Community Policing in Nepal

 Community Policing in Nepal

Dr. Govind Prasad Thapa,
Additional Inspector General of Police (Retired)

 

Background: Defining community policing

The Nepal Police are responsible for the prevention and control of crime and the maintenance of law and order in the country.  The police have adopted both--reactive and proactive--approaches to dispense its duties. Community Policing (CP) is considered a proactive approach of policing. Friedmann defines it as, "a policy and a strategy aimed at achieving more effective and efficient crime control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life, improved police services and police legitimacy, through a proactive reliance on community resources that seeks to change crime-causing conditions. This assumes a need for greater accountability of police, greater public share in decision making, and greater concern for civil rights and liberties."(Friedmann, 1992:4).[1]

Australian Police Commissioners have emphasized the importance of policing in and through communities and have publicly committed themselves to "actively involving the community in preventing and reducing crime" (Fleming & O’Reilly 2007: 214).[2] Diamond and Weiss define it as, "In general terms, community policing is not a program; it is not a set of activities; it is not a personnel designation.  Rather, community policing is a law enforcement philosophy, a way of thinking about improving public safety.  While there is a lack of standardization regarding specific terminology and strategies of community policing across cities, community policing efforts can generally be grouped into three broad categories: organizational transformation, community partnership, and problem solving."[3]

 About the development of community policing in the US, Sarah Lawrence and Bobby McCarthy write, "Under this model, local police departments were organized around strict hierarchical lines, utilized standardized operational protocols, and emphasized responding to serious crimes when they occurred.  As social disorder and crime rates began to rise during the second half of the century, law enforcement and other municipal leaders began to re-examine the role of police departments in public safety management and craft reform efforts that sought to reduce crime through improved relationships and direct partnerships between citizens and police.[4] These efforts eventually coalesced around a new philosophy of law enforcement known as “community policing,” which stressed more direct officer involvement with local citizens, was organized around less rigid hierarchies and protocols, and attempted to address the root causes of neighborhood crime with the assistance of the larger community.[5]

 Nepal has the legacy of regimental policing. The reformation of the present police, which took place in 1951-52, was the result of the amalgamation of militias, the Rakshya Dal, Janamukti Sena, who took up arms against the hundred and four years of tyrannous Rana regime. Many freedom fighters, amongst them, Gyan Bahadur Yakthumba, Pahal Singh Lama, Rom Bahadur Thapa, and Dil Bahadur Lama had joined the police. Gyan Bahadur  Yakthumba joined the police with the rank of Major, who, later on, was promoted to the rank of Inspector General of Nepal Police. Many others also occupied key positions in the police in the subsequent years. For that reason, the very foundation of the police was based upon the revolutionary and military mindset and culture. The duty of the police of that time was to support the political regime or the particular government. The services to the people were of the least priority. The police basically misinterpreted their mission and "ruled" the people. 

History of the Japanese Police Box System

It was during Oct. 27—Nov 13, 1996, that I had had the opportunity to join a large team of police officers from the Asia Pacific region to participate in a training seminar on the Koban System of Japan and Its Adaptation as Neighborhood Police Posts in Singapore, which was held in Singapore and Japan. The visiting team of police officers was highly impressed by the police box or "Coban" and “Chuzaisho” (residential police boxes), the system of policing in Japan.

From the 17th to 19th century, Japan was ruled by a succession of shoguns, a time called the Edo period. The rule of the shoguns came to an end between 1867 and 1968 in what is known as the Meiji Restoration, and Japan began its march towards a modern nation-state. As part of this process, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department was established in 1874 to protect public order in Tokyo, the capital. In that year, “Kobansho” (designated places where policemen engaged in standing watch duties in shifts) were set up at major intersections and other important locations in Tokyo. Boxes were built at some Kobansho locations later on. In 1881, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department decided to provide all Kobansho with boxes, and their name was changed to “Hashutsujo” (police box). This effectively marked the beginning of today’s police box system. Subsequently, the police box system spread to other prefectures. At that time, 330 police boxes were established, manned by 2,042 officers.

In 1886, when the Local Civil Service System was decreed through an imperial order, a “one police station for one county or city” system was established. In 1888, the Ministry of the Interior issued an administrative ordinance to all prefectures, except Tokyo, demanding to set up “Chuzaisho” (residential police boxes), in every town and village in principle.

Advancement of community policing in Nepal

 The Chhimeki Prahari system of policing was first established in early 1982 during the time of IGP Dil Bahadur Lama. This system was an adaptation of Japan's Coban Police and Singapore’s Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP). Several police booths were established in the Kathmandu valley. The mandates for this Chhimeki Prahari were to patrol the areas and collect public grievances, demands, and propositions of all kinds. I remember myself going around the city corner—house-to-house—asking and taking records of local people’s needs and complaints as part of the public consultations. These demands and complaints were wide-ranging in nature—from family matters to road, drinking water, telephone, street lights, sewerage, theft cases, gangsters, drugs, etc. These records were then reported back to the police headquarters. Understandably, only very few complaints were attempted to address. The rest of the complaints were forgotten and never addressed. So, both--people and police--lost interest in this type of policing. Nepal Police failed to effectively collaborate with local people, governmental, and non-governmental organizations. Therefore, it did not last for a long time.

Once again, after the people's democratic revolution, on 14 January 1994, a community police centre was established in Maharajgunj of Kathmandu as an NGO with the cooperation of the local community. Similar types of police centres were also established in Chabahil and Baneswor of Kathmandu district as pilot projects. As of now, there are more than one hundred such community centres established in Nepal. These centres have different names: Community Service Forums; Community Service Society; Community Development Centre; Public Service Centre; Community Police Service Centre; Community Police Service Forums; Community Service Committee; Multipurpose Community Service Centres; Community Development Cooperative Forum, etc. Almost all of these centres engage in several activities in addition to policing crime.

Through these centres, the police are able to participate in local development, women's literacy, community health, child care, environmental preservation, health services, youth activities, and many other social service programmes. This makes Nepal's community police system quite different from that of Singapore’s Neighbourhood Police Post, Japan’s Coban system, and other countries. This community policing approach has, however, not been accepted as a credible style of policing by all police officers themselves. There are doubts amongst many police officers about the practicability of this approach. This is largely because they have failed to realize that it is possible to be a friend while simultaneously doing an effective police job.

The involvement of police in community partnership-based policing is a powerful mode in projecting a positive image. For this purpose, the police officers involved should be equipped with the appropriate skills and also take into account effective problem-solving strategies. The Nepalese community members have experienced that the police who work with communities are generally found to be more sensitive, reasonable, polite, cooperative, friendly, and helpful than others. They feel that those police officers who are responsible for community policing affairs would make a greater impression if they were based within that community. With the views to encourage these community police officers, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID) Police Development Project has helped Nepal Police to develop an evaluation system and award ‘Community Police Person’ of the year since 2004.

 During the armed conflict, the Maoists were very suspicious of the involvement of the community members with the community centres. As community police centres proved to be very popular, Maoists increasingly perceived them to be threats to their interests. It was suspected that these centres were being used by the police to gather information from local sources. Consequently, the Maoists began to threaten all those associated with community centres, policing and to attack the centres. The Tikhedewal Community Development Centre in Lalitpur, for example, was bombed, killing one Assistant Sub Inspector. They also attacked and killed one Sub Inspector in the Baudha Community Police Centre in Kathmandu. In spite of this, the majority of all local community police centres continued to function. Since the agreement for the ceasefire and the conclusive talks between the Maoists and the government, these repressive attacks have stopped. Local communities are therefore again allowed to freely join community police programs throughout the country.

 Need for reforms 

In Nepal, the establishment of community service centres usually starts with the identification of a community’s security needs. This is done through consultation with members of the community. At this stage, the community members list down all their needs, including those other than security. The police and community members then reach an agreement on a business agenda and a workable modality. Police also work in collaboration with multiple organizations already in place for specific problem-solving purposes. Successful community policing needs an organizational strategy that ensures everyone translates this philosophy into practice. It requires major changes to be incorporated into the policing system, particularly in regard to allowing front-line officers to be provided with greater autonomy, access to resources (which should be mobilized at the point of service), and an ability to focus on local problems. It also requires that the local problems identified are insightful to all groups in society, especially those people who are particularly disadvantaged or vulnerable. The need for public service-oriented police services is at least reflected in one of the Police Mirrors, an annual magazine of the Nepal Police. It reads: 

 It has been our professional belief that the police service may not be considered a police service in a real sense in the absence of a proper response to the grievances and problems of the sovereign Nepali people, prompt necessary action, adequate counselling, and direction. In light of this truth, it has been highly essential for us to establish ourselves as a public service-oriented, capable, and efficient police in all respects through our conduct and to follow the working style of democratic police in the existing democratic system in the country.[6]

 The above message speaks a lot about the police strategic reforms. In the past, the actions of the police have been exploited more for the protection of the government than to serve the interests of the people. However, the time has changed now. Today, people demand more accountable police; hence, more stress on this philosophy of policing. The concept and the practice of community policing are the result of combined efforts by both communities and the police. However, the State, as of yet, has not recognized Community-Based Policing (CBP) as an effective method of enforcing law and order. As a consequence, this method has not been incorporated in the national plan or in police laws. This shows a lack of long-term vision and a failure to create a uniform national strategic operational plan, management policy, direction, and coordination mechanism for present and future community policing practices.

 These failures are closely tied to the attitudes and interests of high-ranking police officers from central-level offices towards CBP. A Study Committee of Nepal police (1997) in a review of community policing programmes documented that the CBP could not be very successful for several reasons: First, there is a lack of interest and confidence among high ranking police officers; Second, there are no policy guidelines and clear cut mandates; Third, there are no operation plans; Fourth, the police do not possess the required level of knowledge and skills to run CBP schemes; Fifth, these programs lack resources, both, human and material; Sixth, there is a lack of accountability on the part of police to the community. Seventh, there are no follow-up programs to review, evaluate, and redesign the CBP schemes in the country. 

 Conclusion 

Community-Based Policing (CBP) is both a philosophy and a strategy that allows the police and community to work closely together in new ways to solve problems of crime, fear of crime, physical and social disorder, and other neighbourhood problems. CBP aims to empower communities to solve their own security problems. This scheme breaks the tradition of top-down approaches to management and promotes a bottom-up approach. CBP relies more on the devotion, motivation, commitment, skill, knowledge, and professionalism of the police officer at the field level rather than the rank and file of the department. Despite the numerous benefits of CBP schemes, it is not being fully utilized in Nepal. The reasons behind this include the continued prominence of more traditional attitudes towards policing. With the passage of time, we must review the existing methods of policing and redesign a more people-friendly policing system in Nepal.

 Reference:

 Friedmann, Robert R. 1992. Community Policing: Comparative Perspectives and Prospects. New York: St. Martin’s Press

Fleming & O'Reilly, 'In search of process: Community Policing in Australia', 2007,  in Tom Williamson (edit), The handbook of knowledge-based policing: Current conceptions and future directions, 2008, published by John Wiley and Sons, 2008

Diamond & Weiss (2009). Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document. US Department of Justice.

Sarah Lawrence and Bobby McCarthy, "What works in community policing?", The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at the UC Berkeley School of Law, Nov 2013.

Dr. Stefen James Males, Amar Singh Shah, Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, 1998: Community Policing in Nepal, DFID Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

Police Mirror, Vol  X, pp. 21-24, 1997, Nepal Police Headquarters, Kathmandu

Diamond & Weiss (2009). Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document. US Department of Justice

Hesta Groenewald and Gordon Peake, 2004: "Police Reform through Community-Based Policing", International Peace Academy, New York

Wesley G. Skogan, 2005: "Community Policing" (Working Paper 30), in: Prospects and Problems in an Era of Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by David Weisburd and Anthony A. Braga, Cambridge University Press, 2005

[6] Police Mirror, Vol  X, pp. 21-24, 1997, Nepal Police Headquarters, Kathmandu