Military vs Police: Why the Tensions Are Rising Between the ‘Two Uniforms’ by Bhopinder Singh
- MVI Desk
- 12 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Editor's Note
This piece by Lt Gen Bhopinder Singh was first published on 2 Apr 25 by Asian Age & Deccan Chronicle and published by MVI with kind permission of the author.
All images are for symbolic representation only.
As political priorities shift, the value of policing eclipses the sacrifice of soldiers—an unsettling reality for a nation at odds with its security fabric.
Let’s start by asking the key question: who does the political leadership value more between the police services (including the investigative agencies) or the armed forces of India? Frankly, it should not be a relevant question at all or a matter of choice as both “uniforms” are supposed to handle different areas- maintaining internal law and order versus taking care of external security. But the reality is more complex as the two realms often overlap in practice, and thus erupt in competitive jostling for preference. The preference of the larger citizenry is straightforward as the Indian soldier at the border defending the sovereignty, integrity and dignity of the nation far outstrips the respect afforded to the policeman on the streets when it comes to perceptions of sacrifice and honesty. It will be safe to say that the “uniform” of the armed forces is respected, while that of the policeman is feared and often distrusted.
However, the “value” to the political leadership with the utility of police personnel far exceeds that of the soldier from the armed forces. Therefore, the “value” of policing is much greater politically, electorally, and from a governance/control viewpoint more relevant, while the other realm of soldering is only invoked to posture patriotism, political “muscularity”, and service to the nation. In the constitutional sense as well, one set of “uniforms” is wired to the politicians for governance and (mis)use, and the other is necessarily mandated as apolitical.
Distance (and perhaps disinterest), with the presumed legacy of the former colonial power, the armed forces started early with India’s first Prime Minister stating: “We don’t need a defence plan. Our policy is ahmisa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. Scrap the Army! The police are good enough to meet our security needs”. He was to be proved wrong within days when the Indian armed forces defended the nation from an invasion (in Kashmir, which had just joined the Union) from across the border and has continued to do so ever since. But a sense of imagined distance between the nation’s political leadership and the armed forces were seeded early and despite all theatrics like sipping tea with jawans at the border, each successive Prime Minister (ever since, with no honourable exception) has presided over the effective diminishment of the armed forces.
Whereas with the sort of vile and vengeful politics that have become the norm, the utility of the police (particularly the investigative agencies) has perhaps never been more central to political survival. The fact that the failure of policing agencies (including state police forces, intelligence agencies and even the Central armed police forces) have increasingly resulted in the armed forces getting requisitioned to control internal issues from the Kashmir Valley, Manipur, or even during natural disasters (for which too, there are specialist forces), a sense of discrimination within the armed forces versus the privileges, entitlements (both, legitimate and usurped) and perceived leniencies afforded to the police have been dangerously simmering. Only the institutional culture of restraint and self-enforced “voicelessness” has prevented the armed forces from going beyond unhappy conversations against bureaucrats, political leaders and police officers.
Army messes, barracks and cantonments are rife with stories of odd instances like the one involving the derelict son of the former chief minister of Punjab, Pratap Singh Kairon, who was “sorted out” in military style. But all that was in the distant past, and increasingly, the new stories veer around the “roughing up” of military personnel in the face of a larger police entourage. Just last year, a sexual assault case involving a woman and her Army officer fiancé sparked widespread outrage, but time, tide and ample distractions managed to bury the issue. More recently, a shocking assault on a serving Army officer and his son in Punjab’s Patiala has sent shockwaves among distraught veterans and presumably amongst the serving fraternity. Like in the Odisha case, telltale signs of boorish high-handedness, procedural and deliberate obfuscations, threats and pressures to compromise are rife. Will this case also meet the ignored fate of the previous ones or the providential fact that it allows the Centre to paint Opposition-ruled Punjab as a “lawless” state result in a fair trial? only time will tell. But ironically, the fact that the matter could get political (BJP versus AAP) may just help the personnel from the apolitical force, the armed forces, against a force that is closely aligned and directly working under the political class, albeit of a rival political party.
This is not to suggest that all police personnel are complicit every time or that those belonging to the armed forces are never in the wrong. There are enough instances of above-board and gallant police personnel -- but many more have contributed regrettably towards the distrust that has accrued onto the police forces.
Most citizens can recall their own brush and exchanges with the police authorities while on traffic duty or what it takes to “resolve” matters. Similar frustrations accrue with criminal investigations, political witch hunts, or even when the “help” of the police is sought for any personal exigency. Multiple cases of questionable conduct and hubris are well documented, but it is an institutional issue that can only be solved by “reforms” which effectively mean the political class being willing to give up “control”. This political beneficence is the main reason for the rot and perceived unaccountability. All politicians, no matter what their persuasion, are complicit, and they must bear the fundamental blame.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant- governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry
留言