Islamabad (Digital Post) Is the Police the Protector of the Public, or Should the Public Protect Themselves from the Police?

Islamabad (Digital Post) Is the Police the Protector of the Public, or Should the Public Protect Themselves from the Police?

Corruption, bribery, malpractice, and misuse of authority in numerous police stations across Islamabad and Rawalpindi have hollowed out the police system. Some SHOs and subordinate staff have turned police stations into centers for making money instead of places for providing relief to the public. Poor and helpless citizens knock on doors for justice, but they often face recommendations, bribes, and power instead of the law.

The Punjab Government should immediately launch a ruthless accountability operation in Rawalpindi Police. Transfers alone are not enough; any officer or official proven to be involved in corruption should face the strictest possible action, including suspension, departmental proceedings, registration of a case, and dismissal from service. Just as action against corrupt officials is possible in other institutions, no SHO, officer, or official in the police should be above the law. The police are the protectors of the public, not a force that robs the public of their money and dignity. The cleanup of Rawalpindi’s police stations now requires not merely reforms, but strict and indiscriminate accountability.

For a long time, complaints have been heard among the citizens of Rawalpindi and Islamabad regarding police behavior, registration of cases, investigation, recommendations, political influence, alleged bribery, and leniency toward influential individuals. Certainly, there are also honest, dutiful officers and personnel in this department who work with their lives on the line. But the alleged corruption of a few personnel and officers also severely damages the reputation of the entire institution. If an ordinary citizen needs a recommendation, connection, money, or the name of an influential person even to obtain justice, then where does the rule of law remain? If a person feels upon entering a police station that the officer sitting before him will, instead of listening to his complaint, first see how influential the other party is, whose phone call will come, and whose recommendation will arrive, then the entire concept of justice becomes a joke.

This behavior is not law; it is disrespect for the law.

Bribery does not rob one person’s pocket; it robs the dignity of the state.

Bribery is not merely a transaction involving a few thousand or a few hundred thousand rupees. When an allegation that a police official demanded an illegal payment from a citizen is proven, it is actually the state’s authority being sold — the authority that was entrusted to it for the protection of the public.

Recently, a case related to Dhamial Police Station in Rawalpindi came to light in which, following a citizen’s complaint, action was taken against three police officials, they were arrested, and a case was registered. According to the report, a video also surfaced showing the taking of Rs. 150,000 from two young men, while the SHO was suspended and charge-sheeted.

This incident is important because it highlights one fundamental point: the real problem is not only the SHO; it is the entire culture.

If an SHO takes a bribe, the question should not be only about that SHO.

How was he appointed?

Who monitors his performance?

How many complaints were received against him?

What is the ratio of FIR registration in his area?

How many complaints were made against investigations?

How many times did citizens approach senior officers?

And if complaints were continuously coming in, then why was that officer kept there?

Accountability goes beyond the individual and becomes a systemic issue.

There is a common perception among the public that political or influential circles are behind certain police postings. If this perception is wrong, the government and police leadership should transparently eliminate it. And if it is true somewhere, then the question becomes even more serious.

How will an officer whose position comes through the recommendation of a powerful person enforce the law against that same powerful person tomorrow?

The police should not be the employee of any political, business, or social personality. A person who has more money, more connections, or more recommendations should not be more powerful before the law.

If there is a dispute between a weak citizen and an influential person, it is not the police’s duty to stand with the powerful party.

The police’s duty is to stand with the evidence.

Another important question concerns the assets of police officers. If a government official’s lifestyle, properties, business interests, vehicles, or assets held in the names of family members clearly do not correspond with his known income, then the matter should undergo proper legal and financial scrutiny. No police officer can be called a criminal simply because he is prosperous, and no officer can automatically be considered innocent simply because he has registered his property in someone else’s name.

What is needed is effective scrutiny of assets, a comparison of income and expenditure, and wherever a legal question arises, impartial investigations.

The same principle should also be applied to allegations circulating among the public regarding housing societies, land, and alleged illegal activities in the surrounding areas of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Police postings should be linked to merit and performance rather than making them attractive positions based on the financial or political power of an area.

Secret and immediate investigations into bribery complaints

If a citizen complains of being asked for a bribe, instead of sending him back to the same officer, the matter should be investigated independently under oversight.

Protection of the complainant

The biggest problem is that the ordinary person is afraid to complain, fearing that a case might be registered against him instead.

This fear must be eliminated.

Giving an officer who has an interest in the administrative aspects of a case complete authority over the investigation of that same case can create conflicts.

The investigative system should be made more independent and professional.

The measure of an officer’s performance should not be how many people he arrested, but how many cases he resolved on merit.

Police success should not be measured only through raids, arrests, and press releases.

How many citizens were satisfied?

How many investigations were conducted on merit?

How many complaints were resolved?

How many innocent people were protected from unnecessary cases?

And ultimately, who is responsible?

It is not simply that the SHO is responsible.

Responsibility exists at several levels.

The corrupt officer is responsible.

The officer who protects him is responsible.

The political or influential person who gets an improper posting arranged is responsible.

The administrative system that remains silent is also responsible.

And where there is knowledge of a crime or corruption but no action is taken, silence itself becomes a form of complicity.

The greatest responsibility lies with the state.

The state has given the police authority.

With authority comes accountability.

The police must not be treated as an enemy; they must be made protectors once again.

We have to fight against the corrupt police culture.

An honest SHO should be respected.

A dutiful DSP should be given authority.

An honest constable should be protected.

And anyone who uses the uniform to suppress the public, make money, use recommendations, or serve powerful people must receive a clear message:

The uniform is an honor, not a license.

The day a poor person enters a police station and thinks:

“I do not need any recommendation. I only have the truth, and the law is with me.”

When will we build such a society where a citizen is not afraid of a thief, not afraid of the police, and not afraid of an influential person, but is afraid only of breaking the law?

That is true justice.

And that is the test at which Rawalpindi, Islamabad, and the entire society stand today.

Now is not the time for statements; it is the time for accountability.

Now is not the time for recommendations; it is the time for merit.

Now is not the time for fear; it is the time for the rule of law