By Amod Gurung

The role of a police officer, unlike many other occupations, is inherently complex. A police officer serves as both a friend and a protector, ensuring public safety and maintaining order. People call the police in times of trouble, whether for a personal emergency or a noise complaint against their neighbors. However, the police are also perceived as enforcers of the law, with the authority to restrict personal freedoms, issue fines for reckless driving, conduct investigations, and interrogate individuals suspected of illegal activities. In Nepal, parents often discipline their children by warning them, “Behave, or I will call the police.” This highlights the dual role of the police—as custodians of public morals and watchdogs of the government. This duality underscores the complexity of policing, as no single theoretical framework fully encapsulates its role.

In the evolving landscape of national governance and political transitions, a deeper understanding of the police’s role is crucial for assessing societal progress and strengthening democratic ideals. International evidence underscores the importance of democratic policing, particularly in countries striving to establish fully democratic systems and align with global governance standards.

Defining the Purpose of Policing

There is an urgent need to articulate the fundamental philosophy of policing—both in principle and in practice. This should be established as a unified corporate objective, recognising that policing is the most visible manifestation of the state. The police must respond to and reflect the aspirations of the society they serve. In this context, the introduction of long-awaited legislation to support police reform is commendable, aligning with the broader goal of state restructuring. However, professionalism, technical proficiency, and integrity alone do not guarantee legitimacy. Without meaningful engagement with local and national communities, police forces risk alienating the very people they are meant to serve.

Not long ago, a single sergeant and a small team stationed at a local chowki (police post) effectively maintained law and order, prevented crime, and ensured public tranquility. Community members regularly engaged with the police, reporting concerns and collaborating on safety initiatives—practices akin to indigenous community policing. The Nepal Police has always been steadfast in safeguarding state priorities and ensuring public safety. Officers underwent rigorous training and assumed multiple responsibilities to build professional and leadership competencies, unlike the more recent trend of seeking political patronage to advance within the organizational hierarchy.

The Nepal Police is also the state institution that has lost the most service personnel in the line of duty—an unfortunate but often overlooked reality. Despite a significant increase in police personnel and resources today, public trust in the police is at an all-time low. This decline is largely due to concerns over responsiveness, impartiality, and the potential misuse of power. Public confidence in law enforcement is directly tied to the belief that officers will act swiftly, fairly, and without discrimination. However, today, these beliefs are in crisis, as the police ethos of truth, service, and security has become little more than a slogan.

The present irony lies in expecting the police—operating under an antiquated policing doctrine, outdated legal frameworks, archaic administrative and management practices, substandard service and welfare provisions, and obsolete resources and tools—to be human rights-compliant, gender-sensitive, and ethically and morally grounded service providers.

Key Issues for Consideration in Police Reform

To ensure that future policing is effective, responsive, and accountable—hallmarks of democratic policing that integrate security with national development policy—the following key issues must be objectively examined:

1. Functional Autonomy

The functions of law enforcement should be clearly defined by law and policy, subject to public scrutiny, and free from political interference. In many democratic countries, there is a clear distinction between government oversight and police leadership. While the government is responsible for policy formulation, review, and oversight, police leadership must retain autonomy over operational management.

There is no doubt that the police operate under democratically elected civilian authority and in accordance with domestic and international legal frameworks. However, internal control mechanisms, supervision, and external oversight should ensure that both individuals and institutions are held accountable within a system of democratic civilian control.

Modern policing structures allow senior officers to make operational decisions independently within the framework of the law. These decisions remain subject to review by legislative, executive, and judicial bodies. While political authorities have the right to examine the procedural correctness of police actions, they must not interfere in day-to-day operations. It is the responsibility of the Home Ministry to set priorities for policing and community safety, ensure financial and other support for the police, and hold the Chief of Police accountable for delivering a professional, efficient, and effective service. Provisions that impose excessive expectations of compliance, as outlined in the proposed draft bill, could hinder professionals from exercising independent judgment based on expertise and knowledge, ultimately undermining the professionalism of the role.

In India, dual command provisions exist but with clear legal limitations, ensuring that civilian oversight focuses exclusively on maintaining law and order while preventing the unilateral misuse of police powers. The notion of civilian supremacy within the police service is misguided, as it overlooks the fundamental reality that the police itself is a civilian institution operating under civilian state authority.

Nepal must learn from India’s experience, where civilian authorities with limited operational experience and an overload of administrative responsibilities struggle to exercise leadership over police officers who undergo rigorous job-specific training and extensive practical experience. Effective and responsive policing is only possible when officers are empowered to use their discretion and make prompt decisions on public safety and security. Layers of command—especially if they come from two entirely different cultural entities—complicate this process and lead to operational inefficiency.

There are numerous examples of police forces becoming ineffective due to external interference, political influence, and the misuse of power. This, in turn, fosters a cycle of lawlessness and erodes governmental legitimacy. A notable example is Sierra Leone, where the police were politically manipulated by incumbent rulers, ultimately contributing to the government's loss of credibility and subsequent downfall.

2. Clear Roles and Responsibilities

Crime prevention and investigation are universally recognised as core police functions. Today, crime has become increasingly global and organised, requiring structured, well-trained, and coordinated approaches to prevention, containment, and eradication.

The Nepal Police has historically led crime investigations, establishing specialised units for this primary mandate. Delegating these functions to other institutions, even partially, risks duplication and ambiguity. Moreover, it imposes an economic burden by necessitating additional personnel, infrastructure, and operational costs.

The Armed Police Force (APF) was created for a specific purpose. While its initial raison d’être no longer exists, it must redefine its role within the evolving security landscape. However, this should not come at the expense of duplicating the functions of existing specialised police units or creating an alternate setup within the existing law enforcement domain.

The current bill proposing APF authority over cross-border crime investigations and other traditional police functions risks institutional confusion and unhealthy practices, as political entities may manipulate either institution to serve their interests.

3. Service Conditions and Officers’ Rights

It is a universal principle that security sector institutions—including the Army, Police, and APF—must be considered part of a unified standard entity. Despite differences in their roles and responsibilities, their fundamental structures, command frameworks, and exposure to risks are similar. Therefore, service conditions, career prospects, and retirement provisions must be uniform across all three security institutions.

Police personnel must be allowed to exercise all constitutionally guaranteed rights as citizens. While carrying out their functions, officers act as state representatives and bear responsibilities beyond those of private individuals. Given their critical role, the state has a primary responsibility to ensure that police officers operate under conditions that respect their human rights.

Conclusion

A police force designed to suppress the people cannot be expected to serve the needs of a welfare state. Public trust in the police can only be restored through functional autonomy, professional integrity, and community engagement.

The future of policing in Nepal must be informed by historical lessons, cultural and religious principles, and contextual realities. Foreign policing models may not always be compatible with Nepal’s unique governance structure.  The goal should be to consolidate the rule of law through human rights-compliant, gender-sensitive, and community-centred policing.

The writer is a former senior Nepal Police officer and is currently associated with the Center for Security and Justice Studies.