This potent Bengali saying, “পুলিশ ছাই থেকে দড়ি বানিয়ে দিতে পারে” (“The police can make a rope from ash”), though not universally true, is a vivid commentary on the unchecked power of law enforcement. It’s far more than a clever phrase; it reflects a deep, widespread societal concern: that the police possess such unrestrained authority they can create consequences, cases, or even guilt out of nothing.
The ash symbolizes the absence of evidence or wrongdoing, while the rope represents the fabricated indictment or punishment. This expression captures the public’s fear that legal systems can be manipulated, allowing those in power to literally fabricate an arrest or a conviction where none should exist.
I first encountered this potent idiom almost twenty-five years ago while working as a sub-divisional police officer in a remote district of rural West Bengal. An MLA recounted how her father used to express his profound distrust of police personnel, warning simply:
“They can make a rope from ash.” This saying perfectly captured the family’s deep-seated concern over police impunity – the chilling belief that law enforcement could, and would, literally construct a case out of nothing to suit their ends. Hearing it directly from a community leader brought the abstract concept of institutional abuse to immediate, local life.
What Does “Rope from Ash” Mean?
The idiom “making a rope from ash” highlights the deep public concern that police can manufacture a case or guilt where no real evidence (ash) exists, effectively proving an innocent person guilty. This fabrication often happens not by creating physical evidence, but by manipulating circumstantial facts or coercing false testimony. For example, if forensic evidence is lacking, police might pressure a suspect’s associate – who may have minor legal issues – to falsely “remember” receiving a phone call where the suspect confessed to the crime. This fabricated verbal statement then becomes the critical “rope” that binds the suspect to the conviction, making the absence of genuine proof insignificant.
Why Do People Feel This Way?
This belief comes from:
- Real cases of police highhandedness
- Lack of trust in the system
- The huge power gap between ordinary people and the police
Police are often the first to respond to a crime. They collect evidence, talk to witnesses, and write reports. This gives them a lot of control over how a case begins. If they misuse this power, they can shape the story in a way that suits them – even if it’s not true.
The Power of Uniform and Words:
When a police officer accuses someone, people tend to believe them. Their uniform gives them authority. But this trust can be misused. If an officer wants someone to look guilty, they might:
- Exaggerate facts
- Ignore evidence that proves innocence
- Even plant false evidence or force confessions
This is called “framing” – making an innocent person look guilty. Sadly, there are real cases where this has happened.
How Stories Shape Justice:
Sometimes, the police don’t have strong evidence, but they tell a convincing story. This can influence judges, juries, and the public. Even if the facts are weak, a strong narrative can lead to a conviction. The legal system, which is supposed to find the truth, can sometimes become a battle of stories.
Systemic Pressure:
Police departments often face pressure to:
- Solve cases quickly
- Show high conviction rates
This can lead to shortcuts. Instead of searching for the truth, they might focus on closing the case – even if it means blaming the wrong person.
This can lead to shortcuts. Instead of searching for the truth, they might focus on closing the case – even if it means blaming the wrong person.
The Real-Life Example:
That’s a valid point. The rephrased introduction is more aligned with the article’s core theme of fabrication and misuse of authority.
Here is the revised paragraph opening, incorporating your suggestion for a stronger thematic focus:
The Real-Life Example:
In a telling anecdote demonstrating the lengths police will go to under systemic pressure -and the ease with which they fabricate a result – a senior lady judge, temporarily staying at a district guest house, reported the loss of a gold ornament. Under intense pressure to recover the item for a powerful figure, the police bypassed genuine investigation entirely. Instead, they simply took a description of the missing piece from the lady officer, had a local jeweller fabricate an exact copy, and then grandly claimed to have solved the crime and apprehended a thief. The elaborate charade unravelled only when the judge later found her original ornament at home, confirming that the police had invented the entire sequence of events – from the crime to the suspect – to satisfy a person of influence, even though no actual crime had ever occurred.
Why This Idiom Matters:
If people believe police can “make a rope from ash,” it damages trust. They may feel:
- Innocence doesn’t protect them
- Justice can be manipulated
- The system is unfair
For society to work, people must trust the police and courts. That trust comes from fairness and honesty.
What Can Be Done?
To ensure genuine police accountability and curb highhandedness, a balanced approach combining external oversight with internal reform has been essential. Mechanisms such as body cameras and independent civilian review boards play a vital role, but their effectiveness often depends on safeguarding them from undue influence. Therefore, these measures must be reinforced by strong internal safeguards, including robust whistleblower protections for officers and continuous, mandatory training emphasizing de-escalation and constitutional rights. Ultimately, accountability can only be realized if every citizen has timely access to competent legal representation to challenge abuses of power effectively.
Conclusion:
Authority must always be paired with responsibility, for unchecked power erodes trust faster than it builds order. While most police personnel serve with integrity, the enduring fear that police can “make a rope from ash” reflects a collective anxiety that innocence alone is not protection. To overcome this perception, the justice system must anchor itself in verifiable facts and transparent processes, rejecting fabricated narratives that substitute performance for truth.
Only by reinforcing accountability, safeguarding fairness, and ensuring equal access to justice can society replace fear with trust, and restore the badge to a true symbol of service rather than suspicion.
