Font size:

The legislators, after meeting victims and state government officials, declared that the state police failed to act promptly and intelligently in Orissa. Of particular mention was the failure of the state police to accept complaints. The legislators also ensured that the issue would be taken up in the next session of the Indian Parliament.

When peace breaks down and violence spreads, the least the authorities can do is to provide the victims a place to lodge their complaints, anguish and worries. State police by law are mandated to accept such complaints. Yet the Indian police failed to play this role.

It is common knowledge in India that it is very difficult to get a complaint registered at a police station; needless to say, investigations rarely occur.

According to the Criminal Procedure Code of 1974, the police are a state agency with whom anyone can file a complaint. However, the manner in which the Indian police function contravenes this role and duty. This is no different whether there is large-scale violence or not.

Anywhere in India, if a person needs to file a complaint at a police station, he must first try to contact someone who is "acceptable" to the police or someone who could influence the police officer. This is a kind of "insurance" one must buy before entering a police station to ensure that the visit will be uneventful. “Uneventful” means he will not be abused at the station, and his complaint will be accepted and registered.

It is also common knowledge in India that for the local police to register a complaint the complainant must pay bribes to the police. The payment of bribes is a must to get a case investigated as well. Those who fail to comply with this are either chased away from the police station or implicated in unnecessary trouble, even to the extent of being falsely charged with a crime.

This police failure to register complaints in India has been highlighted and reported often. During the investigation of a serial murder case in Noida, Uttar Pradesh state, the parents of the murdered victims complained that whenever they tried to lodge complaints about their missing children, the police would chase them away. Those who persisted were threatened by police officers that they would be implicated in the crime of selling their children. The matter only came to the limelight when the skeletal remains of some 16 children were accidently found during an excavation.

Even if a complaint is registered, not much follow-up can be expected. It is common practice that complaints are never investigated. The non-investigation of a complaint is the worst discouragement a complainant can receive.

As for the victims of violence in Orissa, the legislators who visited the trouble-hit region have assured the victims that they would take up the issue of non-acceptance of complaints by the police during the next parliamentary session. However, the legislators also informed the victims that they would have to wait till the next session of the Parliament, since the current session had been adjourned for the Indian prime minister’s visit to the United States to finalize a controversial nuclear deal.

The legislators failed to acknowledge the fact that police failure to accept complaints is routine in India. It is obvious that the purpose of the visit of the two legislators all the way from a southern state to Orissa was motivated by cheap political interest. Is this really a discovery that the state police have failed to accept complaints, and an issue that they intend to take up in Parliament?

The public statement issued by the legislators after visiting Orissa implies that in other states, administered by their political party, the situation is different. Political parties of all genres in India have so far objected to any move that would take away political control over local policing. The legislators’ statement, expressing contempt for the Orissa state police, is therefore nothing but a cheap political statement. Political influence over policing is one of the important reasons for the failure of rule of law in India. Violence in Orissa is only the latest in the series.

In any case, the average Indian is immune from the tricks these gentlemen play upon the electorate. That no politician in India has so far been stoned or publically lynched is proof that the average Indian has learned to tolerate these crocodiles.

--

(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.)