Colonial policing

When students marched at Jantar Mantar on July 20 to demand accountability over the NEET UG paper leak, police swung into action and it ended with more than 130 police personnel and 65 students injured. The Rapid Action Force used tear gas, lathi charges, pellet guns and, according to official records, even AK 47 firing during the operation. It raises a fundamental question about why India has failed to build a modern police force that can manage protests without allowing them to spiral into violence.Any public protest carries the risk of confrontation. Crowds can become emotional, and anti social elements may exploit the situation by provoking violence or attacking police personnel. Such possibilities cannot be ignored. Yet the true test of professional policing is not how quickly force is used but how effectively tensions are reduced before violence begins. The ability to communicate, negotiate and isolate troublemakers without punishing an entire crowd is what separates a modern police service from a force that relies mainly on physical power.This is not only a Delhi but a structure and culture of policing that remain largely the same across India. The police continue to function under practices inherited from the colonial period, where maintaining order often meant using fear and force. Crowd control is still viewed by many as a show of strength instead of exercising patience, discipline and restraint. This outdated mindset has survived despite repeated calls for reform.It may be recalled that the 2006 Supreme Court judgment in the landmark Prakash Singh judgment, issued seven binding directives to reform policing. These included protection from political interference, fixed tenure for senior officers, independent complaint authorities and greater accountability. Nearly twenty years later, most states have either ignored these directions or implemented them only on paper. Without genuine reform, the police remain vulnerable to political pressure while the public remains without effective mechanisms to seek justice against misconduct.The events of July 20 also exposed serious questions about transparency. After the operation, the CRPF stated that all standard operating procedures had been followed and initially dismissed reports of pellet guns as false. Later, official records confirmed that pellet guns had indeed been used. Such contradictions weaken public confidence.. Accountability cannot exist without honesty and openness.Another weakness lies in recruitment and training. Too often, police recruitment is treated simply as filling vacancies rather than selecting people suited to exercise state authority. Physical fitness alone cannot determine who should wear the uniform. Policing demands emotional stability, sound judgment, patience and respect for constitutional rights. A structured probation period with psychological assessment, ethical training and practical evaluation before permanent appointment would help ensure that only those fit for this responsibility remain in service.The Delhi High Court has sought explanations regarding allegations of police brutality, including reports of a senior officer slapping a woman protester. Judicial scrutiny is important, but courts alone cannot transform the system. Real reform requires governments to implement long pending police reforms, establish truly independent complaint authorities, improve training and free policing from political influence.The answer does not lie in stronger weapons or harsher tactics but in better leadership, better training and stronger accountability. Until these reforms become reality, clashes like those witnessed on July 20 will continue to occur, not because they are unavoidable, but because the system has failed to learn from its own mistakes