The use of force was minimal but the spectacle of a mother bereaved of her son being removed is not an instance where any use of force, howsoever minimal, can be condoned. Generally before every protest, police gathers intelligence on the nature, number and leaders. Based on this the police deployment is arranged. It is also normal for the police to have informal discussions with the leaders and reach an understanding so that a major law and order incident could be avoided. This was just family members, and given what the family has gone through, the police ought to have been proactive in meeting the members, assuring them and a senior officer visiting them so that such a showdown before police headquarters could have been avoided.
Once the family was before PHQ, and if their only insistence was that all 14 of them should be allowed to meet DGP this should have been agreed to forthwith by the top brass of the police instead of insisting on a lesser number. Prominent men, including the CPM leader V.S Achuthanandan, have suggested that the DGP should have gone and met the protesting parents. To dissipate the situation this could have been done by the DGP. However in order to avoid the drama, the best move would have been to honourably invite the family to the DGP’s office, hear them patiently and then assure them of the best efforts by the police.
I understand that there could have been a direction by the top brass to prevent a dharna before the PHQ. Normally PHQ is not the venue and a precedent should not be created. However, once the protest had started, tact demanded that instead of force being used to evict them, senior leadership ought to have met them and given the reassurance, facilitating a meeting with the chief. The way in which the family was evicted, the posturing and body language of officers, including senior officers, have evoked wide condemnation. The police needs to introspect what happened. The police should come out with an apology and initiate measures to train the force at all levels on how to deal with victims of crime who are still recovering from the loss suffered.
The police too needs to consider having an effective spokesperson who can explain what has happened in a case so that everyone knows. Usually good and effective work is done but never communicated to the public. The police work also needs to be considered in fair light by the press and public and for this the police should be forthcoming with information. Given the range of instances in which police and vigilance action makes headlines, both these agencies need to appoint senior officers as spokespersons to bring their version out in the public domain.
(Author is advocate at High Court and former IPS officer)
