‘Force’ in new police chief's designation hardly fits in

The old designation of the chief of the police department was Director General of Police. The Head of the Police Force found in the invitation is new and an addition now.

The designation ‘Director General of Police’ itself does not appear to be appropriate as there are no directors at all in the department to be supervised by the Director General of Police. How can there be a Director General when there is no director?

Earlier, the department was headed only by an Inspector General of Police. The Police Act of 1861, on which the police department is built, mentions only of Inspector General of Police as the chief and rightly so as he has a number of inspectors under his charge. The Karnataka police still call their chief Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police, to adhere to the past and to be abreast with the present.

DGP, MGR’s coinage

The credit for inventing this designation of Director General of Police goes to our state Tamil Nadu. It was in 1979, the first ever Director General of Police in the country, Eric Leon Stracey, the last of the IP breed was elevated to the post by then chief minister MG Ramachandran with three IPS officers of the cadre to assist him as Inspector Generals in the primary functions of the department. No one knows who suggested the designation of Director General of Police. Could it be cine field concoction as MGR was the prime mover? All state police in the country and central police forces like CRPF, BSF, etc. followed MGR in naming their chiefs as Director Generals of Police.

Though there was only one Director General of Police in the early years, as years rolled by, all those who had done certain years of service got promoted to the DGP rank. There was cluttering at the top and it ushered in competition among them to head the department with the resultant bitterness, indiscipline, damage to morale at top levels.

In the past, police department was pyramidal in structure and promotion to the next rank was difficult and arduous and happened only when there was vacancy. Many brilliant officers had retired midway for want of vacancy in the next rank. Some of the IP officers retired as DIGs. The chief whose climb to the top was steep and slippery was supreme and he had absolute authority over the rank and file. The rank and file in turn exhibited fierce loyalty and implicit obedience to the chief.

Now the structure is cylindrical. These days whosoever enters the IPS, hopes to end as DGP irrespective of his performance. With many waiting to grab the chiefdom, chiefs all over, tread on their turf cautiously, lest they should be out manoeuvred by their colleagues. The proverbial police iron discipline, of the rank is turning rusty and due to too many masters and divided loyalty.

However, to mitigate the malady, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Director General, heading the department should be chosen by a board at the Centre with the UPSC and the state government and Central government as core members and must have an assured tenure of two years.

This fixed tenure robs the opportunity of the juniors and also affects the morale among the officers at the top. Such a secured tenure for the chief affords unlimited power, opportunity and unquestionability, which is injurious to the state in the long run. It is wisdom that power should always be checked and counter checked. Lord Acton’s dictum on absolute power may have to be kept in sight. Damocles sword is a necessity.

The designation Director General of Police is loosely applied to different appointments these days. The Director General of Fire and rescue services is called Director General of Police and under him there is not even a single policeman. Likewise, the Director General of Prisons, the Chairman of Police Housing Board, Recruitment Board, Director, Vigilance in Electricity Board and transport corporations and Director of Vigilance department are all now called Director General of Police in addition to their old designations like director general of fire services or prisons, though they have hardly any policemen working under them.

With too many officials with DGP designation, too many with stiff flags and polished insignias and beacons flaunting in their bonnets and bumper sand top of their limousines, the ordinary constable, as well as the rank and file of the department and above all the common man is bewildered. He wonders who actually heads the police and to whom he should go for redressal of his problems.

To sort out this mess, the government had named the DGP, who heads the police department as HOPF—Head of Police Force now.

The police which is under the control of the state government is civilian in nature and in common parlance cannot be called police ‘force.’ The term force is associated with militancy. The Police Act of 1861 assigns maintenance of Law and order, prevention and detection of crime, collection of intelligence, and prevention of nuisance as police duties and these have no militant connotation.

The police stations in the state are also not normally supplied with militant weapons. The rights organisations and commissions and civil liberties organisations also strongly advocate eschewing violence, however modest it might be. The state police is a department rendering police services and not a military outfit. The term Head of the Police Force therefore hardly suits state police chief. It is better and rightly suits only CRPF or BSF, or CISF, as they are para military in nature and function so.

One can’t just dismiss these thoughts quoting Shakespeare’s “What is in a name?”