If Hari on the other side is the police, then we have nothing to say. A proposed bill for the police and armed police force has been submitted to play with the working nature, culture and methodology of the organization by favoring some. From this, it can easily be assumed that the state administrators and political parties are making serious mistakes.

If there is no clarity in the operational policy of the two sensitive and important security agencies of the country, the determination of jurisdictional boundaries and the coordination issues of security, it is sure to have a direct impact on the meaning and spirit of internal security immediately and in the long run.

It seems that the state is trying to create a situation of unnecessary tension and conflict by including unnatural and incompatible provisions in the proposed bill of the police and armed police in accordance with the crooked strategy of taking advantage of the situation of duplicity and dilemma between the two security agencies. 

Failed politicians always adopt a strategy of duplicity, fake and half-witted speculations, and focus on obstruction of performance. This hesitancy, hesitancy and agitation of our state administrators and political parties has also appeared in the proposed Police Bill. It seems necessary to understand this crooked trick of politics by the heads of both organizations and all other sections in time. 

It will be beneficial for both organizations and countries not to be influenced by the narrow-minded thinking of our leaders who are used to the use of the old classical theory of Maccabelli, which is to unite, divide and rule, and to be aware of the jurisdiction and accountability according to the nature of their organizations. The important issues to be considered while solving the issues of service conditions, nature of service and delimitation which are necessary for the smooth running of the organization are briefly mentioned below.

Is the armed security force paramilitary or parapolice force? Let's determine. 

Armed security forces will remain quasi until the meaning of quasi is completely eradicated. Therefore, to completely remove the ambiguity of full and half, it seems necessary to abolish the policy of including the scope of the Armed Police Force in the matter of quasi-investigation, quasi-border security and quasi-public security, and in the preamble of the proposed bill, it is necessary to abolish the provisions determined to be mobilized for the investigation and control of border crime and investigative work, and to include the phrase that it will be mobilized to maintain border security and peace and order. 

In fact, no investigative action is taken by any force, which is contrary to universal norms of human rights and the criminal justice system. Research is not a matter of wishful thinking. This is a matter to be determined according to law, the involvement or quasi-involvement of any agency other than the Nepal Police will make the matter of criminal investigation even more complicated. The right to arrest the criminal during the crime and not to let him escape has also been legally opened to all conscious citizens. 

Armed police force should not encroach upon the specific method of crime investigation in the name and reason of immediate arrest of the criminal while guarding the border or in other cases. Matters like arresting people, searching, questioning, collecting evidence are not matters of quasi-police. Let's not try to keep it out of the purview of trained specialist investigators.

If a state of crisis or transition is declared in the country, such provisions shall not be included in the law of semi-police or semi-military forces, except in cases where a separate law deems it necessary to do something for the time being. Whether

crime occurs in the border or anywhere else, it becomes a subject to be investigated in accordance with the norms of criminal justice system. Ignoring this matter, the inclusion of crime investigation, prevention and control in various sections of the proposed bill of the Armed Police Force is completely inconsistent and against the basic principles of the police service. 

When determining responsibility, the nature of Jimmawal's work and culture should not be attacked. Armed forces should not be misused in the areas of service delivery, such as highway security, airport security, etc., which are connected to the daily services and facilities of the civilian population.

Since the nature of back-up force is to be mobilized as per the demand of the situation, while mobilizing this force, it should not be assigned responsibility for issues such as daily work highway inspection, mine search while maintaining distance from civilians. This raises serious questions about the functioning and legality of the organization. 

Instead of involving the force in the security of the scene, it seems necessary that the legal provisions be clearly laid down in order to use the special ability of the force in the control of the out-of-control incident. The fundamental and guiding principles of both force and service need to be spelled out in the Act itself.

To confirm the rationale of establishing any organization, for the clarity of the nature of service and jurisdiction, the basic and guiding principles of the organization are mentioned clearly and in detail in the law. It is necessary to clearly state what are the basic and guiding principles of Nepal Police and the principles of the Armed Police Force.

Remembering and highly appreciating the fact that the force born as a product of the specific situation of the country provided a specific service in a period of the country, both organizations should not get caught in the trap of the political scenario that unnecessarily establishes the organization as a semi-police force and creates a situation of duplicity and dilemma. As in the past, it seems necessary to try to solve the dilemmas and inconveniences that arise in accordance with brotherhood and friendship before it goes to the political arena and resolves it at the organizational level.