Protector of the People

The inner security of a country is first reflected in its police. The army protects the borders and defends the country against external threats. But the city, the street, the market, the neighborhood, the home, the shop, the life, property and dignity of the ordinary citizen fall within the responsibility of the police. A citizen’s first practical contact with the state is often through the police. If the police function properly, the citizen feels closer to the state. If the police fail, the state itself begins to look like fear, pressure and helplessness.

The problem of the police in Pakistan is not only a problem of uniform. It is a problem of trust. The ordinary citizen does not always feel safe when he sees the police. He often becomes cautious, nervous, changes his way or avoids speaking. For any state, this is a dangerous sign. If the institution that is supposed to protect the people becomes a reason for fear, then the problem is very deep. The job of the police is not to stop citizens and humiliate them. The job of the police is to protect citizens. It is not to frighten the weak, but to support them. It is not to clear the way for the powerful, but to clear the way for the law.

The words commonly used for the police in Pakistan are themselves a sign of this disease. If people do not mention the police with respect, if they connect the police with fear, bribery, bad behavior and harassment, then the police department and the government both need to think about it. In developed societies, the police are respected because they stand with the ordinary citizen. There, a citizen calls the police when he needs help. In Pakistan, many people first think whether calling the police will create trouble for them.

This situation must change. The police should no longer remain an institution that only stands on the road with a stick. The police must be a trained, dignified and educated institution that understands the law, knows how to speak to citizens, understands crime and works with evidence. The uniform of the police should not mean intimidation; it should mean responsibility. The citizen should not see a stick in the hand of the police officer; he should see protection in his behavior.

Today, in many places, a large part of the police appears to be serving rulers, politicians, influential people and protocol duties instead of protecting the public. The ordinary citizen stands on the road, suffers in traffic, goes from office to office and from police station to police station, while official convoys, guards, blocked roads and protocol are visible on the other side. This is a deviation from the real duty of the police. If the energy of the police is taken away from the ordinary citizen and used for the protection of the powerful, then where should the citizen go? If the protector of the state becomes the personal staff of the powerful, then only fear remains for the weak.

The first step in police reform is to separate the police from politics. As long as transfers, appointments, cases, arrests, investigations and actions depend on political phone calls, the police cannot become the police of the law. The police must remain far away from politics. Politicians may govern, set policy, provide budgets and make laws. But they cannot use the police for their personal interests, rivalries, protocol or pressure. Where the police enter deeply into politics, the law becomes weak.

The relationship between politics and the police should only be institutional. An elected government may provide policy, create laws, provide resources and build a transparent system of oversight. But it should not be possible for a local powerful person, a minister, a member of parliament, a party official or any influential person to call the police and decide whom to arrest, whom to release, whom to pressure and whom to protect. Such a police force does not remain the protector of the people; it becomes a tool of the powerful.

After this, the standard of recruitment must be changed. The path into the police must be closed to those who enter through weak education, recommendation or bribery. If the state wants the police to speak to the ordinary citizen with law, respect and understanding, then the police officer himself must also be educated. Even a constable should have at least a bachelor-level education. This is not a luxurious demand; it is a basic necessity. The person who is supposed to enforce the law must understand language, law, reports, citizen rights, reasoning, evidence and human behavior.

A police officer must know clear Urdu. In Pakistan, at the national level, Urdu should be the basic working language of the police. A citizen may come from any province or any region. The police must be able to speak to him in a language that is understood nationally. Learning regional languages is also good and, in many cases, necessary. But the formal language of the police should be clear Urdu. Along with this, basic English should also be taught, so that reports, modern systems, international communication, technical material and digital work can be understood.

Police training should not be a matter of a few weeks or a few months. At least two full years of training are necessary. Before two years are completed, no police officer should be placed alone on the street. This training must include physical training, but physical training alone is not enough. The officer must be taught law, citizen rights, investigation, handling of evidence, report writing, speaking to witnesses, controlling anger, and dealing with women, children, elderly people, people with disabilities, poor people, laborers and vulnerable citizens.

A police officer must also be taught that authority does not mean bad manners. The uniform does not mean that he has the right to humiliate the citizen. If a police officer cannot control his language, tone and behavior while speaking to a citizen, then he is not worthy of that uniform. The first test of a police officer is not his gun or his stick; it is his behavior. A person who becomes a hunter when he sees the poor, who looks for opportunities to take money from the weak, who feels pleasure in frightening citizens instead of giving them respect, should not be in the police department.

The uniform itself must also have dignity. The police should not look disorganized, exhausted, angry, scattered or like a begging institution. The appearance of the police should show discipline, cleanliness, confidence, training and dignity. When the citizen sees the police, he should feel that this institution is there for his protection, not to empty his pocket. The appearance, the way of speaking, the way of standing, the way of writing a report — everything sends one message: Is this institution organized or broken?

But even if the police are changed, the work will not be complete. The police must be connected to a correct citizen registration system. NADRA or a registration office should not be limited to issuing identity cards. Identity alone is not enough. The state must also know where the citizen currently lives. If a person’s identity card belongs to one city but he has been living in another city for five years, working there, running a shop, studying or has changed his residence, then the old address is only half information for the police, courts, institutions and the citizen system.

Every citizen should be required to register his current address with the registration office when he changes residence, moves to another city, moves for a job, goes somewhere for college or university, opens a shop, rents a house, or lives permanently or semi-permanently at a new place. A reasonable time limit can be given for this, for example fourteen days. Fourteen days are enough time for the citizen, but it is also necessary for the state that current information should not remain outdated for years.

The purpose of such a system is not to harass the ordinary citizen, but to organize the citizen system. If the current address is correct, the police can work more quickly in cases of crime, accidents, missing persons, fraud, disputes, court notices or investigations. If the address is wrong, old or only exists on paper, then it becomes easier for the criminal to hide. A person commits a crime in one place, moves to another place, nobody is found at the old address, and the police put the file aside. Such a system gives the criminal a way out.

There must be a legal connection between the police and registration institutions. The police should not have open and uncontrolled access to every citizen’s data, but there must be a responsible, recorded and legal path. If the police need information in a case, there should be a case number, the reason should be written, approval from a responsible officer should exist, the request should be recorded, and the name of the officer who received the information should be saved. In this way, the police can obtain information, but misuse of data will not be easy.

NADRA, registration offices, police, courts, traffic systems, immigration authorities, municipal institutions, tenancy systems, business registration and local administration must be connected with each other in a legal and secure way. If institutions work like separate islands, the citizen system will remain weak. One institution has identity, another has the address, a third has the crime report, a fourth has vehicle information, a fifth has business records, but they do not speak to each other responsibly. The result is that the ordinary citizen carries files from door to door, while criminals benefit from the gaps in the system.

Caution is also necessary here. The citizen’s data is a trust in the hands of the state. The police should receive information, but within the law. No constable, clerk, station officer or official should be allowed to use citizen data for personal enmity, bribery, political pressure or blackmail. Every access must be recorded, every misuse must be punished, and every complaint must be investigated. In a good system, information is not power; it is responsibility.

Through such a system, it will become more difficult for criminals to hide. If the citizen’s current address is correct, if the police have a legal way to obtain information from institutions, if the public trusts the police, and if evidence is properly preserved, then investigation after a crime will become stronger. A citizen can provide a photo or video from a mobile phone, give a vehicle number, identify a location, mention the time or help identify a suspicious person. If the police are functioning properly, they will take that information seriously.

Public trust is the soul of this entire system. If the citizen does not believe that the police will listen to him, he will not provide information. If the citizen fears that the police will trap him instead, he will remain silent. If the citizen thinks that the criminal is powerful and the police will side with him, he will not give testimony. But if the citizen is confident that the police will protect his identity, listen to him with respect and not throw away his evidence, then the citizen himself will become a helper of the police.

The relationship between the police and the public should not be based on fear, but on trust. The police must make the citizen feel that giving information is not a danger, but a responsibility. Being a witness should not seem like a personal disaster, but like a part of protecting society. Providing a video should not mean getting oneself into trouble, but helping to stop crime. This trust does not come in one day. It is built through everyday behavior. How a police officer speaks on the road, how he receives a citizen at the police station, how he listens to a complaint, how he treats a poor person, how he speaks to a woman — all these things build trust or destroy it.

For this, a system of complaint and punishment is necessary. If a police officer takes a bribe, stops a citizen without reason, humiliates him, threatens him, creates a false case, acts on a political phone call or misuses data, then the citizen must have an easy way to complain. A complaint should not be only paper. There should be a complaint number, a time limit, an independent inquiry, a result and real punishment for the police officer if misconduct is proven. As long as the police protect the wrong people within their own ranks, the public will not trust them.

It is also clear that governments do not easily carry out such reforms. The reason is that a proper police force becomes a problem for powerful people. A police force that can be moved by a phone call is useful for the powerful. A police force that can be used for protocol is convenient for them. A police force that can be used to frighten opponents becomes a political weapon. But a police force that works according to the law, is trained, keeps records, is accountable and remains free from political pressure is no longer anyone’s personal servant. That is why many powerful people fear real reform.

But if Pakistan wants to become strong from within, the police must be changed. The police are not just one department. They are the most important link between the state and the citizen. If the police function properly, the citizen’s trust in the state will grow. If the police remain weak and corrupt, the citizen will seek a path not through the law, but through influence and connections. If the police function properly, it will become difficult for criminals to hide. If the police remain weak, the criminal will remain protected under the shadow of the powerful. If the police function properly, the poor person will be able to complain. If the police remain weak, the poor person will stay silent or break down.

Pakistan needs a police force that is free from politics, educated, trained for two years, speaks clear Urdu, deals with citizens respectfully, knows the law, uses data responsibly, has legal connections with registration institutions and is accountable for its mistakes. The police must become a protector, not a name of fear. As long as the police do not belong to the ordinary person, the law will also not belong to the ordinary person. And in a country where the ordinary person does not feel protected by the law, the claim of progress remains hollow.

Shahid Shakil

2026-07-08