Does the Indian police system have a warrior complex?

Last semester, during finals week, whilst cramming for criminology, I came across the concept of police officer typologies - the 'enforcer model' and the 'guardian model'. Upon my first read, it seemed almost obvious that such contrasting ideas could exist, but as I reflected on how the Indian police system operates, its concept of 'justice' and blatant disregard for due process - a comparison between the latter and the 'enforcer model' felt strikingly apt. This is not just theoretical musing: a 2025 survey of 8,276 police personnel revealed that 20% believe using harsh methods is “very important” to instil public fear, while another 35% said it is “somewhat important” These numbers highlight how deeply the enforcer mindset is entrenched within the force. In what particular ways has the Indian Police Force evolved to be what it is today, and how does it continue to embody this typology? 

The Indian police have had a well-ingrained culture of brutality and disrespect for procedure for a long time. The trend, instead of diminishing, continues up to the present, fueled by structural tensions, socialised norms becoming traditional, and institutional vulnerability, rendering violence and abuse nearly the norm in the country's policing process. By a "culture" of brutality, I'm referring to a customary structure of violence against civilians, normalised within the police system. India's Police Forces trace their origin to the 'Indian Police Act of 1861, a law drafted in the wake of the 1857 uprising against British rule [1]. Designed to secure British imperial interests, the Indian police were controlled by civilian administrators who were accountable to the British government, rather than to the local population.[2] Basically, the police were created to control the population, not serve it. Hence, their repeated use of physical dominance, violence and brute force to "solve" cases. 

Can we still blame colonialism for the dents in our society? Yes and no, the effects of colonialism are still prevalent in the nooks and crannies of daily life, but does 76 years of independence not equate to some degree of change within society? Admittedly not, we have inherited the same framework from 1861 in 1947, which is still at play in 2025. Working under laws that were drafted with an anti-Indian sentiment will put the lives of the public at risk, whether or not the British are ruling over us. 

Even so, are the police the only ones to blame? At the end of the day, they are a part of a system - a system that does not value them where they're made to work 24-hour shifts, with no holidays, going weeks without seeing their families and lower-level officers - that easily make up 80% of police personnel, are treated like lackeys by their superiors made to house chores alongside police work just because it is expected of them, if they refuse - they'll be sacked. 

It is interesting to note the rigid hierarchy that persists within Indian society, where respect is demanded based on your position instead of earned due to capabilities. One needs to understand, making your junior polish your shows, pick up groceries and drive around your family while also expecting them to do their actual job is not how you maintain morale and foster a professional, accountable police culture. 

Not only is the workload unnecessarily high, but the present police-population ratio of 192 officers per lakh population is lower than the UN's recommended level of 222 officers per lakh. This translates to roughly one police officer for every 650 to 831 people, depending on the specific data and region. This disproportionality results in a tired, frustrated person who makes hasty decisions ( when they need a clear head), festering aggression and over-policing through force becomes the norm in their day-to-day conduct, even towards ordinary civilians. The previously mentioned long shifts create an environment where a lack of rest damages mental health and increases physical exhaustion, ultimately lowering efficiency. 

Solving a crime is seen as targets to be met rather than an actual problem solved. We can talk statistics to strengthen our case, but the reality of the situation is that constables are made to wrap a complaint either by roughhousing the 'accused' and eliciting a confession out of them-regardless of whether they're guilty or not. Even the non-registration of FIRs, or as researchers refer to it as 'burking of crime', is done to artificially lower the rate of perceived crime in a jurisdiction or simply to lessen the work to be done- how can you solve a crime if it doesn't exist? 

The result of this cycle is stark when we consider who is in prison. Based on 2019 government statistics, out of nearly 478,600 in prison, an astonishing 315,409 (65.9%) were from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backwards Classes. Not by chance: instead, it is an indication of how simple it is for the police to target historically marginalised people, socially stigmatised communities, and economically disempowered citizens. Labelling certain groups "criminal" makes policing simple—cases are "solved" with ease, arrests are made, and statistics are closed. But the cost of this strategy overwhelmingly gets paid by the poor and the marginalised, who have no means to resist legally and no social networks to watch their backs. 

We've covered both the system and operants within it, but another factor comes into play, which keeps the enforcer model or 'warrior' complex fresh within the police force - the public's attitude and complicity. Senior officials aren't the only ones who want speedy resolutions, but so do the public. We have a reactive society that responds to crimes with outrage and demands immediate action to any wrongdoing, looking for a quick fix. Instead, crime-solving should demand an evidence-heavy, community-centric approach to solving crimes, so a degree of trust can be built between citizens and police personnel. This manner of police work can rewire the mindset that keeps society stagnant and help in the progress of our people. Building a more empathetic and understanding society can foster an environment where crime rates rapidly drop, further lessening the use of systemic violence to keep people in check. 

Police officers should be public guardians, not warriors of punishment. This can be understood by contrasting Superman's on-screen personas. James Gunn's Superman is a Superman of hope, restraint, and immense responsibility towards humanity—he is the guardian ideal, with power to inspire and protect. Zack Snyder's darker Superman, though not a villain, is nearer the warrior ideal, burdened by power and prone to defaulting to brute force to enforce order. Just as society is happier with a Superman who inspires than one who scares, policing should be about guardianship: serving with empathy, responsibility, and compassion, not fear in uncontrolled power. 

1. Broken System Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police - Human Rights Watch 2. 8 Police Act of 1861, Sec. 3-4. At the state level, the Chief Minister has “superintendence” authority over police. Each state police service is organised territorially into administrative districts; at the district level, the chief police official’s

administrative authority is subject to the “general control and direction” of district administrative officials.