Before today if some one would have asked me about my opinion on Kiran Bedi and her fame, I would have probably said, "She is just another IPS officer who got too much unnecessary popularity. I mean she has done only what a regular officer is supposed to do."
To some point, it is true that she has done only what a decent police officer is expected to do as his/her job, and being very familiar with the Police from the inside, I can undoubtedly claim that there is a good number of such officers working in field today and even before Ms. Bedi. However, what has changed today after having attended a good one hour speech by Kiran Bedi, is that I think that the popularity is not after all unnecessary. Her being the first female IPS officer is already enough to get her the fame she has, but in addition to that, she turned out to be
a female officer with character and strength. Being the first to do anything isn't half as important as how you carry the fact along with you for the rest of time span you have with the responsibility.
Kiran Bedi is a mortal being. She was made as good or as bad as any other human being in the world. As far as I understand, she would also have some shortcomings. But then every great person did, Gandhi, Tagore, Lincoln, Kennedy, every one. What matters is not the person and all his/her darkest and deepest personality traits, but the idea that they embody. Some people just become the idea, so much so that we carve out our own impressions of them and make them moral icons. After an extent this does become a problem when we grow intolerant of any criticism of the ideas that our icon may have embodied, or those that we perceive for them to have embodied. Any way, it is perhaps an exaggeration to call Ms. Bedi as great as we would call Gandhi, but one sure must appreciate the basic human goodness of an individual such as herself.
Basic Human Goodness, this is in fact the crux that I derived from all her talk. She had come to the stage to speak on the topic she chose herself, and that is 'A Gandhian Model Of Policing'. Through out the speech she focused only on the policing methods. It was not a lecture on moral codes for humanity in general. She addressed the problems that every policeman faces in his/her profession. From political pressure, through malformed system, to public hatred, every single problem that a policeman faces is intense and in some senses demeaning. But the address to such problems was immediately followed by the stating of the fact, that this is the nature of the job one has chosen. She made it clear that one is not supposed to come into Policing 'by mistake'. It is a job made for hard souls alone. She stated it strongly that the conditions that policemen work in are pathetic and animal like. But the only way for a policeman to make his own conditions better is to decide for himself as to which path to chose. A path of good and lawful conduct where any thing that is unlawful is denied even on being strongly desired by people in power, is the only way to redemption for a policeman. To restrain oneself from indulging in any unlawful and derogatory keeps a mans mind and conscience clear. Such policeman are beyond the slavery of power as they have detached themselves form blind ambition, and beyond self humiliation that comes by giving oneself into greed. An ideal life of a policeman is that of honor and dignity and service.
What was derived from the ideas of Gandhi was mostly about courage to do the right thing and faith in the spirit to serve. Other then that, the idea of non-violence was projected towards the violence on unarmed convicts and false encounters. However through what I could gather, the idea of self reliance and will to do good in the face of all odds was amplified throughout the speech. Time and again was the question raised even in the Q&A, that what is an honest and upright man to do amidst the crowd of extreme corrupts and bog-downers. The answer to this was as simple as the thought, Ms. Bedi insisted that if one decides to hold ones ground on the right thing, there is nothing any one in power can do worse then a transfer, temporary delay in promotion or a short term suspension. It was made clear that the path of conscience has it's own bad consequences, but the self respect and dignity that it serves is way more satisfying and pleasing then the short lived gratification through dishonesty where the risks are of worse consequences (which includes imprisonment and expulsion from office and social disgust). At this when an honest officer is questioned by a senior officer, she suggested, one should simply say, "I'm sorry sir but I can't obey the order as I was not trained to carry this out. I humbly back down from this responsibility and urge you to find another man who has had a training to do this job."
To add briefly, another point that she raised was a well known fact that values like honesty and courage are not installed in a man after getting into the job. An academy is responsible to provide the young officers with skills. Values are what one acquires through social upbringing, through family and society one lives in. Hence this point lays a strong emphasis on a social reform in the way the majority of the society thinks. However this was not to suggest that all good to be done within the police department was to wait for social reforms before implementation. This only meant that the society would be reformed if the best of men carve an example for the rest of them. All that is needed is for the 'few good men' to show the courage and meet the odds head on.
There was a lot more that was said, a lot of details that I am unable to reproduce here. However one last thing that I can recall that is more relevant to people outside the circle of civil services was the strong emphasis on the need of research on policing. It is a strong need of today that the facts and details about the conditions of policing come out in a more scholar and intellectual circle and through them be available for the people of the country for examination from time to time. A strong record keeping needs to be implemented with support of growing technologies that should serve the social security system more than it serves the criminals. A stress on improving witness gathering by introducing video recording of a complain that is lodged so that the witness doesn't turn hostile and to gather evidence before the arrest rather than after the arrest was put forth as a solution to the disgustingly slow an inefficient legal system of India.
The talk ended after a long Q&A session. It left me with some interesting stuff to think about. The most striking feature of all the ideas put forth was their simplicity. It's a simplicity of nature and will that a middle class Indian upbringing fails to nurture. While to respect hierarchy as a tool to ease the management of a system is a healthy thing, Indian upbringing lays too much stress on hierarchy for it's own sake. An unnatural and unjustified fear of the ones in power is installed in the young ones in most middle class societies of India. It's labeled to be blasphemy to have a critical thinking and to question the authority for its wrong deeds. Not only families but most of the conventional schools breed such an attitude where children are not directed with understanding and respect, but with fear and an anticipation of personal gain. Success has become a cliché fondly attributed to selfish ends of monetary progress. Amidst all this, an idea to lead a respectful life of courage and honesty, away from the convolution of conscience and self image, sounds like an impractical ideal, however if thought over with patience and understanding, it is perhaps the simplest one to follow. This is not a claim made by some one who has read a book on morals and is paraphrasing from it, but people who have lived a life sticking to such principles and have found that in fact living with principles is far more easier than living a life of a greed slave, as it cuts down the fear and guilt factors.
Another thing that I pondered over was the earlier mentioned 'popularity' that the lady has received. Like I have mentioned before, I used to think that all that popularity was unnecessary and unjustified, what changed my though is not the awe of her personality (officers with such principles need to have such personalities anyway). What changed my mind was the fact that it was probably not her will to get that immense popularity, it is the society that gave it to her, she simply accepted it. There are upright officers who might find it awkward to accept popularity or are less enthusiastic about overtly setting examples for society. Any way, setting example for the society is a dicey concept. Why I feel that her popularity is important is that she has grown to be a symbol. A symbol that people trust and follow in lives and habits. A symbol that is necessary to spread understanding and awareness of work ethics and social cooperation through organisations like Alok (the organisation that conducted this session).
To Conclude, what I am left with is that any one who has anything to do with this country must reconsider their methods and thinking processes. Here is a public figure who is ready to spread the word of courage, and spirit of inquiry in the rotten unlawful and unethical conventions of this country. Through a powerful institute like Police, this country could be led to a Renaissance that sets an example for humanity all over the world. Just consider the fact that among the population of this country, 1.7million are policemen (90% of which are constables and head-constables!). THINK!
