Muslim Cops For Muslims?

Until such time that Muslims will get arrested even before they are proved guilty, that there will be a huge number of undertrials, that after years their innocence will be proved after they are socially tarnished, at least those who need to be protected should be. But is it easy?

The Committee, which was constituted on March 9, 2005, under the chairmanship of Justice Rajinder Sachar to prepare had suggested that it would be useful to have at least one Muslim police inspector or sub-inspector in police stations in areas having high concentration of Muslim population “not as a matter to eliminate discrimination but as an initiative to build confidence”.

My Hindutva contact sent a one-liner:

“Simultaneously, no Muslims should be posted in low minority populace areas? And then we will have peace on earth?”

It is amusing. If we check the statistics, how many Muslim police personnel are recruited? Have there been cases of Muslim cops deliberately rounding up people from the majority community or non-Muslims for no reason other than ‘suspicion’?

There won’t be peace on earth by such demarcation. Ideally, there should not be any. But we do not live in ideal times. Whether it is jobs or housing, there is discrimination.

Therefore, I find the Sachar Committee’s use of the phrase “not as a matter to eliminate discrimination but as an initiative to build confidence” curious. If there is a skirmish between communities, why can the Muslim officer not intervene and call the bluff of such discrimination? Do poor Muslims – and they are the ones who usually end up in ghettos – need pillow talk by the cops to instil confidence that no Gabbar Singh is around?

In fact, to give the flip side, the cop being an employee of the state would be far too cautious about being correct, and maybe even agree to cop out for getting his quota of ‘hits’.

Besides, in slums local gangs run the show and demand protection money. As with other groups, there are some shanties with a concentration of Muslims. There are Muslim gangsters, too. Yes, many. Everyone knows that. They are protected by cops and politicians irrespective of religion. However, if the Committee’s report is followed then the tussle would become mandatory. The Muslim cop will have to prove his allegiance with greater fervour and instead of protecting the common citizens, he will be pulled up for not capturing criminals, which other cops don’t anyway.

Invention is the mother of necessity, as the saying goes. And like many sayings, it just might end up being a truism.


  1. while I agree with the last paragraph, but the recommendation of justice sachar was based on experience, whenever there were communal riots it is the minorities esp the Muslims who suffers the most and in the hands of the police and not the common man. The police have taken part in the killing of the minorities during the riot , by having a inspector who happens to be muslim might not eradicate the killing of the muslims in the hand of police in large numbers but it might help the courts to prosecute the guilty officers with the aid of a Muslim police officers sounds bizarre yet very true. In Alabama after the civil rights movement, large concentration of BLACK police officers were recruited to fight racial crimes and killings and it got subsequently reduced by following similar suggestions - I believe justice sachar is right in his observations and should be implemented to arrest communal tensions and riots

  2. As I said, yes, there are unwarranted arrests. The solution is not one cop in a Muslim area. And I am not talking about any other aspect of the Sachar report. There are different dimensions to minorityism.

  3. FV,

    As has been the past experience, your vitiated, sekulaar-washed brain does not permit you to see the whole picture. It is Islam which encourages and even enforces discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims. The great Indian sekulaarism though forbids any discussion of the topic.

    Islamic sensitivity halaal, qafiron ki sensitivity haraam hai..?? :):)

  4. FV,

    I knew quite certainly that my (previous) comment would not be posted, though it had no abusive language, no personal attacks and no incitement to violence. It is exactly what happened. I guess the sekulaar wash is too strong for a brain to shake off!

  5. FV,

    Though belatedly, you have permitted my comment 1. So I retract my comment 2.

    This comment 3, being harmless should not deserve oblivion!

  6. F&F:

    You are like Aamir Khan's audience. Never heard of spam?

    Anyhow, since we are talking, "your vitiated, sekulaar-washed brain" would qualify as an attack on the brain. It is personal because it belongs to me, by default.

    Abusive language is inherent.

    Incitement to violence is the idea being propagated. And the use of TWO smileys where one would do.

    But then you have 3 comments posted, so I guess it is all harmless.

    PS: Am glad you are not a woman. You would imagine the worst if you did not bleed on time, even if nothing untoward had taken place :-)

  7. FV,

    QUOTE: "Abusive language is inherent."

    You have pointedly avoided making any distinction between the viewpoint and its expression. At the same time, you skip no opportunity to attack the so called right-wingers (and others on your hit list) for doing precisely the same thing.

    I consider these as double standards. Subjective ones, if you insist!
    QUOTE: "Incitement to violence is the idea being propagated."

    Wouldn't this argument itself qualify as incitement to violence in eyes of some, under its own warped logic? At the cost of repetition, I must ask: Shouldn't there be a distinction between an idea and its expression?

    Of course, it would be futile to pose such questions to biased minds!
    The sardonic humour at P.S. was good. It could not divert attention from the inherent (your word) contradictions in your argument, though.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.