The occasion culminated in a debate on law and order management in democracies. There are two points of view here. One stands for a total ban on public processions in the interest of public peace. The other believes that a blanket prohibition of processions is antithetical to democracy. I stand for a blend of the two approaches. This is, no doubt, tightrope walking indeed.

A balanced and enlightened mind combined with an ability to communicate on the part of the top brass in government and the police ranks should achieve this blend. No one in the seat of power can arrogate to himself the right to quell dissent. But he has, at the same time, the duty to come down heavily on anyone abusing the right to free speech.

The United Kingdom (UK)’s home secretary (equivalent to our home minister) Suella Braverman, minister in charge of the police portfolio, was initially not warm to the idea of allowing the procession, although, after the event ended, she praised the police for its handling of the assembly. Earlier, she had openly criticised the Met for giving permission to the organisers and wrote an article in The Times (London) questioning the wisdom of police commissioner Mark Rowley’s decision. Interestingly, she also ignored Downing Street’s feelers that she should tone down her piece. There was a feeling that in doing so she was trying to embarrass Prime Minister (PM) Rishi Sunak. The grapevine is that by taking this stand, she was wooing the Right in her Conservative Party with a view to staking her claim to leadership after next year’s general elections.

Braverman has since been sacked from the Sunak cabinet. Interestingly, under the previous regime headed by Boris Johnson also she was shown the door for breaching security guidelines.

These events in London may seem bizarre to us in India. A serving home minister going to the media criticising a decision of his or her own police force in an act of defiance of the prime minister is inconceivable. Also, a police chief standing his ground in a crucial field decision against the wishes of his superior functionary is a rare phenomenon. In fairness to PM Sunak, however, there is no report to suggest he ever interfered with what was essentially a professional decision by Commissioner Rowley.

This was autonomy at its best, not given to the police in any region of our country. None of our political parties would also like to concede greater independence to the police than the modicum that is available to them now. The subordination of the Indian police to our political executive is nearly total leading to erosion of public confidence in police professionalism and neutrality.

This degeneration of policing ignited by the politicisation of field decisions started within decades of our winning Independence and the process continues unabated. The ruling class as well as the Indian Police Service (IPS) leadership are guilty of not attempting to stem the rot.

What we recently saw in London was a supreme case of a popularly elected chief executive of the country, namely the PM, scrupulously avoiding any unprofessional interference in field policing. Ironically, this does not happen in India because of our British legacy. The alien rulers gave us a system some 170 years ago whereby the police were always under the thumb of the executive. The philosophy behind this was the conviction that the police could not be trusted because they could overstep their limits and, therefore, had to be controlled always by the magistracy.

This explains why the police leadership remained in the hands of the wholly White ruling class. It was this objective that persuaded the British rulers to recruit only mere literates or semi-literates into the lower rungs of every police force in the country. Indianisation and recruitment of educated men to the higher echelons were initiated only in the early 20th century. The shadow cast by the legacy of such an unprofessional approach to setting up a critical public service agency remains.

The creation immediately after Independence of an IPS to which young men and women are chosen on the basis of a competitive examination has improved the situation somewhat and the impact of professionalism, especially in urban centres, is now discernible.

In sum, policing a democracy is an extremely delicate exercise. It calls for an imaginative and cultured approach that is in conformity with the law and humanity and which eschews imperiousness. The political executive has a major role to play here. Any political or personal bias by decision-makers to settle scores with their adversaries will certainly distort the image of a government and the police force it controls.

RK Raghavan is a former CBI director. The views expressed are personal