From a Force of the State to a Police of the People: Who Made the Indian Police Brutal, and How Can It Be Democratised?

 

From a Force of the State to a Police of the People: Who Made the Indian Police Brutal, and How Can It Be Democratised?

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd) 

 

“The Indian police remains structurally a colonial “force of the state” designed for control rather than a democratic “police of the people,” and its brutality is sustained by that legacy plus post-independence political choices, institutional culture, and near-total impunity.” Transforming it requires implementing long-ignored structural reforms, new accountability mechanisms, and cultural change.

 Colonial Origins: Designed for Coercion, Not Service

The modern Indian police system was shaped after the 1857 Rebellion. The Police Act of 1861 (still the foundational law in most states) created a hierarchical, paramilitary-style force modelled on the Royal Irish Constabulary. Its purpose was to maintain order, suppress dissent, protect colonial interests, and control a “hostile native population,” not to serve citizens or uphold rights.

Key features included:

- Strong executive control (political superintendence) with little independent oversight.

- Emphasis on armed capacity and intelligence over community-oriented or investigative policing.

- Broad discretionary powers for arrest, detention, and use of force.

- Targeting of marginalised groups (nomadic communities via the Criminal Tribes Act 1871 and similar measures, lower castes, and others seen as threats).

Torture and violence were common tools for extracting information or enforcing control. This architecture and ethos were largely retained after 1947. Multiple post-Independence commissions noted the mismatch with democratic constitutional values but produced limited change.

 Post-Independence Continuities: Who Sustained the Brutality?

No single actor “made” the police brutal; the colonial design was preserved and adapted by successive governments and institutional practices:

Political control and interference: Police remain accountable upward to the political executive rather than outward to the law and public. Arbitrary transfers, postings, and pressure on investigations involving the powerful are routine. This politicisation turns the force into an instrument of whoever holds power.

Institutional culture and attitudes: Surveys (e.g., Status of Policing in India Report 2025) show significant shares of personnel justify “tough methods,” third-degree interrogation, creating fear among the public, and even extrajudicial killing of “dangerous criminals.” Many believe police should use force without fear of punishment. Support varies by state (higher in some, lower in Kerala). Victims of custodial violence and torture are disproportionately from poor, Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim, and other marginalised communities.

Impunity: National Crime Records Bureau and NHRC data show thousands of custodial deaths over years, yet convictions of police officers are extremely rare (near-zero in large datasets for police-custody deaths between 2011–2022). Safeguards from ‘D.K. Basu’ (1996) and other rulings are frequently ignored. India has not enacted comprehensive domestic anti-torture legislation aligning fully with the UN Convention Against Torture.

Resource and structural deficits: Understaffing relative to UN norms, overwork of the constabulary (the bulk of the force), poor training/infrastructure in many places, and a militarised orientation (large armed/paramilitary components) reinforce coercive habits over professional investigation or community policing.

Social and political acceptance: “Encounters,” rough handling of suspects, and use of force against protesters often enjoy public or political support in the name of “tough on crime,” further normalising excess.

National Police Commission reports (1977–81, after Emergency excesses), Ribeiro, Padmanabhaiah, Malimath, and Soli Sorabjee committees all diagnosed these problems and recommended reforms. Political will to implement structural change has been consistently weak across parties because control over police is a valued instrument of power.

 Path to Democratisation: From Force to Service

Democratisation means shifting the police from an upward-accountable coercive instrument of the executive to a rights-respecting, professionally autonomous service primarily accountable to the law and the public. Core elements are already mapped:

1. Implement the Supreme Court’s Prakash Singh directives (2006) in letter and spirit 

These binding directions (still incompletely and often formalistically followed) require: 

 State Security Commissions to set policy and buffer against political interference (with independent members and binding recommendations). 

 Fixed minimum tenures and merit-based selection for DGP and key field officers. 

Police Establishment Boards for postings/transfers. 

Separation of investigation from law-and-order functions. 

Independent Police Complaints Authorities (state and district levels) with real powers, staff, and resources to investigate serious misconduct (custodial death, rape, grievous hurt, etc.). 

 National Security Commission for central forces. 

Most states have created bodies on paper while diluting independence, composition, or powers. Full, genuine compliance is foundational.

2. Replace the 1861 Act 

Enact modern state Police Acts (or a national model) based on the Model Police Act 2006 (Soli Sorabjee Committee). These should emphasise democratic policing, affirmative duties to facilitate rights (including peaceful protest under Article 19), clear limits on force, and public accountability rather than pure executive control.

3. Accountability and anti-impunity measures

 Empower and resource independent complaints authorities and strengthen

NHRC/SHRC investigative capacity (they currently depend heavily on police). 

 Narrow requirements for prior sanction to prosecute police for serious offences involving death, grievous injury, or sexual violence. 

Statutory state liability with prompt compensation mechanisms. 

 Strict enforcement of arrest/detention safeguards (‘D.K. Basu’ guidelines, CCTV in lock-ups, medical examination, lawyer access). 

 Ratify and domestically implement the UN Convention Against Torture with a standalone anti-torture law (as recommended by the Law Commission).

4. Professionalisation, training, and culture change 

Invest heavily in training the constabulary (≈90% of the force) on human rights, scientific investigation, non-coercive interrogation, crowd management, and soft skills. 

 Improve working conditions, housing, pay, and staffing ratios. 

Shift recruitment, promotion, and performance metrics toward professionalism and public trust rather than “results” measured by fear or encounters. 

 Greater diversity and representation, especially of women and marginalised groups. 

 Technology for transparency (body cameras, better CCTV, case-management systems) while guarding against new surveillance abuses.

5. Broader democratic and social measures 

 Reduce political misuse through transparent processes and legislative oversight. 

 Public education and civil society monitoring to shift social acceptance of brutality. 

Address underlying drivers of crime and conflict (poverty, discrimination, weak investigation capacity) so that coercion is not treated as a substitute for effective policing. 

 Independent performance audits and regular public reporting.

Realism and Obstacles

Reform faces entrenched political incentives, bureaucratic resistance, and uneven public demand. “Tough” policing rhetoric often plays well electorally. Partial or cosmetic compliance (bodies without real power) is common. Success requires sustained pressure from courts, civil society, media, and citizens, plus political leadership willing to trade short-term control for long-term legitimacy and effectiveness. States that have made relatively more progress (e.g., aspects of Kerala’s lower tolerance for certain excesses in surveys) show variation is possible.

In short: the brutality is not an aberration but a predictable product of a colonial design that independent India largely retained and that successive regimes found convenient. Democratisation is achievable through the reforms already extensively studied and judicially mandated—if the political will and institutional follow-through finally materialise. Without them, the police will continue to function more as an instrument of state power than as a service of the people.

Why the Indian Police Is Often Viewed as Brutal, Corrupt, Communal, Casteist, and Violative of Human Rights

 

Why the Indian Police Is Often Viewed as Brutal, Corrupt, Communal, Casteist, and Violative of Human Rights

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

Introduction

The police constitute one of the most visible institutions of the modern state. In a democratic society, the police are expected to protect citizens, maintain law and order, prevent crime, and uphold constitutional values. Ideally, they should function as impartial guardians of justice and defenders of human rights. In India, however, the police system has frequently been criticized for brutality, corruption, caste prejudice, communal bias, authoritarian conduct, and violations of civil liberties. Reports of custodial torture, fake encounters, unlawful arrests, suppression of dissent, and discriminatory treatment toward marginalized communities regularly appear in public discourse. Human rights organizations, judicial commissions, journalists, and civil society activists have repeatedly raised concerns regarding the functioning of the Indian police system.

At the same time, it must also be acknowledged that the Indian police force operates under extremely difficult conditions. Police personnel often face long working hours, inadequate infrastructure, political pressure, shortage of manpower, stressful environments, and public hostility. Therefore, the problem cannot be reduced merely to the moral failure of individual police officers. Rather, it is rooted in historical, structural, political, and social factors that have shaped policing in India over a long period.

The nature of Indian policing can be understood only by examining the colonial origins of the police system, the hierarchical structure of Indian society, political interference, institutional weaknesses, inadequate accountability, and the growing authoritarian tendencies within governance. The crisis of policing in India reflects not only the failure of institutions but also the contradictions of Indian democracy itself.

Colonial Origins of the Indian Police System

The modern Indian police system emerged during British colonial rule. After this, the British Crown reorganized the administration to strengthen control over the Indian population, the most important legal foundation of policing became the Indian Police Act-1861. This Act established a centralized and militarized police structure designed primarily to protect colonial authority rather than serve the people.

The colonial police were not accountable to citizens. Their primary role was to suppress political dissent, control the population, collect intelligence, and maintain imperial order. Brutality and coercion were institutionalized as legitimate tools of governance. The relationship between the police and the public became one of fear rather than trust.

After independence in 1947, India adopted a democratic Constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights, equality before law, and civil liberties. However, the colonial structure of policing remained largely unchanged. The police continued to function with a command-and-control mentality inherited from colonial rule. While the political rulers changed, the institutional culture of domination survived. Consequently, many scholars argue that India achieved political independence without fundamentally democratizing its police system.

Social Structure and the Influence of Caste and Communalism

The Indian police do not function in a social vacuum. Police personnel are recruited from the same society that is deeply shaped by caste hierarchy, patriarchy, class inequality, and communal divisions. Therefore, social prejudices frequently influence policing practices.

Caste Bias in Policing

One of the major criticisms against Indian policing is the discriminatory treatment of Dalits, Adivasis, and other marginalized communities. Numerous studies and reports suggest that members of oppressed castes often face humiliation, refusal of police assistance, delayed registration of complaints, custodial violence, and biased investigations. In many cases involving caste atrocities, the police have been accused of siding with dominant caste groups.

The implementation of the laws has frequently exposed institutional bias. Victims often report that police officers discourage them from filing cases or dilute charges against powerful accused persons. This weakens the confidence of marginalized communities in the justice system.

The roots of caste bias lie in the broader social order. Since Indian society historically normalized caste hierarchy and untouchability, such attitudes often become embedded within state institutions. Police prejudice is therefore not merely personal but structural and social.

Communal Bias and Majoritarian Tendencies

Communal polarization has increasingly affected Indian politics and society. In several instances of communal riots and religious violence, allegations have emerged that the police acted in a partisan manner. Minority communities, especially Muslims, have often accused the police of selective arrests, biased investigations, and failure to protect victims during communal violence.

Various inquiry commissions investigating riots in different parts of India have pointed toward administrative failure and, at times, deliberate police complicity. Critics argue that when political discourse becomes majoritarian, state institutions including the police may absorb and reflect such ideological tendencies.

Communal policing damages secular democracy because it undermines the principle of equal citizenship. When citizens perceive the police as aligned with one religious community or political ideology, public trust in the rule of law weakens significantly.

Political Interference and the Politicization of the Police

One of the most serious problems affecting Indian policing is political interference. Ideally, the police should function independently and impartially according to constitutional principles. In practice, however, politicians frequently influence transfers, postings, promotions, and investigations.

This political control creates a culture of loyalty to ruling governments rather than loyalty to law. Police officers may feel pressured to:

Suppress political opposition, harass critics, manipulate investigations, ignore crimes committed by influential persons or act selectively during elections and protests.

The misuse of police power for political purposes weakens democratic institutions and encourages authoritarian governance. In many cases, the police become instruments of state power rather than protectors of citizens’ rights.

Recognizing this problem, the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Prakash Singh judgment of 2006 ordered major police reforms. The Court recommended fixed tenure for senior officers, establishment of independent police complaints authorities, and measures to reduce political interference. However, implementation of these reforms has remained incomplete in many states due to lack of political will.

Brutality, Torture, and “Third Degree” Methods

Police brutality remains one of the gravest concerns in India. Custodial torture, illegal detention, forced confessions, and encounter killings continue despite constitutional protections and judicial guidelines.

The use of “third degree” methods has become normalized in many police stations. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:

Pressure to solve cases quickly, shortage of scientific investigative tools, poor forensic infrastructure, low conviction rates and a culture that rewards results rather than legality.

Instead of relying on professional investigation and evidence collection, some officers resort to coercion and violence. Torture is often used to extract confessions or intimidate suspects. Victims are frequently poor, socially marginalized, or politically powerless.

The persistence of custodial violence reflects institutional impunity. Prosecution of police personnel accused of torture is rare, and internal inquiries often lack independence. Fear of retaliation discourages victims from seeking justice.

India has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture but has not fully incorporated anti-torture safeguards into domestic law. Human rights activists therefore continue to demand stronger legal protection against custodial abuse.

Corruption in the Police System

Corruption is another major issue affecting Indian policing. Bribery, extortion, manipulation of investigations, and collusion with criminal networks are widely reported. Corruption emerges from several interconnected factors:

Political patronage, weak accountability, low transparency, social acceptance of bribery and economic incentives within the system.

Corruption may influence:

Registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), criminal investigations, traffic enforcement, land disputes, recruitment and postings and protection of illegal businesses.

In some cases, postings to lucrative positions become part of informal political-economic networks. Officers may then seek to recover money through illegal means. Such corruption destroys public trust and weakens the rule of law.

Weak Accountability Mechanisms

A democratic police system requires strong accountability. However, mechanisms to monitor police misconduct in India are often weak and ineffective.

Internal departmental inquiries frequently lack independence. Victims of police abuse may hesitate to file complaints due to fear of retaliation. Judicial processes are slow and expensive. Political protection often shields powerful officers from punishment.

Although institutions such as human rights commissions and courts occasionally intervene, their capacity to ensure consistent accountability remains limited. As a result, a culture of impunity develops in which illegal actions go unpunished.

The absence of effective accountability encourages authoritarian tendencies and undermines constitutional governance.

Poor Working Conditions and Institutional Stress

Ironically, police personnel themselves often work under extremely difficult conditions. Many officers face:

Excessively long working hours, lack of weekly leave, inadequate housing, psychological stress, shortage of staff and poor infrastructure.

Constables at lower levels often experience harsh hierarchical treatment within the police organization itself. Such stressful conditions can produce frustration, aggression, and insensitivity toward the public.

Training systems also remain inadequate in many areas. Police academies traditionally emphasize discipline, obedience, and crowd control more than human rights, constitutional morality, gender sensitivity, or community engagement. Consequently, democratic policing culture develops slowly.

Militarization and Authoritarian Governance

In regions affected by insurgency, separatist movements, terrorism, or communal tension, policing often becomes militarized. Special security laws and extraordinary powers may expand state authority while weakening civil liberties.

When internal security is treated as warfare, citizens may increasingly be viewed as potential threats rather than rights-bearing individuals. Preventive detention, surveillance, arbitrary arrests, and excessive force then become normalized.

Authoritarian political cultures further strengthen this tendency. Governments emphasizing nationalism, internal enemies, and strong-state ideology may encourage aggressive policing practices. Suppression of dissent, protests, and civil society activism then becomes easier to justify in the name of national security or public order.

Public Attitudes and the Acceptance of Police Violence

An important but often ignored factor is public support for authoritarian policing. Many citizens criticize police corruption and brutality but simultaneously demand instant justice and harsh punishment for accused persons. Media narratives often glorify encounter killings and aggressive policing as symbols of strength and efficiency.

This social approval creates pressure on the police to demonstrate toughness rather than legality. In such an environment, constitutional rights may appear secondary to demands for order and punishment.

Therefore, police authoritarianism is not only a state problem but also partly a reflection of broader social attitudes.

Impact on Democracy and Human Rights

The consequences of biased and authoritarian policing are extremely serious for democracy. When the police become communal, casteist, corrupt, or politically partisan:

Rule of law weakens, marginalized communities lose faith in the state, dissent becomes criminalized, civil liberties shrink and democratic institutions become fragile.

Fear gradually replaces citizenship. Instead of being viewed as protectors, police come to be seen as instruments of coercion and domination.

A democratic society cannot survive merely through elections. It also requires institutions committed to constitutional morality, equality, and human dignity. Police reform is therefore essential for the preservation of democracy itself.

Conclusion

The problems associated with Indian policing are deeply rooted in history, politics, and society. The colonial legacy of authoritarian control, caste hierarchy, communal polarization, political interference, weak accountability, corruption, and institutional stress have collectively shaped a police system that often appears brutal and undemocratic.

At the same time, reform is possible. Genuine democratization of policing would require:

Insulation from political interference, independent accountability mechanisms, stronger human rights safeguards, better training, improved working conditions, diversity in recruitment, scientific investigation methods and greater public oversight.

Ultimately, the police reflect the nature of the society and state they serve. A humane, democratic, and constitutional police system can emerge only when democratic values are strengthened throughout society itself.