A public servant should never forget whom their position ultimately exists to serve for public service means service to the public.
Dear Editor,
I am not writing this about one particular rape case. I am writing this about the fear and insecurity that so many women experience, and about a question that keeps coming back to me: why does the burden of staying safe so often fall on women instead of the responsibility for preventing violence falling on those who commit it and the institutions responsible for responding to it?
Whenever a woman is assaulted, raped or harassed, we hear the same advice: do not go out late, do not travel alone, do not wear this, do not go there, be careful about whom you trust. But why are we constantly shrinking women's freedom in the name of safety?
If someone commits a crime, the responsibility should begin with the person who committed it. And when a crime is reported, the institutions responsible for protecting citizens and enforcing the law must be held accountable for how they respond. This is where I think about the police.
I am preparing for competitive examinations myself, so I know how difficult it is to reach a public-service position. It takes years of studying, examinations, interviews and training. That is precisely why I struggle with the idea that a public servant should ever forget whom their position ultimately exists to serve. Public service means service to the public.
I am not talking about one state or accusing every police officer of acting under political pressure. I am asking a larger question about the principle behind public service.
If a police officer is given an instruction that conflicts with the law or with their professional duty, where does the responsibility to question that instruction begin? And if standing up for lawful duty comes with the possibility of losing a position, should a public servant's first instinct be to protect the position or to protect the duty that position represents?
I know that police officers work within a hierarchy and are bound by laws and service rules. I am not asking them to ignore lawful orders or abandon their responsibilities. I am asking them to remember that political authority and public service are not the same thing. Because ultimately, police and the public are not supposed to be on opposite sides.
And this question is not only for the police. It is also for the media. When a serious problem is already visible to the public, why do we sometimes keep asking the same question to different people instead of taking the questions ordinary citizens are asking directly to those who have the power to act?
And it is a question for us as citizens. Yes, laws should be followed. Protests should remain peaceful and lawful. Institutions matter. But citizens also have the right to question institutions when they believe their safety and rights are not being adequately protected. We should not accept a world where a girl's freedom becomes smaller because someone else might choose to commit a crime.
Instead of asking a woman, “Why were you there?”, perhaps we should ask, “Why was someone allowed to make her unsafe there?” Instead of asking, “Why did she come home so late?”, perhaps we should ask, “Why should coming home late have to be dangerous for her in the first place?” And instead of teaching women only how to protect themselves, we should also ask institutions what they are doing to make women actually feel protected.
I am not asking police officers to become politicians. I am asking them to remember what the word public in public service means. Union Public Service. Not Politician Service.
Women should not have to surrender their freedom as the price of being safe. The responsibility for violence belongs first to those who commit it. The responsibility for justice belongs to the institutions entrusted with delivering it.
And the responsibility of citizens is not to remain silent. It is to keep asking questions.
Regards,
Monika Giri,
Burma Camp, Dimapur.