In my opinion
- What happened to the policeman is tragic.
- What the TV channel is doing is disgusting.
- And the people who are sending messages to the TV channel are thoughtless.
- A crime has been committed. A law (several laws) has / have been broken.
- Some ministers and officers have neglected their duty of care towards a fellow citizen.
- And finally a TV channel is trying to cash in on the incident to gain popularity.
What exactly is the TV channels moral responsibility? First of all they should not mislead the people into thinking that their opinion is important when it is obviously not. In this case it is not important what people think. When (and if) the case goes to court the judge will not ask what the people think. She will want to know what laws have been broken. Public opinion is important during an election. Public opinion is important with regards to laws but not when it comes to enforcement of the existing laws. The public should know that they can, by the power of their votes, change the people who make the laws but they cannot change the enforcement of existing laws.
Some video footage was shown of this policeman lying bleeding on the road. It was taken not by the TV channel but by an onlooker who just happened to be there. Why did he not call for an ambulance? Is there a number we can call if there is an emergency and hope to get some action? Like there is 911 in the US and 999 in the UK and such like in other countries? Why not?
Why does the public not demand that there be such a phone number along with the proper setting up of emergency services? Let us say it is not practical for a poor country like India. Why do the policemen not demand it as part of their service contract? Why do they not demand that there be a phone number, well known to the public and police alike, which can be called if a policeman is injured or in serious trouble? There are no such demands because our TV and other media do not let the public think like this. They want the public to feel good by blaming and accusing others for being bad. They do not want the public itself to take the blame that it rightfully deserves. The public is to be blamed for not being demanding of its leaders and officers. The public is content to accuse and berate those who do wrong but it will not demand that its leaders and officers do the right things to begin with.
I am not a lawyer but I do not think that in this case the ministers can be charged with anything. Morally, they should have done their best to get this policeman to a hospital which they did not. But that is no crime. Surely what happened or did not happen must be somebody's responsibility. I think it is the responsibility of the senior officers of the the dead policeman. What needs to be investigated is whether they knew of the danger to this policeman's life. If they did then why was he left alone, vulnerable to attack? If they did not know about the danger to his life why not? It is their job to know. Why are they so far from the realities of day to day policing? Why don't they demand that policemen have access to fast emergency help if needed? Why was this particular policeman without a radio?
Surely the angry public must do something about the neglectful ministers. The best thing to do would be to not forget woeful behaviour of these ministers in this incident till the next election. Voting is a matter of opinion and the public should respect its own opinion and not vote for these minister in the next election. This is what the media should be telling the public instead of providing the placebo of making it the judge, jury and executioner in its own imaginary world.
Is the dead policeman a hero? And the two ministers villains? As far as I know the dead policeman is a dead policeman. He may have died because of being true towards his duty or he may have died because of getting mixed up with the wrong kind of people for all the wrong reasons. Whatever the reason of his being killed, his superiors have some responsibility for it. If he died because of being faithful to his duty then his superiors are to be blamed for not looking after an upright subordinate. If he died because of wrong dealings with the wrong people then the superiors are to be blamed for ignoring what was going on or not knowing about it at all. What about the ministers? I do not know what their legal duties were when all this was happening but I do know what their moral duties were. Ignoring ones legal duties is a crime, ignoring ones moral duties is not a crime, it is just plain immoral. The public has a right to expect the conduct of its leaders to be both legally and morally exemplary. If the ministers broke a law it is the responsibility of the police to bring them to justice. But the public can punish the ministers for substandard moral behaviour (although not illegal) by not voting for them in the next election.
So in this whole episode there are no heros. People writing in to the TV channel their opinions about the ministers are certainly not. Who are the villains? I agree that the two ministers displayed far from heroic behaviour but it does not make them villains. The real villains are those who let such incidents happen. The police officers who failed to protect a fellow policeman. The police officers who have indicated, by their regular negligence of duty, to the criminals that they can get away with such act.
Negligence of duty is a far bigger moral crime than most of us think. Often, it is also a legal crime. So, everybody who ignored their duties leading to this incident is a villain. The ministers for not having an emergency service in place for such situations. The police officers for failing to protect a fellow policeman.
Most of us think of heroic deeds as exceptional. Sometimes they are, but only rarely. Most of the time heroism is simply a matter of being faithful toward ones designated responsibilities and duties. Yes, that is what real heroism is. It goes unnoticed when things are fine but as soon as people start neglecting their duties things start to go wrong. Sometimes a heroic deed might save a bad situation. Whenever this happens one should, apart from rewarding the hero, look for those whose actions or inactions led to the bad situation in the first place.
A shop owner fights off a burglar and saves his shop. Brave? Yes. Hero? Umm. But why are we not looking for the villains who are responsible for the burglary to happen in the first place? You think burglary is simple? Think again. It is not simply a burglar who is involved. Before the burglary there are those whose (in)action or collusion leads the burglar to think he can get away with it. After the burglary there is someone who deals with the stolen goods. Finally there is someone who buys the stolen goods for personal use. It is a whole bloody industry! If the police are not aware of this then they are not doing their jobs properly. If they are aware of it and are not doing anything about it, again they are not doing their jobs properly. Anybody not doing their job properly is a villain. Simple. In the worst case, the police are on the take and look the other way when stolen goods are bought and sold.
Am I calling the police villains? Yes, and I am also calling everybody else who are not faithful towards their duties villains. Doctors not showing up in rural health centres. Programmers selling unreliable software to poorly informed clients and companies. Senior executives taking exorbitant bonuses while their companies fall to pieces.
People think a country is built by heros. Yes it is. But it is not built by just a few heros who happen to be in the police or armed forced. It is built by lots of heros doing their duties to the best of their capabilities and expecting others to do theirs with the same diligence and care.
Let us all be heros. It will not only ensure that bravery will be rarely needed but also build a nation where everybody is happier.
No comments:
Post a Comment