We are living in a time when people think that organizations do not care about things just because they are not saying anything. Haryana's Director General of Police O.P. Singh is changing the way leaders behave by being open and talking to people. O.P. Singh started his job in October 2025 when the organization was going through a tough time and everyone was watching. He has made it clear that he wants to be trusted. He is doing this by launching big operations like Trackdown. O.P. Singh is also dealing with issues, like how his people feel and if they are being treated fairly. He is facing these issues directly. In this exclusive conversation, he discusses the moral core of policing, the necessity of public trust, and why authority in a modern democracy must be earned through consistent, honest communication.
Q. You took charge as DGP in mid-October 2025, at a time when public trust in institutions was already strained. The force was shaken by the suicide of a serving Inspector General. How did that shape your early days in office?
O.P. Singh: It shaped them profoundly. There is no way to separate leadership from context. The suicide of a senior officer is first a human tragedy, but it also forces an institution to look inward. Allegations of discrimination, especially in a uniformed service, strike at our moral core. I was clear from the beginning that this could not be treated as just another file or controversy. Due process must run its course, but leadership also has to acknowledge pain, uncertainty and loss. Silence would have been a mistake.
Q. Many police organisations respond to such crises by withdrawing from public comment. You chose to speak more, not less. Why?
O.P. Singh: Because policing no longer operates in an age where silence is neutral. Silence today is interpreted as avoidance or indifference. Both are corrosive. I believe that in a democracy, authority comes from credibility. If the police are visible in action, honest in intent, and clear in communication, public trust follows. Silence creates suspicion; clarity creates confidence. This applies as much to internal crises as it does to crime control.
Q. You launched high-visibility operations like Trackdown and Hotspot Domination early in your tenure. Was that a signal of a tougher approach?
O.P. Singh: It was a signal of seriousness. Crime does not pause while institutions introspect. Haryana faces organised crime, narcotics networks, illegal arms and cyber-enabled offences. Allowing criminal ecosystems to settle into comfort sends the wrong message—to citizens and to criminals. These operations were not about optics. They were about disruption and deterrence. At the same time, we made an effort to explain why we were acting and what we expected these operations to achieve.
Q. Critics sometimes argue that such operations risk being seen as cosmetic or short-term. How do you respond?
O.P. Singh: That risk exists if operations are treated as events rather than as part of a strategy. Enforcement alone is not reform. It has to be followed by consistency, better investigation, and accountability. But enforcement also matters. Citizens may tolerate crime; they do not tolerate the sense that the state has withdrawn. The balance lies in acting firmly and explaining clearly.
Q. The allegations accompanying the IG’s suicide have raised questions about caste discrimination within the police. How do you address that without prejudging ongoing inquiries?
O.P. Singh: By being clear about principles. The police is a constitutional institution. Equality, dignity and fairness are not optional values; they are foundational. Allegations of discrimination—whether eventually upheld or not—must be taken seriously because perception itself affects morale and cohesion. As DGP, my responsibility is to ensure that every officer, regardless of caste or background, feels protected by rules, heard by leadership and judged by performance. That is essential for operational integrity.
Q. You speak often about the police being a “public-facing institution.” What does that mean in practical terms?
O.P. Singh: It means that policing cannot be inward-looking or opaque. It requires regular communication, not only during crises. It means senior officers engaging with citizens, explaining priorities and constraints, and listening. It also means accepting informed criticism. Authority today is sustained not by distance, but by engagement.
Q. Haryana’s location and economy make law and order particularly sensitive. How do you see the police’s role in the state’s broader development?
O.P. Singh: Law and order is economic infrastructure. Haryana surrounds the national capital, hosts major industrial and logistics hubs, and attracts a mobile population. Investors and professionals do not expect crime-free environments; they expect predictability, responsiveness and visible state capacity. Policing plays a direct role in sustaining that confidence.
Q. Technology is often presented as the solution to policing challenges. Where do you place it in your approach?
O.P. Singh: Technology is an enabler, not a substitute. Cybercrime portals, surveillance systems and data analytics are important, but they do not confer legitimacy. People do. Trust rests on human conduct—how officers behave, how decisions are taken, how mistakes are acknowledged. Technology must support accountability, not replace it.
Q. You have enjoyed noticeable public approval in a short time. Does that concern you?
O.P. Singh: Public approval is not an objective; it is a by-product. My focus is on institutionalising what works—clear priorities, fair processes, consistent communication—so that confidence survives beyond any one tenure.
