The preamble to our Constitution clearly declares the intention to secure to all citizens ‘liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship’.
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Article 26 ensures the right to manage religious institutions and religious affairs.
Article 29 grants the rights to all citizens to conserve their language, script and culture.
Article 30 provides for the protection of the interests of religious and linguistic minorities by giving them a
right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State has been directed not to discriminate against the institutions of the minorities in the matter of giving aid.
In addition, Article 350A directs the State to provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage in education.
This Commission examined the reports of various Commissions which have inquired into different communal riots and found that they pointed to the following problems and shortcomings (paragraph 2.2.1.5 of Report on Public Order):
“Systemic Problems
• Conflict resolution mechanisms are ineffective;
• Intelligence gathered is not accurate, timely and actionable; and
• Bad personnel policies - poor choice of officials and short tenures - lead to inadequate grasp of local conditions.
Administrative Shortcomings
• The administration and the police fail to anticipate and read indicators which precipitated violence;
• Even after the appearance of first signals, the administration and police are slow to react;
• Field functionaries tend to seek and wait for instructions from superiors and tend to interfere in local matters undermining local initiative and authority;
• The administration and police at times act in a partisan manner; and
• At times there is failure of leadership, even total abdication on the part of those entrusted with the maintenance of public order.
Post-riot Management Deficiencies
• Rehabilitation is often neglected, breeding resentment and residual anger; and
• Officials are not held to account for their failures, thus perpetuating slackness and incompetence.”
In the context of maintenance of public order, the Commission examined these issues extensively while making recommendations in a holistic manner with regard to reforms in the police and the criminal justice system in its Report on ‘Public Order’. So far as capacity building for resolution of conflicts is concerned, there is need for further involvement of citizens in developing internal mechanisms for diffusing conflict situations. These citizencentric initiatives would include :
i. Cooperation and coordination with the police (community policing).
ii. Cooperation and coordination with the administration (citizens’ committees).
9.2 Community Policing
The participation of the police in a manner responding to the needs of the community, and the community, in turn, participating in its own policing and supporting the police is an ideal situation for handling communal conflicts. The concept of community policing is incorporated in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. In conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, the South Africa Police Act, 1995 contains a provision for the establishment of community police fora at the police station level. According to Section 18 of the Act, these are to act as forums for liaison between the police and the community. The liasion is meant for:
a. establishing and maintaining a partnership between the community and the police.
b. promoting communication and cooperation between the police and the community.
c. improving the rendering of police services in the community.
d. improving transparency in the service and accountability of the service to the community.
e. promoting joint problem identification and problem solving by the police and the community.
Police-citizen Interface:
The Police force in various countries which are conflict Prone have undertaken several programmes to sensitise the citizens. The main aim of such programmes is to develop the self-defense capability of citizens and reduce their vulnerability by familiarising them with the root cause of such conflicts and to enable them to realise that most of these situations can not be compartmentalised between ‘absolute rights and wrongs’.
One such programme by the Ontario police in Canada is worthy of emulation. It is known as the “Ontario Police – Minority Interaction” and is aimed, in particular, at gaining the confidence of the minority community. The programme provides an opportunity, on a continuing basis, to members of the target population to interact with the police in an informal and non-threatening environment. The programme consists of eight sessions of 2-1/2 hours, duration with an open forum style format. Sessions include topics such as arrest, detention, community policing, treatment of women by the police, police services available, youth and police, the rights and obligations of the citizens. The sincerity of police officers who conduct such sessions goes a long way in helping to build confidence in the minorities about the equity-enhancing role of the police. It also facilitates the public to adopt a more balanced approach to lingering local conflicts.
The Commission has also discussed matters related to community policing in its Report on ‘Public Order’; this is reproduced below:
“ Community Policing has been defined as:
“Community Policing is an area specific proactive process of working with the community for prevention and detection of crime, maintenance of public order and resolving local conflicts and with the objective of providing a better quality of life and sense of security”.
According to David H Bayley, community policing has four elements:
(1) Community-based crime prevention;
(2) Patrol deployment for non-emergency interaction with the public;
(3) Active solicitation of requests for service not involving criminal matters;
(4) Creation of mechanisms for grassroots feedback from the community.
The basic principle underlying community policing is that ‘a policeman is a citizen with uniform and a citizen is a policeman without uniform’. The term ‘community policing’ has become a buzzword, but it is nothing new. It is basically getting citizens involved in creating an environment which enhances community safety and security.
Community policing is a philosophy in which the police and the citizens act as partners in providing security to the community and controlling crime. It involves close working between the two with police taking suggestions from people on the one hand and using the citizens as a first line of defence on the other.
Many States in India have taken up community policing in some form or the other. Be it ‘Maithri’ in Andhra Pradesh, ‘Friends of Police’ in Tamil Nadu, Mohalla Committees in Bhiwandi (Maharashtra), there have been several success stories from all over the country. Without going into details of each one of these, the Commission would like to lay down a few it feels should be followed in community policing:
• It should be clearly understood that community policing is a philosophy and not just a set of a few initiatives.
• The success of community policing lies in citizens developing a feeling that they have a say in the policing of their locality and also making the community the first line of defence. community policing should not become a mere ‘public relations’ exercise but should provide an effective forum for police-citizen interaction.
• Interaction with citizens, should be organised through ‘community liaison groups’ or citizen’s committees at different levels. It should be ensured that these groups are truly representative. The idea of community policing would be a success if it is people driven rather than police driven.
• Convergence with activities of other government departments and organisations should be attempted.”
Community policing is thus a concept which visualises the police and the citizens working together to provide security to the community. It is a proactive process in which the police works with the community in resolving conflicts and in providing a sense of security to all the citizens. The Commission reiterates that the principles laid down in paragraph 5.15.5 of its Report on ‘Public Order’ should be followed in community policing which would also bring societal and communal resilience in the context of religious conflicts.
9.3 District Administration and Citizens’ Peace Committees
Citizens’ peace committees in the districts have been found useful in many areas. In times of communal tension, administrators working in districts have formed peace committees, consisting of politicians and influential members of different communities who have participated meaningfully in the deliberations of the peace committees and in peace marches.
In the process, peace committees have been successful in reducing tensions. Keeping in view the need for formalising district administration initiatives, encouraging civil society initiatives and recognising the importance of reconciliation efforts to promote communal harmony, the Commission is of the view that District Peace Committees should be made effective instruments of addressing issues likely to cause communal disharmony. These committees should be constituted by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Superintendent of Police. Representation from different communities should be such as to instill confidence in citizens about the effectiveness of the committee.
In Police Commissionerates, these committees should be constituted by the Police Commissioner in consultation with the Municipal Commissioner. These committees should be institutionalised as an important
forum for conflict resolution between groups and communities. Such committees should also identify issues of local relevance which have a propensity to degenerate into conflagration and suggest measures to deal with them. For example, these committees could look into matters related to finalisation of routes of religious processions and their regulation. Encroachment of public properties etc. could also be dealt with by these committees.
On the lines of the District Peace Committees as suggested above, there is also need for organising ‘Mohalla Committees’. Generally, religious conflicts in India are urban centric, with a spill-over effect in adjoining rural areas. The successful experiment of ‘Mohalla Committees’ (locality level multi-community forums) in Bhiwandi in the aftermath of communal violence by an enterprising Superintendent of Police amply demonstrates the efficacy of this approach.
While such committees were often constituted to defuse tensions precipitated by communal violence, the Bhiwandi approach institutionalised crosscommunal interactions where issues of common concern were discussed regularly promoting mutual trust and confidence. Meeting regularly, rather than only when communal tensions ran high, brought different members of religious communites together to talk about
common concerns. This mutual trust and understanding proved very effective in preventing
occurrence of communal violence in Bhiwandi in 1992-03 when many other places in Maharashtra experienced severe and prolonged communal violence.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in its Report made the following recommendation pertaining to the resolution of interreligious conflicts:
“The setting up of ‘Mohalla Committees’ with the participation of different communities to take note of early warning symptoms and alerting the administration in preventing them have produced enduring beneficial results. In particular, the endeavours made in Bhiwandi, in the state of Maharashtra, after the tragic riots there, have emphasized the value of such measures.”
The Commission endorses this approach.
Communal Violence Bill
A separate law to deal with communal violence is not required. The existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code need to be strengthened. This may be achieved by incorporating provisions for:
i. Enhanced punishments for communal offences.
ii. Setting up of special courts for expeditious trial of cases related to communal violence.
iii. Giving powers of remand to Executive Magistrates in cases of communal offences.
iv. Prescription of norms of relief and rehabilitation.
Further, as recommended in para 6.1.7.9 of the Commission’s Report on ‘Public Order’, this should be accompanied by the deletion of the provisions contained in Section 196 of CrPC requiring prior sanction of the Union or State Government or the District Magistrate for initiating prosecution for offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and sub-sections (1)(c), (2) and (3) of Section 505 of IPC.
For providing relief and rehabilitation to victims of communal violence, the framework provided under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 could be effectively used.
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Article 26 ensures the right to manage religious institutions and religious affairs.
Article 29 grants the rights to all citizens to conserve their language, script and culture.
Article 30 provides for the protection of the interests of religious and linguistic minorities by giving them a
right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State has been directed not to discriminate against the institutions of the minorities in the matter of giving aid.
In addition, Article 350A directs the State to provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage in education.
This Commission examined the reports of various Commissions which have inquired into different communal riots and found that they pointed to the following problems and shortcomings (paragraph 2.2.1.5 of Report on Public Order):
“Systemic Problems
• Conflict resolution mechanisms are ineffective;
• Intelligence gathered is not accurate, timely and actionable; and
• Bad personnel policies - poor choice of officials and short tenures - lead to inadequate grasp of local conditions.
Administrative Shortcomings
• The administration and the police fail to anticipate and read indicators which precipitated violence;
• Even after the appearance of first signals, the administration and police are slow to react;
• Field functionaries tend to seek and wait for instructions from superiors and tend to interfere in local matters undermining local initiative and authority;
• The administration and police at times act in a partisan manner; and
• At times there is failure of leadership, even total abdication on the part of those entrusted with the maintenance of public order.
Post-riot Management Deficiencies
• Rehabilitation is often neglected, breeding resentment and residual anger; and
• Officials are not held to account for their failures, thus perpetuating slackness and incompetence.”
In the context of maintenance of public order, the Commission examined these issues extensively while making recommendations in a holistic manner with regard to reforms in the police and the criminal justice system in its Report on ‘Public Order’. So far as capacity building for resolution of conflicts is concerned, there is need for further involvement of citizens in developing internal mechanisms for diffusing conflict situations. These citizencentric initiatives would include :
i. Cooperation and coordination with the police (community policing).
ii. Cooperation and coordination with the administration (citizens’ committees).
9.2 Community Policing
The participation of the police in a manner responding to the needs of the community, and the community, in turn, participating in its own policing and supporting the police is an ideal situation for handling communal conflicts. The concept of community policing is incorporated in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. In conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, the South Africa Police Act, 1995 contains a provision for the establishment of community police fora at the police station level. According to Section 18 of the Act, these are to act as forums for liaison between the police and the community. The liasion is meant for:
a. establishing and maintaining a partnership between the community and the police.
b. promoting communication and cooperation between the police and the community.
c. improving the rendering of police services in the community.
d. improving transparency in the service and accountability of the service to the community.
e. promoting joint problem identification and problem solving by the police and the community.
Police-citizen Interface:
The Police force in various countries which are conflict Prone have undertaken several programmes to sensitise the citizens. The main aim of such programmes is to develop the self-defense capability of citizens and reduce their vulnerability by familiarising them with the root cause of such conflicts and to enable them to realise that most of these situations can not be compartmentalised between ‘absolute rights and wrongs’.
One such programme by the Ontario police in Canada is worthy of emulation. It is known as the “Ontario Police – Minority Interaction” and is aimed, in particular, at gaining the confidence of the minority community. The programme provides an opportunity, on a continuing basis, to members of the target population to interact with the police in an informal and non-threatening environment. The programme consists of eight sessions of 2-1/2 hours, duration with an open forum style format. Sessions include topics such as arrest, detention, community policing, treatment of women by the police, police services available, youth and police, the rights and obligations of the citizens. The sincerity of police officers who conduct such sessions goes a long way in helping to build confidence in the minorities about the equity-enhancing role of the police. It also facilitates the public to adopt a more balanced approach to lingering local conflicts.
The Commission has also discussed matters related to community policing in its Report on ‘Public Order’; this is reproduced below:
“ Community Policing has been defined as:
“Community Policing is an area specific proactive process of working with the community for prevention and detection of crime, maintenance of public order and resolving local conflicts and with the objective of providing a better quality of life and sense of security”.
According to David H Bayley, community policing has four elements:
(1) Community-based crime prevention;
(2) Patrol deployment for non-emergency interaction with the public;
(3) Active solicitation of requests for service not involving criminal matters;
(4) Creation of mechanisms for grassroots feedback from the community.
The basic principle underlying community policing is that ‘a policeman is a citizen with uniform and a citizen is a policeman without uniform’. The term ‘community policing’ has become a buzzword, but it is nothing new. It is basically getting citizens involved in creating an environment which enhances community safety and security.
Community policing is a philosophy in which the police and the citizens act as partners in providing security to the community and controlling crime. It involves close working between the two with police taking suggestions from people on the one hand and using the citizens as a first line of defence on the other.
Many States in India have taken up community policing in some form or the other. Be it ‘Maithri’ in Andhra Pradesh, ‘Friends of Police’ in Tamil Nadu, Mohalla Committees in Bhiwandi (Maharashtra), there have been several success stories from all over the country. Without going into details of each one of these, the Commission would like to lay down a few it feels should be followed in community policing:
• It should be clearly understood that community policing is a philosophy and not just a set of a few initiatives.
• The success of community policing lies in citizens developing a feeling that they have a say in the policing of their locality and also making the community the first line of defence. community policing should not become a mere ‘public relations’ exercise but should provide an effective forum for police-citizen interaction.
• Interaction with citizens, should be organised through ‘community liaison groups’ or citizen’s committees at different levels. It should be ensured that these groups are truly representative. The idea of community policing would be a success if it is people driven rather than police driven.
• Convergence with activities of other government departments and organisations should be attempted.”
Community policing is thus a concept which visualises the police and the citizens working together to provide security to the community. It is a proactive process in which the police works with the community in resolving conflicts and in providing a sense of security to all the citizens. The Commission reiterates that the principles laid down in paragraph 5.15.5 of its Report on ‘Public Order’ should be followed in community policing which would also bring societal and communal resilience in the context of religious conflicts.
9.3 District Administration and Citizens’ Peace Committees
Citizens’ peace committees in the districts have been found useful in many areas. In times of communal tension, administrators working in districts have formed peace committees, consisting of politicians and influential members of different communities who have participated meaningfully in the deliberations of the peace committees and in peace marches.
In the process, peace committees have been successful in reducing tensions. Keeping in view the need for formalising district administration initiatives, encouraging civil society initiatives and recognising the importance of reconciliation efforts to promote communal harmony, the Commission is of the view that District Peace Committees should be made effective instruments of addressing issues likely to cause communal disharmony. These committees should be constituted by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Superintendent of Police. Representation from different communities should be such as to instill confidence in citizens about the effectiveness of the committee.
In Police Commissionerates, these committees should be constituted by the Police Commissioner in consultation with the Municipal Commissioner. These committees should be institutionalised as an important
forum for conflict resolution between groups and communities. Such committees should also identify issues of local relevance which have a propensity to degenerate into conflagration and suggest measures to deal with them. For example, these committees could look into matters related to finalisation of routes of religious processions and their regulation. Encroachment of public properties etc. could also be dealt with by these committees.
On the lines of the District Peace Committees as suggested above, there is also need for organising ‘Mohalla Committees’. Generally, religious conflicts in India are urban centric, with a spill-over effect in adjoining rural areas. The successful experiment of ‘Mohalla Committees’ (locality level multi-community forums) in Bhiwandi in the aftermath of communal violence by an enterprising Superintendent of Police amply demonstrates the efficacy of this approach.
While such committees were often constituted to defuse tensions precipitated by communal violence, the Bhiwandi approach institutionalised crosscommunal interactions where issues of common concern were discussed regularly promoting mutual trust and confidence. Meeting regularly, rather than only when communal tensions ran high, brought different members of religious communites together to talk about
common concerns. This mutual trust and understanding proved very effective in preventing
occurrence of communal violence in Bhiwandi in 1992-03 when many other places in Maharashtra experienced severe and prolonged communal violence.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in its Report made the following recommendation pertaining to the resolution of interreligious conflicts:
“The setting up of ‘Mohalla Committees’ with the participation of different communities to take note of early warning symptoms and alerting the administration in preventing them have produced enduring beneficial results. In particular, the endeavours made in Bhiwandi, in the state of Maharashtra, after the tragic riots there, have emphasized the value of such measures.”
The Commission endorses this approach.
Communal Violence Bill
A separate law to deal with communal violence is not required. The existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code need to be strengthened. This may be achieved by incorporating provisions for:
i. Enhanced punishments for communal offences.
ii. Setting up of special courts for expeditious trial of cases related to communal violence.
iii. Giving powers of remand to Executive Magistrates in cases of communal offences.
iv. Prescription of norms of relief and rehabilitation.
Further, as recommended in para 6.1.7.9 of the Commission’s Report on ‘Public Order’, this should be accompanied by the deletion of the provisions contained in Section 196 of CrPC requiring prior sanction of the Union or State Government or the District Magistrate for initiating prosecution for offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and sub-sections (1)(c), (2) and (3) of Section 505 of IPC.
For providing relief and rehabilitation to victims of communal violence, the framework provided under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 could be effectively used.
No comments:
Post a Comment