The unfortunate pattern of conflict between the two groups follows a familiar cycle. A confrontation starts with an altercation between an individual policeman and a lawyer, then escalating as videos surface with claims of oppression from both sides. Soon, unions and associations get involved in strikes and demonstrations. Despite being a recurring issue for years, little seems to have been done to resolve or prevent these confrontations. Why does this pattern persist?
Understanding the Root Cause: Feudalism in Indian Society
Both police and lawyers accuse each other of behaving dictatorially. However, the root of these conflicts lies deeper—in the feudalistic nature of Indian society. Indian society is deeply influenced by a hierarchical mindset that is ingrained so thoroughly that it often goes unnoticed.
In India, respect and authority are hierarchically assigned not just within organizations but among professions as well. For instance, engineers—despite having specialized qualifications and decent pay—often do not enjoy the same societal respect as a police constable, who is seen as holding a “higher” position within society's invisible hierarchy. This mentality is evident in how people perceive blue-collar workers, often regarding them as lower in the social order, irrespective of their contributions.
However, in this rigid hierarchy, the position of lawyers is somewhat ambiguous. Lawyers are well-versed in the law and have privileged access to the courts, yet the general public seems to fear the police more than they respect the law profession. This fosters a sense of insecurity among lawyers subconsciously, who may feel that their authority should exceed that of the police. Conversely, the police, who often treat civilians with disdain, extend this dismissive attitude toward lawyers as well. Together, these attitudes create a recipe for conflicts. When political interests get involved, the situation becomes even more explosive.
Analyzing the Cyclic Conflict
With each lawyer-police confrontation, the pattern is predictable, but the outcome rarely brings any meaningful change. Lawyers, if genuinely concerned with the police’s mistreatment of civilians, have the option of seeking judicial remedies. Indeed, some individual lawyers actively challenge police actions in court and seek justice for the people. However, the general response from the legal community often takes the form of violent protests and strikes when one of their own is involved in a conflict with the police.
Such reactions not only disrupt the judicial system but also detract from efforts to achieve meaningful reform. This repetitive cycle of confrontations, strikes, and temporary escalations ultimately yields no lasting resolutions.
Personal Opinion
As a citizen and a professional, I find it difficult to support this recurring dispute between lawyers and police. While each profession plays a vital role in society, their clashes are unproductive and ultimately harmful. Unnecessary strikes delay court proceedings and exacerbate an already overburdened judicial backlog. These battles mirror childish “us vs. them” arguments that one might expect in a schoolyard, rather than in institutions responsible for upholding law and order.
Seventy-seven years into India’s existence as a republic, it is perhaps time to outgrow such divisive conflicts. Both lawyers and police need to recognize the futility of these confrontations and acknowledge their shared role in serving society. Hopefully, with time and maturity, India will rise above these petty feuds to focus on more constructive paths forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment