Nevertheless, there are conventions on war and conflicts. We all know about the Geneva Convention of 1864. Many of us may know the 2200-year-old war rules of "Monu" or The Arts of the War developed by ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu. But very few people know about the international customary laws. We don't know all about the rules and conventions that human species followed in war and conflicts in the beginning of civilisation. The civilisation witnessed many wars and indiscriminate bloodshed. Over the passage of time, a feeling developed in human mind that enemies are not for only killing or enslaving. The enemies have the right to protect themselves, the right to be honoured. More than 2000 years ago when Alexander defeated King Puru, he asked the king what kind of treatment he expected from him. Puru replied that he expected the treatment a king should mete out to another king. So man can be defeated in war, but ideals remain upheld. And only man has such great feelings.

That's why the International Humanitarian Law and The Law of Armed Conflict say one can be considered an enemy as long as he continues to battle. You can't continue war against those who have been defeated, who surrendered their arms. You can't attack an unarmed man. But these rules of war seem to be meaningless when we see the demolition in any war. This planet witnessed two world wars after the Geneva Convention. Who were the victims of these wars? Definitely, it's the weaker section of society. Innocent women and children were killed and tortured in huge numbers while the casualties of those who fought the wars were comparatively low. All laws, rules and conventions of war proved meaningless through such killings of the innocent. The strong and powerful always dominate the weak --there was no exception in any of these wars.

The police do not always apply its military power. They do not apply power to the same extent. The rules of applying such power vary in different countries due to different kinds of laws, rules, lifestyles, thoughts and philosophies. About 2500 years ago, when the Roman Empire had 46 countries under its control, the armed forces used to do the job of policing. But it created a social crisis when the power was enforced on certain sections of people in the empire. The armed forces were forced to retreat in the fact of revolt. And the empire called them back to the barracks. But the social crisis went on. Then the elite class had to take the responsibility to control the situation. The strategy to enforce power by the army was shelved and “acceptable persons” of the Roman society were given the charge. They became the police of Rome. Now it is well recognised that conflict resolution is more effective than enforcement of power. In course of time, modern police forces have been established in Rome and other parts of Europe. The European nations become more and more civilized and their police forces also become modern.

According to social science, every component of the society has interaction with others and they impact upon each other. The European nations developed their social systems by practising knowledge and different branches of science as well as developing their police in line with the need of the society. Police is the symbol of modern society in Europe. But the European nations did it for themselves. In contradiction, they established colonies in other parts of the world and various mechanisms to exploit the people of the colonies. In their own soil, the European nations used the police as a service organisation -- as protector of the people and their property. On the other hand, in the colonies they used police to repress people as part of their exploitation. It is true that the Europeans formulated laws in line with their social norms and lifestyle. Laws are part of their life. They comply with the laws strictly and there is hardly any instance of violation of laws. But in our country, the scenario is just opposite. We are tied with some laws which were imposed on us. So these laws are obviously not like those of Europe.

The British ruled our country for 190 years but they did not implement the laws, which they practised in their own country, in the colonies. They adopted laws from Polynesia to rule our country. The laws which were imposed in our sovereign country are similar to those practised by the Polynesians to rule the people of their colonies. However, some social and religious norms have been added to the laws. In Europe or America, it is considered a major crime if anyone physically attacks any other person. In our country, we consider the offences related to property as major crime. Here the police are accountable for the cases of theft and robbery, then comes murder that is considered as less important. During the colonial rule, the British had introduced such laws in this country which are still in force. The Americans consider it a major crime if anyone slaps any other person. But we consider our property more important than our lives.

In the countries like ours, people face multifarious problems due to huge population and lack of resources to solve the problems. The governments in most cases fail to resolve the problems that ultimately lead to public protests and unrest. The police have to bear the burden of the failure of the state and the society. In the developed countries the police never face such problems. In those countries, problems of a certain community of the society are resolved by the people of that community. That's why in those countries the police do not have take the responsibility of any social or political crisis. They do not have to face the people. The police do not have any role in resolving these problem but despite the fact, they have to face the public wrath. In this situation, the police find no way to enforce their power.

We have to face frequent hartals, strikes, blockade, siege and sit-in programmes on various issues. There is no such instances in the developed countries. People of those countries never throw stones to damage vehicles in the streets. They do not vandalise vehicles or any other public or private property. They just gather at a certain place to raise their protest peacefully. They are not as violent as the pickets of our country. In those countries the police do not have to enforce their power which is frequent in our country. In this problem-ridden country, the police every day face demonstrations and agitations by the people. The battle between the police and public is a regular phenomenon here. This battle sometimes takes place beyond the existing laws and rules. The police have specific rules to enforce power -- they can't enforce the power in every case, in every situation. This is absolutely illegal.

The police have the right to enforce their military power as per Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), PRB and some other laws. But every action of the police is bound by conditions. The reaction of the police depends on the action of the suspect. The police are authorised to arrest any person accused of a crime and produce him/her in court. But if that person tries to evade arrest, the police have the right to enforce their power. If any person is proved to be dangerous for the life of other citizens, or if he or she resorts to damaging public or private properties, the police can take action against him or her, they can even kill the suspect to protect the life of others and the properties of the state or any individual. But if the suspect surrenders, there is no scope to enforce power. At a specific stage of the encounter, the police has to stop when the suspect is ready to surrender. The police can chase him if the suspect tries to flee to avoid arrest but they can't enforce power from behind. That means power can't be enforced on runaway suspects. If the suspect stumbles while fleeing, the police can arrest him but they shouldn't enforce power on him. And after arrest the police have no right to enforce power. They can't handcuff any arrestee younger than 16 years, over 60 years old, women and seriously ill.

Apart from self-defence and arrest, the police have the right to enforce power in another case -- dispersing illegal gathering of more than five people. In this case a magistrate or an officer-in-charge of any police station can order the people in the gathering to get dispersed. If they comply with the order, the police can't enforce power on them. But in case of violation of the order, the police can arrest the people from the gathering. If they fail to disperse the gathering even after arresting them, the magistrate or a high police officer (minimum assistant commissioner) can order enforcement of military power. What is the military power? The readers will be wondering to know that there are no rules in the police regulation that they will fire shots in the air to disperse any gathering. The regulation empowers the police to open fire targeting the people in the gathering. However, the law enforcers should declare it before opening fire on the members of illegal gathering.

There is no separate rule for taking action against any woman in any illegal gathering. However, there is a separate rule (section 52) for searching the body of a woman. The women must be searched by the female members of the police and they must maintain decency while searching a woman's body. A male police can't arrest a woman involved in any illegal gathering. Even when a policeman is attacked by a woman, he can't enforce power on her for self-defence. The police must think before taking any action against women so that they are not humiliated. A policeman can't clasp any woman.

While enforcing power, the police have to think on whom the power is being enforced. Is the man or woman really involved in breaking laws? This is a very important task of the police otherwise the police may swoop on the innocent and the real lawbreakers flee. While chasing a lawbreaker, the police sometimes fail to catch him and then swoop on pedestrians and general public. The low-ranking policemen in our country have little knowledge of their responsibilities. That's why sometimes they are found to be unprofessional. Moreover, we don't have adequate number of senior police officers who have professional knowledge and who can control their subordinates. That's why we see frequent incidents of enforcement of power that goes against ethics. We see such incidents particularly in the police action on big gatherings. But there are some exceptions. In many cases, efficient senior police officers are able to control the situation applying psychological method. They sometimes tame hundreds of agitating people by arresting their leaders or threatening to arrest the leaders. They create psychological pressure on the leaders so that they control their men. The psychological method has proved more effective in many cases.

On the other hand, indiscriminate enforcement of power sometimes helps escalate violence. Enforcement of police power obviously leads to injury to people or damage to their property. This makes the people enraged and sentimental and the leaders in most cases take advantage of this sentiment. They provoke the general public to resort to violence. Therefore, efficient police officers always try to avoid enforcement of power. They adopt other methods like negotiations to calm down the people. But this method works only in the case of the crisis arising from social problems. In political violence, it is proved ineffective because its objective and actions are deep-rooted. Political violence is often pre-planned. The objective of each and every political party is to capture power. They have separate wings in all strata of the society and their programmes, actions and roles have certain targets.

The police work for the state and the government. Therefore all eyes are on the police force and its roles. If the government or the police force makes a mistake, it paves the way for the opposition parties. That's why the opposition creates such a situation that the police have to make mistakes while taking action. Certain political activists are instructed by their leaders to create such situation. The police can't control such situation through psychological method. Enforcement of power becomes unavoidable in these cases. Sometimes warning the mob about taking action and arrest of selected people prove helpful to contain such situation. Many people were seen leaving the scene after such warning and arrests. The real lawbreakers also get discouraged.

But taming political violence is really tough for the police. This is no doubt an unpleasant job for the police force.

In an independent and democratic country, the police have more accountability to the people. Only three decades ago, the police force was a weapon to suppress people. Now the police and the government officers are servants of the people. Therefore the role of the police has changed. But still the existing laws empower the police to go for action, which is non-existent in other countries. The police act under these laws but questions are often raised about police action that embarrasses the police. Human rights organisations, media and other watchdogs always monitor the activities of the police. That is why there is a need to amend the laws that regulate police. The police must be given modern training. The 300-year-old laws are now obsolete. The attitude, behaviour and action of the police must be logical to make the force people-friendly, otherwise the people will never consider them as their friends.

Md. Nazrul Islam is a social researcher.