The Complexity of Policing

The role of a police officer is inherently complex, unlike many other occupations. Police officers serve as both protectors and community allies, ensuring public safety and maintaining order. People call the police in times of trouble—whether for personal emergencies or noise complaints. However, they are also perceived as enforcers of the law, possessing the authority to restrict freedoms, issue fines, conduct investigations, and interrogate suspects.

In Nepal, parents traditionally discipline children by warning them, “Behave, or I will call the police.” This illustrates the dual role of the police—as custodians of public morals and as state enforcers. This duality underscores the complexity of policing, as no single theoretical framework fully encapsulates its role.

In a landscape of evolving governance and political transitions, understanding the police’s function is crucial for assessing societal progress and strengthening democratic ideals. International evidence highlights the importance of democratic policing, especially for nations 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 practice. This must be established as a unified corporate objective, recognizing that the police are the most visible arm of the state. They must reflect and respond to the aspirations of the society they serve.

The recent introduction of long-awaited legislation supporting police reform is commendable, aligning with broader state restructuring efforts. However, professionalism, technical proficiency, and integrity alone do not guarantee legitimacy. Without meaningful engagement with local and  national communities, police services risk alienating the very people they are meant to serve.

In the past, a single sergeant and a small team at a local chowki (police post) effectively maintained law and order, prevented crime, and ensured public safety. Community members regularly engaged with the police, reporting concerns and collaborating on safety initiatives—resembling indigenous community policing. The Nepal Police has long safeguarded state priorities, ensuring public security through rigorous training and diverse responsibilities. In contrast, the contemporary trend of seeking political patronage for career advancement undermines this professional integrity.

Additionally, the Nepal Police is the state institution that has lost the most personnel in the line of duty—an often-overlooked reality. Despite an increase in police personnel and resources today, public trust in law enforcement is at an all-time low. Concerns over responsiveness, impartiality, and potential abuse of power contribute to this decline. Public confidence depends on the belief that officers will act swiftly, fairly, and without discrimination. Unfortunately,
today, these values are in crisis, reducing the police ethos of ‘Truth, Service, and Security’   to a mere slogan.

The central paradox lies in expecting the police—operating under outdated doctrines, legal frameworks, and administrative practices, with substandard service conditions and obsolete resources—to be human rights-compliant, gender-sensitive, and ethically grounded.

Key Issues in Police Reform

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

1. Functional Autonomy

Law enforcement functions must be clearly defined by law and policy, subject to public scrutiny, and free from political interference. In democratic nations, a clear distinction exists between government oversight and police leadership. While the government formulates policies and provides oversight, police leadership must retain operational autonomy.

Although the police operate under civilian authority within legal frameworks, robust internal control mechanisms and external oversight are essential for accountability. Modern policing structures empower senior officers to make independent operational decisions within legal boundaries, subject to review by legislative, executive, and judicial bodies. While political authorities have the right to examine procedural correctness, they must not interfere in daily operations.

The Home Ministry is responsible for setting policing priorities, ensuring financial and logistical support, and holding the Chief of Police accountable for delivering professional, efficient, and effective services. However, imposing excessive compliance expectations, as outlined in the proposed draft bill, may hinder professionalism  in exercise of  independent judgment, ultimately
undermining their role.

In India, dual command provisions exist with clear legal limitations, ensuring civilian oversight focuses on law and order while preventing  the unilateral misuse of police powers. The concept of civilian supremacy’  within the police service is flawed, as it disregards the fact that the police themselves are a civilian institution under state authority.

Nepal must learn from India’s experience, where civilian authorities, lacking operational expertise and burdened with administrative duties, struggle to lead trained police officers. Effective policing requires officers to exercise discretion and make prompt decisions. Excessive layers of command—particularly between different administrative entities—complicate this process, leading to inefficiency.

History offers numerous examples of ineffective police services due to political interference and misuse of power, which fosters lawlessness and erodes governmental legitimacy. A case in point is Sierra Leone, where political manipulation of the police led to a loss of state credibility and the eventual downfall of the government.

2. Clear Roles and Responsibilities

Crime prevention and investigation are universally recognized as core police functions.  As crime becomes increasingly global and organized, structured, well-trained, and coordinated responses are crucial.

The Nepal Police has historically led crime investigations, establishing specialized units for this mandate. Delegating these functions to other institutions risks duplication, inefficiency, and unnecessary economic burdens. The Armed Police Force (APF) was created for a specific purpose. While its initial raison d’être no longer exists and as it stands at the crossroad to mainstream its existential rationality government should be thoughtful in blurring their role
between national security and day to day public security concerns. The current bill proposing APF authority over cross-border crime investigations and other traditional police functions risks institutional overlap, unhealthy competition and additional fiscal burden. This also gives the political entities in power to manipulate either institution for their own agendas.

3 . Service Conditions and the rights of the Police

Security institutions—including the Army, Police, Armed Police Force (APF), and National Investigation Department (NID)—should be recognized as part of a unified security structure. While their roles differ, their command frameworks, operational risks, and responsibilities are comparable. Therefore, their service conditions, career prospects, and retirement provisions should be standardized.

Police personnel must be guaranteed their constitutionally protected rights. While they act as state representatives with special responsibilities, the state must ensure that officers operate under fair and just conditions that respect their fundamental rights.

The future of policing in Nepal must be shaped by historical lessons, cultural values, and local realities rather than foreign models that may not align with Nepal’s governance structure. The ultimate goal should be to consolidate the rule of law through human rights-compliant, gender- sensitive, and community-oriented policing. A police service designed to suppress rather than serve the public cannot function in a welfare state. Restoring trust in law enforcement requires functional autonomy, professional integrity, and active community engagement. This is the right time for citizens to demand that the police be accountable to the law rather than the government.

– Amod Gurung

Center for Security and Justice Studies (CSJS)