|
NepalTHE POLICE SYSTEM, NEPAL
Until the middle of the nineteenth century, police and
judicial
functions in many areas were in the hands of local princes
(rajas),
who were virtually autonomous rulers of their people. The
central
government ruled outside the capital and delegated
authority to the
local governors, later known as bada hakim, who in
turn
depended on village heads and village councils to maintain
order in
their respective communities. The scope and intensity of
police and
judicial activities varied largely with local leaders and
customs.
Caste status and standing with the authorities also
greatly
influenced court judgments and police attitudes. Efforts
by the
central government to enlarge its authority over local
affairs
generally were regarded by the isolated tribal groups as
encroachments on their traditional independence. Thus, old
practices tended to persist in the hinterland despite
changes in
the government and government policy in Kathmandu.
The Ranas did not establish a nationwide police system,
although Prime Minister Chandra Shamsher Rana, who served
from 1901
to 1929, somewhat modernized the police forces in
Kathmandu, other
large towns, and some parts of the Tarai. Police functions
in
outlying areas, because of the relative isolation of most
communities, generally were limited to the maintenance of
order by
small detachments of the centrally controlled police
personnel
supplemented by a few locally recruited police.
Following the anti-Rana revolt that began in 1950, the
government began to modernize the police system and
improve its
effectiveness. Assistance was requested from India, and an
Indian
police official was sent to Kathmandu to help reorganize
the police
force. Some Nepalese police were sent to police training
academies
in India.
Nepal's police system in the early 1990s owed its
modern
origins to the Nepal Police Act, enacted by King Mahendra
in 1955.
Besides defining police duties and functions, the act
effected a
general reduction in the size of the police force and a
complete
reorganization of its administrative structure along
Indian lines.
In accordance with the Nepal Police Act, Nepal was
divided into
three geographical zones (sometimes called "ranges" in
Indian
parlance). Each of the zonal headquarters, under a deputy
inspector
general of police, was responsible for several subsections
composed
of four or five police districts operating under a
superintendent
of police. A district superintendent was in charge of the
police
stations in his area. Each station normally was supervised
by a
head constable who was in charge of several constables
performing
basic police functions, such as crime investigations and
arrests.
Each constable was customarily responsible for three or
four
villages.
Under the constitution, law and order at the district
level
continues to be the responsibility of the chief district
officer,
who is selected from among senior cadre civil servants
under the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Other district administrative
officers
work in coordination with the chief district officer.
Despite the
abolition of the
panchayat (see Glossary) system,
no
significantly different alternative system had emerged as
of mid1991 . During the interim, village and municipal
development
committees, consisting of persons nominated by chief
district
officers, replaced village and town panchayat,
which had
exercised administrative and some quasi-judicial functions
at the
local level. At the local level, maintenance of law and
order is
the responsibility of the chowki hawaldar (local
police
officer), who reports to the thana (station
inspector). All
local police officers work under the supervision of the
chief
district officer.
At the apex of the system was the Nepalese Police
Force,
centrally administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Central
Police Headquarters, commanded by the inspector general of
the
Nepalese Police Force, had a criminal investigation
division;
intelligence, counter-intelligence, motor transport and
radio
sections; a traffic policy branch; and a central training
center.
The police system formerly had been overseen by the
king and
his advisers, with little or no public accountability.
Under the
partyless panchayat system, the public generally
regarded
the police as instruments of the king and his local
political
supporters. Nepalese police were poorly paid and poorly
trained,
even by Nepalese standards.
The administration of justice was often arbitrary and,
according to international human rights organization,
brutal. A
1989 United States congressional report on human rights in
Nepal
noted "continuing reports of beatings and other brutal
treatment of
prisoners by police officials, particularly in rural
areas." The
report also noted that arbitrary arrest and detention were
"common.
. . . Because communication links in Nepal are limited,
local
officials have a great deal of autonomy and exercise wide
discretion in handling law and order issues."
Although the Nepalese police system in the early 1990s
still
was generally regarded as inefficient and corrupt, most
observers
believed that Nepal's transition from a feudal monarchy to
a
parliamentary democracy had greatly improved the chances
for police
reform and the curtailing of human rights abuses by the
police. As
in the case of the army, police loyalties were severely
tested
during the 1990 nationwide prodemocracy movement. Although
acting
under the guidance of the palace, the police generally did
not take
sides in the political standoff. Even though police
excesses
occurred, force discipline did not break down.
Shortly after his election to office, Prime Minister
G.P.
Koirala pledged that improving law and order and
protecting human
rights would be his administration's top priorities.
Koirala's
critics noted, however, that his tough law-and-order
stance was
intended less to promote human rights reforms and more as
a
political signal to communist elements threatening to
mount street
protests against the new democratic government. In April
1991,
Nepal acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political
Rights and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman,
or Degrading Treatment.
State-supported penal institutions, including the
central
prison in Kathmandu and jails in most district capitals,
had long
been targets of considerable criticism on the part of
human rights
activists. According to various reports on human rights,
prison
conditions were unsanitary and degrading. Prisoners were
segregated
into three categories. Class C prisons, the lowest and
most
numerous type of prison, were populated with common
criminals who
often were subjected to beatings and abuse at the hands of
police
jailers. The higher prison categories were reserved for
persons
with political connections or higher social status.
Conditions in
these facilities generally were better than in Class C
prisons.
Women were incarcerated separately from men although in
equally
poor conditions. Mentally ill persons often were placed in
jails
because most communities lacked other, more appropriate,
long-term
care facilities. In an effort to address some of these
problems,
the Koirala government shifted prison administration and
management
from the police to the Ministry of Home Affairs shortly
after
assuming office in 1990.
Data as of September 1991
|
