Arvind Kejriwal does have a point

Hard it might be, but if you ignore Arvind Kejriwal’s methods, it is difficult to disagree that he has a point in demanding that the Delhi Police should be brought under the state government.

The present system in Delhi, where the Centre has absolute control, violates the Constitutional promise of federalism. When every other state in the country has its own police, why deny Delhi that right?

Delhi, of course, is not just any other state. The challenges to law and order are greater here. The budget of the Delhi Police is sanctioned by the Parliament. Also, since multiple agencies are involved, a Central government controlling the Delhi Police, appears a more efficient option.

However, none of these can also take away that an elected state government is paralysed if it does not have a police force at its disposal.

Look at it this way, if tomorrow an illegal religious structure comes up at an important traffic intersection in Delhi, it would be expected of the state government to go ahead and remove it. But, what if the Delhi Police refuses to cooperate with the state government? Do you then expect the Delhi government to first petition the home ministry? In Delhi, an elected chief minister does not even have the powers to suspend a constable, let alone question the Commissioner for failing to provide security to citizens.

The usual response of the Centre so far has been that it is only following a practice which is adhered to in most world capitals. This is not true. In the US, Washington DC is policed by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, which is a municipal police.

The UK, too, has changed the way London is policed. In 2000, the control of the London’s Metropolitan Police was with the UK Home Secretary (equivalent to the Home Minister in India). But, since then a Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is responsible for supervising the Metropolitan Police. The MPA consists of 23 members: 12 London Assembly members appointed by the Mayor of London, four magistrates and seven independents.

The AAP’s solution is that the NDMC and Delhi Cantonment area can continue to be policed by a police force of the Central government, while the rest of Delhi will be policed by the state government. What is the guarantee that this will not end up in the usual disagreements between the Centre and the State, over where one area ends and other begins?

Anyone who has ever tried registering an FIR would tell you that policing in India is a mess. State governments have sat on Supreme Court’s recommendations. A solution, however, is neither as simple as AAP wants us to believe, nor can it be found on the streets. If Kejriwal is really sincere in ensuring a more effective law and order in Delhi, he would have to leave the street and work out a solution sitting across the table with the Central government.