Interview with Nagaraju Chakilam, IPS, Transport Commissioner, Kerala

The Civil Services Forum had the privilege of hosting Nagaraju Chakilam, IPS, Transport Commissioner, Kerala, for an interview as part of its Executive Dialogues series. In a distinguished career in the Indian Police Service, he has held several key positions in law enforcement and public administration, dealing with issues ranging from policing and investigation to transport regulation and public safety. Known for his practical approach and field experience, he brings a grounded perspective on leadership, discipline, and public trust within the policing system. In this conversation, he reflects on his journey in the service, the realities of maintaining law and order, and the values that shape effective policing. The interaction offered students a closer understanding of the responsibilities of the police service and highlighted the importance of integrity, resilience, and a strong sense of duty in public life.

---

Q1 What was the turning point in your early life that inspired you to choose the Indian Police Service as a career?

Like many aspirants, I was not very clear in the beginning about which service to choose or how to arrange my preferences. It is never only about your choice; it also depends on your rank. So, like most candidates, I filled in IAS as my first option, IPS as the second, IFS as the third, and IRS as the fourth. This was the usual pattern. However, as I started preparing for the interview, I began to understand that the police service offers very direct and impactful opportunities to serve people. I also had several family members in uniformed services, which may have subconsciously influenced my inclination toward the IPS. When my rank was announced, it was below 100, which at that time was required to get into the police service. Many people felt that the service suited my temperament. Whether the interview board also sensed that, I cannot say, but it all becomes part of destiny. Once I joined the service, I truly realised the impact it could create on society, especially the importance of law and order for development. That is how I eventually found my place in the IPS.

Q2. During your UPSC preparation, what was the biggest challenge you faced, and how did you overcome that challenge?

As you all know, the UPSC syllabus is extremely vast, and time is always a constraint. One of the biggest challenges is ensuring that you complete the syllabus more than once. I realised that it is important to finish it once, revise it, revise it again, and then do a quick revision just before the examination. Because of the sheer size of the syllabus, you constantly feel short of time. It becomes difficult to plan your day, cover every topic, and prepare for different types of questions.

I would compare it to climbing a big mountain. You know you have to reach the peak, but the only way to do it is to take the first step and keep climbing. Instead of constantly looking at the peak, focus on the small hillocks in between. Reach those smaller milestones, reward yourself, and enjoy the journey. That approach helps you overcome the pressure and keep moving forward.

3. You pursued higher studies in criminology and public policy. How did this academic background shape your thinking about policing and governance?

After about nine years in service, I felt that I was doing similar kinds of work repeatedly, often relying on trial and error or following established precedents. This is not limited to policing; in many fields, decisions are taken based on past practices rather than a structured understanding. I felt there had to be a larger framework within which these issues could be understood. That is why I opted for the public policy and management programme at IIM Bangalore. It helped me look at public policy as a broader framework, within which policing is only one component. It made me realise that an officer must think beyond their own department and consider the larger impact of their actions.

Many problems faced in policing do not originate within the police system itself. They often arise from failures in other systems or from gaps in citizen services. For example, poor road infrastructure, lack of rule-following, or social disparities can lead to crime or law and order issues. The course helped me understand this larger ecosystem and the importance of root cause analysis. It also introduced concepts like the “policy window”, which helps you understand when and how to push for policy changes to correct systemic issues. This broader perspective has been very useful in my approach to governance.

Q4 Were there any mentors, courses, or experiences at Cambridge or IIM that later helped you handle real-life field situations?

Yes, those experiences were definitely helpful. After about fifteen or sixteen years in service, I felt there was still a lot more to learn, so I applied for the Chevening programme at Cambridge. It was a Government of India initiative, and the experience there was quite different from what I had seen earlier. I noticed a clear difference in pedagogy between IIM Bangalore and Cambridge. In India, we are often used to being taught in a more structured, sometimes spoon-fed manner, and IIM was no exception. At Cambridge, the emphasis was more on thinking, discussing, and applying ideas rather than being taught concepts in a conventional lecture format. In both places, we were expected to come prepared for class, but at Cambridge, the discussion would revolve around how we, as practitioners, would apply those ideas in real situations. We were already experienced police officers, so the professors would ask us how we would interpret a situation, why a particular factor mattered, and how we would respond. This kind of engagement stimulated our thinking and gave us a deeper understanding of the causes of crime and the broader context in which policing operates.

Q5. Looking back at your early years in service, what lesson from training proved most useful once you entered field policing?

Right from the foundation course in Mussoorie and later the basic training at the police academy, many lessons stay with you. While the overall training shapes your approach, sometimes a simple piece of advice from a faculty member leaves a lasting impact. One of our instructors used to say, “If you can do something about a problem, why worry about it? And if you cannot do anything about it, why worry about it?” The idea was simple: focus your energy on things that are within your control, and do not waste time worrying about what is beyond your reach.

This stayed with me in the field. Whenever I faced a situation, I would first ask myself whether it was within my ambit to act. If it was, I would try to improve it. If it was beyond my control, I would think about who had the authority and how I could collaborate with them to create an impact. This approach helped me stay focused, practical, and solution-orientated in real-life policing situations.

Q6. You have served in a wide range of roles, from CBI investigations to senior police leadership. Which posting tested you the most, and why?

I would say my tenure in the CBI was the most challenging. I joined as a Superintendent of Police and was later promoted there as DIG. The kinds of cases we handled were often mind-boggling, especially in terms of the scale of financial frauds and the level of due diligence required. The CBI functions largely on detailed standard operating procedures, and unlike regular policing, it is a specialised investigative agency, particularly under the Prevention of Corruption Act. You have to be extremely precise, because every word of the law matters, and there is no room for error.

In regular policing, you deal with many responsibilities at once—law and order, investigations, intelligence, traffic, VIP security, and community engagement. But in the CBI, the focus is entirely on investigation, and that too under a specific legal framework. Decisions such as whether to arrest, what evidence to collect, or whether it will stand the test of trial require constant scrutiny. You are thinking about these questions day and night, even in your sleep, because the accused are often very sophisticated and the evidence must be watertight. That intensity made the CBI the most challenging phase of my career.

Q7. As Police Commissioner in cities like Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram, what major structural or systemic reforms did you focus on? 

As Police Commissioner, I felt that policing involves a multitude of responsibilities, with officers constantly running around handling everything at once. There is a Supreme Court directive that investigation and law and order should be segregated, but in many places this remains only on paper. In practice, the two are closely intertwined. So I focused on implementing this segregation at the police station level. I created a framework where, under the SHO, there would be two distinct wings—one for investigation and another for law and order. The personnel in these wings were not to be mixed. One team focused on preventive policing and public order, while the other handled investigation, evidence collection, arrests, and documentation.

Drawing from my experience in the CBI, I also emphasised proper documentation and created standard operating procedures for filing charge sheets. Investigating officers were required to clearly present oral, documentary, and scientific evidence and map it against the legal ingredients of each offence. Before filing a charge sheet, they had to present the evidence within this framework for review. This not only improved the quality of investigations but also increased the chances of conviction.

Q8. Kerala’s society is known for high literacy, political awareness, and civic activism. How do these factors shape the challenges faced by police officers in the state?

In Kerala, high literacy, political awareness, and civic activism are not challenges for policing; they are advantages. When society is aware, people tend to be more law-abiding and better informed about their rights and responsibilities, which makes implementation easier. In fact, citizens can be actively involved in the process. Kerala was among the first states to formalise community policing through the Janamaithri model. Instead of the traditional top-down approach, where priorities are set only by the police hierarchy, community policing involves consulting people, understanding their concerns, and then setting priorities accordingly. It is a form of democratising policing priorities. Such an approach works effectively in a society that is educated and aware, because the feedback from citizens is more meaningful and constructive.

Q9 Over the last 5–10 years, how have you seen policing in India evolve, particularly with technology, social media, and public expectations?

There has been a significant change in policing over the last decade. When I started as an ASP, social media was not very common, and cybercrime was not a major issue. But with the advent of social media, reel culture, and increasing digital dependence, the expectations from the police have changed a lot. On the positive side, social media has become an effective feedback mechanism. Any citizen can now record an incident and share it instantly, and the system is compelled to respond quickly. This has made governance more transparent and responsive. However, the downside is that policing is becoming more reactive. Instead of proactively identifying issues, sometimes the system ends up responding only after something goes viral.

Technology itself is a double-edged sword. While it has improved many aspects of policing, cybercrime has emerged as one of the biggest challenges. In traditional crimes, you can catch a thief, but cybercrime keeps evolving. It mutates rapidly, and no matter how much you train your personnel or upgrade systems, the challenge continues to grow.

Q10. In your view, what is the biggest challenge facing policing today — cybercrime, drug networks, misinformation, communal tensions, or something else?

I would clearly say cybercrime is the biggest challenge facing policing today. It is constantly evolving, driven by widespread mobile and internet penetration. At the same time, digital literacy is often limited to basic phone usage—watching reels, answering calls, or clicking on links—without understanding the risks. People across different age groups and backgrounds fall victim to such crimes, often without realising the extent of the damage. Despite awareness campaigns, cybercriminals keep adapting and moving ahead of preventive measures. This continuous evolution makes cybercrime one of the most difficult challenges for policing today.

11. How can police forces maintain a balance between firm law enforcement and empathy while also safeguarding human rights and public trust?

Firm enforcement has to be seen in the context of the larger ecosystem. Take a simple example: a person parks on the roadside and the traffic police issues a challan. The person argues that there was no proper parking space, no road markings, or no signages. In such a situation, can enforcement be completely rigid when the supporting infrastructure itself is inadequate? Firm enforcement is ideal, but it depends on the availability of proper systems—clear signages, designated parking, and well-planned roads. In many developed countries, enforcement is strict because the infrastructure leaves no excuse for violation. In a developing context, officers often face ethical dilemmas. For example, an elderly man may park improperly because he cannot find a proper space. In such situations, while the law must be applied, the officer also has to exercise discretion and empathy. Balancing enforcement with understanding is essential to maintain both justice and public trust.

Q12. If you had the power to implement immediate change, what police reform do you believe is most urgently needed today?

The most important reform in policing is changing the way the public perceives the police. Nearly 99 per cent of citizens are law-abiding, yet many of them still fear the police. Ideally, these people should feel confident and comfortable approaching the police, trusting its fairness and impartiality. If the law-abiding majority stands with the police, it becomes much easier to deal with the small percentage involved in crime. The key reform, therefore, is to remove the fear factor and make the police more accessible to ordinary citizens. A common person should be able to walk into a police station with the same confidence as any VIP. Achieving this requires stronger community policing initiatives and a consistent effort to build trust between the police and the public.

Q 13 Finally, many young people today feel overwhelmed by career pressure and uncertainty about their future. At the same time, some aspire to join the IPS but feel intimidated by the journey. What advice would you give to both groups in terms of resilience, mindset, and preparation?

Pressure is not always a bad thing. In fact, it often helps us perform better. Without deadlines or clear goals, we rarely reach our full potential. The problem arises when we feel overwhelmed by pressure. In such situations, the best approach is to focus on small, manageable steps. Like climbing a mountain, you should not keep staring at the peak. First decide which peak you want to climb, then start moving toward it. Focus on the next milestone, then the one after that. Action is the best antidote to stress. Small, consistent steps reduce anxiety and build confidence.

For those who aspire to the IPS, I would strongly recommend the service. Policing is a sovereign function that cannot be outsourced or replaced by technology. While tools and systems may change, the need for policing will remain. It is also an extremely impactful service. The immediate difference you can make in people’s lives is what gives real satisfaction. You see people walk in with problems and leave with relief, and that sense of impact is the beauty of policing. As an IPS officer, you have the authority, resources, and responsibility to create that change.

STAY TUNED FOR MORE INTERVIEWS