Font size: 
A school is where a student learns various subjects as well as discipline. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to locate a police station in a school. In India, however, many schools are forced to house police stations.
One example is in Tambaram, a town under Chennai municipality in Tamil Nadu state. For the past three months a women's police station has been operating at the Alandur Municipal Primary School. While local residents and the parents of students who attend the school are not opposed to having a police station in the neighborhood, none of them wants it inside the school compound, for obvious reasons.
In Aanti, a town in Gaya district of Bihar state, some 12 classrooms of the local government primary school are occupied by police officers who are running a police station in the school. The police "occupied" the classrooms after their station was damaged in an attack by Maoist rebels in 2004.
When the police occupied the school, obviously the students had to move out. Now classes are held on the school playground, where students and teachers must brave the harsh weather. The students have to take their lessons squatting on the ground, since the police appropriated the furniture along with the classrooms when they occupied the school. Many students have left the school since the "police occupation" of their institution.
If this happened in one school here and another one there, these still might be exceptional cases in the many states of India. But such illegal occupations of schools by law enforcement forces is a common phenomenon in the states of Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Uttaranchal, Manipur, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Mizoram and Nagaland.
In the newly formed state of Chhattisgarh, many schools are currently used not for teaching but to house police stations and police outposts. In this state it is not only the local police that occupy the schools, however. The Salwa Judum, a private armed militia allegedly formed to counter Maoist and Naxalite rebels in the state, have also forced students out of their schools, converting them into fortified strongholds for housing armed men.
In Chhattisgarh some police stations even employ children. Five-year-old Saurabh Nagvanshi has worked at a local police station since his father died in 2005. Saurabh's father was stationed at the Raipur Police Station when he was murdered in an encounter with the Naxalites. Saurabh was soon employed as a "bal sepoy," or child constable, by the state police. The employment was offered on compassionate grounds and was accepted by Saurabh's family, who needed the income after the death of Saurabh's father.
Saurabh is not alone in Chhattisgarh. Ten-year-old Manish Khoonte is employed at the Korba Police Station along with his friend, 13-year-old Jitesh Singh. Both their fathers were police constables who lost their lives in encounters between Naxalites and the state police force. The families of these children appreciate their employment as it provides income for the family. But these children are being denied not only their right to education, but their childhoods. Such employment is also a crime under the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.
The police forces in India are notorious for using violence. The general attitude of the public toward the police is one of fear and suspicion. Against this backdrop, when the state police occupy a school for whatever purpose, it is no wonder the parents fear to send their children to school.
The state police are the extended arm of the state government. The role of the police in a society is to provide protection for the life and property of citizens and non-citizens by enforcing the law. It is the duty of the state to ensure that the local police are provided with the necessary amenities to properly function. This not only includes suitable facilities for their regular operations, but also a minimum guarantee that police actions do not disturb the local populace.
In India law enforcement means the use of force. A law enforcement agency might be justified in occupying civilian premises like a school or a hospital under exceptional circumstances. But the constant interruption of public life in the name of enforcing law and order does not promote peace or the rule of law, but perpetuates fear. Time and again I have argued in this column that in India enforcing the law is always by imparting fear.
Many of my friends and several readers have written to me asking why I always portray a negative picture of India. I have received letters labeling me as a pessimist who ignores India's development and great achievements. Readers have complained that I never write about the improvements India has made in the industrial sector and in its economy.
But I wonder what these persons would offer a child who has been forced to stay away from school since his or her school has been occupied by local police for months together. I also doubt whether any of these Indian and non-Indian friends would send their children to a school where the students are forced to squat in the playground to listen to their teachers while their school is occupied by police officers and their classrooms converted into armories.
This sentiment of praising a country that allegedly shines only in a few metropolitan cities is the curse of India. While more than 70 percent of India is still infested with lawlessness, mostly created by law enforcement agencies, as an Indian I have no option but to point out that 70 percent of my countrymen are yet to receive the fruits of living in a democratic, socialist republic. Ignoring this is not only self deceit; it is also shameless self defeat.
--
(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.)
