Islamabad : Pakistan's policing system, particularly in its federal capital, Islamabad, presents a stark paradox: a city aspiring to global standards yet grappling with an outdated and often ineffective police force.
The challenges faced by the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Police are not merely operational; they are deeply rooted in legislative inertia, political expediency, and a bureaucratic stranglehold that prevents genuine reform. This write-up delves into these paradoxes, highlighting why Islamabad’s policing falls short of international benchmarks and the systemic issues that perpetuate this ‘low category’ status.
Perhaps the most glaring paradox is that the ICT Police, responsible for the nation’s capital, continues to operate under the archaic Police Act of 1861. This 164-year-old law, a relic of British colonial rule, was designed to control and suppress, not to serve and protect a modern democratic society. The consequences are far-reaching.
The 1861 Act prioritises maintaining order through force rather than community engagement, crime prevention, or victim support. This fundamental disconnect makes it difficult for the ICT Police to adapt to contemporary policing challenges like cybercrime, terrorism, and complex investigations.
The ICT is facing lack of Operational Autonomy. The colonial-era law inherently grants immense control to the executive, limiting the police's operational independence. This makes the force susceptible to political interference in postings, transfers, and even investigations, undermining its professionalism and impartiality. And incompatible with Modern Justice Systems. The provisions of the 1861 Act are ill-equipped to facilitate a streamlined criminal justice system. The absence of modern legal frameworks for investigation, evidence collection, and inter-agency coordination creates bottlenecks at the very first step of justice delivery.
This situation is made even more bizarre by the fact that neighbouring provinces have moved towards more modern legislation. Punjab operates under the Police Order 2002, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has adopted the KP Police Act 2016 – the latter often lauded as the most progressive police law in Pakistan. This creates a fragmented legal landscape, with the capital city lagging significantly behind its provincial counterparts.
On the other side, Punjab Police, mandated under Police Order 2002, often finds itself in the same operational space. This creates differences in legal frameworks, operational protocols, and command structures between the two forces lead to confusion, inefficiency, and a lack of unified response.
The disparate legal mandates can result in differing approaches to crowd control, use of force, and handling of arrests, potentially escalating tensions rather than de-escalating them. The public observes a disjointed and often ineffective police response, further eroding trust in law enforcement as a whole.
Political will and bureaucratic hurdles are major roadblock to reform. The continued reliance on the 1861 Act in Islamabad is not due to a lack of awareness or proposed alternatives. As many police officers have confided, the KP Police Act 2016 offers a readily adaptable and adoptable model for Islamabad. The KP Act, particularly its Section 17, sub-section 4, enshrines principles of operational autonomy, a cornerstone of modern policing.
However, the primary impediment to such reform is a profound lack of political will. Despite assuming power at the federal level, successive governments have failed to prioritize police reform in the capital. This inaction is often attributed to bureaucratic resistance which leads to ‘cold-war’ between the police department and PAS (Pakistan Administrative Service). Senior police officers assert that bureaucracy is a major hurdle. The current system, where all transfers and postings are notified by the ICT administration, grants immense power to civil bureaucrats and allows for significant interference from various stakeholders. Reforming the police law would inherently reduce this influence, a prospect many in the bureaucracy resist.
A truly operationally independent and accountable police force might be perceived as a challenge to the established power structures. The existing colonial-era law allows for greater political and administrative control over the police, a leverage that those in power are reluctant to relinquish.
Police reform, despite its critical importance for good governance and public service delivery, often takes a backseat to more immediate political or economic concerns.
Unlike developed police forces, the ICT Police lacks comprehensive modern training programs and functional specialization in cybercrime, forensic science, financial fraud. This leaves officers ill-equipped to handle the complexities of modern crime.
While Punjab and KP have made strides in e-policing initiatives like CRO (Criminal Record Office), HRMIS (Human Resources Management Information System), and PSRMS (Police Station Record Management System), Islamabad lags considerably. This digital divide hinders efficiency, transparency, and data-driven policing.
The state of policing in Islamabad presents a critical challenge to Pakistan's aspirations for good governance and a modern state. The persistence of the 1861 Police Act, the chaotic overlap with provincial forces at flashpoints like Faizabad, and the profound lack of political will to embrace reform create a "policing paradox" that is unmatched in most global capital cities. Until the federal government demonstrates a genuine commitment to enacting modern police legislation, fostering operational independence, and investing in advanced training and technology, the ICT Police will remain a "low category" force, struggling to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving urban environment and unable to provide the standard of public service delivery that citizens of a capital city deserve.
