's movement of 1970s, or destroying the legitimacy of the ruling elite - such as AAP's campaign of 2013-14. The first reason is that the Chief Minister/Home minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Commission will almost certainly hold diametrically opposite views on how much latitude should be given to the dissenters; the judge may not want to be seen as taking sides and so confine himself to spelling out the constitutional provisions and even otherwise, may not be able to give useful suggestions; and the non-political members might have experience of organising agitations but not of controlling them and may well be divided in their sympathies. So, the Commission's directions will only reflect some kind of compromise and it can hardly give clear-cut directions.
The second reason I have is that since the directions issued by the Commission are quite likely to be rather general and therefore somewhat ambiguous, they might well create doubts in the mind of the officer on the spot as to what exactly he is expected to do and thus cause confusion and hesitation But, the atmosphere during mass protests is highly charged and the smallest incident ( sometimes engineered by an agent provocateur) can give a violent turn to the situation within minutes and so,in order to keep on top of the situation, the officer on spot must be able to think on his feet and act quickly and decisively; if he is beset with doubts, it may cause delay in taking decisions, with fatal consequences.
For these reasons, I believe that it would be more in consonance with democratic norms if new Police Acts clearly lay down that while maintaining law and order: (1) the police must not place undue restrictions on peaceful civil dissent (the SC has laid down the guidelines); (2)police must maintain, as best as possible, balance between the freedom of expression of dissenters and the rights of others to go about their business without hindrance; and (3) in case of a disturbance, police make all attempts to minimise injuries to dissenters and non-dissenters and minimise damage to private and public property. The Police Acts must also make it clear that in the matter of maintaining of law and order, police shall not be subject to any directions from any quarters but if questions arise about restrictions placed by police on any proposed meeting or demomstration, or if it is alleged that police used excessive force, the complaint shall be enquired into by a committee of social workers of repute,with some experienced police officers acting as assessors, and the report of the committee shall be made public, forthwith.
(To be continued)
Comments may be posted here, there is no monitoring
1 comment:
Right to assembly is enshrined in Article 19 of our constitution.Salient features of the same are mentioned below-
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is one of the most important articles constituting the ‘basic freedoms’ guaranteed to every
citizen of India. Article 19(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly,
associations, movement, residence and practising any trade, business, occupation or profession. Article 19 (1)(b) guarantees to
all citizens of India rights “to assemble peaceably and without arms”. This right includes the rights to hold meetings and to take
out processions.
The right is however subject to the following restrictions. :-
1) The assembly must be peaceful and harmonious;
2) It must be unarmed and not threatening the safety of the people;
3) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under clause 3 of article 19.
The citizens exercising their right to assembly are, therefore, obliged to comply with the aforesaid restrictions. In Baba Ram Dev arrest case at Ram Lila ground(2012) the Honourable SC has upheld the above position to the extent that disobedience to any restriction, even if not sure to be lawful, will expose the person concerned to the risk of punishment if the restriction is judicially held to be lawful. Hence the public order maintenance authority should make it very clear to the protesters that they are risking punishment by wilful disobedience of the restrictions imposed by the authorities. This will have certainly sobering impact on certain members of the assembly who can appreciate the finer nuances of the law, and likely to impel them to dissuade other members of the assembly against conflict with law.
Post a Comment