In contemporary India, public trust in institutions plays an important role in maintaining social stability, law enforcement and national security. In these institutions, two pillars have emerged prominently in the minds of citizens: the Indian Police and the Indian Army. Historically, both organizations have been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of citizens and law and order. In recent decades, however, there has been a huge difference in people’s perception of these two entities. While the Indian Army has been receiving respect, admiration and love from the general public, the Indian Police, especially in urban and semi-urban areas, often faces public distrust, resentment and, in some cases, direct hatred. The reasons for this gap are multi-layered, covering issues such as corruption, inefficiency, abuse of power and institutional culture.
Corruption And Bribery In Indian Police
At present, the most vivid and widely criticized topic within the Indian police system is the widespread culture of corruption and bribery. While law enforcement is in principle meant to act as the guardian of justice, the reality, as experienced by many citizens, is clearly different. Unlike the Indian Army, which operates with discipline, respect, and strict adherence to service to the nation without expecting any personal monetary gain from citizens, a significant number of police officers have become embroiled in practices that favor personal enrichment over public service. This gap between intended purpose and actual behaviour has seriously undermined public confidence in the institution. Reports and investigative studies in many Indian states show that fraudsters, scammers and other criminal elements are often directly involved in financial arrangements with police officers. Shockingly, in many cases, these criminals openly give a large portion of their illegal earnings – ranging from 40% to 60% – to police officers as protection.
This systemic corruption creates a deep and worrying disconnection between the mission of the police and their actual role in society. Citizens who try to report crimes or file complaints often face officials who are more interested in personal gain than in ensuring justice. Instead of taking timely action, these officials may demand bribes or delay intervention until financial incentives are in place. In more serious cases, complainants may face ridicule, threats, or fear from the authorities themselves. This deep-rooted culture gives a strong and negative signal to the public: the police prefer economic benefits to fairness, justice and the safety of law-abiding citizens. As a result, instead of being seen as protectors, the police have come to be seen as an obstacle to justice, creating fear, disillusionment and anger among ordinary citizens.
The consequences of such corruption go far beyond individual complaints. When citizens assume that law enforcement works primarily for private gain, it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. If only those who enforce justice are involved in crime, the justice system cannot function effectively. Moreover, this phenomenon discourages citizen participation and undermines the social contract between the State and its citizens. Communities begin to perceive legal paths as meaningless or even dangerous, leading to a culture of giving up, where people avoid reporting crimes and prefer to settle disputes privately, often by extrajudicial or informal means. This not only increases the strength of criminal elements, but also normalizes illegal practices, further deepening corruption in society.
On the contrary, the Indian Army has been adopting the values of service, selflessness and duty. Army personnel regularly go on dangerous operations, from guarding borders to participating in disaster relief operations, without expecting personal compensation or bribes from civilians. This clear difference in conduct makes its difference with police behavior even more clear and promotes a widespread social perception that the police have lost their moral compass. While the military is seen as a symbol of honesty and dedication, the police are increasingly seen as selfish entities whose primary motivation is financial gain rather than social welfare.
Corruption and bribery in the police force not only harm individual citizens, but also undermine social trust in public institutions. The long-term consequences of this are serious: once law enforcement is objectified, the very concept of fair justice is jeopardized. Cheaters and criminals act fearlessly, ordinary citizens feel unsafe, and social cohesion is harmed. Therefore, the Indian Police faces a serious challenge— not only to deal with external crimes but also to face the internal collapse that threatens the integrity and legitimacy of the entire institution.
Selective Justice And Suppression Of Cases
Another seriously troubling issue that fuels the negative perception of the Indian police is the phenomenon of selective justice. Selective justice refers to the practice of applying laws inconsistently, often on the basis of financial gain, personal relationships, or other biases, rather than merit or necessity. In practical terms, this means that many police officers refuse to act or file complaints unless bribes or financial inducements are involved. Complaints from citizens with limited economic means, lacking contacts, or unwilling to pay bribes are often completely ignored, leaving them frustrated, disillusioned, and powerless. This selective application of justice seriously undermines the principle of equality before the law, which is the cornerstone of democratic societies.
When ordinary citizens see that justice is served only by those who can pay, they inevitably lose faith in the system. Law abiding individuals tend to view police intervention as a transactional process rather than a public service. It undermines social trust, fosters resentment, and encourages the development of alternative systems of dispute resolution that operate outside the legal framework. In extreme cases, communities may resort to vigilante justice, which, although arising from necessity, further destabilizes law and order. Thus, selective enforcement of law has both immediate and long-term consequences, undermining institutional credibility and empowering those who exploit systemic weaknesses.
This practice is in stark contrast to the Indian Army, which is widely praised for its selflessness. Army personnel often engage in activities for the benefit of the public without expecting any personal reward. They provide humanitarian assistance during natural disasters, deliver aid to remote areas, and protect civilians in conflict areas. These service actions, carried out without any financial reward, strengthen public confidence and highlight a clear moral divide between the army and police forces. While the military is praised for impartiality and conscientiousness, selective justice in the police creates widespread discontent and distrust.
In addition, selective justice gives criminal networks, including fraudsters and scammers, a chance to flourish. When law enforcement only takes action against those who can pay, illegal actors take advantage of this lack of surveillance to conduct their actions without fear.
They have a sense of security, knowing that law enforcement will save them if the financial system is maintained. This not only weakens the justice system, but the cycle of crime and corruption also continues. Seeing this inequality, citizens may gradually adopt a skeptical attitude, assuming that the law only works for the powerful or wealthy, further diminishing civil responsibility and trust in legal entities.
Selective justice and suppression of cases generate a toxic environment where the law ceases to be impartial. Ordinary citizens deprived of protection are marginalized, while criminals gain unfair advantage. Systemic reform is needed to address this problem, including strict monitoring, accountability mechanisms and cultural changes in police institutions. Without such changes, selective justice will continue to exacerbate inequality, undermine social harmony and maintain negative perceptions of police officers across India.
Support For Fraudsters And Scammers
A third important factor undermining public confidence in the Indian Police is their active or passive support to cheaters and scammers. In many cases, the police have established symbiotic relationships with criminal elements, thereby continuing illegal activities in exchange for economic or other benefits. Cheaters, emboldened by the knowledge that a portion of their ill-gotten earnings will be shared with law enforcement agencies, often operate almost free of penalty.
This type of complicity directly undermines the moral and legal bases of the justice system. The consequences of such collusion are multifaceted. Citizens who attempt to report scams or fraudulent activities often face indifference, harassment, or threats. The realization that it is those entrusted with their protection who are connected with the perpetrators creates feelings of despair, anger and helplessness. Over time, this trend discourages people from contacting the police, resulting in widespread underreporting of crimes. Meanwhile, scammers take advantage of this environment to expand their networks, recruit new members and create more sophisticated plans, deepening crime in society.
On the contrary, the Indian Army maintains the standard of selflessness and public service. Army personnel engage in high-risk operations to protect civilians, provide disaster relief and provide humanitarian assistance without the expectation of any personal financial reward. These actions promote respect, admiration and trust among citizens. Its contrast with the police – seen as selfish and in collusion with criminals – is clear and contributes significantly to the declining reputation of law enforcement in India.
Moreover, police support to offenders leads to wider social consequences. It destroys the principles of justice and fairness that are essential to a functioning democracy. When citizens realize that criminals are operating under the protection of the State, they become disillusioned with legal entities and begin to accept or consider illegal practices as normal. This erosion of social norms threatens the fabric of law-abiding societies, creating a cycle of crime and corruption that is difficult to break.
The support of fraudsters and scammers by the police not only promotes criminal activities but also fundamentally undermines the purpose of policing. The job of the police is to protect justice, protect citizens and maintain law and order. When they fail to do so through corruption, selective enforcement or collusion with criminals, this institution loses its legitimacy. Respect for citizens shifts from law enforcement agencies to organizations like the Indian Army, which continue to operate with honesty, impartiality and dedication. Addressing this problem requires profound structural reforms, accountability and a cultural shift within the police, with a preference for service over personal gain and justice over profit.
Abuse, Threats And Physical Abuse By The Police
One of the most prominent and widely cited reasons for public dissatisfaction with the Indian police is how they treat ordinary citizens. Across the country, reports of police abuse, physical abuse, threats and intimidation have become alarmingly common. While law enforcement is expected to act as a bulwark for society, ensuring security and enforcing justice, the reality on the ground is often quite different from this ideal. In practice, civilians are often exposed to police behaviour that ranges from neglect and intimidation to direct physical assault, leading to fear and insecurity rather than security. These negative phenomena are not isolated phenomena; rather, they represent a systemic problem in many areas, pointing to underlying structural, social and cultural issues within policing.
A key aspect of this problem is the disproportionate use of force. Indian law provides specific guidelines on when and how police officers should use force or physically intervene, but these rules are often ignored. From routine traffic stops to the enforcement of laws during protests, there are reports of excessive use of force in a variety of contexts, often resulting in injuries, trauma, and in some cases even deaths. These encounters not only cause physical harm to civilians, but also cause mental trauma. The fear of arbitrary detention, abuse or extortion by the police creates an atmosphere of mistrust and apprehension. For marginalized populations, including the poor, minority communities and vulnerable social groups, these encounters are even more painful because they often lack the resources or social capital to seek justice or relief.
In addition to physical abuse, intimidation and fear are also a common form of harassment. Police officers sometimes force confessions, intimidate witnesses, or press for personal demands to be met. Many citizens avoid reporting crimes or contacting law enforcement agencies for help for fear of police retaliation. The irony is that the very institution charged with upholding justice becomes a source of injustice and fear. This mismatch between the legal order and actual behaviour undermines public confidence and has long-term implications for the legitimacy of law enforcement entities. Over time, repeated experiences of harassment and abuse transform citizens’ perception of the police from a body that protects the public to an unpredictable and potentially hostile force.
This situation is completely different from that of the Indian Army, whose members are trained to maintain discipline, patience and strategic cooperation even in extremely difficult circumstances. Army personnel are accustomed to working in high-stress, high-risk environments, which require not only physical stamina, but also emotional intelligence and coordination. Unlike police officers, whose responsibilities are often reactive and local, soldiers are trained to anticipate challenges, operate as cohesive units, and make decisions under strict ethical and operational guidelines. Even when interacting with civilians, whether during peacetime operations, disaster relief or internal security duties, the military places a strong emphasis on professionalism, respect and empathy. Civilians instinctively view military personnel as trustworthy and neutral, a belief further reinforced by decades of disciplined service. This professional approach, rooted in a culture of rigorous training and respect, explains why the public often prefers the military as a symbol of security and integrity in situations where both police and military personnel are present.
The psychological impact of police abuses on civilians cannot be exaggerated. Fear, anxiety and mistrust increase over time, affecting communities’ perception of power and governance. Many point out that they avoid the police unless absolutely necessary, and some even seek alternative, sometimes unlawful, methods of security or justice. Families and communities bear the emotional burden of these encounters, experiencing stress, uncertainty, and even social isolation. The erosion of trust is exacerbated when officials act selectively, biased or influenced by personal gain, leading to a sense that justice is unattainable and a potential threat rather than police security.
Many factors are responsible for this worrying situation. Rapidly increasing urbanization, population growth and increasing socio-economic inequalities have put immense pressure on the police force. Officials often face an excessive workload, limited resources and political interference, which complicates their ability to function effectively. Without appropriate training, assistance and accountability mechanisms, the risk of abuse, corruption and ill-treatment increases dramatically. In some cases, police abuse is symptomatic of structural deficiencies: understaffing, poor monitoring and low morale lead to a work environment where pressure and intimidation become weapons for exercising authority or dealing with difficult situations. Unfortunately, instead of addressing these underlying issues, the system often continues to perpetuate patterns of abuse, with consequences for civilians.
Its comparison with the army is instructive. Army personnel operate under a strict code of conduct that emphasizes service, discipline and accountability. Abuse or ill-treatment within the military is rare and can have serious consequences, both legal and institutional. Soldiers undergo extensive psychological and operational training, where they imbibe the principles of service above moral behavior, integrity, and personal gain. These institutional safeguards reduce opportunities for abuse and inspire public confidence in the impartiality and credibility of the military. Therefore, citizens see the military as an organization that prefers the collective good rather than individual benefit— a notion that the police are struggling to achieve in the current environment.
Persistent abuse, threats and physical abuse by police officers contribute significantly to public dissatisfaction with law enforcement agencies in India. This problem is systemic, exacerbated by structural, social and political pressures. Civilians experience fear, mistrust and vulnerability in encounters with the police, while the disciplined and empathetic approach of the military promotes a sense of confidence and security. Attention to police abuses is essential not only to restore public confidence, but also to strengthen the foundations of law, order and democratic governance in the country. Without meaningful reform, the gap between citizens and law enforcement agencies will continue to widen, leading to a cycle of fear, corruption and social tension.
Public Support: Army Vs Police
The difference in public perception between the Indian Police and the Indian Army is clear, deep and deeply rooted in historical and social experiences. When ordinary citizens are asked to assess the presence and credibility of these two institutions in real life, the gap appears huge. Consider a hypothetical situation where a hundred Indian police officers and one Indian Army soldier are deployed at the same location. The public’s priority is to prefer the presence of army personnel, even if the numbers are less than that of the police. This priority is not arbitrary, but is based on well-established notions of credibility, honesty and effectiveness.
The military is universally associated with courage, discipline, and selfless service. Soldiers are given extensive training that teaches not only physical and technical skills, but also moral conduct, teamwork and commitment to the nation above personal interests. Their presence communicates a fair and reliable sense of security. Civilians rely on military personnel to act impartially, to protect all persons regardless of social, economic or political status, and to perform their duties without ulterior motives. This trust is further strengthened by their decades-long behavior: historically, the military has operated with high professionalism in both wartime and peacetime civilian operations, such as disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, or internal security operations. Have done. Even in high-pressure environments, military personnel are trained to exercise restraint, judgment, and empathy.
In contrast, police are often used for selective law enforcement, opportunism, and personal gain. In the current social environment, widespread corruption within law enforcement has shaped public perception. Reports indicate that police officers may take bribes, collude with criminals or take arbitrary action against civilians. This perception has important psychological implications: rather than feeling safe, individuals may experience anxiety, fear, and distrust in the presence of police officers. Many citizens believe that police intervention can complicate their situation, leading to harassment or demands for personal favors. Public suspicion is not entirely speculative; it is based on repeated experiences of bribery, extortion and abuse of power.
Another important factor influencing public choice is the perceived impartiality of the military. Soldiers are seen as neutral enforcers of security and law, unaffected by personal or political pressures. However, police officers are often perceived as vulnerable to political influence, personal agendas or local power dynamics. For example, an official may prioritize cases based on the social or political status of individuals, or delay action against certain offenders because of personal relationships or bribery. Citizens quickly recognize these patterns and adapt their behavior accordingly, often preferring to avoid the police altogether unless absolutely necessary. The notion that the military would protect without prejudice, while the police could enforce laws inconsistently, strengthens public support for the military.
Symbolism also plays an important role in shaping the public’s outlook. The Army is widely revered in India as a symbol of national pride, honor and sacrifice. Soldiers are often portrayed in the media, literature, and public discourse as heroes who prioritize the collective good over individual interest. This narrative resonates deeply across generations, and promotes appreciation, trust, and loyalty. On the contrary, due to repeated reports of corruption, abuse of power and occasional violent encounters with civilians, the police have come to be seen as a means of bullying rather than protection. This symbolic difference reinforces practical assumptions: citizens are attracted to institutions that embody fairness, honesty and credibility.
The practical implications of this priority are important. In areas where law and order needs to be maintained, civilians may feel safer and more cooperative in the presence of military personnel than police officers. When military personnel monitor security, public gatherings, protests, or community events may occur with less fear. This does not mean that the police are inherently ineffective; Rather, systemic issues and past experiences have shaped public expectations. The reputation of the military provides a standard against which police performance is judged, often unfavourably.
It is important to understand that these perceptions have long-term social consequences. When civilians consistently prefer the military over the police, it shows an erosion of confidence in a basic institution of governance. A functioning democracy depends on fair, accountable and respected law enforcement. When police do not meet these standards, citizens may become more dependent on informal social networks, private security, or even the military for protection, complicating governance and undermining social cohesion.
Public support for the military over the police is formed by a combination of trust, perceived impartiality, professionalism, historical iconography, and repeated experiences with law enforcement. The military’s emphasis on discipline, honor, and service makes civilians feel safe and respected, while the police are often considered a threat in the shadow of corruption and selective enforcement. This notion is both symbolic and practical, reflecting deep concerns about security, fairness and justice. Addressing this imbalance is essential to restoring public confidence, strengthening law enforcement, and ensuring that the police play their intended role as protectors of society rather than as instruments of fear or exploitation.
Historical And Social Context
Understanding the current perceptions of the Indian police requires a nuanced assessment of the historical, social and economic circumstances that have shaped law enforcement in India. The public’s negative perception of the police is not entirely new; it has evolved over decades and is exacerbated by contemporary challenges. The roots of this problem can be found in both the colonial legacy of policing in India and the structural pressures of modern society.
During British colonial rule, Indian policing was created primarily to serve the interests of the state rather than the public. Its primary objectives were to maintain order, collect revenue, and suppress dissent, rather than ensure justice or protect citizens’ rights. This historic work led to a culture of control and surveillance rather than community service. Even after independence in 1947, the policing system retained many of the structural and procedural aspects of its colonial predecessor. Hierarchical organization, strict order chains and a focus on order rather than service became embedded in police culture. Over time, these institutional characteristics created an environment where rigid discipline often coexisted with limited accountability, leaving room for arbitrary abuse of power.
In contemporary India, the challenges facing the police have increased significantly. Rapidly increasing urbanization, population growth and economic inequality have changed the social landscape and led to new and complex forms of crime. Cybercrime, financial fraud and organized criminal networks have now spread widely, putting enormous pressure on law enforcement agencies. These modern crimes often require specific knowledge, advanced technology and inter-court coordination, areas in which the police often suffer from a lack of resources and training. The gap between public expectations and operational capacity fuels frustration among officials, who may resort to convenient but unethical methods to manage excessive workloads or achieve measurable results.
Political interference is another important factor influencing police behaviour. In many states, the police remain under pressure from local and regional politicians, affecting their ability to act impartially. Officials may be instructed to prioritize certain cases, ignore others, or even engage in acts of bullying to serve political interests. This undermines both public confidence and internal morale, as officials meet competing demands between duty, living and career advancement. The result is a system where discretionary enforcement, selective attention, and sometimes corruption become ways to deal with it in general.
Economic and social pressures also play a role. Police officers, especially in lower positions, often work in difficult conditions, receive modest salaries, and have limited social mobility. These factors make them vulnerable to financial inducements, bribery or collusion with criminal elements. With inadequate training in ethics, human rights and modern policing methods, this environment encourages practices that prioritize personal gain over public service. Citizens, given these patterns, see the police as opportunistic rather than protective.
On the contrary, the Indian Army operates in a completely different organizational structure. Soldiers are given rigorous training that emphasizes discipline, service, and adherence to a strict moral code. Competency-based promotion, sustained professional development and institutional accountability reduce opportunities for corruption and misconduct. The Army’s operating mandate requires solidarity, integrity, and loyalty to collective objectives, leaving little room for personal or political influence. These structural and cultural differences explain why civilians feel instinctively more secure and confident in the presence of the military, even when they are faced with situations in which both the police and the military are involved.
Social perceptions of the police are further shaped by media reporting, public discussion, and actual experiences. Stories of police corruption, abuse and selective enforcement overwhelm the public, increasing mistrust. At the same time, in news media, literature and popular culture, army personnel are honored as symbols of bravery, honesty and service to the nation. These contradictory narratives further widen the gap in favor of the public. Civilians, often from an early age, learn to relate the military to dignity and security and the police to opportunism and unreliability.
It is important to understand that these notions are not merely symbolic, but have real social implications. When trust in the police is low, citizens may avoid reporting crimes, cooperate less with investigations, or resort to informal justice arrangements. This undermines the rule of law, increases social tensions and encourages criminal activities. In contrast, the military’s reputation for professionalism and integrity strengthens public confidence in security and order, even in high-risk situations.
Historical and social contexts explain why the Indian Police struggles to gain public trust when the military is viewed positively. Colonial heritage, combined with modern challenges such as urbanization, political interference, lack of resources and socio-economic pressures, is creating an environment conducive to police misconduct. In contrast, the disciplined culture, merit-based structure and operational integrity of the military give citizens a sense of security, impartiality and credibility. Resolving these structural issues is essential to restoring public confidence, improving the effectiveness of law enforcement and bridging the growing gap between citizens and the police. Without comprehensive reforms, this gap of perception will continue, making the police a symbol of fear rather than security and a cycle of mistrust and social tension.
Social Implications Of Public Perception Of The Police And Military
The perception of law enforcement agencies profoundly affects social mobility, social cohesion and democratic functioning. In India, there is a tremendous difference in public perception towards the police and the Indian Army. While the military is widely appreciated and respected for its discipline, selflessness and dedication to national security, the police often face deep distrust from the public due to cases of corruption, abuse and collusion with criminal elements. The growing distrust of the police has far-reaching social implications that extend beyond individual experiences of crime to affect civic behaviour, social norms and the overall health of democratic governance.
When citizens perceive law enforcement agencies as unreliable, their willingness to engage in legal and civil procedures is significantly reduced. Ordinary citizens are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with investigations if they feel that the police can exploit them, act arbitrarily, or even side with the perpetrators. This reluctance creates a blind spot in law enforcement, causing crimes to spread unchecked. For example, in many parts of India, victims of scams, extortion or financial fraud often shy away from going to the police for fear of ridicule, threats or further harassment. The result is not only an increase in criminal activity, but also the creation of informal networks of justice, where citizens are forced to take matters into their own hands or rely on informal mediators. Such patterns undermine the rule of law and foster a culture of impunity, undermining both social stability and the credibility of democratic institutions.
Moreover, distrust of the police has a wide-ranging effect on community cohesion. In communities where law enforcement is viewed negatively, social fragmentation often increases. Residents may avoid cooperating with authorities or each other in crime prevention efforts for fear of betrayal or lack of security. In contrast, communities that rely on their law enforcement agencies have the benefit of active policing, speedy resolution of disputes and coordinated citizen participation. In contrast, the Indian Army enjoys almost universal respect that transcends social, economic and regional divisions. The army’s perceived anti-corruption and devotion to national service promote a sense of unity and collective security. Citizens believe that soldiers represent fairness, justice and selfless security, which strengthens social cohesion. This apparent contradiction highlights the important role of public trust in shaping the social environment and in influencing the functioning, cooperation and development of communities.
The impact of these perceptions on the younger generation is particularly profound. Children and young people are highly affected and assimilate social signals from the authorities and public institutions. When young people witness incidents of police abuse, such as harassment, abuse of power, or collusion with criminals, they internalize negative attitudes towards law enforcement agencies. This internalization can have long-term consequences, including suspicion of legal regimes, reluctance to participate in civic life, or even the generalization of immoral behavior.
Studies in social psychology show that repeated exposure to corrupt or abusive officials can affect moral frameworks, leading young people to question the legitimacy of institutional power or adopt unfavorable attitudes toward law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, the heroic image of the Indian Army is a powerful source of inspiration. Army personnel are often portrayed as disciplined, courageous and selfless nation protectors, embracing ideals that connect deeply with young civilians. Exposure to such ideals promotes patriotism, volunteerism, and commitment to social welfare. It inspires youth to pursue careers in defence, public service and civic engagement, and creates a generation that values duty, honor and national pride.
Another important social implication is the impact on democratic governance. Democracy is not just an act of voting; it requires the continued operation of impartial, accountable and credible institutions. When police institutions are widely considered corrupt or involved in criminal activities, they undermine the fundamental principles of democracy. Citizens may begin to believe that justice can be bought, that legal protection is selective, and that law enforcement does not work in the public interest. This perception can undermine trust in government institutions as a whole, creating fertile ground for political disillusionment, social unrest and alternative justice mechanisms. On the contrary, the Indian Army’s unwavering dedication to the nation strengthens confidence in state institutions. Soldiers are widely regarded as impartial, disciplined and committed to protecting the rights and security of civilians without personal gain. This notion helps to stabilize democratic governance by providing a model of institutional integrity and credibility that citizens can rely on.
Differences in public perception of the police and military also affect everyday interactions and social behavior. In circumstances where both police and military are present—such as during national emergencies, disaster relief or public events—citizens are often attracted to soldiers for guidance, protection and assurance. This priority is not merely symbolic; it reflects a deep belief in the moral standards and effectiveness of the military. At the same time, the police, which is officially tasked with maintaining law and order, often struggle to obtain voluntary compliance or cooperation from the public. People may regard police officers as unpredictable or even antagonistic, which hinders the effectiveness of law enforcement actions and reduces public safety. The social consequences are clear: institutions that fail to earn public trust cannot fully perform their intended functions, creating gaps that can be filled by other actors, including criminal networks or informal justice systems.
Systemic reforms are needed to address this disparity. Restoring confidence in the police is not just a matter of improving public relations; it requires structural and cultural changes. Accountability mechanisms, transparency in actions, anti-corruption initiatives and rigorous enforcement of ethical standards are of paramount importance. Police training should focus on community participation, human rights and ethical conduct, while civil monitoring and redress mechanisms should be strengthened. Unless such reforms take place, the perception gap between the army and the police will continue to widen. Civilians will maintain their trust, respect and affection for soldiers, seeing them as true defenders of security, honour and national pride, while harboring a sense of suspicion and vigilance towards police officers.
The social implications of public perception of the police versus the military are profound and multifaceted. Distrust of the police undermines citizen participation, undermines community solidarity, discourages cooperation with legal authorities and undermines democratic governance. In contrast, the military acts as a stable institution, inspiring confidence in national pride, civic responsibility, and institutional integrity. The challenge for India is clear: meaningful reforms in policing are necessary to restore public confidence, ensure justice and bridge the growing perception gap. Until these reforms are implemented, the military will remain the institution most admired, respected and trusted by citizens as the last defender of the nation.
Conclusion
The current perception of Indian citizens about the police versus the Indian Army is the result of huge differences in institutional behaviour, ethics and public participation. While the military is always seen as a symbol of selflessness, discipline and unwavering dedication to the nation, the police are often seen as instigators of corruption, selective enforcers of the law and, in some cases, opponents of the very citizens they have been appointed to protect. These notions are not merely abstract; they have a tangible impact on social stability, democratic functioning and the attitudes of generation after generation towards governance and civic responsibility. Understanding these differences is crucial to envisioning a path towards reform and restoring public confidence in law enforcement institutions.
The Indian Army has maintained an image of honesty and professionalism that is respected despite social, economic and regional divisions. Soldiers are trained to prioritize national security and the well-being of civilians over personal gain, and their conduct during crises reinforces this perception, from natural disasters to counter-terrorism operations. Civilians often see the military operating under extreme risk and difficult conditions, yet with impartiality, discipline and courage. This continuity creates a powerful psychological impact: people assimilate the military as a credible and trustworthy institution that embodies the ideals of justice, sacrifice and national service. The visibility of the military during public emergencies and its impartial role in maintaining national security provide citizens with a sense of security and assurance, which the police fail to provide in many areas.
On the contrary, police misconduct, corruption and collusion with criminal networks have seriously undermined public confidence. Several reports highlight that parts of the police force are engaged in accepting bribes, protecting fraudsters and selectively enforcing justice, often preferring personal gain over public duty. Citizens face these issues firsthand when reporting crimes, seeking assistance, or going through bureaucratic procedures. Experiences of harassment, threats or indifference by police officers reinforce feelings of isolation and insecurity. This deep distrust has broader social implications: citizens can avoid reporting crimes, cooperating with law enforcement agencies, or participating in civic initiatives requiring police involvement. When law enforcement agencies are perceived as unreliable or complicit, it undermines social harmony, promotes criminal behavior, and undermines democratic governance.
The generational impact of these assumptions is particularly important. Children and young people who witness police abuse are likely to develop negative attitudes towards power and institutional justice, which may persist into adulthood. This can lead to a cycle of mistrust and alienation, where the younger generation assimilates suspicion of legal regimes and civic responsibilities. On the other hand, the heroic image of the Army presents positive ideals, inspiring youth to pursue careers in public service, defense and community engagement. Youth familiar with values such as military discipline, sacrifice and integrity are more likely to imbibe civic responsibility, patriotism and moral conduct, which can strengthen social resilience over time.
Another important aspect of this dynamic is the direct impact on democratic governance. Democracy depends not only on elections, but also on the continued functioning of accountable, transparent and impartial institutions. When the police are widely perceived as corrupt or involved in crime, the legitimacy of state power is called into question. Citizens may conclude that laws are selectively enforced, justice can be bought, and institutional accountability is lacking. This perception undermines public confidence not only in law enforcement, but also in the broader mechanisms of governance, thereby undermining the social contract between citizens and the State. On the contrary, the military’s reputation for impartiality and selfless service strengthens trust in national institutions, thereby enhancing political stability, social cohesion and confidence in governance.
Removing this disparity is both urgent and complex. Restoring confidence in the police requires systemic reforms going beyond superficial measures. Structural changes are necessary to enforce accountability, prevent corruption and ensure that officials work with integrity and professionalism. Transparency in operations, strong mechanisms for citizen monitoring and strict adherence to ethical standards are essential components of the reform. Priority should be given to human rights, community engagement and ethical decision-making in police training, while fairness and dedication to public service should be rewarded in performance appraisal. It is only through sustained, institution-wide commitment to these reforms that the police can hope to bridge the growing perception gap with the military.
Unless meaningful reforms are implemented, the public will continue to be attracted to the military as the ultimate guarantee of security, fairness and national pride. In situations where both police and army personnel are present, civilians instinctively rely on soldiers rather than officers. This preference is not arbitrary; It reflects deep beliefs rooted in direct conduct, historical performance, and cultural narratives of bravery and loyalty. Continued respect for the military serves as a stabilizing force, promoting national unity, inspiring civic engagement and reinforcing social values. On the contrary, the police face the constant challenge of addressing reputational deficiencies, improving community relations and demonstrating that they can act as impartial defenders rather than as perpetrators of crime.
The difference in public perception between the Indian Police and the Indian Army highlights fundamental differences in morality, behavior and institutional culture. The Army’s dedication to selfless service, impartiality and national security earns admiration, respect and trust, while police misconduct, corruption and collusion with criminals have undermined credibility and public trust. Its social implications are profound: diminished citizen participation, reduced community cohesion, negative attitudes from generation to generation and challenges to democratic governance. To restore confidence in law enforcement, India must implement comprehensive reforms focused on accountability, transparency and ethical conduct. Until such reforms are realized, the Indian Army will remain the institution most trusted, admired and revered by civilians, embodying the ideals of security, integrity and national pride that the police have not yet consistently achieved.
Read Also:
- Reasons Why Indian Police Is More Corrupt
- Kolkata Police Department: The Alleged Most Corrupt Force Of Contemporary India
- If The Indian Police Continues To Support Scammers And Fraudsters
- Fraudsters And Scammers Pay 40 To 60% Of The Scam Money To The Police: A Current Reality Of India
- At Present The Indian Police Department Does Not Open Any Case Without Money (Bribe)
- In Today Time, 98% Of The Employees Of The Indian Police Department Are Corrupt
- Why Is The Indian Police Department Considered More Corrupt Than The Police Departments Of Other Countries
- Nowadays, Due To Police Corruption And Bribery In India, Frauds And Scams Are Increasing Day By Day
- Fraud And Scams Are Growing Rapidly In Kolkata: Kolkata Government, Police Department And Cyber Cell All Are Corrupt
- Manoj Kumar Verma – A Black Mark On The Name Of Kolkata Police Commissioner
- Seeking Help From Police And Other Official Departments To Verify Social Media Content As Genuine Or Fake
- Complain Against Someone Who Shares Or Posts Bad And Fake News On Social Media To Local Police Stations, Cyber Crime Departments And Even Authorities Like The CBI
- Low Salary And Poor Working Conditions In Police System As A Major Cause Of Corruption In India
- Political Intervention In Police Work In India A Deep Root Of Control And Corruption
- At Present Time Bribery And Corruption In India Have Become A Tradition For Indian Police
- Reasons Behind Indian Police Not Opening Any Type Of Cases Without Bribe Or Corruption
- Why Is The Indian Police More Corrupt Than The Police Of Other Countries
- How The Indian Police Department Is Often Perceived As A Supporter Of Cyber Fraudsters And Scammers
- Indian Police Department Bad Behave
