The force has become an instrument in the hands of the rulers, who use it for their own ends without any hesitation.

Despite its inadequacies, the Nanavati Commission's report on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots took note of this and made a pertinent recommendation: "There should be an independent police force which is free from political influence." It went unnoticed. Now that the din over the commission has died down, and people are looking for remedies, it is time to pursue the suggestion. The politicised police is the bane of India or, for that matter, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

Law and order is a state subject in India. The Centre can do little to interfere. Even the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), and the Border Security Force (BSF) have an assigned role in a state. They cannot meddle in its internal affairs. Pakistan follows more or less the same pattern. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are different because both are unitary governments and control police directly.

The idea behind giving the states in India the charge of law and order was to let people feel that they enjoyed autonomy in their internal affairs. It was also feared that if a central police force to maintain law and order, rulers at New Delhi might be tempted to take over the country. It nearly happened in 1975 when Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency. But people defeated her at the polls when they got the chance. Earlier, after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964, then Home Secretary Vishwanathan had the CRPF stage a flag march on the streets of New Delhi to "nip the mischief in the bud," as he put it.

None imagined that a state would some day use police for its own ends to chastise the critics or coddle the supporters. Comrades in West Bengal have more or less immunity as have the RSS-BJP followers in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat. Congressmen are "free" in the states where the party is in power. The DMK is under disadvantage in Tamil Nadu because the AIADMK sits in the chair of the chief minister. The ruling Biju Janata Dal uses police to back even multinationals against poor adivasis. Police is its own master in Punjab.

It is no different in Pakistan, although the armed forces have the last word. Only in Waziristan did the military take the initiative. Otherwise, it is all left to the state rulers. The governments in Baluchistan and the NWFP have police engaged in the pro-fundamental activities because they are dyed in extremism themselves. In contrast, chief ministers in Punjab and Sind have put police to curb fanaticism. Consequently, police plays havoc in both the countries since the force has reduced itself to the role of errand boys. Chief Minister Narendra Modi could use it for the systematic killing of Muslims as the Congress government did in 1984 at Delhi where 3,000 Sikhs were killed with the police standing at the place of incidents. In fact, all the 28 commissions of inquiry on communal riots since independence have blamed police for conniving at the violence against minorities. It is generally said that a riot between Hindus and Muslims ultimately becomes a confrontation between police and Muslims. Lately, caste riots have been holding center stage. Caste has largely stalled communalism.

Still the role of police has not changed. They continue to act at the instance of chief ministers. Parochialism has also contaminated the force. It looks to the other side if the victim is from a different caste or state. Even the word, foreigner, is thrown at him if he ever goes to a police station to file the first information report (FIR). The poor are the worst sufferers because they have no clout, political or economic.

A piquant situation has arisen because New Delhi is dependent on the state for use of police. Even when the Centre wants to protect its property at the time of local strikes, the state force does little if protesters or strikers are damaging central property. Many a time New Delhi has utilised the services of IPS officers whenever the state government is hostile. Since IPS is controlled by the Personnel Department at the Centre, this informal arrangement has worked at times.

Not long ago, the then Home Minister, L.K. Advani, broached the idea of a federal force to handle crimes like discrimination or atrocities against the dalits to meet the states' caste bias. America has a federal force which it has used in some southern states to fight for the rights of the blacks against the Ku Klux Klan. Admission to a school or a seat in a bus was dictated by colour considerations. Washington was able to demolish the segregation wall by using the federal police. New Delhi can do the same by having a union force.

New Delhi's proposal to have internal security on the Concurrent List of the constitution is too sweeping. The states will consider it as central interference in their domestic affairs. It will negate the states' autonomy which strengthens democracy at the grassroots. The specific proposal to have a federal force for specific purposes may find support in the states. In a federal structure that India is, there is a case for an all-India force to protect minorities, dalits, and the backwards. Had there been a federal force it could have gone to Gujarat to stop the genocide of Muslims. It is possible that the state and central police forces, under different masters, may come to a clash. But thing will ultimately settle as they have in the US, both sides accepting certain norms.

The real problem, however, will be how to insulate the federal police against political influence. One way could be to put the force under the National Human Rights Commission until the apparatus of Lokpal (ombudsman) takes some shape. However, the present arrangement to employ the armed forces to curb domestic troubles has reduced the states' autonomy to a farce, apart from making the armed forces dictatorial in their way. Our experience in the northeast should have made us think of some other arrangement. The failure to find an alternative has resulted in the status quo: the armed forces remaining in control and operating under a 50-year-old law which gives them immunity to kill on suspicion. A democratic structure depending on the army to ensure that the Centre's writ runs will make the country porous and too weak to resist any wayward force or situation. Surely, people in India do not want things to develop in that manner.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.