Traffic Policing: Between Enforcement and Human Dignity
Apologies for being impudent. We are witnessing an increased focus on enforcing traffic rules. This recent surge in enforcement has sparked both relief and controversy. For years, traffic violations have gone unchecked, leading to numerous accidents, sometimes fatal. The current crackdown appears necessary, yet it raises an important question: why now? Why did it take so long for the system to act? Lives have already been lost due to this negligence. While the current measures may prevent future accidents, the suddenness of this enforcement and the methods used point to a deeper systemic and ethical issues that require urgent attention.
Responsibility for road safety doesn't lie solely with traffic authorities; it extends to society as a whole, particularly parents. Traffic police, as enforcers of the law, are part of a broader system meant to ensure road safety. However, their delayed response reflects a failure within that system. At the same time, parents play a crucial role in shaping the values and discipline of their children. If young people were taught from an early age that reckless driving can lead to fatal consequences, they would carry that belief into adulthood. When minors ride without helmets or proper licenses, it often stems from a lack of guidance at home. Both the system and the broader societal process share responsibility for the tragedies that occur on our roads, leaving families devastated. Preventing accidents requires a proactive and consistent approach that emphasizes education and awareness, not just reactive enforcement.
However, the methods employed in this recent crackdown raise serious concerns. A viral video on social media showing traffic cops physically assaulting a biker for not wearing a helmet illustrates the issue. Who authorizes them to resort to violence? Law enforcement is about upholding justice, not perpetuating hooliganism. Beating citizens for minor mistakes reflects an abuse of power that undermines the legitimacy of the traffic police. Counselling and education should be the cornerstone of traffic enforcement, not brute force. Physical violence will breed resentment and fear, creating an adversarial relationship with the public rather than fostering compliance and respect.
This isn’t just a theoretical or isolated issue; it’s personal. A few weeks before the widely publicized Tengpora incident, I experienced something similar. I was stopped by a traffic cop and accused of breaking a traffic signal—a violation I didn’t commit, as I did not cross the signal. I had all the necessary documents: a valid driving license, vehicle registration, pollution control certificate, and insurance. My only “offense” was carrying groceries for my family. When I questioned the validity of the challan, the situation escalated. The officer grew angry, as if my questioning implied I wanted special treatment. Instead of addressing my concerns, he resorted to physical assault.
The incident took a darker turn when, in response to my protest, the officer threatened me that he will book me under some act. I was shocked by the abuse of power. The situation quickly escalated as I simply asked for clarification on why I was being fined, and I soon realized it was best to end the debate. My typical Kashmiri reaction was, "Bachaw Paan ...." (Save yourself, or it will become another case and I’ll have to prove that later). This extreme reaction underscores a deeper issue: the arbitrary use of power. When law enforcement officers threaten citizens with such severe charges, it reveals a culture of impunity and a dangerous lack of accountability. These incidents are not isolated; they point to a systemic problem where authority is exercised without restraint or regard for the rights of those they are meant to serve.
This brings us to a fundamental ethical question: what is more important—enforcing laws or respecting human dignity? Immanuel Kant, the renowned philosopher, provides valuable insight through a thought-provoking analogy. In a famous case of cannibalism, three men on a boat killed and ate a young boy to survive. They justified their actions by arguing that the boy was unwell and would have died anyway, and his death saved three lives. This case raised a profound ethical dilemma: can people be used as a means to an end, or should they be treated as ends in themselves?
Utilitarian thinkers might argue that the greatest good for the greatest number justifies such actions. From this perspective, killing one person to save three others seems reasonable. Similarly, in our case, a cop might justify assaulting someone who breaks the law. Consequentialists, who focus on the outcomes of actions, could agree that if the end result is beneficial, the means can be compromised. Many Kashmiris, for example, might defend the argument that resorting to violence helps traffic cops achieve better results. They might even argue that theft is justified if it prevents starvation.
In stark contrast, Immanuel Kant’s deontological philosophy asserts that human dignity is inviolable. According to Kant, every person must be treated as an end in themselves, never merely as a means to an end. Using someone as a tool for another purpose, regardless of the potential benefit, violates their intrinsic worth. This principle applies to law enforcement as well. When traffic cops resort to violence or threats, they reduce citizens to mere means—tools for demonstrating authority or fulfilling enforcement quotas. Such actions compromise human dignity and undermine the very purpose of the law.
Traffic policing should not be about exerting power; it should be about protecting lives and upholding justice. The current approach, marked by sudden crackdowns and violent methods, does more harm than good. It fosters fear and resentment rather than respect for the law. The goal of traffic enforcement should be to educate and protect, not to punish indiscriminately. Police officers need comprehensive training in both law enforcement and human rights. Accountability mechanisms must be in place to ensure that officers who abuse their power face real consequences. This is the only way to restore public trust and ensure that enforcement aligns with principles of justice and respect.
Furthermore, enforcement should be complemented by robust public awareness campaigns. Citizens need to understand that traffic rules are not arbitrary regulations; they are essential for their safety. When people grasp the “why” behind the rules, compliance becomes a shared responsibility rather than a forced obligation. Schools and community programs can play a crucial role in this education.
Parents, too, must take responsibility for teaching their children about road safety. Setting a good example and emphasizing the importance of following traffic rules is essential. Without this foundational support, any efforts by traffic authorities will be incomplete.
Ultimately, this issue boils down to the balance between enforcing laws and respecting human dignity. Traffic rules exist to protect lives, but the way they are enforced must also respect human rights. When enforcement becomes a means of exerting power rather than protecting citizens, it fails its purpose. We need a system where both life and dignity are valued equally. As Kant reminds us, human beings must always be treated as ends in themselves. Anything less is a betrayal of the very principles that the law is meant to uphold.