By Aristotle Lyngdoh
After reading HH Mohrmen’s article ‘Reimagining the police: Who’s greasing palms in Meghalaya’, it reminds me of Charlie Chaplin’s movie ‘The Police story’ (1916). In this comedy movie the main character(Charlie Chaplin) played the role of a prisoner who had served his term in jail and was released but found himself on the footpath. The hard life on the street and joblessness forced him to live life on the run especially on seeing a policeman. The movie portrayed a situation of an undeveloped country where policemen were deployed to look for suspicious individuals who were none other than petty thieves and trouble makers inflicted by poverty.
With regards to policing theory and concept, there are two interesting theories brought forward by social scientists James Q Wilson and George L Kelling in 1982 entitled ‘The broken windows’ which is more like a criminological theory which states that the visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes. The writers argue that if one window pane of a building is broken and left unattended, it signals that no one cares and breaking more windows will cost nothing. The theory was further popularised in the 1990s by New Your City Police. Critics used the term ‘Zero tolerance’ to describe the theory of broken windows policing that it is a form of ‘zealotry.’ The theory became a subject of great debate both within the social sciences and the public sphere. Broken windows policing has become associated with controversial police practices, such as the high use of stop-and-frisk in New York City in the decades up to 2013. However, Kelling argued that ‘Broken Windows’ involves a highly discretionary police activity that requires careful training, guidelines, and supervision, as well as an ongoing dialogue with neighborhoods and communities to ensure a positive relationship with the society.
On the contrary, in 1850 a French economist, Frederic Bastait introduced the Parable of the broken window in an essay “Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas” (“That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See”). The essay states that when a child accidentally smashes a window, and then it has to be replaced, does this accident constitute a benefit to the society, due to the economic activity of repairing and replacing the window? In the parable the shopkeeper was very angry at his son’s carelessness because he had to shell out his hard earned money to compensate for the broken glass. He had to call the glazier to do the job and paid him the full cost. The glazier was happy because of the trade and blessed the careless boy. Bastiat said if it costs six francs for a single window pane, this unseen cost could have been prevented or invested elsewhere to create more assets.
Bastiat further explained that if it was discovered that the child was hired by the glazier and paid a franc for every pane broken then the act would be considered a theft. The glazier was breaking windows in order to force people to hire his services. The facts observed by people remain the same – that the glazier benefited from the business at the expense of the shopkeeper. Bastiat argued that societies endorse activities that are equivalent to the glazier hiring a boy to break windows for him. Bastiat concluded that society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end – To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national workmanship or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”
It is ironic on the other hand to see that institutions like the police or the industries (glazier) sometimes brag that in the name of protection and promotion they cause unnecessary hardship to common citizens. Today industries no longer hire a third party to promote their products or services but adopt a much simpler route by engaging in a deal with those at the helm of power such as the palm oil plantation business. This careless venture that is detrimental to the environment will definitely provoke public resentment and in some cases may lead to protest and agitation as in the illegal coke factories and coal mining or in the attempt to convert government land in prime location into a private commercial hub. But interestingly, when the going gets tough, these tough institutions will hire and press into action the policing service available in the land. This situation is what we call the ‘nexus’ or a string of connecting deals between functionaries and other institutions.
It is here that we the public must understand that protection to lives, property and cultures comes from nobody and not from these institutions in question but from the Constitution of the country. The Government and its functionaries as important organs of the Constitution are mandated by the same Constitution to ensure that citizens of the country are well protected. And in the context of protection there is no reason that I can see to kill any person merely on suspicion. Here we see the greatness of the Constitution of India that even a terrorist like Ajmal Kasab who had taken many innocent lives in Taj hotel Mumbai was not killed in the spot but was given a lengthy hearing. Similar is the case with the perpetrators in Nirbhaya case. When we have a Constitution that is inclusive, why should we resort to a different strategy. There is much damage to the polity when people and institutions forget the principles of the Constitution but focus only on the law. They have forgotten that the source of law is the Constitution and when the law and act is unconstitutional then it is the job of every citizen to raise their voice. Much damage is also done because zealotry or preemptive actions and greed guides the sense and attitude of law enforcers.
The desire to rank above everyone else in wealth, position, etc. are unconstitutional because that demeans the basic spirit of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution which says, ‘and to promote among them all fraternity and dignity of the individual’. India can become a developed nation only when each and every individual is able to live with dignity. Perhaps that dignity will give them the reason to live in a country where farmers no longer resort to suicide due to loan traps and monsoon failure. It is here that the keepers of the law should frequently acquaint themselves with the ethos enshrined in the constitution and to work toward that constitutional goal.
The recent uprising in Shillong due to the killing by the State police is a result of that complete damage to the Constitution. It is pathetic to see headmen (Rangbah Shnong) making a humble and fervent appeal to the Government to do something constructive for the community and to shun rampant corruption. Never in the history of the state has inefficiency become so glaring even while Chief Minister, Conrad Sangma looks like a one man army shouldering every responsibility, simply because he has a team who I doubt can be called co-workers to simplify his burden and contribute meaningfully to the task of governance.