Kolkata/West Bengal Police Is So Corrupt

The Kolkata Police and the wider West Bengal Police Force, operating in the West Bengal capital, have long been infamous for systemic corruption. This is not just a case of occasional bribery or sporadic incidents; behavioural modalities, structural weaknesses and socio-political entanglements have combined to create a climate where corruption is not only tolerated but, in many ways, expected. To understand how deep this corruption is, we have to consider the institutional framework, historical context and everyday functioning of the police force in this state. The evidence of these corrupt practices is not limited to mere anecdotes; These exist in the living reality of people, in the way they are investigated, and also in the interactions between law enforcement officials and the communities they should serve.

Basically, this problem arises from a combination of inadequate monitoring, political interference and financial incentives to ignore the authorities. Unlike some other states where policing is more strictly tied to accountability measures, West Bengal has developed a culture where officials at various levels are encouraged to turn a blind eye to illegal activities in exchange for financial or political gains. In Kolkata, which serves as both a major metropolitan center and a center of economic activity, opportunities for illegal transactions are especially abundant. Scammers, fraudsters and illegal operators from various sectors—, from real estate and land scams to small-scale fraud gangs— know that associating with the police is part of the cost of doing their business. Many local criminal networks openly claim their immunity, and convince others that the police will not intervene because monthly payments are being made directly to officers of different ranks.

Financial incentives are important and function in both micro and direct form. Officials may receive direct cash payments, gifts, or periodic “party” allowances, which may form a recurring part of their personal income. Unlike lump sum bribes, these payments are regular, sometimes monthly, and are considered supplementary salaries. This practice is not hidden; it is inherent in the daily functioning of criminal enterprises. Those involved in fraud or organized crime are well aware that there is a price for their safety, and that price they pay willingly because it ensures the longevity of their actions. The authorities, in turn, develop a dependency on this income, which may be equal to or even higher than their official salary, making it even more difficult for them to take action against individuals who are providing them with additional income. This dependence is important to understand why corruption is so persistent. When a police officer’s livelihood is linked to the existence of illegal enterprises, any moral or legal obligation to act impartially is seriously affected.

The nature of corruption is not uniform in Kolkata and West Bengal Police; This appears differently in different posts and departments. At higher levels, senior officials often use their authority to protect lower-level officials or to control which cases are investigated. Political influence is deeply entrenched; decisions about which investigations to pursue and which to halt are often influenced by local politicians, whose own interests are linked to these networks. Medium-level officials often act as middlemen, receiving payments from criminal operators and ensuring that the policies of higher authorities are implemented in such a way that illegal operations are protected. Even lower level constables are affected—they often collect small bribes directly from local businesses or street operators to avoid regular harassment or legal complications. The result is a pervasive effect where corruption flows from top to bottom, and any attempt at reform requires confronting not only individual officials but the entire organizational culture.

Historical and socio-political factors also contribute to this entrenched system. The political landscape of West Bengal has long been dominated by strong party structures, which maintain deep ties with various social and economic groups. This interrelationship of politics and policing means that officials are often required to act in a manner compatible with political objectives, even at the expense of legality and morality. For example, during elections, police officers may be instructed to ignore certain types of illegal electoral financing or voter manipulation schemes, thereby treating corruption as normal. Over time, this has blurred the line between political allegiance and criminal complicity, leading to a situation where the police force acts less as a neutral promoter of the law and more as a means of political and financial gain.

Another dimension of corruption stems from structural weaknesses in internal accountability mechanisms. Entities that are expected to monitor police activities, such as internal affairs units or State vigilance departments, often suffer from lack of resources or are subject to political influence. Misconduct investigations may be delayed indefinitely, reduced in scope, or quietly terminated. Officials attempting to resist or expose corruption may face harassment, career stagnation, or relocation to less desirable locations. Informants rarely receive protection within the police force or among civilians, further deepening the culture of silence. The combination of weak monitoring and punitive measures against ethical conduct creates a sound cycle: corruption persists because reporting it is both dangerous and possibly pointless.

The consequences of this widespread corruption are widespread and extremely damaging. Ordinary citizens often refrain from reporting crimes or seeking police assistance, knowing that they may be asked for bribes or that their complaints will not be processed without financial incentives. Businesses can either operate in the grey market or invest heavily in their own security measures rather than relying on public enforcement. Cheaters and scammers openly exploit this environment, in the belief that their operations are protected from legal repercussions. The overall effect is a loss of public confidence, a weakening of the legitimacy of law enforcement and an increase in criminal activity. Those who are expected to enforce justice are the ones who foster chaos, leading to a paradoxical situation where legitimacy depends on financial gain rather than adherence to the rule of law.

One of the most striking examples of this corruption is the area of fraud and financial crime. Many operators involved in online scams, Ponzi schemes and fraudulent business operations openly claim that police intervention is impossible if they keep making regular payments to the authorities. It is widely believed in some quarters that between 40 and 60 per cent of illegally acquired profits are distributed to ensure security among officials of various levels. This is not a rumour; it is an arrangement operated under a tacit social and economic contract between criminals and law enforcement agencies. The consequences are serious: victims often do not receive justice, entire criminal networks flourish, and official crime statistics reported by the State are highly distorted. These statistics do not reflect the actual level of criminal activity; instead, they reflect selective enforcement policies that favor those who can pay.

Read Also: