politicisation of the Indian police and active participation of Indian policemen in politics. This may be true of policemen in the rest of South Asia. Undivided India was divided into India and Pakistan in 1947. Sri Lanka emerged a little later. Bangladesh arose out of Pakistan in 1971. The ‘Transfer of Power’ from the British to the South Asian political elites involved the unchanged retention of the entire criminal justice system and the repressive police and administrative structures of the Raj. A Constitution and a developmental structure was superimposed on the pre-existing repressive colonial legal structure in India to meet the rising aspirations of the people for development and justice, which were never met wholly or in full measure. People’s struggles continued. So did police repression. Why have the postcolonial South Asian states failed to carry out democratic reforms of the administration and the police after attaining ‘independence’? After all, the South Asian liberals who had fought for liberation from colonial rule had indeed promised development with justice. Why did they fail to do what they had obviously intended to do? Did this have to do with the class character of the new regimes? Reforms of the criminal justice reforms in South Asia are essential to essential to wipe out the currently dominant police brutality and ‘staged encounter killings’. Corruption and inefficiency are the other aspects of the deterioration of the criminal justice system. The problem is complicated because of the ‘symbiotic relationship’ between ruling politicians and policemen. The role of training in explicating and implementing police accountability cannot be underestimated. Accountability means an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility and account for one’s actions. Accountability in the context of governance means that public officials have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to citizens. Accountability is achieved through