Misconceptions - Eastern Mirror
Thursday, March 28, 2024
image
Op-Ed, Views & Reviews

Misconceptions

1
By EMN Updated: Mar 07, 2017 12:22 am

The tumultuous events of the past few months have seen controversies and misconceptions on many matters; the latest are centred on the demand, by the J.C.C. and the N.T.A.C., for the suspension of the then Police Commissioner and all police personnel involved in the tragic incident of the 31st. of January. On this issue, the main sources of misconceptions are, why does the demand for suspension not include the Deputy Commissioner of Dimapur? And that the police were only following orders. I beg the readers’ indulgence while I try to clear up some common misconceptions I have encountered while discussing these two points with members of The Naga Blog on Facebook.

1. Police Commissioners are found in many countries around the world, including Britain. In Britain, the Police Commissioner and all police personnel execute orders, and the Magisterial Powers, i.e. the power to issue the orders, lie with the civilian authorities. But in India, they introduced it with a twist; the British combined the power to issue orders and execute them and vested it with the Police Commissioner. This is in direct violation of the democratic principle of division/balance of powers; but the British used it in India to streamline its ability to suppress dissent. So, if a situation arose where police were needed to suppress/control a mass of protestors, the British Authorities did not have to approach the Local Magistrate to issue prohibitory orders, the Police Commissioner could issue the order and execute it.

Politicians across India have not abolished this outdated and undemocratic Colonial System of suppression of popular dissent because they find it just as useful as the British did. I was surprised that the I.A.S. and N.C.S. Cadres of Nagaland meekly acceded to the introduction of the Police Commissionerate system in Dimapur, in other states of India, the administrative services have managed to stop the introduction of the Police Commissionerate system to new towns and cities; I had intended to write to the papers on this issue, but with issues rising up on a daily basis, I never got round to it. So, I want all readers to know that the D.C. of Dimapur had nothing to do with the issuing of the firing order, or the prior Prohibitory Order (Section 144). Both were issued by the Police Commissioner.

2. On the question of suspension of a Government Servant; readers should be aware that suspension of a government official is not a punishment. We Nagas consider it a punishment because, after suspension of a government servant on any issue, we don’t pursue the matter. The suspended official is reinstated after a period of time, the duration depending on his political connections. So, we have come to view suspension as a penalty of the misdeeds of a government servant. When any controversy, on any matter, arises concerning a government servant, the official is suspended:-

(a). To prevent the official from committing the same act of commission or omission.

(b). To prevent the official from using his office to influence the course of the inquiry against him. Whether the inquiry be a Departmental, Police or Judicial Inquiry. Transfer of the official concerned is not an option because he can still use the influence of his new Post and Office to influence the inquiry.

(c). Only after the result of the inquiry is submitted to the higher authorities is the government servant absolved of the charges against him, or accused of the charges.

(d). In the latter case, the Government then decides whether to invoke departmental penalties, discharge the said official, or, in serious matters, approach the Judiciary to decide the quantum of punishment.

(e). Whatever the case, the accused can appeal the charges to the higher authorities or approach the Judiciary to clear his name.

So, in a nutshell, the J.C.C. and N.T.A.C., in demanding for the suspension of the concerned Police Personnel, are only asking for what the Government should have done, as a due process, the moment it instituted a Judicial Inquiry. After the results of the Inquiry, the Government and Judiciary will determine the guilt or innocence of those involved.

On the issue of obeying orders, it is commonly known that a Government Official can refuse to obey the orders of a superior on the following grounds:-

(a). If the order is illegal, i.e. if the order is against existing Laws and Statutes.
(b). If the superior does not have the authority to issue such an order.
(c). If the order violates the Moral or Religious Tenets of the Government Official concerned.

In cases (a) and (b), the example of “Backdoor Appointments” is a perfect illustration. If the Minister/Secretary/Head of Department issues such an appointment, subordinates can refuse to execute the order on the grounds that they violate Laws and Statutes and that the superior does not have the authority to issue such an order.

In case (c), if the policemen who fired on the people on the night of the 31st. had refused to do so on the Christian Principle that a Human Life is more precious than all the material possessions of a person, and that it was against their Moral Code to fire upon unarmed men. I defy anyone to convict the Policemen in any Indian Court of Law. I believe that at the most, the concerned court would ask the policemen who disobeyed the order, to opt for an unarmed branch of the Police Service.

I believe that every person, deep down, knows what is right or wrong. And every person has the choice to obey or disobey any order. In 1989, when Chinese students were protesting in favour of Democratic Reforms, the Chinese Leadership ordered the troops and tanks stationed at Tiananmen Square to open fire on the protestors. They did so, blindly following orders that were condemned by the rest of the world. Conversely, in 1991, when Boris Yeltsin and the Muscovites were protesting the overthrow of Mikhail Gorbachev in a Coup; tanks were called in to suppress the protests, but the Tank Commander, Major Sergey Yevdokimov, after wrestling with his conscience, decided,(in his own words), “I decided that whatever order I was given, I wouldn’t shoot.”

So, every person has the choice to obey or disobey an order; but History will judge a person by the consequences of the order he obeyed or disobeyed; there will be no excuses that, “I was just following orders.” The German Nazis who tried to use the excuse that they were obeying Hitler’s orders were not excused.

The Nagaland Government must do what it is obligated to do, i.e. suspend all police personnel involved in the tragic events of the 31st. of January. In an earlier article, I had emphasised the point that suspension does not, in any way, indicate guilt of the person suspended.

Secondly, I would like to express my surprise that Mr. Y Patton is still holding on to the Office of the Home Minister. I understand that in the Political Game of Musical Chairs, the people have no choice but to accept the pouring of vinegar from bottle to bottle; but I fail to see how Mr. Patton has managed to hold on to the very office that he headed and is the source of all this controversy. The J.C.C. and the N.T.A.C. will have to address how Mr. Patton has managed to adhere to his seat of power and avoid all attention if they are to prove that they are working in the interest of what is right and proper; and not playing a deeper political game as some people suspect.

God save my Nagaland

Kahuto Chishi Sumi

1
By EMN Updated: Mar 07, 2017 12:22:23 am
Website Design and Website Development by TIS