It’s rare to come across Indian authorities taking an unexpected, outlandishly positive step. In a first for India, the Hyderabad traffic police introduced body-worn cameras last week. Only one hundred of them are in use so far and it is too soon to start celebrating. But before this phenomenon spreads to other parts of the country (or god forbid disappears altogether), it is imperative that we understood its credentials and why it is necessary for the country.
Body-worn cameras for law enforcement officials are gaining traction in the West. It is argued that the use of such a device is beneficial to both the official as well whoever he or she confronts. The camera is an unbiased witness, and this keeps the conduct of the confronted individual in check. The probability of his or her physically assaulting or verbally abusing the official is reduced. The probability of his or her trying to make an illegal arrangement with the official to get away with the offense, is rendered almost non-existent. His scope of getting away due to lack of evidence reduces significantly if the official has footage to back his claims. Moreover, there is a general drop in crime rate simply because there are many more cameras recording the on-goings.
Its benefits for the confronted individual are also many. They would come into play especially in a country like India. Our police forces are known to be trigger happy and drunk on power. Police brutality is rampant. Often, innocent people are rounded up, beaten and harassed by the police. People are verbally abused and their basic rights are frequently violated. Bribes openly change hands, and sometimes money is even extorted. They function like the mafia, only with state legitimacy. Obviously not all of them can be painted with the same brush, but the common Indian citizen does consider the common Indian policeman to be no better than a thug. If the policeman is aware of the fact that the camera attached to him is as much a witness to the suspect as it is to himself, his notoriety would be checked.
Rialto, a town in California that introduced body-worn cameras, conducted a study one year into the experiment. Complaints by citizens against the police had fallen by 88% and the use of force by police officers had declined by 60%. Even if this were to be a one off case (it might not be) , the general trend is clear. If a device like this can humanize a police force in the USA, imagine the wonders it can work on our police.
Many attempts have been made to reform the country’s police forces with the aim of having transparent and effective policing instead of what we have. Commissions and committees were set up from as early as 1958 to this end. From 1958 to 1970, several states set up their separate commissions. Most of them concluded that the shortage of resources needed to be addressed. The Santharam Committee (1964) was responsible for the formation of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the Working Group on Police Reforms (1967) argued for the police’s independence from the district magistrate and the Gore Committee (1971) recommend improvements in training. The Shah Commission (1977) was responsible for the formation of the National Police Commission (1977-81) which explored the various possibilities of making the police more accountable to democratic institutions. The Ribeiro Committee (1998) recommended the setting up of state level and district level bodies to review police excesses and performance.
Many committees have come and gone, and in the process created many more. This maze has thickened and taken complex shapes, but the situation on the ground is still the same. The Ribeiro Committee is the only one that mentions the Police Act of 1861 and advocates its replacement. The Police Act of 1861 is the reason most Indians think it is advisable to stay as much away from the police as possible, especially in times of trouble, defeating the entire purpose of having a police force. This act was created by the British after the First War of Independence in 1857. It aimed at establishing a police force designed to quell dissent, not to maintain any law and order. Today, almost seventy years after our colonizers packed up and fled, the act remains. Police forces across the country remain as unaccountable as ever.
Some states and even the central government of late have already made use of the latest technologies to bring about transparency in several walks of life. From letting computers select the right people for government jobs to automated toll plazas and electronic auctions that saved the government billions, innovations to create a more efficient and fair system are emerging. This is where the police’s body-worn cameras come into the picture. They create an environment of accountability in which benefit-of-doubt situations are replaced by hard facts. States unwilling to go through legislative and administrative tangles can simply create a provision for body-worn cameras and introduce them. Telangana has led the way, but it has a long way to go still. Other states need to follow suit.
Plato once said, “Good people don’t need laws to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws.” If this age-old paradox has no solution, let the system be at least one step ahead of the ‘bad’ guys.