Protest Beyond the Barricade

-Bruhaspati Samal-

Those who once wielded lathis, fired tear gas shells and confronted protesters with force at Jantar Mantar are now themselves taking to the streets to voice their grievances. The irony is striking. The very police personnel who were deployed to suppress public protests have apparently begun recognising the importance of peaceful collective protest in securing justice and dignity. Perhaps this is an important realisation: a grievance does not disappear merely because the person raising it wears a uniform.

The protesters are police personnel. Those against whom their grievances are directed are also police officers. And those attempting to mediate the confrontation are, once again, police officers. This extraordinary situation in Delhi presents a disturbing paradox: the institution entrusted with maintaining public peace is struggling to maintain peace within its own ranks. The recent protest following the transfer of two police officers after a confrontation with lawyers has exposed uncomfortable questions about working conditions, administrative culture and institutional accountability within the Indian police force. It cannot be dismissed merely as indiscipline or a disagreement over transfers. It demands a deeper examination of the human conditions under which our police function. Those who protect citizens' rights must also have the opportunity to seek justice, dignity and fairness within their own organisation.

The Status of Policing in India Report 2019, published by Common Cause and Lokniti–Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), provides disturbing insights into the working conditions of police personnel. Based on interviews with approximately 12,000 police personnel across 21 states and 10,595 family members, the report highlighted excessive working hours, inadequate weekly rest, insufficient resources and external pressures. Society expects the police to remain available round the clock, but the institutional arrangements required to sustain such availability remain inadequate. A police constable may regulate traffic in the morning, manage a crowd in the afternoon and attend an emergency at midnight. What should be exceptional has gradually become routine. Lower-ranking personnel bear the greatest burden, often sacrificing sleep, family time and personal commitments. An institution cannot indefinitely compensate for inadequate manpower by exhausting the personnel already in service.

The Ministry of Home Affairs' advisory dated July 6, 2021, on police working conditions further underlined the seriousness of occupational stress. Referring to a study of police personnel, it reported that approximately 42 per cent of investigating officers and 45 per cent of constables experienced work-related stress. Workload and difficulties in balancing professional and family responsibilities were major concerns among investigating officers, while long working hours were an important source of stress among constables. The advisory also highlighted the absence of weekly holidays and referred to a pilot initiative in Rajasthan involving weekly rest and duty rosters. These findings establish that reasonable working hours and weekly rest are not unrealistic demands. They require adequate recruitment, better workforce management and administrative sensitivity. Discipline is indispensable to policing, but it cannot become a licence to deny personnel their basic human needs. An exhausted police officer cannot always be expected to display the patience, restraint and sound judgment that effective policing requires.

The Delhi episode also brings the question of administrative authority into sharp focus. Transfers, suspensions, deployment orders and disciplinary proceedings are legitimate instruments of administration. A police force cannot function if lawful orders are routinely disobeyed. Equally, it cannot command genuine respect if authority is exercised arbitrarily. Superiors must exercise power responsibly, while subordinates must obey lawful instructions without surrendering their right to seek justice. Discipline must be reciprocal in spirit, even when administrative responsibilities are unequal. A transparent mechanism for hearing grievances, reviewing disputed decisions and providing reasoned responses could prevent dissatisfaction from escalating into public confrontation. No police officer should feel compelled to choose between unquestioning submission and an open protest merely to make a legitimate grievance heard.

Behind every uniform stands a family that silently shares the burden of public service. An officer may be physically present at home but mentally occupied with an investigation, an impending deployment or an unexpected telephone call. Children's school functions, family celebrations and personal commitments frequently become casualties of unpredictable duty schedules. The families of police personnel also contribute to public service, although their sacrifices rarely receive recognition. Women police personnel often face additional challenges in balancing professional responsibilities with family obligations. Gender-sensitive duty arrangements, maternity support, predictable leave and adequate childcare facilities must therefore become integral to police welfare policies. Public service may demand sacrifice, but it should not demand the continuous neglect of family life.

Equally disturbing are the psychological consequences of prolonged occupational stress. Police personnel are expected to demonstrate courage, confidence and emotional control, often under extremely difficult circumstances. Yet the expectation that they must remain strong at all times can discourage them from speaking about fatigue, anxiety and emotional distress. Confidential counselling, professional mental-health support and a workplace culture that encourages personnel to seek assistance are essential. Mental distress must never be treated as professional weakness. A healthy police force is not merely one that possesses physical strength and operational capability; it is one whose members enjoy psychological security and institutional support.

The Delhi confrontation must also be viewed in the wider context of police-public relations. It is indeed ironic that personnel who, in the past, used lathis, tear gas and other coercive methods against protesters at Jantar Mantar are now discovering the power of peaceful collective expression themselves. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of every form of police protest or a justification for abandoning official responsibilities. Police personnel, like all public servants, must respect the law and maintain institutional discipline. But their present experience should also deepen their understanding of the struggles of ordinary citizens, workers and employees who take to the streets when their voices remain unheard. Perhaps experiencing protest from the other side of the barricade will strengthen their appreciation of democratic dissent, restraint and the right to peaceful expression.

Those who once stood behind barricades to prevent others from protesting must now understand why people raise their voices when justice appears inaccessible. And those who command the force must understand that suppressing discontent is not the same as resolving it. A peaceful protest by police personnel may be an uncomfortable sight, but the grievances that give rise to it deserve serious attention. The police are expected to guard society, but who guards the guardians against injustice, exhaustion and administrative insensitivity? The answer cannot be another baton, another transfer or another disciplinary order. It must be a fair and humane institution that listens before discontent turns into confrontation. After all, a police force that cannot secure dignity and justice for its own personnel will find it increasingly difficult to inspire confidence among the people it is entrusted to protect. Peace in society must begin with justice within the police force.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****