Public cooperation is also essential for detection of cybercrime cases
RavulapatiSeetaramarao
Police work is difficult and quite unlike any other job. Many people try to compare being a police officer to being a soldier, but the two professions are like the North and South Poles. A soldier fights beyond the nation’s borders to protect the country from enemies. A soldier knows who the enemy is; his objective is to eliminate that enemy. But the police work inside the country to protect peace and security. Their goals include preventing and investigating crime, and, when someone who was once a friend becomes an adversary due to circumstances, taking lawful action against them.
At the same time, when someone who was once considered an enemy in society becomes a friend, the police must, according to the law, recognise and respect that person as part of the community. Coordinating these two different perspectives and remaining constantly engaged in preserving public peace and security as a daily duty is perhaps the greatest objective. Senior officials in the police force always wish for the police to be close to the people. Governments are inconsistent. While in power, a political party does not only want the police to be like part of their household or their retainers — they officially direct them to oblige. When out of power, that same political party will not hesitate to use the police as an implacable enemy for their political needs.
If the duration of service is considered to be roughly 35 years, then it becomes impossible to measure a politician’s term in the same way. That is the reason why a politician’s decisions tend to suit his or her personal needs. The constitution and laws, however, insist that police decisions be made according to law, and if they err, they must be punished. If a politician’s brother strays from the path, society largely ignores it; but if the brother of a policeman misbehaves, there is no alternative to preparing to punish him.
That is also why experts, senior officials, and thinkers repeatedly demand reform in the police whereby they are oriented to serve the public good. But these critics often forget that police officers come from the same society as everyone else — they, too, have good and bad traits, undergo mental stress, love and affection, alongside hatred, factionalism, and jealousy. They treat duty as their ultimate commitment but neglect psychological tendencies. Governments do not implement reforms meant for the police, yet each time commentators’ call for the police to be reformed.
When in government, those same commentators remain oblivious of that very responsibility; when in opposition, they remind the government of it. Caught in this cycle, the police are trapped like a shuttle, forever going back and forth. This is true whether there is self-rule or not: the condition of the police employee remains the same. That is why the police — though appearing powerful — are helpless to bring about changes in service that match the needs of the times. They may seem to use “power” for themselves, but the day governments and society recognize that they cannot use power for the public good; there will at least be some chance for professional change within the police.
There have been many proposals aimed at bringing the police closer to the public from within the force. It is unfortunate that these ideas have not been implemented permanently and made effective — the reason for that doesn’t need special emphasis. If you plant one kind of seed, you won’t grow a different kind of tree; that’s a law of nature.
If governments and citizens firmly trust the police as the instrument for enforcing the constitution and laws we have created, and if they encourage the police to act accordingly, the results can be achieved as intended. But if opportunism takes root in governments or among the public, it becomes impossible to bring about any meaningful change in police behavior.
A few years ago a police team from India went to England and closely studied how their counterparts operate there. They observed several notable practices. Officers are on duty and working even outside strict clocked hours. The number of police is adequate for the demands of the work. Recognising the value of time, detainees are promptly brought before courts, jails, or for investigation and remand — police don’t dawdle. As soon as someone is brought in, the courts and the jails proceed with hearings or remand decisions. Citizens and police don’t insist that duties be performed only when explicitly ordered. In fact, many officers habitually carry out their responsibilities, which make policing easier.
Recent technological changes have likely further improved their methods. In short, the study simply noted how things are done there. We cannot claim that their system is perfect in every era and circumstance — making mistakes is human. Errors do occur, but they are at a low level, and because of that people respect the police and the police behave accordingly. In one phrase, a police officer there is a civilian in uniform — and civilians, when acting as police, are also civilians in uniform.
In our Telugu states, governments as well as the police have tried various experiments to change policing methods. Some of these had limited success; others stopped halfway. Many reform reports full of recommendations from senior officials never saw the light of the day; some were never implemented. During periods of communal tension, peace committees were set up in Hyderabad as an experiment—bringing together community leaders, citizens, and police—and they were largely able to restore peace. The fact that Hyderabad is relatively peaceful today is largely the result of that successful experiment.
Experiments such as “Praja Police,” “Mytri,” and “friendly policing” were undertaken to bring police closer to the public. These initiatives succeeded in a few places, but for a variety of reasons they did not spread across the entire state.
The city police’s decision to launch a new initiative called “C-Mitra” to prevent and address cybercrime in Hyderabad should genuinely be welcomed.
In the modern age, criminals are using advanced technology and ever-more inventive methods to carry out cybercrimes. Determined to stop this trend, they set up a “help desk” through C-Mitra to assist victims—so that instead of rushing straight to police stations when trouble occurs, people can first report cyber incidents through this service.
The public should not only celebrate this move but also actively cooperate with it; participation is everyone’s responsibility. It is a way of bringing the police closer to the people. Note that this initiative is limited to the jurisdiction of Hyderabad City Police.
If you are a victim of a cybercrime, do not delay and report it as soon as you discover it by calling the helpline 1930. The report will be filed on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), and once the report is submitted the C-Mitra team will contact the victim. Many people don’t know how to file a report in the form of an FIR, so the C-Mitra team uses artificial intelligence to generate an accurate report under the appropriate legal sections and sends it to the victim. The victim should print the draft report, sign it, and mail it—either by post or courier—to: “Cyber Mitra Helpdesk, Station House Officer – Cyber Crime Police Station, Commissioner’s Office, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029.”
You can also file the complaint directly at the cyber police station drop-back. Once this process is complete, the FIR will be registered and the investigation will begin without delay. If the loss exceeds Rs three lakh, the cybercrime police will investigate; if the amount is less than that, the matter will be forwarded to the relevant police stations as a zero-FIR for investigation. Timely resolution of cybercrimes depends on valuing time. Keeping that in mind, this initiative by Hyderabad City Police can achieve significant success only with public cooperation. Police performance will continue to improve with the support of the public.
(The writer is a retired IPS officer, who has served as an Additional DGP of Andhra Pradesh)
