The straight and narrow

 

While Police academies and MBA classes have courses and lectures on how to be ethical or how to build an ethical organisation from scratch, not much emphasis is accorded to how to intervene in an unethical organisation. My thoughts on how to go about it crystallised over a long time. I feel, while individual situations vary, there are five essentials one should think of when suddenly parachuted into a situation of endemic and pervasive high-corruption.

First, define the transparency goals and see what level of corruption and indiscipline one could live with – sometimes, complete transparency or 100 % diligence to rules and regulations may not be feasible. As a DIG, I went to a lot of trouble to collect the transfer policies of organisations similar to mine, analysed and tried to improve upon them, prepared a draft policy for my organisation and got the same approved by the government. After this, I stuck to the policy to the letter. However, my DGP got increasingly annoyed at not having any discretion, not being able to oblige anyone and being helpless against a lot of pressures from different quarters. Finally, he changed my assignment and also revised the policy. My successor, a very good officer and senior to me, once advised, “Look, it’s important to be practical. If a transfer policy is implemented to even 70 %, that is a big achievement.”

 

Along with defining the ethical goals, it is important to keep the leadership on board and get them to have a buy-in. In my last assignment, I was face to face with rank indiscipline and corruption of one particular unit, WWCD. In the name of a ruling-party supported union, they had become a law unto themselves. I heard from my predecessors that whenever they’d tried to impose any discipline, the WWCD guys used to march up and down the corridors shouting slogans against the authorities in an aggressive manner. The Commandant used to quake when their union leaders threatened.

 

I compiled a list of their misdemeanours. A new location with modern buildings and facilities were constructed for them at a distance of 120 kms and government had ordered them to shift. However, in defiance, they’d refused to move, primarily because of the vested interest of some of the union office-bearers. I went to the Cabinet Minister, appraised him of the situation and told him that I was planning to shift them forcibly and I needed his support. He was hemming and hawing but I told him that it was not possible for me to work in such an environment and I was prepared to resign over the issue.

 

One day, in a coordinated operation, under heavy Police deployment, I organised the shifting process to start at 9 AM from the five locations of the wing, well before the personnel used to roll in casually at 11 AM. When they came and saw what was happening, they rushed to meet the Minister and other bigwigs of the ruling party but thanks to my prior efforts, they didn’t get to meet any of them. They tried to involve the press but didn’t get any purchase.

 

The second thing I learnt over time was that, rather than trying to attack corruption piecemeal, one should start with “frying a big fish.” In that WWCD unit, there was a constable rank person who was actually running the show because he was the head of the union. I mapped him in my mind as “The Don.” He used to decide who will get what duty, who will attend office and who will “work from home” [this was all way before Corona times], who will never be given any duty, who will get the contracts and so on. He himself was always on office duty and used to hold court after office hours to “decide” on everything for small and big considerations and distribute the day’s collections.

 

I decided to start with him. During the monsoon season, I put every single person on the field with water boats and rescue gear. The Commandant came to me in a panic and repeatedly asked whether the Don would also be sent on field duty and I asked why not. Then the Don walked in with his entourage and asked me how I’d put him on the field when none of my predecessors had dared to do so in the previous 26 years. He mobilised the entire wing to “boycott” the duties. In my research into his conduct, I’d found that he had kept a died-in-harness employee’s dues and benefits pending while processing applications of much later vintage. Based on this, I placed him under suspension and started the Departmental proceedings. I also threatened to start a Police case against him for criminal breach of trust. That broke the back of the revolt. When the office was moved, 123 empty liquor bottles were found in the room where he used to hold court.

 

The third important means of taking an unethical organisation towards an ethical culture is to incentivise ethical conduct and disincentivise unethical acts. Incentivisation in the Police context includes generous rewards, glowing testimonials, favourable appraisals, medals – even a pat on the back works wonders. Disincentives must be harsh for unethical acts. In Police, many unethical acts are punished through minor punishments like a “censure” or “warning.” The most stringent punishment is usually a suspension and a Departmental Enquiry which meanders on for years. These are not very effective nor immediate. When I was SP of a district, I learnt that the night patrolling was a major source of illegal income for the Thana personnel. Against a specific complaint, I went to the Police Station and got the concerned persons arrested. That served as a chilling effect throughout the district.

 

The fourth thing I’ve tried to do was encouraging whistleblowing. However, this is a delicate step. The whistleblower runs serious risk, not only of his life and limb but sometimes his family members’ too. While encouraging whistleblowing, one must make sure that the potential whistleblower is fully protected. His identity should be guarded.

 

Fifth and finally, sunlight is the best disinfectant. When I joined the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), I found that corruption was rampant. There had been several CBI cases against the personnel and even very senior officers. The main way of extortion was through delays. Many permissions and licenses needed to be obtained by airports, airlines, concessionaires and so on before they could operate in the aviation environment. A single day’s delay meant losses of crores of rupees for them. What I did was put everything on the website. All permission/ licensing processing were put up there right from the application stage through each of the stage of processing with details on where it was pending and why, with names and designations of the official concerned. It was now easy for any applicant to track his application on a real-time basis. It was also easy for me to continuously monitor. This put paid to the delays. Further, in the teeth of severe opposition from my staff and their contrary counsel, I put up my mobile phone no. on the BCAS website. Sure, there were a few crank calls but I received such quality information that the organisation and I could respond to developing situations promptly and robustly. I think, these two measures contributed immensely to India hitting the top spot in terms of civil aviation security across the world.

 

Unfortunately, some of these telephone calls still come, despite my having left BCAS and even retired from the service long back because the no. is somewhere on the net. I don’t mind. At least, I managed to keep some people on the straight and narrow.

The cop has dirty hands

 

What happens when the cop has dirty hands? 

What I’m talking about is not physical grime but situations of ethical dilemma. It’s very easy to tell people and to police trainees to “be good, do good,” “do the right thing, always,” “do the right thing, even when no one is looking,” and so on. Problem is, many times, the cop is faced with choices where whatever alternative is chosen, it has unethical implications but the cop has to choose one. These are called the Wrong-vs-Wrong choices. Whatever alternative is chosen leaves the cop’s hands dirty. That is why this set of problems are collectively called “the problem of the dirty hands.” 

Let’s take a hypothetical example, some variation of which is all too common in a cop’s life. 

There is information that a few devastating bombs have been planted in a crowded locality and, on suspicion, a hardened terrorist with a high probability of having committed the crime has been arrested. He is denying it and the bombs are likely to go off in short order. What does the cop do? 

What are his options? If he takes the terrorist at face value and the bombs go off, many innocents would die and he would have serious blood on his hands. On the other hand, he might try to extract information from the terrorist. He doesn’t have time for sustained enquiry hence some amount of what is euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation” may be required. That is serious violation of human rights of the person apprehended on suspicion. Since the accused is a hardened terrorist, the interrogation needs to be harsh and might just result in his death. Finally, there may not be any information elicited or he might be innocent of this particular crime, despite his antecedents. Thus, whatever option the cop chooses will be a grossly unethical option and he would come out of it with his hands dirty. This is a classic “dirty hands dilemma.” 

There is a third option which is that he might be so wracked with indecision and the ethical dilemma that he would up and quit. This would mean his abdicating the role he has signed up for and this is no option at all. 

So, what will the cop do? 

Most probably, what he would do is indulge in severe third degree, try to extract the exact location of the bombs and go and diffuse them. Will that be “A GOOD THING?” May be but, may be not. A large no. of lives may be saved. Or, may be not. The terrorist may confess. Or, he may not. He might die in the process. Assume that all the rest is yes and the terrorist confesses and doesn’t die. What next? 

The cop would be a hero. He’d be feted by the media, the populace; even the PM or CM might congratulate him. He’d feel pretty pumped up. Next time, there is a less dire situation but still a heinous crime like rape-cum-murder, he won’t think twice before indulging in severe third degree. Gradually, he’d earn a reputation as an encounter specialist or something so that violation of human rights and acting as judge-jury-executioner would be his default option even for petty thefts. He’d go further and further down that “slippery slope” until he’d lose his ability to distinguish between right and wrong. 

Look at what’d happen to the organisation. The cop who cracks the terrorist case becomes a hero. The other officers would emulate him. They may or may not be as successful but the entire ethos of the organisation would get vitiated. Policing would be associated with brutality and lawlessness. 

So, what’s the way out? Given that the cop would have to get his hands dirty whatever option he chooses, how does he avoid the “slippery slope?” There is actually a way out. 

First of all, he should examine whether he is actually faced with a “dirty hands” situation or there are other alternatives available to him. For example, he could arrange speedy evacuation of the area. Or, he could summon helicopters, etc. and arrange for water spraying the area which would diffuse the bombs. And, so on. 

If, even after careful examination and consideration of the circumstances, he comes to the conclusion that it is in fact a dirty hands situation, he should realise that it’s a once-off and he is perforce exploiting a “moral opportunism” because he just doesn’t have any other option and that this is not to be replicated. After having taken the decision and got his hands dirty, he must feel guilty, i.e., he must have the “moral residue” because an unethical thing is an unethical thing, regardless of the circumstances. If he doesn’t jump to defending his action, if he takes it as a once-off and if he feels guilty, there’s a good chance that he wouldn’t fall into the slippery slope, wouldn’t be taken in by all that adulation and would retain his moral bearings. 

Following are the questions to ask in a situation of dirty hands: 

1.     Are the conflicting reasons for action so compelling, so morally urgent? Or can priorities be set? Can some less urgent acts be undertaken at a later time, while other more urgent acts are engaged?

2.     Is the good to be achieved by wrongdoing sufficiently clear not just to me but to others? Is the good outcome I have in view sufficiently certain to occur by the act of wrongdoing, or is the causal connection unclear and the outcome somewhat speculative?

3.     Is violation of moral principles really necessary? Have I thought with sufficient care and sufficient imagination about alternative courses of action?

4.     How great is the danger of the slippery slope? Will my act serve as a precedent, whether I like it or not, for the less good and perhaps even malevolent act of others?

5.     Will my action undermine the conditions of accountability?

6.     Did I get into this situation because I failed to anticipate it properly? Would dirty hands serve, primarily, to save me from my own blunders?

7.     Is my judgement of the above considerations self – serving, tainted by self – interest?

8.     Am I prepared to take responsibility for consequences, even unintended ones? 

Not easy, but then, navigating ethical dilemmas is never easy. Nor is a cop’s life. 

[Earlier published in “Saviours” on February 24, 2026: 

https://savioursmagazine.in/the-cop-has-dirty-hands/]