The political debate that followed the murder of Mr. T. P.
Chandrashekharan in Kerala provided a unique opportunity for
reformation of the policing system in the state. However,
none in the state, not even the police, is willing to take
up the chance and garner the support needed to end the
despicable misuse of the police institution to political
appetites and ambitions. It is both appalling and
disheartening to witness the loss of honour and morale in
such an important state institution, loss which smothers the
institution's capacity to respond to everyday crime and
demand change.
What made this particular murder so important? T. P.
Chandrashekharan was a politician who had left the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) because of intra-party divisions.
He did however continued his political work with the
Revolutionary Marxist Party, a decision which apparently
irked the CPI(M). It was reported that the CPI(M) reacted to
this perceived betrayal by hiring assassins to murder
Chandrashekharan. On 4 May 2012, a gang of criminals, most
of them arrested since, waylaid the victim and slashed him
in the face 51 times using machetes, leaving him for dead.
Chandrashekharan died later that same day on his way to the
hospital.
The ruling coalition in the state responded immediately by
issuing statements accusing the CPI(M) as the organisation
responsible for ordering the murder. The CPI(M) countered
those allegations with claims that the ruling party is
engaged in a witch-hunt to corner the CPI(M), the leading
opposition party. The allegations, denials and ripostes
between the two parties continue today, the furore throwing
new light onto the state of affairs of policing in Kerala.
None other than the Inspector General of Police in Kerala
issued the first statement that seemed to suggest the
partiality of the police. Within 72 hours of the murder, the
IGP had stated that the murder had been carried out for
private gains; this statement naturally implied that the CPI
(M) had nothing to do with the murder. It is suspicious that
the IGP could have issued such a statement before the formal
investigation had even been concluded. A Special
Investigation Team constituted by the state government then
pieced together statements from suspects in custody that
revealed the assassins had been in constant communication
with CPI(M) leaders immediately before and after the murder.
A local party leader who had been arrested confessed to
arranging a safe house for the assassins and to paying them
a "fee" before and after the murder. The
overwhelming volume of evidence that surfaced within five
days of the murder collectively pointed to the complicity of
CPI(M) in the murder. This soon forced the IGP to correct
his earlier position. The IGP subsequently denied having
made such a statement at all.
Leaders from the upper echelons of the CPI(M) began issuing
statements for which they would have been charged with
organised crime – in any other context. Statements
include, "…if the CPI(M) wanted, it could
undertake the murder beyond detection… had we been
behind the murder we would also have the honesty to own up
to it as we have in the past…" That a political
party is responsible at all for murder and proudly proclaims
it demonstrates callousness, impunity and disregard for the
law. This is a moral affront to the people of Kerala and for
India. But there is a further truth to be told from such
observations.
The police in Kerala and throughout India are first and
foremost servants of the people of India, and instruments of
greater goods – justice and peace. The reality is,
however, that the police are not the impartial and
independent body they should be. Neither do the police seem
to desire that independence. A leader of the CPI (M), Mr.
Sitaram Yechury, issued another noticeably more conciliatory
statement that the party would "cooperate" with
the investigation. Such an attitude betrays the corollary of
deciding to cooperate – that an option to not
cooperate with the police is also available to the party.
Can the police even discharge their duties and properly
investigate a crime when a dismissive and criminal political
party is perpetually challenging their authority? Does
justice itself not deserve to be prioritised over the
inter-party mud-slinging and political intrigue? What about
the duty the police owe to justice and to the Indian
people?
The CPI(M) pre-emptively pointed fingers at the ruling
coalition, slamming it for abusing its authority and
misappropriating police apparatus to wreak vengeance against
a powerful opposition. What is easily overlooked in such
political manoeuvring is the fact that the CPI(M) has only
recently become part of the opposition. Until 2011, the
CPI(M) had been the ruling party and was itself in a
position to exploit state machinery. Contributing greatly to
the building thesis that the police is critically influenced
by political actors is the observation that during the five
years of CPI(M) led state government, the police institution
had drafted the Kerala Police Act 2010. This Act was drafted
by the police, not the legislative assembly which has actual
legal mandate to do so. The lack of clarity, loose and
incoherent use of legal language and successful attempts to
replace the 1861 Indian Police Act with the Kerala Police
Act awarded much unprecedented powers to the police. This
circumvention of institutional safeguards and constitutional
guarantees provided otherwise in the 1974 Criminal Procedure
Code bodes ill for the protection of any individual's
constitutional, legal and human rights.
While undertaking such an important task (of drafting an
operational framework for the state police), the government
not only did not actively encourage input by impartial
experts but even ignored a draft prepared by a committee led
by world-renowned jurist, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyyer. The
submissions and suggestions by other organisations such as
the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) obviously held even
less weight in the eyes of the government and state police.
The product of such undirected and little informed work was
a particularly good example of how legislations should not
be. The CPI(M) that led the process had no moral or legal
right to subjugate the police. For the police to gain true
independence, the Kerala Police Act of 2010 will have to be
rewritten.
In another unabashed demonstration of the criminality the
CPI(M) was capable of, another senior member of the party,
Mr Mani, made a public speech extolling the many atrocities
his parties committed. Mr Mani even listed the names of
persons his party had ordered to be murdered over a period
of time. Such horrific acts and shameless confessions
instigate fear among the people, not love and respect. Mr
Mani also publicly abused widely acclaimed social activist
and writer, Ms Mahasweta Devi, for visiting
Chandrashekharan's family following his murder. The words
Mani used against Devi, a writer so honoured by the Indian
nation for bringing it glory and honour, proved rather
ironically to be of a nature too base for even tabloids to
reproduce in their magazines.
Yet apart from Mani's glaring moral illiteracy, Mani did
also divulge telling information about how the CPI(M) were
able to manipulate police investigations in each of the
murders Mani claimed to possess personal knowledge of. Upon
such scornful exposure of their lack of integrity and
ability to investigate crime, the police were forced to
respond by registering a criminal case against Mani. Yet
they could do little more than that as many 'suspects' had
already been convicted in court trials and the IGP had also
already ordered the reopening of the murder cases.
Furthermore, the police discovered many case diaries that
had contained vital information concerning the corruption of
the investigative process had been destroyed. The reason
provided, and proven true, was that there had been a simple
lack of space for the archival of all the records. This
necessarily implies also that the police officers who had
"tailored" the investigation to fit the purposes
of their political masters could never be identified and
punished.
Another incident that reflects this noose-tight and highly
unequal nexus between police and politician was when a
former state cabinet minister met a CPI(M) comrade in jail.
After the meeting, the minister allegedly telephoned one of
the investigating officers in the Chandrashekharan murder
and demanded to know why his comrade had been tortured
during questioning. The former minister expressed anger
because he had been expressly assured by the IGP himself
that his comrade would not be tortured since the "case
is politically sensitive". The former minister
threatened that once he regained his office as cabinet
minister he would see to it that the officer is "dealt
with". The officer, fearing for his life, reported the
matter to his superior and police headquarters, who
responded by providing additional security to the
investigating team. Yet no arrest was made, obviously
because the former minister's threat did indeed carry every
possibility of being realised.
Another troubling revelation was the need for the IGP to
reassure the former minister in the first place that torture
will not be conducted against his CPI(M) comrade. This
clearly means that torture is otherwise "routine
procedure" – a clear violation of human and
constitutional rights. The "favour" and special
treatment given to the former minister and his comrade now
in remand cannot be justified. Individuals stand equally
before the law and should be treated and punished equally
according to their crime. In this aspect, the police should
demonstrate their honour and impartiality as well as a
conviction that they owe allegiance to justice above all
else. This bullying behaviour by politicians against state
police who are legally and morally outside their ambit is
contemptible, yet the police feel unable to free themselves
from this unhealthy relationship.
None of these concerns haunt the state administration, the
state or the informed people of Kerala. The political
verbosity concerning Chandrashekharan's murder is perceived
to be 'business as usual'. It is only some selected actors
in the state's media industry who have courageously taken up
the task of exposing the moral, intellectual and
administrative wilting of the state police. The police
themselves have not expressed concern about the painfully
demoralized police constrained by the machinations of
perpetually slimy politicians and their "politically
sensitive", politically motivated crimes.
The police institution lacks an operational infrastructure
congenial to the discharge of the most basic duties. It
lacks moral and legal integrity, a culture of transparency
and accountability, consistency, training and skills needed
for upholding rule of law in a democratic state. And such
disempowerment goes far beyond the physical manoeuvring;
politicians have also mentally disarmed and co-opted the
populace and the police. No one has come forward to
criticise a police leadership that has grovelled, sluggish
and servile, before politicians, helping obscure their
criminal deeds and moral bankruptcy. After years of such
servitude, perhaps it is little wonder an enslaved system
does not and cannot dream of its freedom.
Kerala's police institution's powerlessness, frustration and
corruption are an embarrassment and a tragedy. This lack of
courage, honour and conviction has pushed the police
institution into a moral and intellectual abyss, where it
lies reeking of corruption and ineptitude not entirely its
own. Its Machiavellian masters manipulate marionette
officers to jail, not jail, torture, not torture, destroy or
create evidence, smile, wave and bow as they see fit. Until
these cords from which the police dangle are severed, first
and foremost through the review of the Kerala Police Act of
2010, there remains little hope in Kerala for reform and
true justice.
The Asian Human Rights Commission is a Hong Kong-based human rights organization.
For information and comments contact:
In Hong Kong: Bijo Francis, Telephone: +852 - 26986339,
Email: india@ahrc.asia
