When the ‘Steel Frame’ chokes: Officials at Hathras failed to act objectively, professionally and in a bona fide manner

The unprofessional, unethical and almost mala fide conduct of the district magistrate and superintendent of police is writ large in the recent, grave administrative mishandling in Hathras. Having served in the Indian Administrative Service in Uttar Pradesh, I write this with some amount of knowledge and experience as well as a great deal of shame and frustration. By their deliberate actions, these officers have crushed the life of a powerless family from the most marginalised section of society. A section they were duty bound to protect.

To the first batch of the IAS, on April 21, 1947, the architect of the ‘steel frame’, Sardar Patel, had said “It will be your bounden duty to treat the common man in India as your own.” Did the DM and SP, Hathras, pass this test? They failed miserably.

It is no one’s case that such incidents can be prevented at all times. This one though, perhaps could have been. Given the bereaved family’s vulnerability in the caste equation in the village, history of enmity and a police complaint, such an incident was perhaps waiting to happen. The DM and SP should have kept a close watch and taken necessary preventive action.

But even so, once it did happen, it was their duty to act professionally with sensitivity, honesty and integrity. As per medical advice, the victim should have been sent to Delhi for the best possible treatment; proper tests should have been conducted to establish the crime and the family should not have been kept away. None of this was ensured. What was done was too little, too late.

Covering up seems to have been the first instinct of the administration. The attempt backfired with a news reporter filming the scene of the rushed cremation. The images on television threw open a most shameful and inhuman cover up. Attired in full riot gear with hundreds of policemen deployed on the spot, the DM was seen to be taking his dereliction of duty and insensitivity to a new low.

If a threat to law and order was apprehended, the administration cannot be faulted for the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The visibly large force could have been deployed in and around the village along with magistrates to maintain calm. The cremation could then have been done in accordance with the family’s wishes.

Thereafter, instead of locking up the family, entry at the barricade could have been regulated through adequate deployment of police and magistrates. Use of force is always an option in case of breach of law and order, and we should be prepared for it. But it is certainly not the first option.

Also, while the affected family was denied their right to speak to the media and others who came to meet them, a panchayat with a large crowd making inflammatory statements was allowed to go on in favour of the accused. What happened to Section 144 or Covid laws then? As though this was not enough, the DM was seen and heard intimidating the affected family.

From the conduct of the two officers, it almost seems that they were batting for the accused who were from the upper caste, which is in a majority in the village. The sequence of events also seems to suggest an attempt at destruction of evidence, perhaps to save the perpetrators.

In such a situation, the affected family obviously cannot have any confidence in the administration ensuring their security. They are so totally outnumbered in the village by the upper castes that their very survival could be in danger. This is the reality of caste and communal equations on the ground in the state.

The officers not only failed in their duty towards the affected family, but also in acting objectively, professionally and in a bone fide manner when managing this incident. In a district, the buck stops with the DM and the SP. They cannot hide behind pressure from any quarter. Pressure has and will always exist to a greater or lesser degree. It is how we deal with it that shows our mettle as civil servants.

None of the chairs we occupy are worthy enough to let down those who look up to us for justice, fair play and support. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings need to be initiated forthwith against the DM and SP, leading to exemplary punishment so that it serves as a wake-up call for others in similar positions.

An inquiry must also be conducted to ascertain whether these officers need to be proceeded against in a criminal case. While the SP and other concerned police officers have been suspended, it is puzzling as to why the DM still retains his position. In any case, suspension or transfer is no punishment. It is merely a temporary step to douse the fire.

Public memory is short. We all know how fast ‘fast-track courts’ are. Soon the matter will be consigned to the piles of many pending cases unless the new (hopefully) administration takes it up and pursues it strongly. The same DM and SP will also be reinstated (unless punished) and it will be business as usual till the next such case (God forbid) comes along.