DA Editorial Desk | Dhruba Deka
On 20 July, the former Director General of Police of Tripura, Anurag Dhankar, was found dead in the washroom attached to his chamber at the state police headquarters. He was a 1994-batch IPS officer who had led the state’s police force. The Chief Minister later told the Assembly that the death was “suicidal in nature.” On 8 October, nearly twelve weeks after the death, the officiating police chief, G.S. Rao, said that the investigation was “going on at full pace” and would be completed soon.
Nothing in the public record justifies speculation about what happened, and an editorial should not add to it. A death of this kind is first of all a personal tragedy for a family, and for colleagues who worked beside him. Respect for them requires restraint. But restraint is not the same as silence. When the head of a state’s police force dies at the police headquarters, the public is entitled to a clear, complete and credible account, and that account is now overdue.
The state government formed a three-member Special Investigation Team to look into the circumstances of the death. It is headed by Namit Pathak, the Superintendent of Police of West Tripura, and includes an Additional Superintendent of Police and a sub-inspector who has been investigating the case as an unnatural death. The team’s head may co-opt other officers. No deadline for completing its work has been reported.
This arrangement raises an honest question about independence. The team consists of police officers working under the police chain of command. The man whose death they are examining stood at the top of that chain. No one has suggested that the officers will act in anything other than good faith. But the principle that investigators should not be answerable to the institution under scrutiny is a simple one, and it protects the investigators as much as anyone. A finding that is reached by serving officers, however honest, will always be open to the charge that it was shaped by them.
That is why the opposition’s call for a judicial inquiry deserves a considered answer. Opposition parties have demanded such an inquiry, alleging that certain quarters may have provoked the former DGP. That is an allegation, not a finding, and it should be treated as one. The government is entitled to reject it. But it should do so with reasons, and it should explain why the present arrangement is sufficient. A judicial inquiry would not prejudge anything. It would add another layer of examination, conducted by someone outside the police hierarchy, and it would let the government say that it had nothing to avoid.
The delay itself matters. Nearly three months is a long time in a case in which the facts are limited and the evidence is largely documentary and medical. If the probe has met difficulties, the public should be told what they are. If it is nearly complete, a date should be given. “Soon” is not a timeline. The longer such an inquiry runs without explanation, the more room it leaves for rumour, and rumour is cruel to the family and to the memory of the man.
There is also a wider institutional concern. Tripura’s police force is about to be asked to manage the Durga Puja festival, with over 10,000 personnel deployed across the state, and to prepare for the polls to 21 urban local bodies. Morale in a force depends on trust in its leadership and in the system that backs it. If the death of its own chief remains unresolved in the public mind, that trust is strained. A transparent conclusion would help the force as much as it helps the public.
What should the government do? First, set a firm date by which the team will submit its findings. Second, commit to making the main conclusions public, with only such details withheld as the family’s privacy or the law requires. Third, consider handing the findings to an independent authority, such as a retired judge, for review, even if it chooses not to hold a full judicial inquiry. Fourth, keep the family informed of what is being done, in a manner that respects their grief and privacy. Public confidence in the outcome will depend on how openly and quickly the government acts from here.
None of this is an accusation. It is a reasonable expectation in a democracy that the state will be open about the death of one of its most senior officers. Mr Dhankar served the state and the country for decades, including on sensitive investigations. He, and the people of Tripura, deserve nothing less than a full, honest and timely account of what happened.