Cultural roots Tucson, AZ.f police corruption in India

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13639519910285044
• Published date: 01 September 1999
• Date: 01 September 1999
• Pages: 264-279
• Author: Arvind Verma
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Public policy & environmental management

PIJPSM

22,3

264

Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies & Management,

Vol. 22 No. 3, 1999, pp. 264-279.

#MCB University Press, 1363-951X

Cultural roots of police

corruption in India

Arvind Verma

Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

Keywords India, Police, Corruption, Organizational behaviour

Abstract Corruption within the Indian police organization is not a new phenomenon and

folklore has always associated police with extortion and brutality. At present, corruption exists in

many forms and in every rank and has reached an alarming stage where some practices are not

even considered deviant. This paper argues that such pervasive corruption is an expression of the

organizational culture that has its roots in the British Raj. The paper, based upon an insider's

viewpoints, describe some unusual forms of corruption and suggest how these emanate from

organizational practices that have continued unchanged for more than a 100 years.

Corruption within the Indian police is well recognized and pervasive.

Corruption exists within every rank, from the constable to the chief of police

and in every police department of the country. Such pervasive corruption

flourishes because of an organizational culture that evolves in the system

through several kinds of practices, beliefs and value systems (Sherman, 1978).

The sub-culture of the Indian police was assiduously built by the British for the

purpose of establishing their Raj[1]. The police were meant to suppress any

dissent against the British rule, a situation that gave unlimited power to the

police officers. Consequently, corruption became endemic and rampant in the

police department. Unfortunately, after independence the system has not been

reformed and police culture and organizational practices remain unchanged.

During the British period, accountability of the rulers to the citizens was

naturally not a question since the country was under the colonial rule. Post-

independent India is democratic and the power to change the government lies

with the people. Nevertheless, the old system continues and the police are still

not accountable to the citizens (Baxi, 1980). There is little change in its

functioning and corruption has continued to grow and take new roots.

This paper argues that the extensive police corruption in India is embedded

in the culture and organizational norms that have encouraged and sustained

venal practices. As Crank (1998, p. 4) suggests ``...the behaviorof the police only

makes sense when viewed through the lens of culture'', the emphasis of this

paper is to present the cultural roots of corruption in Indian police. First, I will

describe the common forms of corruption both at the lower and senior levels of

the police department. Secondly, based upon my experiences, I will briefly

describe the organizational practices that encourage corruption and trace their

origin to the British period. I illustrate how the colonial mentality and practices

were deliberately introduced to maintain distance from the people and how

these encouraged mercenary practices amongst the subordinate police officers.

Finally, I argue that this pervasive corruption is continuing since the present

police leadership has adoptedand followed the organizational culture introduced

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

Cultural roots of

police corruption

in India

265

more than 100 years ago. The paper suggests that such corrupt practices can be

controlled only through a cultural transformation within the police

organization.

Culture applied to organization

``Culture [is] a confluence of themes of organizational activities'' (Crank, 1998,

p. 14). In turn it is generally accepted that an organization's performance is

affected by the prevailing culture within its corporate body (Siehl and Martin,

1990). However, culture itself means different things to different people

(Sackman, 1991, p. 8). ``The notion of cultural organization is rooted in both

anthropology and sociology'' (Maanen and Barley, 1985, p. 32). While

anthropologists describe culture in terms of rites, habits, customs, rituals,

material artifacts and behavioral patterns (Freeman, 1970; Hatch, 1973; Kroeber

and Kluckhohn, 1952; Langness, 1979; Tylor, 1958), sociologists focus on

subgroups where culture is seen as an association of ideas, values and actions

(Becker, 1982; Garfinkle, 1967; Kruse, 1975; Lipp, 1979). In fact, there are a

multitude of descriptions of culture and varied meanings in which the term is

used in the social sciences. Study of culture has become an area of inquiry for

social psychologists and those in the field of management and organizational

studies too. Research of cultural practices and its importance to the

organizational functions have used different anthropological and sociological

concepts selectively depending upon the researcher's viewpoints (Frost et al.,

1985; Martin, 1992; Pedersen and Sorensen, 1989). In general, anthropological

studies conceive of organizations as cultural settings examining the human

affairs within the body. Socially based research focus largely upon behavior

and its functionality within the organizations. Yet, ``empirically based

knowledge about culture in organizational setting is rather scarce and spotty''

(Sackman, 1991, p. 1). What constitutes the culture of an organization remains

debatable and its descriptions extend from the ``way things are done here''

(Schein, 1984; Tunstall, 1983) to interpersonal encounters, stories, myths and

legends (Martin, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Wilkins, 1978), dress codes,

rituals and ceremonies (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Rosen, 1991), and even gossip,

jokes and humor (Abolafia, 1989; Bartunek and Moch, 1991; Rosnow and Fine,

1976; Vinton, 1983).

In the absence of any unanimity about the definition of culture there is no

standard method to collect ``facts'' that may illustrate this cultural setting. Most

studies suggest an ethnographical input (Leiter, 1980; Van Maanen, 1979) or to

understand the organization phenomenologically (Heidegger, 1977). For many,

unstructured interviews with key personnel or the use of self-administered

survey questionnaires are useful techniques (Gregory, 1983; Martin et al., 1983;

Sackman, 1990; Schein, 1984). Organizational culture has also been studied

through a description of the office layouts and decorations (Seagrave, 1995;

Turner, 1967). However, reliance upon any one method is likely to admit the

possibility of failure to capture the essence of the organizational way of life

(Pettigrew, 1979). There are several other problems too with all these methods