REFORMING PAKISTAN POLICE: AN OVERVIEW
Muhammad Shoaib Suddle*
I. INTRODUCTION
Police reform has emerged as a top priority in Pakistan Government’s commitment for strengthening the rule of law.
Despite many past reform efforts, it is only in about the last two years that Pakistan has viewed police reform as a criticaldevelopmental priority. The interest in reform stems from clear and overwhelming evidence that a fair, responsible,
ethical and efficient criminal justice system is an important factor in the promotion of economic and social development
and of human security. It also stems from the fact that law and order crisis in Pakistan has continued to deepen over time,and in recent years the police has been increasingly unable to cope with its increased responsibilities, particularly withregard to combating serious crime.
A. The Problem
Among the serious constraints undermining the police system of Pakistan are: (1) an outdated legal and institutionalframework (devised for nineteenth century India consisting of near static villages with hardly any urbanisation orindustrialization, and meant principally for a colonial rule), (2) arbitrary and whimsical (mis)management of police by
the executive authority of the state at every level (policemen were increasingly recruited, trained, promoted and posted
without regard to merit and mainly for their subservience to people with influence and power), (3) inadequate
accountability, (4) poor incentive systems, (5) widespread corruption, and (6) severe under-resourcing of law and order.
B. The Way Forward
To meet the challenges of modernizing an outmoded institutional framework and improving the professional andethical content of policing, the government has initiated an ambitious reform process. The thrust of these reforms is toorganize a police system, which is politically neutral, non-authoritarian, accountable and responsive to the community,
professionally efficient, and last but not least, which is an instrument of rule of law.
In a profound revamping of the structure and systems of police at federal, province and local government levels, thegovernment has decided to dismantle the – anachronistic – Police Act of 1861, which was more suited for rule by acolonial power than safeguarding and promoting rule of law. The draft Police Ordinance 2002 aims, inter alia, at
depolitising police, improving police professionalism through a merit-oriented system of recruitment and career
progression, and making police more accountable to citizens. If properly implemented, these radical reforms can bringabout a fundamental transformation in the quality of policing, and make police a people-friendly public service, particularly
for the poor and disadvantaged.
II. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXTPakistan inherited, in 1947, a more-than-eighty-year-old police system from the British. The overriding consideration
before those who designed the police organization in 1861 was to create an instrument in the hands of the – colonial –government for keeping the natives on a tight leash, not a politically neutral outfit for fair and just enforcement of law.
Police was designed to be a public-frightening organization, not a public-friendly agency. Service to the people was not
an objective of this design. It was designed in response to the social and political realities of the times: The paramountconcerns were collection of land revenue and maintenance of law and order (a euphemism for what Justice Cornelius
called the rule of danda (stick)). Both these – incompatible – functions were vested in a European officer, variously called
Collector, District Officer, Deputy Commissioner or District Magistrate. In his latter capacity, the District Officer washead of the magistracy who tried most criminal cases.
It is crucial to understand the basic difference between a colonial police and a police meant for a free country. Whereas
the former was geared at raising semi-militarised, semi-literate, underpaid, bodies of men for maintaining order by
overawing an often turbulent and hostile – native – population, the latter aimed at creating quality professionals tasked* Inspector General of Police,
Balochistan,
Quetta,Islamic Republic of Pakistan

94120TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
to prevent and detect crime in plural, multi-ethnic and socially conscious communities, through just and impartial
enforcement of laws. The former knew how to rule, the latter to serve.
Another important reason why tight and effective control over criminal justice administration was felt critical wasto protect the interests of European middle class responsible for trade and administration in India. To that end, those who
investigated and prosecuted criminal cases were effectively subordinated to the District Officer.
Not only was this union of distinct functions in one government functionary wrong in theory and bad in principle, it
was also contrary to the pre-British and ancient Indian practices under which there existed a virtual separation between
the judiciary and the executive. This – untenable – position of District Officer was severely criticised even by many
Britons, but it was felt to be “absolutely essential” to the maintenance of British rule in India.
As the overriding objective of police organization designed in 1861 was to maintain the stability of the Raj, thepurpose was admirably achieved through emulating the Irish Constabulary model – by placing police under direction andcontrol of the executive authority through the office of the District Officer who acted as the agent of the colonial
government.
A. The Irish Constabulary Model
As Britain expanded its empire, a policing model deemed ideal for colonial rule came to be identified. The model
was based principally on the experience the English had while they tried to enforce order in Ireland (which rejected rulefrom Westminster) through Irish Constabulary established under the Constabulary Acts of 1822 and 1836.
As pointed out by Mawby (1990), Irish Constabulary sought legitimacy at Westminster rather than among theindigenous population. It was an alternative to an army of occupation with no community mandate whatsoever. On a
structural level it was highly centralised with a recognised chain of command from the individual constable, throughchief constable to inspector general, who in turn was responsible to chief secretary and lord lieutenant.
Another significant characteristic of the model was that it firmly established the principle that the constable wasanswerable to the chief constable rather than the law, the chief constable himself being responsible to central government.
Jeffries (1952, 31) also notes that the Irish blueprint was considered as the ideal mechanism for solving a specific
set of law-and-order problems:
It is clear enough that from the point of view of the Colonies there was much attraction in an arrangement which
provided what we should now call a ‘para-military’ organization or gendarmerie, armed and trained to operate
as an agent of the central government in a country where the population was pre-dominantly rural,communications were poor, social conditions were largely primitive, and the recourse to violence by members of
the public who were ‘agin the government’ was not infrequent. It was natural that such a force, rather than one
organized on the lines of the purely civilian and localised forces of Great Britain should have been taken as asuitable model for adaptation to colonial conditions.
B. The London Model
The Metropolitan Police Act 1829 established the principles that shaped modern English policing. First, policing
was to be preventive and the primary means of policing was conspicuous patrolling by uniformed police officers. Second,command and control were to be maintained through a centralised, quasi-military organizational structure. Third, police
were to be patient, impersonal and professional. Fourth, the authority of the English constable derived from three official
sources – the crown (not the political party in power), the law, and the consent and co-operation of the citizenry. Finally,
the oversight of the Home Secretary was to operate in such matters as establishment, administration, and disciplinary
regulations, leaving the direction of policing as such in the hands of the two Joint Commissioners and now theCommissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In other words, the secretary of state was not explicitly or implicitly given theauthority to direct police operations.
Policing in Britain for the past 173 years has continued to rest on these broad principles, and the Police Act guarantees
the independence of the office of chief constable. In maintaining responsibility of direction and control of his force, theAct places high value on the principles that the chief constable should be free from the conventional processes of democratic
control and influence in relation to decisions in individual cases.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 60
C. The Irish and British Models Compared
Using the three criteria of legitimacy, structure and function, Mawby (1990) demonstrates that the English andColonial models of policing are quite distinct. In terms of legitimacy, while the English system is founded on the law
and on local government accountability, an alien authority using its law to suit its purpose legitimises the colonial model:
In the colonial system, the police not infrequently usurped the role of judge, jailer and executor. The ‘order’imposed by the police did not automatically square with the ‘law’ with which it was habitually coupled. (Arnold
1986, 3)To a certain extent, the same can be said of the structure. While the police forces of England were decentralised,civilian, and not organized in a military fashion, although senior officers tended to be recruited from the military, thecolonial system featured a military structure, with personnel often drawn from the armed forces, usually (and certainlyin the case of senior officers) aliens, armed, and living in separate quarters.
The two models are also distinctive in terms of their functions. While the police forces under the English system
accepted responsibility for a range of non-crime tasks, their responsibilities for general administration were nowhere asimportant as in the colonial model. Moreover, the role of the former in maintaining order and protecting the state frompolitical protest, while scarcely ignored, never attained the priority it had in the colonies. As Arnold (1986, 3) argues,
within the colonial system:
The distinction between political and crime control function is largely a false one. To the colonial regime crimeand politics were almost inseparable: serious crime was an implicit defiance of state authority and a possible
prelude to rebellion; political resistance was either a ‘crime’ or the likely occasion for it. The resources andskills developed in combating one were freely employed in defeating the other.
No wonder, then, that in India, where a small occupying force imposed alien rule combining administrative, judicial
and police functions, the police organization that emerged tended to follow Irish pattern, whereas in countries like UnitedStates and Australia that remained under colonial rule but where the indigenous population was in a minority and/or
policing settlers was a priority, as in the British Indian cities of Calcutta (now Kolkata), Madras (now Chenai) and Bombay(now Mumbai), alternative policing systems similar to the English system emerged.
D. The Napier’s Police Organization
In India, Sir Charles Napier created an Irish-type police in the province of Sind (now the south-eastern province ofPakistan) in the 1840s, and a similar system was later adopted in other provinces. The force was armed and organizedon a military basis. Its location, in barracks, like Irish Constabulary, illustrated its source of legitimacy, structure andfunction as an organ of social control.
It was not only the single men who lived in barracks; married constables and sub-constables were usuallyaccommodated in the barracks with their wives and children; partly for their protection, partly to make it moredifficult for them to form the ‘local connection’ which their senior officers greatly feared. (Tobias 1977, 246)
Napier (1851, 7) was a great sceptic of the civil service. He thought that it was ‘a system under which the best mustmisgovern, as founded on false principles.’ He, therefore, decided to run his new administration not through civil servants,
but military officers or ‘soldier civilians,’ as he called them, with ‘far less expense and more activity.’ Following thepara-military Irish Constabulary model, he placed the police of the entire province under the command of a captain ofpolice.
The Napier model was based on two main principles: Firstly, that the police must be kept entirely distinct from themilitary in their support of the government. And secondly, the police must be an entirely independent body there to assist
the civilian authorities in discharging their responsibilities for law and order, but under their own officers.
Although the new police was to be employed solely on police work and was to be supervised by officers whose sole
duty it was to control and direct them, the system lacked logical finish. Paradoxically, the district heads of police wereorganizationally under the command of their provincial chief, the captain of police, while operationally each one of themwas subject to orders of his respective civilian authority. In essence, the senior officers of the force were merely to begood managers of the men under their command while the District Officers, apart from their revenue and judicial functions,were tasked with the responsibility of maintaining law and order in their respective districts.

96120TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
E. The Rationale for Napier’s Model
Napier’s irrational organization was a deliberate departure from the Irish Constabulary model, which the author of
the new scheme had purportedly tried to follow. It was a typically bizarre arrangement that shocked the theorists but
which made ‘sense’ in view of the aims and character of the – colonial – administration (Griffith 1971, 72-4).
F. East India Company’s Historic Decision on Police Reform
It may look quite inconceivable that the British administrators, with liberal backgrounds, did not believe in theprinciple of separation of powers. Actually most of them did; but as pragmatists it was their ‘considered view’ that only
by supplementing and not by judicially reviewing or correcting the police actions (often taken at the behest of executive
authorities) could the writ of the rulers be established with maximum of vigour and ease.
Some ‘liberalisation’ in views, however, started with the Bird Committee’s report of 1838. The Committee wastasked to look into the ‘desirability’ of introducing in India police reforms similar to those Peel had introduced in London
in 1829. After stressing that the chief cause of police inefficiency was its inadequate supervision, the Committee
recommended that control over police be entrusted exclusively to an officer other than the Collector.
An intense debate followed the Bird report. There also came a scathing indictment of the system by the TortureCommission of 1855, which concluded that revenue authorities in Madras were grossly misusing their police powers to
extort revenue from the poor peasants. These historic developments led the Directors of East India Company to examine
afresh the vexed subject of police reform in India.
In 1856, after examining the available evidence, the Directors issued orders clearly emphasising that further
organizational development of police throughout the sub-continent would proceed on the basic premise that the District
Magistrate would seize to have any role in the affairs of police. In line with the basic principles of a modern organization,
they decided to commit the police exclusively to a – European – superintendent of police responsible only to his
departmental hierarchy. In what may be termed as the most important policy directive – of 24 September 1856 – for the
reorganization of police throughout British India, the Directors observed that the police in India had lamentably failedin accomplishing the tasks for which it was established. Identifying ineffectual and irrational control by the District
Magistrate as one of the major causes of police failure, they directed:
The management of the police of each district be taken out of the hands of the Magistrate and be committed to an
European officer with no other duties and responsible to a General Superintendent of Police for the wholepresidency (see Gupta 1974, 354-5).
G. The Police Act of 1861
The implementation of the 1856 directive could have rid the police of many of its chronic organizational ills, but the‘Mutiny’ of 1857 completely transformed the whole liberal perspective. The clock was turned back and tightening ofcontrol over police was felt a more compelling necessity both to rein in the natives and prevent policemen from everfalling into the footsteps of mutineers. The historic decision regarding separating the police from the executive authorities
was withdrawn, and it was strongly advocated that with the judicial and police powers concentrated in the same hands,
the District Officer would be more effective in keeping the junior police ranks loyal to the rulers.
Under the Police Act 1861, the Inspector General of Police as the chief of provincial police assumed specificresponsibilities in the areas of police policy formulation and the line operations involved in the execution thereof. His
appointment was firmly controlled by central government although, once appointed, he was to act as an advisor to theprovincial government on all matters connected with the police administration of the province.
In carrying out his responsibilities, the Inspector General was to be assisted by several Deputy Inspectors Generalposted on a territorial basis, usually each to a group of three to five districts called a range. The Deputy Inspector General
was to exercise a general supervision over the District Superintendents in his range, and they were to look towards him
for advice, guidance, leadership and co-ordination of police work within the range.
As head of the district police, a District Superintendent was made responsible for all matters relating to the internal
economy of the force, its management and the maintenance of its discipline and the efficient performance of all its duties
connected with the prevention, investigation and detection of crime.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 60
H. The System of Dual Control
Under the Police Act of 1861, in addition to being under the senior police hierarchy, the District Superintendent was
simultaneously subjected to the operational – lateral – control of the District Magistrate. Under paragraph 2 of section 4of the Act:The administration of the police throughout the local jurisdiction of the magistrate of the district shall, under thegeneral control and direction of such magistrate, be vested in a district superintendent and such assistant district
superintendents as the Provincial Government shall consider necessary.
The police administration at the district level was thus subjected to a dual control – all administrative, technical,
financial, professional and organizational control of Inspector General through his deputies; and the lateral general control
and direction of the District Magistrate. Also, postings and transfers of Superintendents of Police and officers senior tothem were the concern of the provincial government, not of the Inspector General.
Because of its failure to rectify the long-discovered structural defects of the Irish model, an intense criticism of thedraft Police Act of 1861started right from the day it was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. It was variously describedas ‘old wine in new bottle’ and ‘a new friend with an old face.’ Nonetheless the Act was passed with the hope that ‘at no
distant period’ the police in India would be reformed on lines similar to Peel’s.
Sir James Stephan, a law member of the Governor General’s Council in 1870-71 and a political philosopher of the
Indian Civil Service, however, was quick to put the whole debate about police reform in the ‘correct’ perspective. After
accepting that the administration of justice was not in a satisfactory state in any part of the Empire, he enunciated insuccinct terms:
The first principle to be born in mind is that the maintenance of the position of the district officers is absolutely
essential to the maintenance of British rule in India and that any diminution in their influence and authority over
the Natives would be dearly purchased even by an improvement in the administration of justice. (Cited in Gupta,
1979, xvii-xviii)
In practice, at least in some provinces, the ground position was far worse in that the police operations were controlled
and directed not merely by the District Magistrate, but at the sub-divisional level by his subordinate, the AssistantCommissioner, and at the divisional level, by his superior, the Commissioner. In fact the police were impressed upon toact as the ‘hands’ of the civilian authorities, thereby reducing the former to an agency of the latter and practically excluding
the Inspector General and his deputies from supervision of police not only in the sphere of law and order but also, to avery large extent, even from its internal administration.
These retrograde steps, including, in particular, constant interference with the authority of senior officers of police
over the men under their command, had a crippling effect on the ill-conceived police organization, in addition to
exacerbating the bitter complaints of police oppression and extortion (Griffiths 1971, 99), apart from spoiling the disciplineof the force.
I.

The Police Commission 1902-03
By the beginning of 20th century, the situation became so ‘bad’ that Lord Curzon, the Governor General, had to
declare police reform as one of the most urgent needs of Indian administration. Accordingly, in July 1902, he appointed
a commission to be presided over by Sir Andrew Fraser, chief commissioner of the Central Provinces, to report on thestate of the police organization.
The commissioners, in their report submitted in 1903, recorded their ‘emphatic’ view that the 1861 system hadcompletely failed. One of the major causes of its failure, according to them, was undue interference with the police by
the civilian authorities. “The purpose of Police Act 1861 was not to create a system of dual control but merely to provide
for a reserve of authority outside the police organization, to be exercised by the District Magistrate only sparingly andin very specific situations, while the day to day police work was to be directed and controlled solely by the senior officersof police,” they said.
But, oddly enough, the recommendations of the Fraser Commission fell short in addressing adequately the fundamental– and chronic – organizational ills of police, or bringing about any substantial reform.

98120TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Why the British did not feel able to reform police, despite overwhelming evidence in support of reform, was largely
because they wanted to ensure in-built subservience of police to the executive administration; never mind that corruption,lack of professional excellence, police high-handedness and resultant police-public estrangement were some of the obvious
by-products of this policy. It was also due to the fact that they were not prepared to make terms and conditions of policerank and file attractive enough. In other words, the police organization was designed not to attract better talent.
In his note of dissent, the Moharaja of Darbhanga, the only Indian member of the Fraser Commission, maintainedthat the junction of the thief-catcher with judge was surely more anomalous in theory and more mischievous in practice.
“The connection between the district superintendent and the magistrate needed to be severed entirely and completely,
because as bed-fellows, they were capable of causing incalculable harm,” he emphasised. He further said that his own
experience in Bengal had made him believe that it was essential to sever this connection between the police and themagistracy in the high interest of justice and fair play.
Ironically, similar liberal and rational views of vision and professional wisdom were frequently expressed, but were
almost always superseded by the overriding considerations of precipitating the Raj.
Functioning under the guiding principles of this colonial philosophy, the police performed remarkably well in its
role of an occupying force. Although this role kept it miles apart from the public and often turned it into a target of
emotional abuse by those who were pitted against the British.
III. POLITICS OF POLICE REFORM
The first attempt to bring about a perceptible change in the Irish-type colonial police was – vainly – made within six
months of Pakistan becoming a free country in 1947. Under the progressive and able leadership of Governor General
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Sind Assembly passed a Bill (XXV of 1948) in February 1948 for establishing a modern
police force for the city of Karachi. In his statement of objects and reasons, Mr. M. A. Khuro, chief minister, who
successfully piloted the Bill, had thus to observe:
Sir, the Bill is a long one, but most of it is already in operation in Bombay and other cities. Karachi has verymuch developed and many more people have come in. The population has considerably increased and the police
force in the present conditions will not be able to cope up with the situation. Therefore, like Bombay, we aregoing to appoint Commissioner of Police for the city of Karachi and give him powers which are identical to thosewhich are given to Police Commissioner of Bombay. This is the main idea behind it. The powers that he will
enjoy are in respect of curfews, processions, public meetings, permission of these, regulating arms and licences. I
think it is high time that Karachi city should have a Bill like this. There should be a regular Police Commissioner
for this city.
The Assembly passed the Bill on 7th February 1948 and an authenticated copy signed by the Speaker and bearing
the forwarding note of the Governor of Sind was duly forwarded to the Governor General’s office. Surprisingly, the Legal
Advisor to the Governor General made certain ‘minor corrections’ on the authenticated copy of the Bill, and returned it
to the office of Governor Sind for resubmission. Why he did so is not clear from the record, but it appears that the politics
of police reform did not let the Bill return to the Governor General, who because of his fast deteriorating health wasincreasingly unable to attend to official matters. (He died on 11 September 1948.)
In 1951, a committee headed by Sir Oliver Gilbert Grace, then Inspector General of police of the North Western
Frontier Province (NWFP), recommended that police set-up for the city of Karachi should be fundamentally changed.
However, no headway could be made because of strong opposition by the bureaucratic elite.
The Pakistan Police (Constantine) Commission of 1960-61 specifically went to India to study metropolitan police
system for Karachi, but the commissioners chose not to make any recommendation in this regard. They ‘felt’ that since
the capital had already shifted from Karachi to Islamabad, the issue was no longer relevant.
The Pay & Services Re-organization Committee (1961-62), headed by Justice Cornelius, recommended in clear terms
the introduction of metropolitan system of policing for cities like Karachi and Lahore, but the recommendation was not‘accepted’ for implementation by the ‘decision-makers.’

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 60
In 1985, the Police Committee – which included the present author as member/secretary – was mandated to examine
whether the existing police system based on Police Act of 1861 was capable of meeting the growing law and orderchallenges, especially in Pakistan’s major urban centres, and to consider the introduction of metropolitan police system
as it existed elsewhere in the world. After an in-depth discussion of the issue, the Committee strongly recommended thatthe existing – outdated – system needed to be fundamentally restructured, especially for capital cities and major towns
with a population of over 500,000. A Ministerial Committee also approved the recommendation. However, the Cabinet
in its special meeting held on 6th January 1987 ‘decided’ to send a delegation consisting of Member/Secretary of the
Ministerial Committee and the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Interior, to India and Bangladesh to study the reforms
proposed by the Police Committee. (It is worth recalling that Bangladesh – which was East Pakistan until 1971 – hadalready changed the 1861 system of policing in Dhaka (1976), Chittagong (1978) and Khulna (1987).
The two-member delegation after having ‘detailed and searching discussions/interviews’ with prominent experts on
the question of merits/demerits of the 1861 system, returned ‘absolutely’ convinced that as a pilot project the policing
system proposed by the Police Committee should be introduced in the major cities of Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad onpriority basis. However, before any headway could be made in this regard, the time and tide once again proved to be on
the side of the forces of status quo. In May 1988, the Government of Prime Minister Junejo was dismissed, with the longdebated police organizational reform suffering serious setback yet another time.
After the new elected government was installed, the Prime Minister in her speech before the Police Service of Pakistan
Association on 12th April 1989 announced that the old police system would be replaced on experimental basis in selected
cities of Pakistan. (A directive No FDS (IMP)/PMDIR/114/89 dated 04.05.1989 followed the announcement.) However,in the meanwhile, it was ‘decided’ to send another delegation headed by the Interior Secretary to India and Bangladesh.
Interestingly, this delegation also returned with ‘strong’ recommendation in favour of changing the 1861 system.
A four-member British delegation headed by Sir Richard Barrat, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary
visited Pakistan from 21 to 26 January 1990. The delegation emphasised that the present police establishment was acontinuation of the police appointed during the British days, which was essentially a ruler-appointed police, and that thewhole policing philosophy needed to be changed on the lines suggested by the Police Committee of 1985. “The central
problem surrounding police ... in Pakistan is that the present system was created many years ago under colonial rule andhas not been refined or evaluated to keep pace with the changing face of the country in the last decade of the twentiethcentury ... Police ... throughout Pakistan has clung to the role envisaged by the Police Act of 1861, in which the mainfunctions were the maintenance of law and order and preservation of the status quo by methods of suppression andcontrol,” the delegation observed.
The Police Reforms Implementation Committee, in its final report submitted on 1st March 1990, also reiterated that
the Prime Minister’s directive for introduction of metropolitan police system in the cities of Karachi, Lahore and Islamabadshould be implemented without further dilly-dallying.
A UN Mission led by Vincent M. Del Buono, UN’s Interregional Advisor for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,
visited Pakistan from 26 March to 10 April 1995. The Mission made a number of categorical recommendations and urgedthat as an essential first step in the process of renewal, the political leadership of the country at all levels should state asa matter of fundamental policy that an effective, viable, independent but publicly accountable police was crucial to thedevelopment of stable democratic government institutions. “The present crisis comes as no surprise. Since 1960, there
have been eleven separate committees or commissions established by governments in Pakistan and four international
missions requested by the Government of Pakistan which have recommended major reforms of policing in Pakistan.
These have for the most part been ignored and the remedies suggested have been unimplemented. Had the proposed
reforms been undertaken, much of the present crisis could have been avoided... The present police system, which has
been allowed to deteriorate so badly by successive governments and been so abused for political patronage, has not yet
completely broken down due to the dedication, integrity, initiative and professionalism of a large number of individual
officers and constables. In spite of their best efforts, policing will collapse not only in Karachi but also in other parts ofthe country unless law enforcement institutions are strengthened immediately,” the Mission observed.
Next, a Japanese police experts team led by the Director General of the National Police Agency, Mr. Sekine, visited
Pakistan in April 1996 on the invitation of the Government of Pakistan. After analysing police reforms of 1947-54 inJapan, the team observed that it was crucial that police reforms in Pakistan should be focussed on building a relationshipof trust between the people and the police, and that the police in Pakistan should adopt a public service concept. In orderto establish mutual trust between the police and the general public, the team suggested the following steps.

100120TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

Creation of institutional structures that ensure political neutrality and democratic control of the police.

•

Proper sharing of responsibilities between the federal government and the provincial governments.

•

Adoption of unified chain of command of the police.

•

Establishment of recruitment and selection system of personnel based on merit.

In March 1998, the Good Governance Group of 2010 Programme, taking support from the Japanese report,
recommended that police be depoliticised and their recruitment, postings, transfers, training and career development
ensured on merit.
In their February 1999 report on Sustainable Peace in Karachi, the Colombian experts recommended a clean breakwith the existing situation. “If a professionally competent, politically neutral and democratically controlled Karachi
Metropolitan Police Force is not formed, there will probably be no police reform or reconstruction of the public sector,
both of which are essential elements for sustainable peace,” they concluded.
IV. TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE POLICE REFORM PROGRAMME
Faced with a deepening crisis both internally within its own organization and externally in its relations with the
public, the 1861 police system started running aground under the strain of social change brought about in 1947 by the
freedom from colonial rule. It was like expecting a pushchair designed for a toddler to take an adult from one city toanother on a steep road. It was not possible, without a fundamental restructuring of the organization that was so broke.
The last decade of the 20th century particularly witnessed an almost complete collapse of the existing law and orderapparatus, thanks mainly to growing and reckless interference in vital aspects of police administration by the ‘persons
of influence.’ No surprises, if the machine designed for colonial purposes failed to meet the aspirations of a free people
who wanted to enjoy the fruits of liberty, freedom, and rule of law.
Common complaints against the police ranged from routine discourtesy and incidents of neglect, incompetence,
inefficiency, arbitrariness, inadequate or no response to citizens’ requests for help to institutionalised abuse of power andwidespread resort to high-handedness and corruption. Policing by consent was virtually non-existent. Citizens would
lend little or no co-operation, at least little voluntary co-operation, to their police. They perceived police not as an
instrument of rule of law, but as a corrupt, insensitive and a highly politicised force, operating mainly to look after theinterests of the powerful.
This unacceptably high level of police-public estrangement did not come about lightly or suddenly. For most citizens
confronting routine police misbehaviour was a bitter fact of every-day life, borne out of experience of successive
generations at the hands of a force widely believed to be working beyond the bounds of civilized code of behaviour. It
was the behaviour that defied change and was impervious even to the most scathing criticism by leaders of civil society.
Could the ordinary citizen do anything when things went wrong, grievances arose, or complaints about police fell
on deaf ears? Not much, because, badly enough, whatever arrangements existed were woefully inadequate, lacked publicconfidence and were far from user-friendly.
In any case, not many citizens felt able to formally complain against any actual or perceived abuse of authority by
the police. It was their widely-held belief that police could get away with any thing and every thing. There existed no
credible mechanism of policing the police, notwithstanding the fact that an increasingly expanding range of coercive
powers at their command required stricter accountability controls. Public confidence in the police had never been lower.
We knew why. We even knew how to fix it. But we were faced with the perpetual failure of both police leadership andthe governing elite to reinvent the design for a people-friendly police.
What people urgently required was a “fundamental change” in the way they were policed, as the police organization
designed for colonial purposes had since broken down. It had broken down under the strain imposed by a variety ofcomplex factors, including the growth of terrorism, sectarianism, proliferation of weapons, population explosion, andmodern conditions of life. Urban terrorism during the past decade claimed tens of hundreds of innocent victims andbrought Karachi the infamous title of ‘the City of Death.’ The economy also lost hundreds of billions of rupees. Indeed

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 60
the inability of the law enforcement apparatus, inter alia, to tame the sectarian dinosaur and control illegal arms cost thenation dearly, both in terms of dissipating the gains of economic growth and its image internationally.
Poor law enforcement over time also became a serious threat to the emerging democratic order of Pakistan, its
economy, and the safety, well-being and integrity of its citizens. Although the country spent tens of billions every year
on police, civil armed forces and security agencies, yet the citizen suffered from a creeping sense of insecurity. It wasalmost as if the law enforcement system was designed not to work.
The solution lay in radically changing the way the police operated, in developing a sub-culture of professional
policing, trained and equipped to uphold the rule of law, in shifting from more-than-century-old oppressive policing
practices to community policing, and in reinventing the police which had miserably failed to win much-needed partnershipwith citizens and communities. It was time for police to enter into a customer service contract with the people of Pakistan,
a new guarantee of more effective, efficient, responsive, accountable policing. It was time to implement ideas that worked
and get rid of those that didn’t.
Fortunately, the most opportune moment to reinvent police came when the Government of Pakistan in November
1999 decided to set up the Focal Group on Police Reforms and tasked it to suggest fundamental restructuring of police.
The Focal Group, of which the present author was a member, submitted its recommendations in February 2000. These
were enthusiastically received and intensely debated by members of civil society as well as the media. In the meanwhile,and more significantly, the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) of the Government of Pakistan, as part of their good
governance and devolution of powers programme, decided to accord high priority to long overdue police reforms.
The NRB’s Think Tank on Police Reforms, which included the present author as a consultant, comprised seniorpolice administrators who knew the police best – who knew what worked, what didn’t; and how things ought to bechanged. The Think Tank spoke with as many policemen as it possibly could. It heard from the stakeholders – the peopleof Pakistan – all across the country, seeking their ideas, their input and their inspiration. It sought views of the judiciary,and experts of other criminal justice sub-systems. It held useful discussions with top business leaders who have successfully
used innovative management practices to turn their organizations around. It consulted public administration experts who
knew how best to apply the principles of reinventing public sector organizations to improving police services. In short,
it endeavoured to have meaningful dialogue with the best minds from private sector, government, and the civil society.
As the ground conditions that made the 1861 arrangement expedient had long ceased to exist, the Think Tank lostno time in concluding that police needed to be transformed from its colonial mould and organized on the basis of principles
governing standard, modern, contemporary police forces meant for policing free societies, not natives. In this regard, thekey issues debated in the NRB included: (1) What kind of organization will Pakistan Police need to meet the 21st century
law and order challenges? (2) Which model would be most suited in bringing about a radical change in the existing
intolerably high level of police-public estrangement? (3) How could such an organization be subjected to effective
democratic control, yet ensuring its political neutrality?
It took NRB more than a year to deliberate upon various aspects of the Focal Group’s blueprint of police reforms.
There was complete unanimity that every organization, whether public or private, could only perform well if founded on
valid organizational principles. In the case of Pakistan Police, these principles were ruthlessly violated over the years.
This resulted in the creation of a corrupt, inefficient and highly politicised police force. Consequently, the task ofmaintaining law and order suffered serious setback. Increasingly the police was rendered to act as agents of the politicalexecutive rather than as instruments of a democratic state. The selective application of law against opponents, whether
due to political interference or at the behest of persons of influence, became the norm rather than an exception. Politicaland personal vendettas were waged and won through manipulation of the instruments of state. Whatever safeguards
existed against the floodgates of pressure, inducement or threat from criminals or ethnic, sectarian or other powerfulelements virtually became dead. The net result of this all was that people perceived the police as agents of the powerful,
not as members of an organization publicly maintained to enforce rule of law.
As a first critical step towards reform, the NRB concluded that responsibility of maintenance of law and order would
need to rest unambiguously with the police. The police hierarchy will have to be made responsible not merely for theorganization and the internal administration of the force, but also for other matters connected with maintenance of law
and order. In short, policing will no longer be subject to dual control. In this regard, the Chief Executive took the historicdecision to abolish the office of the District Magistrate effective 14th August 2001.

102

120TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Secondly, it was agreed that necessary steps for rendering the police professionally competent, operationally neutral,
functionally cohesive and organizationally responsible for all its actions would need to be institutionalised in the Police
Ordinance 2002 (scheduled to replace the Police Act 1861 on 23rd March 2002). Once implemented, the new Police
Ordinance will lead to efficient police operations, better quality decision-making, improved discipline of the force, andrevamping of internal accountability mechanisms.
Thirdly, in a bid to insulate police from extraneous interference by the politicians in power, and emulating the Japanesepublic safety commission system, the NRB decided to establish public safety commissions at national, province anddistrict levels. In actual fact, the commissions at the district level have already been established and it is for the first timein the history of Pakistan that independent bodies having due representation from opposition parties will be performing
oversight role over certain critical aspects of police functioning.
Commenting on the improvement in police accountability and behaviour that resulted after the introduction in 1947of the public safety commission system in Japan, Bayley (1991) has observed:
The fact is that a transformation did occur in police behaviour in Japan in a relatively short period of time
immediately after World War II. It is associated with democratisation and in one of the most prized developmentsof the post war period. Japan’s contemporary record of excellence with respect to police behaviour is striking not
only in relation to the United States but also in relation to its own past.
Fourthly, the role, duties and responsibilities of police have been re-defined in a manner in which service function
gets precedence and the prevention and detection of crime is seen to have a social purpose. Not only does the new Police
Ordinance seek to solicit voluntary support and co-operation of the people, it will enable the police to act proactively forushering in a culture of rule of law in Pakistan.
Fifthly, it is crucial to bring police under a system of external accountability that enjoys public confidence. Once a
policeman renders himself accountable to the community he serves, his work ethics undergoes a radical change. By
subjecting himself to rule of law, he would be striving to upholding and promoting the cause of public interest. How cana police force hope to perform its functions efficiently and effectively without enjoying a high degree of public confidence
in the integrity of their operations? The new Police Ordinance seeks to achieve this objective by establishing an independent
statutory institution under the name and style of Police Complaints Authority. Simultaneously, since 14th August 2001
and for the first time in the history of Pakistan, the judiciary stands completely separated from the executive. There is no
doubt that this measure alone would have a profound impact in controlling serious police misconduct.
Sixthly, the reform strategy seeks to establish an independent Prosecution Service in each province of Pakistan. The
purpose is to improve the quality of both investigation and prosecution, in addition to introducing a system of check andbalance. The measure will also be a major step forward towards establishing a standard criminal justice system in Pakistan.
Seventhly, the process of reinvention requires that the political and police leaderships in Pakistan realise that thepolice have to respond to the expectations of their customers if they are to be effective. Historically, there has beenreluctance on the part of senior police hierarchy to recognise the necessity of seeing police forces as organizations thatare fundamentally no different from any other enterprise or business. As Butler (1992) points out, arising from this basic
error there has been a tendency to hide behind the complexity of policing as a means of excusing poor management andleadership. The police organization of tomorrow will therefore have to evolve a shared vision and understanding of acommon mission which will increasingly be focussed on meeting the community expectations. ‘Putting the customer
first’ would certainly improve the confidence of the public and an overt commitment to enhance the standards of bothpublic safety and police accountability will require the police leadership to lead and manage, not simply run, the force
to get results consistent with the mission.
In conclusion, law enforcement modernisation is one of the greatest challenges confronting Pakistan, a challengethat can and must be met. There are no short cuts, and no easy answers. Like an old Chinese saying, a journey of athousand miles begins with the first step. Fortunately, the government has already taken several steps in the right direction,and is determined to complete the journey. There is not a moment to lose.
REFERENCES
Arnold, D. (1986), Police Powers in Colonial Rule: Madras 1859-1947 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 60
Barrat, Sir Richard, Aspects of Policing in Pakistan, 1990
Bayley, D. H. (1985), Patterns of Policing: A Comparative International Analysis (New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press)
Bayley, D. H. (1991), Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press)
Butler, A. J. P. (1992), Police Management (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd.)
Constabulary (Ireland) Act, CIII of 1822
Constabulary (Ireland) Act, XIII of 1836
Griffiths, Sir P. (1971), To Guard My People: The History of the Indian Police (London: Benn)
Gupta, A. (1974), Crime and Police in India (up to 1861) (Agra: Sahitya Bhawan)
Gupta, A. (1979), The Police in British India, 1861-1947 (New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company)
Jeffries, S. C. (1952), The Colonial Police (London: Max Parrish)
Mawby, R. I. (1990), Comparative Policing Issues (London: Unwin Hyman)
Metropolitan Police (London) Act, XLIV of 1829
Misra, B. B. (1959), The Central Administration of the East India Company, 1773-1834 (Manchester: Manchester
University Press)
Napier, Sir W. (1851), History of General Sir Charles Napier’s Administration of Scinde (London: Chapman and Hall)
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, vol. 25
Police Act of 1861
Police Committee Report, 1985 (Islamabad: Government of Pakistan)
Police Reforms Implementation Committee Report, 1990 (Islamabad: Government of Pakistan)
Report of the Colombian Mission, 1999 (Karachi: CPLC)
Report of the Indian Police Commission, 1902-3
Report of the UN Mission to Pakistan: Organized Crime, 1995 (Islamabad: UNDCP)The City of Karachi Police Act (XXV of 1948)
Tobias, J. J. (1977), ‘The British Colonial Police: An Alternative Police Style’, in P. J. Stead (ed.), Pioneers in Policing(Maidenhead: Patterson Smith), pp. 241-61

104