Dr Syed Kaleem Imam
There is an old saying: as you sow, so shall you reap. You cannot sow banana seeds and expect apples. Outcomes depend on inputs, systems reflect intentions, and institutions follow the values they reward. Yet in Pakistan, we repeatedly sow shortcuts, political appeasement, and ad-hoc decisions and then act surprised when justice and public trust collapse. And sadly, beneath this failure lies a deeper problem: mindset.
Almost every social, civic, or governance failure eventually becomes a policing issue. Even tragedies caused by civic neglect are reframed as law-and-order problems. The recent Lahore incident, where a woman and her daughter fell into an open sewer manhole, was treated as a police matter. Heavy-handed actions by police were intended to show efficiency, manage media pressure, or appease superiors to only worsened the tragedy, reflecting how distorted our understanding of duty has become.
During my years in service, I saw this mindset firsthand. Orders often demanded blind obedience: solve a case in 24 hours or round up entire families. We were told to ensure “no crime,” and when an incident occurred, we were mocked for failing to prevent it, as if the police were a remedy for every problem. Over time, authority became confused with fear and discipline with intimidation, convincing both citizens and officers that force not systems or services solves problems.
Thus, over time, policing in Pakistan has drifted from its core purpose: public service and justice delivery. It has become a system focused on survival, compliance, and managing pressure from above. Service to citizens has taken a back seat. Serving “masters” has become the priority. Success is no longer measured by truth, fairness, or convictions in court. It is measured by how well an officer avoids trouble, manages political pressure, pleases seniors, and secures a safe posting.
The national record speaks for itself. From terrorism and high-profile corruption to ordinary murder cases, very few investigations reach credible legal conclusions. Delays, weak evidence, political interference, reliance on confessions instead of forensics, and unprotected witnesses lead to acquittals and the quiet burial of truth.
For many officers, crime is not something to be eliminated; it is something to be managed. The guiding questions are not “What is the truth?” or “What does the law require?” but “How do we end this matter?” and “How do we prevent trouble?” Order is valued more than rights.
Force is often treated as efficiency, while due process is seen as weakness. Some officers go further, believing extra-judicial methods are acceptable or even necessary. Killings are conveniently blamed on cross-fire by accomplices. These beliefs are dangerous, but they did not emerge by chance. They grew in a system that rewards such a mindset.
A deeper problem lies under this: loss of objectivity. Institutions stop seeing reality as it is and start seeing it as they wish it to be. Statistics are produced to please superiors, not reflect ground truth. Cases are “solved” on paper while real perpetrators walk free. This self-deception creates short-term comfort but long-term decay.
Political and elite pressure further distorts the mindset. From the earliest days of service, officers learn unwritten rules: who is untouchable, which cases are “sensitive,” when to slow down, and when to look away. A poor person’s case moves fast. An elite’s case stalls. Over time, this breeds cynicism. Officers come to believe that honesty is dangerous and courage is costly. They adjust not because they lack values, but because the system punishes those who insist on them.
Survival becomes the operating mode. Long hours, public anger, weak legal protection, internal politics, and uncertain careers push officers toward self-preservation. The priority becomes protecting one’s job and family, not the victim or the principle. Risk-taking for justice turns into a luxury.
Performance systems make matters worse. Officers are rewarded for numbers, not quality. More FIRs, recoveries, or “solved” cases look good on reports, but convictions, investigation standards, or victim satisfaction are rarely measured. Files are completed, not cases. Shortcuts replace professionalism, and appearances replace substance.
Today, two cultures exist within policing. One is dominant: adjust, survive, comply, and remain silent. The other is smaller but real a group of professional officers committed to evidence, technology, and due process. They exist. They work. But they struggle, often alone and without protection.
Public trust has suffered. Citizens are no longer partners but problems. This distance deepens mistrust, which leads to non-cooperation, weakening cases further. Years of terrorism added another layer: policing became militarized, and emergency practices hardened into routine behavior. What was meant for war was never unlearned for peace.
Perhaps the most painful reality is the silent moral conflict many officers’ carries. They know shortcuts are wrong. They know justice is compromised. But standing up has a cost. So, they adjust not always out of weakness, but because the system punishes honesty.
At police academies, trainees ask repeatedly: What should we do when the system pushes us to cross the line? My answer has always been simple: draw a red line and never cross it. Without moral boundaries, everything is lost. No worldly gain is worth the cost of conscience.
We must ask an uncomfortable question: what have we sown? Politicization, expediency, weak accountability, cosmetic reforms, obedience over integrity. And now we reap weak justice, public anger, insecurity, and deep distrust. Reform may sound idealistic, but it cannot begin with catchphrases. It must begin with incentives. Reward truth, not compliance. Treat citizens as partners.
If we continue to build institutions on shortcuts and appeasement, fragile outcomes will persist. If we want justice, we must sow justice. If we want professionalism, we must reward professionalism. If we want courage, we must protect the courageous. Until then, we should stop pretending to be surprised.
The writer is a former federal secretary and IGP- PhD in Politics and IR-teaching Law and Philosophy at Universities. He tweets@Kaleemimam. Email: skimam98@hotmail.com:fb: @syedkaleemimam
Courtesy
