Insensitive cops

Wednesday's incident in which a policeman physically assaulted a differently-able child in Guwahati in the presence of an officer has tarnished the image of the Assam Police. It also brought to light how insensitive some officers can be. In the instant case, a city resident was travelling on his two-wheeler with his differently-able son – who has autism and intellectual disability – after getting some medication for him, when a police constable gave a full blow with his baton on the special child's back. When Chaliha asked the officer-in-charge why one of his men beat his special child, the officer threatened to put the father-son duo in the lock-up. Yes, it was past 6 PM, and Guwahati had come under dusk-to-dawn curfew. But the Government has, under new law or rule, empowered any police personnel to physically assault or beat up any citizen on the pretext of curfew. The incident has taken place when the Assam Police is headed by Director-General like Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta - a well-known champion of child rights, and particularly rights of special children and children caught in difficult situations. It was under him several years ago that the Assam Police had through Project Aashwas trained over 2,000 officers – from the ASI rank to the SP – on child rights and child-friendly policing. This had earned Assam Police a name for itself across the country and abroad. While the United Nations General Assembly had adopted its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on December 13, 2006, India had ratified it on October 1, 2007. Parliament in 2016 passed the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. It is unfortunate that an Assam Police officer has failed to keep in mind the eight basic principles laid down in the UN Convention and the above-mentioned Act, for empowerment of persons with disabilities, these being – (a) respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons; (b) non-discrimination; (c) full and effective participation and inclusion in society; (d) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; (e) equality of opportunity; (f) accessibility; (g) equality between men and women; and (h) respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

What the officer – whose subordinate constable had assaulted the child, and who himself threatened to dump the father and son in a lock-up – does not know is that Section 6 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act clearly speaks about protection of women and children with disabilities from cruelty and inhuman treatment, with the sub-section 6(1) particularly stating that "the appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Again, Section 7 of the Act speaks about "protection from abuse, violence and exploitation," with sub-section 7(1) saying that "the appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, and shall (a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents; (b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting; (c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and (d) create awareness and make available information among the public. In the instant incident, what a responsible Assam Police officer (whose subordinate had beaten up the child) did was in total contrary to the law. While Arman Ali of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) has called for use Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, against the erring police personnel, (it provides for 6 months to five years jail term, and fine), the Assam State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has invoked Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015, which provides for jail term up to three years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. It is good that the Assam Police top bosses responded very promptly to the incident. While GP Singh, ADGP, immediately assured action against the erring policeman and expressed regrets and apologies, the Guwahati Police Commissioner ordered an enquiry and also placed the constable under suspension. But then, mere suspension cannot change the attitude of the state's police force, until its extremely sensitive DGP asserts himself. One should not consider Wednesday's incident as a stray case. There must be many such black sheep in the Assam Police. Every police officer must be thorough with laws particularly related to persons with disabilities, children and women. Only then will they be worthy of wearing the Assam Police logo which talks about serving the people and working for their welfare.