A federal police may provide the answer
Come to think of it, it was a small matter about the distribution of medals in 1980 to the police officers who had excelled themselves in their tasks. Yet the function blew out of proportion when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had just returned to power, stopped the ceremony and walked out. She was annoyed because the officers had been recognised for their “courageous work” to punish those who had committed atrocities during the emergency.
Medal ceremonies were only a routine job. The real casualty was the National Police Commission’s report which was presented to her at the function. The commission, appointed after the emergency, had worked hard for three years to suggest ways and means to depoliticise the police. She considered anything done when out of power a criticism of the emergency when she ruled like a satrap. It was a good report but she threw the baby with the bath tub.
Thirty three years have gone by, but the report has got lost in the objections raised by the states and the centre’s lack of determination. Even the Supreme Court’s intervention to get the report implemented has produced no result. The court has advised the implementation of the recommendations. What comes in the way of the report is that the law and order is constitutionally a state subject. The centre cannot interfere in it because of the states’ autonomy. This has assumed importance today in the midst of bomb blasts at Hyderabad and threats of terrorism elsewhere. The state blames the centre which, in turn, claims that it has warned Andhra Pradesh two days before the bomb blasts.
Apparently, the lack of coordination has led the bureaucracy to renew the proposal of National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) for an overall control. Even in the diluted form it is a welcome step. The performance of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), set up despite protests from some states, has not been effective. Established after the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai, the NIA has taken up 11 cases with only two of them having made some headway. One case challenging the NIA’s jurisdiction is pending in the Bombay High Court and the other stuck elsewhere. Once again the question of demarcation of authority between the centre and the states has arisen.
Ordinarily, such a question should not have posed an intractable situation. The reason why no satisfactory solution emerged answer is the politicisation of institutions. The government of different colours in the states fears that the centre has done little to efface the stigma of interference. The Sarkaria Commission report on Centre-State relations has found very few states implementing it. Once again, the fear is that the state would lose its identity.
The Congress is the most to blame for politicisation. It has left no institution where it has not introduced its bias. The party was the first to pick up anybody it liked and reward them by appointing to the gubernatorial post. For example, it introduced the dictum of consulting the states but not seeking their concurrence for appointing governors. This violated the spirit of the constitution. New Delhi has repeatedly argued that the constitution wanted it to consult the states concerned but not seek the concurrence. Gradually, even the sham of consultation has been dropped and the centre has started appointing governors directly. Politics has taken over norms. Naturally, the institutions have become effete.
The politicisation of police takes the cake. The force is at the mercy of a chief minister of the state and he or she uses it like a private force. A recent example is that of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s who removed the Director General of Police Ranjit Kumar Pachnanda then and there. The centre, not always for altruistic reasons, wants to oversee the police work in the states so that it keeps the finger in the pie.
Were the centre and the state to combine and pool their resources, they can really curb terrorism within the country or from across the border. At present, they seem to be working at cross purposes and not following the stray, useful information from some ordinary intelligence department. The post-analysis of so many bomb blasts have shown that if the stray intelligence had also been taken seriously, the bomb blast incidents probably could have been stalled. In America, the coordinated command after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington has kept the country free of terrorist acts. That is because a new central institution was constituted and given all powers to collect intelligence, decipher it and take necessary action without bringing in any politician in it. India can follow the example provided the states do not mistrust the centre and does not mix politics with the police. Yet the experience tells that the states are not bothered about the centre or the country’s overall advantage so long as they can keep their house clean.
recall that once in Kerala New Delhi had to use the IPS officers from the All India Service under the supervision of the centre to save the federal property like post offices from state-sponsored strike. No amount of plea on the point of federalism worked with Thiruvananthapuram. The IPS officers, however, did respond to the Centre’s request which was otherwise constitutionally wanting. In fact, the country needs a federal police, on the pattern of America, so that crimes which transcend borders can be dealt with effectively. This would particularly help in the instances of discrimination and denial to the lower castes, including the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The states for political reasons or the vote bank considerations do not act or act cursorily when it comes to central offences. The federal police should be autonomous, answerable to parliament, so that the ruling party at the centre does not lessen or exaggerate the crime for political considerations. In the light of increasing parochialism within the country, a federal police may provide the answer.
The writer is a senior Indian journalist.
