 |
|
Audacious attack Democracy in Bhutan |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hooligans reign
India’s British legacy
Wedded to history
Policing the police Musharraf should go immediately Defence notes
|
Audacious attack THE country and the CRPF had a ghastly New Year with heavily armed terrorists storming the Rampur camp of the paramilitary force in Uttar Pradesh and killing eight persons. The attack on a central paramilitary force, that too in the heart of the country, is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the ease with which they executed their bloody plan and managed to escape. As if that was not humiliating enough, all this happened despite there being specific warnings. These reports even appeared in local newspapers of Rampur last week. Apparently, those who mattered did not take them seriously enough, leading to the disaster. As it normally happens, a blame game has now started between the Centre and the State as to who is responsible. But for the common man, what matters most is the apprehension that if the CRPF cannot defend itself, how can it protect him? When the CRPF high-ups aver that the warning from the Uttar Pradesh government was “general” in nature, what do they have to say about reports that Intelligence Bureau agents had warned last week that a strike on the CRPF’s recruitment camp in Rampur (UP) was imminent? Following this, experts from the Lucknow station of the Intelligence Bureau and the Uttar Pradesh police conducted a review of the camp security over the weekend. As it turns out, it proved to be an exercise in futility. Chief Minister Mayawati’s role does not end with laying the blame squarely at the door of the CRPF. Maintaining law and order in the state is entirely her government’s responsibility. That, apparently, has not been properly discharged, with the result that UP is fast becoming a major theatre of terror operations. While Jammu and Kashmir has had no big strike in five months, UP has suffered several body blows. It always wakes up after an incident, instead of adopting a proactive approach. The support network of terrorists has been growing. The Hapur-Moradabad-Bareily-Rampur belt is the most vulnerable. Still, few culprits are caught because of patronage provided by some powerful leaders. The few who are nabbed obtain bail due to poor documentation and disappear without a trace. Unless the police follows up the vital leads whole-heartedly, unmindful of the political consequences, the scourge will only grow. |
|
Democracy in Bhutan KING Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk, the 27-year-old Oxford-educated monarch of Bhutan, is honestly implementing what his father planned in 2001. The tiny Himalayan kingdom took the first major step towards democracy with the election for the National Council on Monday. The Council, the Upper House of Bhutan’s parliament, will have 25 members in all, five of them nominated by the king. It got 15 members on Tuesday when the election results were announced. Polls could not take place in five constituencies because of lack of candidates. Elections for these remaining seats will be held by the end of the current month. The polls were held smoothly without complaints from any part of the country. The entire exercise was as transparent as possible with international observers from India, the US, Australia and the United Nations monitoring it. Most of those elected are young and graduates, the minimum educational qualification required under the constitution. This is bound to have an impact on the functioning of the Upper House. The members will be in a better position to understand their responsibilities under the new system. Bhutan will go in for more important polls in February and March when people will elect their representatives for the National Assembly and village councils. The coming elections, to be conducted with the participation of the newly formed parties, will be watched with great interest, as these will finally end the nearly 100-year-old monarchy in a peaceful manner. Both the present monarch and his father, King Jigme Singhe Wangchuk, deserve appreciation for introducing democracy on their own. There was no demand from the people for such a changeover, but the kings realised the need for ushering in a new era in Bhutan. Actually, the former king should get more credit than his son as it is he who first wanted to dismantle the antiquated system of governance. Interestingly, the elected Houses of the people will have the power to impeach the Head of State, the position that will now be held by the present king. This reflects his sincerity in abdicating absolute power. |
|
Hooligans reign THERE is still a section of society that seems to think that New Year on the streets means a licence for drunken outings, lewd and nasty behaviour towards women, a general disregard for public property, law and order, and all norms of civilisation. In particular, these youngsters appear to think that women having a good time and staying out of doors at nights are fair game for molestation, and they do not necessarily need the cover of special occasion revellery. In Mumbai on New Year’s eve, a large mob of hooligans pounced on a couple of young women as they came out of a five star hotel in the early hours of the morning, tore their clothes and molested them. Worse might have happened but for the intervention of journalists who happened to be on the spot. These thugs need to be made an example of, and it is a pity that the policemen who later chased away the mob did not deem it fit to nab a few and register a case against them. In any case, a few of them can easily be identified from published photographs in the media, and action should now be taken against them. In fact, the police should not need a written complaint from the assaulted women, who may or may not find it worth their while to pursue the case. The photographs should be enough. It is only such tough action that will end the menace. Mumbai, in fact, has already led the way in tackling drunken driving. Six people were recently sentenced to 30 days in jail for the offence, after they were booked in a special drive. Those arrested included executives in good jobs drawing large salaries, driving expensive cars. A fine would not have affected them much, but a jail term would certainly teach them a lesson. It would also serve as a deterrent to others who see no problems in drinking and driving. A similar dose should be served to eve-teasers as well. |
|
Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when you have only one idea. — Alain
|
India’s British legacy
WHAT a funny relationship Indians have with the British. On Sunday, December 23, at 6 pm, members of the British Council Library in Bhopal held a candlelight vigil to express sadness and grief at the decision to shut down the Bhopal branch of the BCL on February 29, 2008. Simultaneously, as all protest campaigns in Kerala go, in Thiruvananthapuram, a signature campaign has been started to petition the British Council to hold in abeyance its decision to close down that branch as well. In the same country, a few months ago and just a few hundred miles away, angry crowds would not allow a bus-load of Britons to visit cemetaries in Lucknow where their relatives were buried. All they wanted to do was lay flowers at the graves. A handful of people, in a misplaced show of nationalism, showed black flags to our guests who must have departed brokenhearted, thanking their stars that Britain had nothing to do with India anymore. And yet, when a door closes another opens. On April 1, an Indian, Kamalesh Sharma, will walk into Marlborough House to take custody of the heritage of the Commonwealth, the legacy common to all British colonies. Do we love the British? Do we hate them? The competition among the chattering classes to be invited to a tea party with the Queen when she came to India touched a new reference point in the relationship. And yet India has been known to be biting in its comment when the Britons have tried to patronise her. I recall that when Indian soldiers on a UN peace-keeping mission had been ambushed in Sierra Leone, the British made much of their attempts to help out these soldiers. At that time, Mr Jaswant Singh as Foreign Minister remarked in his most suave baritone, how grateful he was to the British for undertaking (open itals) the one (close itals) helicopter sortie to secure the release of the soldiers. In early 2007, every Indian interested in where the country was going — Tamil, Gujarati or Dogri-speaking — woke up to scan that day’s status on the takeover of Corus, formerly British Steel, by Tata Steel. It is now upto Tata Steel whether 24,000 British employees of Corus will be kept on or sacked. This has happened 10 years after Prince Philip observed, looking at an untidy fuse box in an Edinburgh electronics factory, that it must have been put together by an Indian. In 2007, India savoured the historical irony of Lord Bilimoria of Chelsea, an Asian peer who made his fortune in Cobra Beer, leading a delegation of 150 English merchants petitioning new business opportunities in the old Empire. And Big Brother may not be the acme of British culture today, but Shilpa Shetty has a lot of friends in Britain, made in 2007. Now that India has shown the world it can do it, there is need to be humble and acknowledge that there is much to thank the British for. Pop history tells us that while the part of India that was colonised by the French saw them ruling by proxy (which meant the development of the region depended a lot on the ruler the French acted through) the British built India, even if only in self-interest. After all, if India has a golden quadrilateral programme today, it is because there was something to build on. But most of all, it is the British legacy of democratic institutions and ideas of parliamentary democracy that we must be grateful for. Despite the parlous state of internal democracy in most political parties in India today, we must be thankful that democracy has struck deeper roots here than in our western neighbourhood. Globally, India cannot be described as anybody’s lap dog. Opinions could differ about Pakistan, though. If 2007 was the year of equality, 2008 must be the year of consolidation of the relationship between India and Britain, complex as it is. The easiest area to take this project forward is defence and diplomacy. Here, India and Britain have a common tradition, shared ideas and a common legacy. Of the three services, it is the Army that is most prepared for an interface with the British and can learn the most from the British experience. There is scope for joint exercises keeping in view low intensity conflict. The British forces are the only ones to have done a joint exercise with India in Siachen (2007) and that must have been an enriching experience for them. But the Indian soldier can learn from them about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan — in Afghanistan the British (which have the largest contingent after the Americans in the International Security Assistance Force-ISAF) are posted in the troubled Helmand province where the toughest fighting is going on against the Taliban. What they are subjected to there every day makes the Indian Army’s task in Kashmir look like a kiddies’ tea party. With the Air Force, the cooperation on the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer brings the two Air Forces much closer both in technical and operational terms. Britain was one of the world’s greatest sea powers once. They have been involved in training and joint exercises with both the Singapore and Malaysia navies. India should pick British brains on the management of the troubled Malacca Straits where we have built up a solid and credible reputation, escorting US ships and protecting Japan from pirates. What is worrying is the opportunities for the training of Indian officers. The Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) continues to be a premier training institution for higher command officers. However, RCDS vacancies for India have shrunk from four to one. This needs urgent attention. The Indian Army can — if it does not want to repeat the IPKF humiliation — bypass the intelligence agencies and create its own intelligence-gathering network. There is no one better to learn this from than the British, whose intelligence services are the best. They’ve had live experience in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. And India should be — if it isn’t — full of admiration for the British at the preemptive intelligence it got after the blasts of July 7, 2006. We need this skill. There aren’t enough words to emphasise this strongly enough. India should — if it doesn’t — have as its first defence priority in 2008, the matter of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Britain’s experience is instructive. While reorganising the Ministry of Defence, the British political leadership kept encountering resistance from the services. Finally, one day, Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine just called the service chiefs to his office and told them: from today, you will have a CDS, so stop saying you’re not ready for it…They haven’t looked back. In the diplomatic sphere, India is distrustful of British intentions but maybe it needn’t be. In Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, the British would do much better to listen to India’s voice than anyone else’s. In 2007, the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) signed up with the Indian Public Diplomacy Division to develop common diplomatic initiatives and exchange ideas on security, diplomacy and globalisation. More such links are needed. Lastly, I would say to my British friends: wake up matey! Remember, the British is Best? Well, in 2008, resolve to scupper the Stars and Stripes. The closest to the real thing could be Incredible
India.
|
Wedded to history
ONLY when Himmat Singh Gill’s review of Papiya Ghosh’s book Partition and The South Asian Diaspora: Extending the Subcontinent landed on my table this week did I realise that it was more than a year since she had been killed. Our Patna correspondent Ambarish Dutta had SMSed me about her mysterious murder at her beautiful double-storeyed house in Patna’s posh Pataliputra Colony but in the hurly-burly of routine work, my plan to write a piece on her was inordinately put off. I have read tributes to her by people who had never met her even once in other newspapers. Of course, I, too, cannot claim to have known her well, though I had met and interacted with her several times. Papiya taught history at Patna Women’s College before moving to Patna University to teach postgraduate students there. Once I requested her to contribute an article for the paper I used to work for. She sent me the article, while making it clear that she preferred to write for academic journals rather than newspapers. She loved history and teaching history. Her engagement with the subject was such that she did not even think it necessary to raise a family of her own. She enjoyed being single, poring over primary sources for research into various aspects of the historic evolution of Bihar and tending to her widowed mother, who brought up her four daughters almost single-handedly. Papiya lived in a large house she inherited from her father, Ujjal Kumar Ghosh, an IAS officer, whose life had also been snuffed out by criminals 50 years ago. Ironically, both murders have not been solved to the full satisfaction of the family and friends. My connection with Papiya was through a journalist colleague Patricia Gough, nicknamed Patsy, who migrated to Perth in Australia. They were soulmates, who decided to stay single and yet find meaning in their lives. It was not uncommon for Papiya to drop in on Patsy at work and have a word with me too. Papiya had encyclopaedic knowledge about Patna’s Bengali connection. It was she who suggested that I visit a particular medical shop, in front of the Jama Masjid near Patna Junction, to know it better. The shop, which belonged to an old Bengali gentleman, had empty shelves. She told me that it was once the biggest medical shop in the city. For her, the shop epitomised the decay of Bengali culture in Patna. Again, it was Papiya who told me about Rabindranath Tagore’s links with Muzzafarpur in North Bihar where he got the first civic reception after he won the Nobel and about the fat dowry he paid to marry off his daughter. Thankfully for the poet, dowry had not been illegalised then. Papiya was particularly close to her sister Tuk Tuk, who is now a senior IAS officer. The two used to contribute regularly to a column in the JS weekly, which catered to the youth, till it folded up. The journal’s name ‘JS’ stood for Jug Suraiya, who edited the magazine, and not ‘Junior Statesman’, she once jokingly told me. Unlike many others, who migrated from Patna in search of greener pastures, Papiya chose to return to Patna and teach in her alma mater leaving her job at the prestigious Hindu College in Delhi University. She loved keeping her house the way her father left it 50 years ago. Legions are her students and friends, who bear testimony to her dedication and commitment. They did not remain idle when her unnatural death frightened them out of their wits. Some of them came together to set up a website dedicated to her (www.papiyaghosh.com). It provides a glimpse into the kind of life Papiya Ghosh
lived. |
Policing the police The issue was actually opened by the National Police Commission (NPC) Report 1979. The report dealt exhaustively with the entire gamut of policing, comprising professional policing including law & order, internal security, crime prevention, criminal investigation and prosecution of offences etc., as well as human resource development and welfare of the policing organization Unfortunately in the 20 years that have elapsed, the NPC recommendations got enmeshed in bureaucratic and political wrangling, occasioning the Supreme Court to issue directions in the following seven of the numerous recommendations of the NPC: Enactment of a Modern Police Act; Stability of tenure for key Police Officers; Establishing a transparent mechanism based on merit for selecting the Director-General of Police; Separation of investigation from Law & Order in phases; Creating a State level Board for formulating Policing policy and monitoring its implementation; Setting up of an independent Police Complaints Authority; and; setting up of a National Security Commission. The monitoring by the Supreme Court of the action taken by the State Governments is slowly getting some results. Expectedly, fundamental issues are being raised by most States. In sum and substance, the two most fundamental issues are: If policing policy, selection of the Director-General of Police and tenures of key Police Officers are decided by bodies set up for the purpose, will it not weaken the control of the State Govt. over policing and make it incapable of fulfilling its constitutional responsibility for law & order and its accountability in this regard to the State Legislature? The second issue is: At the field level, does professional autonomy for the Police mean a basic structural change in the relationship with the Magistracy headed by the District Magistrate, who under the (old) Police Act 1861 was empowered to generally control and direct the police within his district. If so will it not make the police less responsive on a day-to-day basis at a local level to public sentiment as moderated and articulated through the District Magistrate (variously called Deputy Commissioner and Collector)? As a matter of fact the answer to both these fundamental issues have already been given in the National Police Commission Report. The basic point made in the NPC Report is that if police personnel are recruited and promoted on the basis of merit and efficiency, if key officers are assured stability of tenure enabling them to gain expertise and local knowledge where applicable; if their professional development including training and career progression are properly taken care of and if the internal discipline of the force in buttressed rather than eroded (through political interference) and if policing policies are properly and comprehensively laid out, the need for close political and bureaucratic control to micro-manage policing administration is not at all necessary. The second issue, of the role of the Executive Magistracy headed by the District Magistrate is prima-facie more ticklish. The pros- and cons have been hotly debated at official and non official fora at State and Central levels and may be briefly summed up as follows:- The general feeling within the police fraternity is that the power of ‘general control and direction’ given to the District Magistrate under the Police Act 1861 is no longer relevant. The argument is that policing has come a long way since the 19th century and the need is for a well-educated, well trained, well-motivated, disciplined and professional police force able to provide a ‘service’; whether it is security, or investigation of crime or regulation of traffic. The argument on the other side is that unfortunately the police carries a legacy of mistrust from the colonial days ,and post-colonial policing strategies have not so far been able to overcome the lack of trust between the local community and the police. The institution of the District Collector/ District Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner (called District Officer in the NPC Report), because of its development and regulatory role is better able to articulate public sentiment and appropriately moderate police service response. Moreover in many situations like elections, natural disasters, widespread unrest etc. where police deployment is in support of civil administration, the power of the District Magistrate to direct and control the police in the district is crucial to the maintenance of public order, peace and tranquility. The National Police Commission had this to say:– 39.46. We recommend that the role of the District Officer as the Chief Coordinating Authority in the district be recognized and respected by the police. The District Officer should have the capability to generally advise the police regarding the extent and quantum of performance required from them for the purpose of achieving developmental targets and also to maintain administrative standards. The District Officer is in a unique position of being responsible for the overall effectiveness of administration in the district. In discharging his responsibility he has a large measure of public contact and as such is likely to have substantial information regarding the mood and temper of the population and its various other requirements. We are of the view that the District Officer should not only share his information with the police in the district but should also be in a position to ascertain the steps taken by the police to ensure that quick solutions to problems are found to public satisfaction and the level of administration is maintained at a high pitch of efficiency. The draft Model Police Act appended to the NPC Report as well as the Model Act circulated by Govt. of India following the Supreme Court order is perhaps at some slight variance with this formulation, and envisages the District Officer in a ‘coordinating’ role, more in order to achieving policing objectives than to effectively use the police to achieve the overall objective of public order and tranquility (which is statutorily the responsibility of the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure). On this one issue therefore each State has to take a call based on the ground reality in that State on what role it envisages for the District Magistrate vis-à-vis the Police. This is infact a good opportunity to explicitly define the role of the District Magistrate and to provide statutory backing to the perception that he is the eyes and ears of the Government in the District and the articulator of Government’s macro objectives at the local level. What is important is to ensure that the District Magistrate does not go about micro-managing the police administration by regulating ‘inputs’ but rather he should help define and clarify the expected ‘outputs’ and ‘outcomes’ so as to enable the local police to plan its activities around concrete objectives.. The Prakash Singh case needs therefore to be viewed by the State Governments not as a threat to their authority, but as an opportunity to establish and assert their authority in a transparent and systematic manner. The writer is Principal Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh since 2005. The views expressed are personal. |
|
Musharraf should go immediately LAHORE – There is no law and certainly no order in my country. What happened this past week has shaken every Pakistani. Benazir Bhutto was no ordinary person. She served as prime minister twice and had returned to Pakistan in an effort to restore our country to the path of democracy. With her assassination I have lost a friend and a partner in democracy. It is too early to blame anybody for her death. One thing, however, is beyond any doubt: The country is paying a very heavy price for the many unpardonable actions of one man - Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf alone is responsible for the chaos in Pakistan. Over the past eight years he has assiduously worked at demolishing institutions, subverting the constitution, dismantling the judiciary and gagging the media. Pakistan today is a military state in which a former prime minister can be gunned down in broad daylight. One of my own political rallies was fired upon the day Bhutto was killed. These are the darkest days in Pakistan’s history. And such are the wages of dictatorship. There is widespread disillusionment. At all the election rallies I have addressed, people have asked a simple question: Criminals are punished for breaking laws, so why should those who subvert the constitution not be punished? Those who killed Benazir Bhutto are the forces of darkness and authoritarianism. They are the ones who prefer rifles to reason. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and my own Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) have traditionally been political rivals. We fought each other through elections. We won some. We lost some. That is what democracy is all about. Whoever has the majority rules. Bhutto and I both realised while in exile that rivalry among democrats has made the task of manipulation easier for undemocratic forces. We therefore decided not to allow such nefarious games by the establishment. I fondly remember meeting with Benazir in February 2005. She was kind enough to visit me in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where I lived after Musharraf forced me into exile. We realized that we were fighting for the same thing: democracy. She, too, believed in the rule of law and rule of the people. A key point of the Charter of Democracy that we signed in May 2006 was that everyone should respect the mandate of the people and not allow the establishment to play dirty politics and subvert the will of the people. After the Jeddah meeting we regularly consulted each other on issues of national and international importance. On many occasions we tried to synchronize our strategies. We had agreements and disagreements, but we both wanted to pull Pakistan back from the brink of disaster. And while the PPP may have been our traditional rival, it is a national asset whose leadership has inspired many Pakistanis. Political parties form part of the basis on which the entire edifice of democracy rests. If our country is to move forward, we need an independent judiciary, a sovereign Parliament and strong political parties that are accountable to the people. Without political parties, there will be hopelessness, and authoritarianism will thrive. Dictators fear the power of the people. That is why they pit parties against each other and then try to destroy those parties - to further their own agenda. This is what has happened in Pakistan in recent years. So, what is the way out of the depths to which Pakistan has been plunged? First, Musharraf should go immediately. He is the primary and principal source of discord. Second, a broad-based national unity government should be immediately installed to heal the wounds of this bruised nation. Third, the constitution should be restored to what it was in 1973. The judiciary should be restored to its condition before Nov. 3 - countering the boneheaded steps Musharraf took under the garb of “emergency” rule. All curbs on the media should be removed. Finally, fair and impartial elections should be held in a friendly and peaceful environment under such a national government so that the people are able to choose their representatives for a Parliament and government that can be trusted to rebuild the country rather than serve the agenda of a dictator. These are the only steps that will give the country a semblance of stability. If Musharraf rules as he has for the past eight years, then we are doing nothing but waiting for another doomsday. The world must realize that Musharraf’s policies have neither limited nor curbed terrorism. In fact, terrorism is stronger than ever, with far more sinister aspects, and as long as Musharraf remains, there remains the threat of more terror. The people of Pakistan should not be antagonized any further for the sake of one man. It is time for the international community to join hands in support of democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan. The answer to my country’s problems is a democratic process that promotes justice, peace, harmony and tolerance and hence can play an effective role in promoting moderation. With dictatorship, there is no future. The writer is the head of the Pakistan Muslim League and was twice elected prime minister of Pakistan. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Defence notes Facing the problems of suicide and fratricide in the armed forces, the policy makers have hit upon a new mantra. While efforts are underway to implement a report presented earlier in the year, where various measures have been suggested for taking care of soldiers’ mental health, the focus now is on some in-house godly help. With every unit having a fulltime soldier as a priest from every religion, the authorities have hit upon the novel idea of training these very priests as counsellors. Since most soldiers are also God-fearing, the authorities thought this was a better way to help the soldiers with their psychological problems. The first batch of 46 priests have already been trained to double up as counsellors and would be sent out to the forward areas and to units involved in counter-insurgency.
Ammunition loss The Indian Army has suffered a loss of over Rs 760 crore over the last seven years by way of loss of ammunition, which went up in smoke due to various fires engulfing the ammunition depots around the country. While a court of inquiry is still conducting an inquest into the fire at the Field Ammunition Depot at Khundroo in Jammu and Kashmir, the greatest loss the army suffered was in the fire which broke out at the ammunition depot at Bharatpur in April 2000. Ammunition worth Rs 387 crore was destroyed during the fire, which continued for almost two days. The other big loss which the army has suffered was during the fire at the field ammunition depot at Ganganagar in May 2001. Ammunition worth more than Rs 375 crore went up in flames during this fire. Another Rs 27 crore worth of ammunition went up in smoke at Pathankot in April 2001. The army also lost Rs 22 crore worth of ammunition in Pulgaon in March 2005. In case of Ordnance Factories, which are Defence Production units under the Ordnance Factory Board, the total value of Government property including armaments destroyed due to accidents since 1998 has been assessed at almost Rs eight crore.
Protein rich The Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) is known to be the country’s premier defence research organisation busy in developing missiles and other armaments for the country’s security. However, their laboratories also include those which develop protein-rich food and other nutritious edibles for the soldiers. The Defence Food Research Laboratory (DFRL), is one such laboratory located at Mysore. Their various food products include protein-rich instant pulao which has 17.2 per cent protein, protein-rich instant khichdi (18.8 per cent protein), protein rich instant upma (16 per cent protein) and protein-rich instant sooji halwa (8.5 per cent protein). DRDO has also transferred some of the technology to private players which include production of the “Nutri Food Bar” ( 16 per cent protein) and egg protein-rich biscuits (20 per cent protein). |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
The recent Supreme Court judgement in the case Prakash Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. (CWP No 310/1996, order dated 22.9.2006) has once again reopened the issue of professional development and autonomy of the Police on the one hand and ensuring its accountability on the other.