Our MRCM party demands and proposes following administrative changes in police, and insists and promises that changes should come only via citizens after enacting the Third MRCM Govt Order.
1. Enact procedure by which we commons can replace District Police Chief
2. Using wealth tax over land, double the number of policemen
3. Increase salaries of policemen by 100%
4. Jury System over Policemen : Empowering citizens to expel/fine a policeman.
5. Computerization all crime records and all police stations
6. Disclosure of Wealth of All Govt Employees and their close relatives
7. National-ID system
2. Replacement of District Police Chief
The procedure I have suggested to replace District Education Officer uses open voting and so I don’t support that procedure for DPC (District Police Chief), who has several arrest powers. To replace District Police Chief, I suggest following procedure of co-election which is as follows
1. The CM shall appoint District Police Chief for a term of 4 years as today
2. Whenever there is an election in the district, be election of MP or MLA or Panchayat members or PM or CM or District Mayor, any person who has served as class-I officer in Govt (not PSUs) or served as a soldier in Military or any position in police above PSI for 5 years or any person who was selected in even once UPSC or State PSC written exam in past, wants to become District Police Chief, he can put himself as candidate for deposit same as MP
3. If any candidate gets vote of over 50% of all voters, not just who voted, then that candidate shall become new District Police Chief till he is replaced in any co-election or 4 years, which ever earlier
4. If within next 4 years, he does not get votes of 50% of citizens in any co-election, the CM may remove him.
5. An appointed person shall be eligible to serve only in one district. But if elected, one person can become District Police Chief of up to 10 districts in a state and up to 50 districts in India.
6. With approval of over 50% of all citizen-voters in the State, the CM can suspend the DPC for 4 years and appoint a person of his choice as DPC
7. With approval of over 50% of all citizen-voters in India, the PM can suspend all the DPCs in a state for 4 years and appoint persons of his choice as DPCs in that state.
The existing DPC need not contest. And those who support him are not bothered as replacement occurs only when majority of ALL (all, not just those who voted) votes in favor of a new person. The clauses (5) an (6) are similar to Art-356 of Constitution. They should be used if an when citizenry of a state starts killing and looting other citizens of India based on religion etc. (e.g. Jammu Kashmir)
3. Coroner’s Inquest (or Coroner’s Court or Coroner’s Jury)
Why is police of West much less corrupt and atrocious than that in India? Well, lets ask this question differently. Since when did corruption and atrocities in Western police start decreasing?
In around 800 AD, the citizens of UK were able to force King to conduct Inquest (i.e. Inquiry) every time a policemen was involved in death of a common or a major crime. In case of death, the Inquiry was compulsory and in case of other allegations, like beating or bribery, it was optional. The inquiry was conducted by King’s officer who almost always had nexuses, relation with local police chief and other policemen, and so inquiries used to be farce. The situation is similar to today. Almost always, when there is a death in police custody, an inquiry is conducted by Magistrate or higher raking authority such as District judge or sometimes commission of retired HCj. But the in-charge of these inquiries often have nexuses with IPS and so nothing serious happens. The inquest was called Coroner’s Inquest, the word Coroner meaning Crown i.e. the King.
The true activists of UK around 1000 AD realized that if the inquiry is headed by officer appointed by the King, such inquiry is nothing but farce. So the activists forced the King to make a change — the inquiry was not headed by King’s officer any longer but by 6 to 12 citizens chosen at random from the district’s adult population. The Jurors would give one of the three verdicts on the accused policemen’s actions — justifiable, excusable or criminal. If the Jurors vote his action as criminal, he is almost always expelled and subsequent trial decides prison sentence. The sentence is decided by a next formal Jury Trial. In the inquest, the Jurors are allowed to ask questions and any citizen is allowed to speak, even if he is not a direct witness. IOW, the Coroner’s Inquest by 1000 AD in UK was no longer an Inquiry by Crown, but it was Inquiry by the Citizens. This Citizen’s Inquiry was the turning point in behavior of policemen,
Now it was no longer possible for policemen to have nexuses with those in-charge of inquiry or their relatives, and these in-charge were 12 citizens chosen at random from a population of 1000s or lakhs. So policemen before committing any atrocity would think ten times and the citizens in-charge were not likely to show much mercy borne out of nexuses.
What do intellectuals of India say about this procedure of “Inquiry by Citizens”? Well, The intellectuals of India have openly refused to even inform their students about this procedure !! Lest they would demand for this procedure. The intellectuals oppose “Citizens’ Inquiry” as this would reduce elitemen’s hold over policemen, and so policemen would commit less atrocities on commons if and when elitemen need. So the intellectuals, who are all agents of elitemen, opposed this Citizens’ Inquiry procedure. After all, information about choices can create a demand for choices. And instead they have filled poison in the minds of students that Indian citizen is a crook, irrational, nutcase, foolish, casteist, communalist, uncivilized, cruel etc and so must not have any such powers. So even in case a student learns about this procedure, he will most likely reject it due the anti-citizen poison intellectuals have filled in their brains by the intellectuals.
Sadly, due to the intellectuals disinformation and brain-washing, the non-80G-activists did not demand any procedure like Citizens’ Inquiry and so police atrocities are rock high in India. And corruption is proportional to atrocities i.e. more the demand for money, more the atrocities policemen commit, and the main reason they have to beat up people is to extort bribes. The West using Citizens’ Inquiry procedure zeroed atrocities and so corruption also reduced. (see here.
And please also click here .
We at MRCM demand and support a procedure similar to above, which we shall refer as “Jury Trial over Policemen”.
4. Description of Jury System over Policemen
1. For each District, the District Police Chief will form a Grand Jury consisting of 25 citizen voters above 25 years. The members will be randomly chosen from voter list and will server for 2 weeks.
2. If any citizen has complaint against a policeman, he can file the complaint before the Grand Jurors. The Grand Jurors may or may not call him for the explanation, The Grand Jurors may or may not the accused policeman for explanation.
3. If over 13 Grand Jurors say that the policeman is prima facie guilty, then The District Collector will summon 15 citizens from District, who will hear both sides for at least 7 days
4. After 7 days, if over 8 out of 15 citizens decide that the accused policeman should be expelled, the District Police Chief will give the case to Home Minister.
5. The Home Minister will summon 15 citizens from state other than that district. If over 8 citizens agree that the accused policeman should be expelled, the Home Secretary will expel him. Otherwise, Home Minister will transfer him to a randomly chosen District of that state, other then the District he has served before.
5. Drafts of the other proposed Govt Orders
The drafts will be put later on this website [TBD]
6. On Supreme Court’s recent order to improve Police Dept
The SCjs have categorically refused to let citizens decide the fate of District Police Chief and errant policemen. They have not supported procedures by which we commons can expel District Police Chief, nor have SCjs supported any procedure similar to Coroner’s Jury used by West. The SCjs want a police board consisting of intellectuals, retired judges, senior IPS officers etc. The common citizens are specifically excluded from the police board proposed by SCjs. In the Police Board proposed by SCjs, we commons have no procedure to expel/replace board members at all. So it is clear that these boar members will work like agents of elitemen and will beat us commons. Is that all what SCjs want? I see no point in asking such simple question.
Due to election, reservation and gradual increase in education, the number of OBC policemen and OBC MLAs/Ministers has been increasing. This increased the dominance of OBC elitemen. The only difference police board will make is that it would restore the dominance of upper caste elitemen. Other than that, the Police Board proposal makes no difference. The proposal of Police Board is far inferior than the two procedures we have proposed – replacement of District Chief and Citizens’ Inquiry.
7. Other party’s and intellectuals stand on improving Police
The leaders of other parties and all intellectuals are simply hostile to improve Police Dept. Every party’s leaders have refused to increase the number of policemen. They are openly hostile to procedure by which we commons can replace District Police Chief and insist that Police Chiefs must be imposed from top. They further insist on keep salaries of policemen low so they have to depend on bribery and thus they can be pressurized. The leaders of other parties have also refused to enact Jury System by which citizens can expel policemen. We request all citizens to ask their favorite party’s leaders on what they intend to do on issue of corruption in policemen and decide if they are worth voting for. And we also request activists to ask intellectuals on this issue, and decide if they are worth following.
Rahul Mehta (IIT DELHI, MS Computer Science (USA)0
President Right to recall group