The ‘Traffic Sentinel’ initiative by the
Goa Police has divided public opinion. While both sides, that is, those who
support and those who oppose the initiative, have their reasons, most miss the
forest for a few trees. Many do not seem to notice the larger issue at stake, which
is, public law and order, due process, and the efficient functioning of the
state. While there is no doubt that traffic violations need to be curbed, it
appears that the authorities have abdicated their role in the maintenance of
law and order. And yet, it should also be highlighted that the citizens cannot be
expected to fulfill the duty of the state and its agents.
The ‘Traffic Sentinel’ initiative has been
in operation since November 2017. According to news
reports, in 2018 alone, over 700,000 challans were issued for
various traffic violations. Initially, citizens who registered as sentinels
reported these violations through Whatsapp and social media. The premise of the
system is that these citizen-sentinels will accumulate points for reporting
violations, and, having accumulated a certain number of points, will be
rewarded with cash and prizes. In November 2018, the Goa Police launched a
mobile app and the launch of this app, together
with a hasty cabinet approval in January this year, created some
controversy. The controversy erupted because these citizens-sentinels have been
increasingly facing anger and even mob
violence for clicking pictures or recording videos of traffic
violations. While the police establishment was
extremely confident about this initiative despite the mob violence,
the government seems to be backtracking on its support for the initiative.
To cut to the chase, the ‘Traffic
Sentinel’ initiative is a bad idea. Not because the logistics are impossible to
work out, but it appears that there is no legal basis for the citizen-sentinel
to exist. Take, for instance, the fact that any person reported by such a
citizen-sentinel can challenge the charge in court. If so, the citizen-sentinel
needs to appear in court to testify. So, it seems that the citizen-sentinel is
just a witness, as in so many other situations where laws are violated.
Moreover, the ‘evidence’ of the alleged violation is not absolute as it can be
challenged in a court of law.
This arguably places the citizen-sentinel
in a legally ambiguous space since the citizen-sentinel is not only reporting a
violation but in that specific situation is also – in a way – ‘enforcing’ it.
The person who reports the violation ends up in a confrontation with the alleged
violator of the traffic law. What one observed in the mob violence in Vasco,
for instance, was precisely the legal gray areas of the initiative, creating
chaos. The citizen-sentinel is not protected by any special law as a ‘Traffic
Sentinel’, and neither are the already understaffed police able to guarantee a citizen-sentinel’s safety as seen in Vasco.
While the issue of the police being
understaffed is serious and may have led
to the formulation of such an initiative of citizen
partnership, a bigger issue that needs to be tackled is the police’s loss of
authority in enforcing some of the simplest and most important laws in our
society. This is not to say that authority needs to be enforced through
violence, as often happens through police brutality, or by imposing hefty
fines. Rather, the police establishment needs to inform the people of Goa how
they will enforce just authority without harassing or abusing the citizens of
Goa. The widespread prevalence of police
corruption through bribes when it comes to traffic law enforcement only adds to
the deficit of trust. The fact is that a police officer
does not inspire trust, be it in the case of enforcing just authority or
upholding the rule of law.
It takes two to tango, as they say. Just
as the state needs to enforce laws in an unbiased manner, the citizens too need
to obey laws to promote a healthy society. One could argue that the reason so
many citizens registered for the ‘Traffic Sentinel’ initiative was because they
wanted to bring change. However, in the context of traffic violations, it seems
that the inability of the state in enforcing these laws is only matched by the
disregard that citizens have for some of the simplest and basic laws. For
instance, traffic laws ensure an orderly flow of vehicles and pedestrians and minimize the risk of life and
limb. It appears that people in Goa are more concerned about the small fines
than their lives (and the lives of their loved ones and fellow citizens). For
what else can explain the utter disregard for basic norms of safety and, not to
mention, the prevalence of rash
and negligent driving, when so many lose their lives in traffic
accidents every day? To an extent, even those who are ‘Traffic Sentinels’ are
part of a culture that does not privilege the safety of all.
In other words, the issues before us are
the role of the police as a law-enforcing authority
and the role of the citizens as a law-abiding entity. While both have an
important part to play, it is important to recognize that the state and the
citizens need to promote due process and the rule of law in the long term. The
‘Traffic Sentinel’ initiative appears to be a shortcut – the police fine
violators to show the numbers on paper, while in reality everyone does as they please. The solution lies not in
allowing people to take the law in their own hands but in following due process
and the rule of law. Responsible behavior by citizens and the efficient, accountable
functioning of state bodies can make a difference.
(First published in O Heraldo, dt: 6 February, 2019)
