Since you seem to want to flood every single post with the same question, someone might as well answer you:
First, corporations don't have rights to freedom of speech (aside: for heaven's sake, stop calling them "First Ammendent" rights - the rest of the world has fundamental rights too, you know). Only people have such rights. When people band together to form a corporation, it's still only those people who have the right to life, right to freedom of speech, belief, or anything else. A corporation is merely an association of persons that is treated as a single entity, so that the individuals involved have limited liability. Under US law, it would appear to be difficult to create corporate rights without hacking them into a form of "person" which somehow has to have a right to life, though it's not alive in the first place... In other countries, we have much better systems where the rights of a corporation are established by a separate act of the legislature. They are not people, but can be treated as having rights and duties similar to people for certain purposes (like appearances in court, etc).
Second, and more importantly, the NYT does not speak. Reporters and editors, and columnists speak within the pages of the NYT's publications. Every article (or most, at least) will have a by-line, showing just who wrote it. It's the people speaking, not the corporation. Just who's doing the speaking again, in the Citizens United case?
And the most important - the case wasn't about speech. It was about funding. The idea is that a candidate's run for office should stand on its own merits, and not be won or lost merely on the basis of money. An individual speaking in support of a candidate is different from a company being hired for its own profit motive, to create a documentary about a candidate, and calling for their victory or defeat. An election is a very tricky subject - it's important that it's free and fair, and that the people are given information and not propaganda. I personally feel that both sides in the US (and god knows! elsewhere in the world) are equally guilty of violating this. But allowing unregulated campaign contributions blocked off by the veil of corporate personhood is NOT the right way of going about correcting this.
A lawyer should be able to independently advice his client, should be able to talk to other lawyers on an equal footing, and talk to the court without his position being dependent on corporate higher-ups. The idea is that if the case is really bad, the lawyer has the independence to refuse to take it on, or in some cases, even inform the court.
There are also other duties members of the bar sometimes have to perform - like serving on court-appointed committees, serving as Advocate Commissioner - sort of an appointed amicus curiae. Lots of things like that, where the court should be able to trust the independence of every lawyer in the bar not directly involved in a case...
From the moment of the leak, to the moment of confirmation, one could argue that the authenticity was in doubt.
UEA, not being a lobbying "institute", did the decent thing and stated in public that the mails were authentic, the moment that they were able to verify that. As far as I remember, they didn't really threaten to sue anyone for merely commenting on the documents...
The Climategate emails have never been proven to have been stolen. Many people believe they were in fact leaked.
The difference being?
The Climategate emails were true. At least one of these documents was almost certainly faked.
Requires substantiation. A disputant cannot win an argument by mere affirmation
Climategate involved emails that were created by people working for the public, with public funds, and making recommendations to the public. These documents were a private organization, working with private funds.
Private funds being used to influence public decisions on a topic that is no less than the survival and continuation of the human race!
I don't understand this fetish over public vs. private; as far as the CRU people were concerned, those emails were private discussions between colleagues, not public policy documents. Yes, they probably needed better training in handling such cases, but they were just being scientists griping over a bunch of things in most cases. Be that as it may, want a bet that somebody broke the law (or at least, an NDA/contract) in "leaking" those mails?
In short, it's different. As someone else said in this thread, the Heartland Institute is making itself look bad. And probably has no real legal case. On the other hand, bloggers who spread the faked document all over the internet when it was pretty obvious from the start that it was villian-monologuing over-the-top and noticeably different from the rest of the documents pretty much deserve what they get legally.
"pretty obvious" - There are probably lots of people right now who'd believe anything anyone said about Heartland - they've been scum, ever since the tobacco lobby days. "You should have known" is hardly a legal case for proving that commenters knew a document to be faked, and hence are liable for libel.
In any sane system, the party alleging the libel is the one who should prove their case. The burden of evidence lies on the side alleging bad faith. Unfortunately, given how these laws are written...
I have NEVER signed an NDA with the Heartland Institute. The documents caught my eye while I was browsing the web, and I read them. The only person liable under this is the one who released the documents - Heartland's Bradley Manning, if you will. The rest of us are completely free to comment as much as we like.
Only if they can prove that people were commenting on documents that they knew to be fake could they be sued for libel. Assuming that a document on a HI letterhead is authentic is NOT grounds for libel. It's grounds for the HI to be putting out a press release denying it as a fact, and then proving itself.
Treat them like they treated CRU. That's only "fair and balanced"!
The person who stole the CRU mails broke the law. True or false?
Most of the mails really showed nothing wrong - just the usual process of science and scientists griping to one another in what they thought were private mails. Except for that one bit about denying the FOIA request, there was nothing to show a conspiracy to hide anything, even in the mails that were being waved around, like the "hide the decline" bit (that one has been answered recently - it's the deep ocean)
Legal or illegal, now we have some internal information out in public about what Heartland is all about. Legal or illegal, we had some internal documents of CRU circulated. Now, the question is, what do those documents/mails/whatever say about those respective institutions?
The legality of the action is an independent question. If it's found to be illegal, crucify the guy who leaked them. But now that there's information, analyze it dispassionately, and tell me honestly, which organization was distorting facts?
In a state with inadequate law enforcement, this is kind of inevitable... Turning them over to the authorities would probably just mean a bribe and a quick release with hardly a slap on the wrist. I assume that this would be the state in rural Kenya.
Forgive me if I don't have too much sympathy, though. I'm sure that's part of the understood cost of doing (nocturnal) business in that place...
Many things can't be done by in-house lawyers. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in India, a case cannot be argued in court by in-house lawyers. This is done partly to reduce conflicts of interest. An attorney is supposed to be able to give his client advice the client doesn't want to hear, and by being independent, that's supposed to help a bit.
Also, having a specialized company handling multiple clients rather than each company trying to replicate the function is probably more efficient?
Not how it works... Obviously, Google would be using ANOTHER FIRM to sue this one...
The whole problem is that these guys are representing Google while working against them. When Google makes this allegation, they're pretty much automatically fired as Google's lawyers...
And about 14 busybodies with no experience in climate science
Here's the whole list:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; Can't figure out what they do, except that at one point, Allegre claimed that asbestos was harmless...
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; A market forecaster. Not someone I'd glorify with the title of scientist...
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; What does he have to do with climate research?
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; See above
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; "Member"? What's his specialization? No info, no published papers,... Apparently he worked at ExxonMobil.
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Specialist in optics, receives funding from George Marshall institute.
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; Yet another as above...
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Contrarian climate scientist... Only one upto now...
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; The other climate scientist of the bunch
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; No idea how he's connected...
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; No specialization given; I assume he's not a climate scientist?
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; I respect Rutan, but he's no climate scientist either
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; He's a geologist IIRC; not a climate scientist
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Astrophysics != climate physics
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Bit more difficult... He apparently believes that there's no need for computer modeling of anything, and used the Bible as justification for his solitary views on many subjects. Ousted from his post, probably bears a grudge. The last bit about the Bible makes me skeptical of calling him a "scientist", leave alone a climate scientist.
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Apparently a particle physicist, not a climate scientist!
So, the score stands at two real climate scientists (of whom Lindzen is one I've heard of before), one dubious former director and 13 jokers in the pack.
It's more... It's like Alt+F2 along with OSX's Cmd-?, which launches a search box in the menu. This lets you search for something nested 3-deep in a menu by typing it out...
This one seems to want to reach into other apps and do the same thing...
Not above the magistrates' courts. The judiciary in India are not really appointed by the executive; they' have to be selected by a collegium of judges, and it usually goes by seniority at the next lowest level (I think they can co-opt eminent lawyers at the high-court level too). They can be quite bullish and independent. Which means that sometimes they do stupid things (present case, for example), but at least it's not from government influence
We were badly burned by Indira Gandhi's tenure, and since then, there hasn't been so much influence peddling in these matters. Some corruption, yes. But normally they're quite jealous in protecting their independence from the government.
hardly get beaten or raped at all, much, compared to fifty years ago?
Yes, actually... Things are improving, though there's a long way to go. It's a flawed process, but the point is, it's happening
At least we didn't continue with the practice for a good 90 years after independence, fight a civil war over it and then spend the next 100 years not actually granting civil rights to those who were supposedly "freed" by the civil war...
Occasionally high courts go crazy. Usually, either the bench rules sensibly, or it goes to the Supreme Court, who do the right thing in about 99% of cases.
Besides, this is only the Delhi High Court, who's writ extends to the whole grand National Capital Territory, all of 1500 square kilometers. A ruling in this case shouldn't be binding on the rest of the country. And finally, the court really has no power to make this happen. That power is with the government, who probably won't this being an election year, their backs being against the wall in several corruption cases, and that's before considering that enforcement of any such thing would rank next to impossible.
I'm not particularly worried, except for the shameful scene of the Delhi High Court comparing us with China! Seriously, China?
Why should those companies go away? Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime (I don't consider any of the above serious crimes FYI either because they weren't that serious or didn't happen as in the case of Pfizer)? Or should we execute you when you jaywalk?
Entire ecosystems destroyed, livelihoods (for fishermen, for example) ruined, 200000 people poisoned in Bhopal,...
That's JAYWALKING?
Union Carbide at the very least deserves execution (i.e., revocation of the corporate charter, maybe imprisonment of the top management on manslaughter charges).
Forget AGW - though I don't agree with you on that (that's another discussion)
The real problem is that when you indiscriminately burn junk like plastics and other long-chain polymers, you end up with dioxins and furans. Those are some seriously toxic chemicals coming out of that mix. It's essentially burning an unholy mess of everything known to man that we ever throw out. Any of those toxins get into the water supply somewhere, you've got SERIOUS problems!
And why burn the compostable solids, anyway? We've got a better use for them; really composting, and then using the compost as manure for our gardens and farmlands...
The summary is stupid, but that's to be expected, I guess...
This is not from the government; I'm sure they'd try, but they'd just not be able to get the appropriate legislation passed and implemented. Not because Parliament wouldn't want it, but because they'd probably just end up delaying for another couple of years, bouncing it around committees and then go into election mode. In any case, the government infrastructure for this kind of censorship, especially of the internet, is just not there.
A few years ago, they tried to block Yahoo groups, on the basis that there were seditious groups on there. That lasted all of 24 hours! The public outcry, combined with the total impossibility of actually enforcing the ban, made them back down. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
More to the point, as I said earlier, this is NOT the government. It's an activist judge in the Delhi High Court, which has NO POWERS over the rest of the country. In fact, given that this would violate a large portion of the fundamental rights section of the constitution, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would strike it down. With extreme prejudice!
I doubt that this case will really proceed. Right now, it's one judge making stupid off-the-cuff remarks, not giving a judgement. More to the point, a judgement is not policy, and enforcement is a whole other ball game. It's out of the court's powers, and there's no mechanism in the government for it.
Revolution? No... We don't think like the Middle East. We're more likely to work around laws than to get them overturned violently. On the other hand, it would be impossible to enforce.
Consider, 10% of the Indian population is One Hundred Million People. The smarter, more educated 100 million. The class from among whom the enforcers would have to be drawn. You think it's going to be easy (or possible) to close the cracks on that?
Besides, mobile penetration has reached a whopping 73%, which is better than China, and in absolute terms, is far far more than the US. This is anecdotal, but i've seen agricultural day-wage earners, stevedores, bus drivers - generally the poorest groups, having some pretty decent instruments. A phone and its connection can cost a little less than two dollars a month, and call charges are in the cents. With that mobile penetration, do you really think that internet penetration is going to be far off? We're just taking a different route to it; through the mobile, rather than the desktop.
Along with most civilized countries, the Indian defense forces are just that; defense forces (for the most part, anyway, leaving aside Kashmir and the North West, where the forces have special powers to deal with the insurgency). They are not generally used for policing. Even if they were, they would truly suck at it. They're set up to deal with other militaries, and maybe with paramilitary infiltrators on the borders (i.e., terrorists in Kashmir). They have no investigative or crowd control capacity.
There are paramilitary police forces; notably the Central Reserve Police Forces, the Home Guards, and one or two others. But they mostly perform similar functions to the US Marshals, or other federal agencies in the US. Unlike the military, they don't have the equipment to become a ruling force. Also, their roles are separated into different agencies. Local law enforcement is in the hands of state and municipal police forces, which are state government controlled (law and order is a state subject under the constitution), and various other functions like industrial security (for power plants, for example) are provided by the centre. None of these agencies really interfere each other, even though they're all technically "the Police". This can sometimes be a problem, but in this case, it's a good thing!
Slashdot Mirror
Since you seem to want to flood every single post with the same question, someone might as well answer you:
First, corporations don't have rights to freedom of speech (aside: for heaven's sake, stop calling them "First Ammendent" rights - the rest of the world has fundamental rights too, you know). Only people have such rights. When people band together to form a corporation, it's still only those people who have the right to life, right to freedom of speech, belief, or anything else. A corporation is merely an association of persons that is treated as a single entity, so that the individuals involved have limited liability. Under US law, it would appear to be difficult to create corporate rights without hacking them into a form of "person" which somehow has to have a right to life, though it's not alive in the first place... In other countries, we have much better systems where the rights of a corporation are established by a separate act of the legislature. They are not people, but can be treated as having rights and duties similar to people for certain purposes (like appearances in court, etc).
Second, and more importantly, the NYT does not speak. Reporters and editors, and columnists speak within the pages of the NYT's publications. Every article (or most, at least) will have a by-line, showing just who wrote it. It's the people speaking, not the corporation. Just who's doing the speaking again, in the Citizens United case?
And the most important - the case wasn't about speech. It was about funding. The idea is that a candidate's run for office should stand on its own merits, and not be won or lost merely on the basis of money. An individual speaking in support of a candidate is different from a company being hired for its own profit motive, to create a documentary about a candidate, and calling for their victory or defeat. An election is a very tricky subject - it's important that it's free and fair, and that the people are given information and not propaganda. I personally feel that both sides in the US (and god knows! elsewhere in the world) are equally guilty of violating this. But allowing unregulated campaign contributions blocked off by the veil of corporate personhood is NOT the right way of going about correcting this.
A lawyer should be able to independently advice his client, should be able to talk to other lawyers on an equal footing, and talk to the court without his position being dependent on corporate higher-ups. The idea is that if the case is really bad, the lawyer has the independence to refuse to take it on, or in some cases, even inform the court.
There are also other duties members of the bar sometimes have to perform - like serving on court-appointed committees, serving as Advocate Commissioner - sort of an appointed amicus curiae. Lots of things like that, where the court should be able to trust the independence of every lawyer in the bar not directly involved in a case...
From the moment of the leak, to the moment of confirmation, one could argue that the authenticity was in doubt.
UEA, not being a lobbying "institute", did the decent thing and stated in public that the mails were authentic, the moment that they were able to verify that. As far as I remember, they didn't really threaten to sue anyone for merely commenting on the documents...
The Climategate emails have never been proven to have been stolen. Many people believe they were in fact leaked.
The difference being?
The Climategate emails were true. At least one of these documents was almost certainly faked.
Requires substantiation. A disputant cannot win an argument by mere affirmation
Climategate involved emails that were created by people working for the public, with public funds, and making recommendations to the public. These documents were a private organization, working with private funds.
Private funds being used to influence public decisions on a topic that is no less than the survival and continuation of the human race!
I don't understand this fetish over public vs. private; as far as the CRU people were concerned, those emails were private discussions between colleagues, not public policy documents. Yes, they probably needed better training in handling such cases, but they were just being scientists griping over a bunch of things in most cases. Be that as it may, want a bet that somebody broke the law (or at least, an NDA/contract) in "leaking" those mails?
In short, it's different. As someone else said in this thread, the Heartland Institute is making itself look bad. And probably has no real legal case. On the other hand, bloggers who spread the faked document all over the internet when it was pretty obvious from the start that it was villian-monologuing over-the-top and noticeably different from the rest of the documents pretty much deserve what they get legally.
"pretty obvious" - There are probably lots of people right now who'd believe anything anyone said about Heartland - they've been scum, ever since the tobacco lobby days. "You should have known" is hardly a legal case for proving that commenters knew a document to be faked, and hence are liable for libel.
In any sane system, the party alleging the libel is the one who should prove their case. The burden of evidence lies on the side alleging bad faith. Unfortunately, given how these laws are written...
You know, in all the excitement in clean forgot.
You know what's scary?
I can actually imagine them filing so many, that they forget one or two...
That's thought-censorship.
I have NEVER signed an NDA with the Heartland Institute. The documents caught my eye while I was browsing the web, and I read them. The only person liable under this is the one who released the documents - Heartland's Bradley Manning, if you will. The rest of us are completely free to comment as much as we like.
Only if they can prove that people were commenting on documents that they knew to be fake could they be sued for libel. Assuming that a document on a HI letterhead is authentic is NOT grounds for libel. It's grounds for the HI to be putting out a press release denying it as a fact, and then proving itself.
Treat them like they treated CRU. That's only "fair and balanced"!
The person who stole the CRU mails broke the law. True or false?
Most of the mails really showed nothing wrong - just the usual process of science and scientists griping to one another in what they thought were private mails. Except for that one bit about denying the FOIA request, there was nothing to show a conspiracy to hide anything, even in the mails that were being waved around, like the "hide the decline" bit (that one has been answered recently - it's the deep ocean)
Legal or illegal, now we have some internal information out in public about what Heartland is all about. Legal or illegal, we had some internal documents of CRU circulated. Now, the question is, what do those documents/mails/whatever say about those respective institutions?
The legality of the action is an independent question. If it's found to be illegal, crucify the guy who leaked them. But now that there's information, analyze it dispassionately, and tell me honestly, which organization was distorting facts?
In a state with inadequate law enforcement, this is kind of inevitable... Turning them over to the authorities would probably just mean a bribe and a quick release with hardly a slap on the wrist. I assume that this would be the state in rural Kenya.
Forgive me if I don't have too much sympathy, though. I'm sure that's part of the understood cost of doing (nocturnal) business in that place...
Wrong side of the continent...
What? Did you think the US was the only thing in the universe with two coasts?
Many things can't be done by in-house lawyers. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in India, a case cannot be argued in court by in-house lawyers. This is done partly to reduce conflicts of interest. An attorney is supposed to be able to give his client advice the client doesn't want to hear, and by being independent, that's supposed to help a bit.
Also, having a specialized company handling multiple clients rather than each company trying to replicate the function is probably more efficient?
Not how it works... Obviously, Google would be using ANOTHER FIRM to sue this one...
The whole problem is that these guys are representing Google while working against them. When Google makes this allegation, they're pretty much automatically fired as Google's lawyers...
Our 3G space is basically HSDPA and UTMS. The ballgame is slightly different there...
1% is HUGE in terms of atmospheric composition. It's enough to change cycles.
And about 14 busybodies with no experience in climate science
Here's the whole list:
So, the score stands at two real climate scientists (of whom Lindzen is one I've heard of before), one dubious former director and 13 jokers in the pack.
Sources
But it also goes across apps, so it's probably Spotlight + Cmd-?
It's more... It's like Alt+F2 along with OSX's Cmd-?, which launches a search box in the menu. This lets you search for something nested 3-deep in a menu by typing it out...
This one seems to want to reach into other apps and do the same thing...
Ambitious... Maybe it'll work?
Not above the magistrates' courts. The judiciary in India are not really appointed by the executive; they' have to be selected by a collegium of judges, and it usually goes by seniority at the next lowest level (I think they can co-opt eminent lawyers at the high-court level too). They can be quite bullish and independent. Which means that sometimes they do stupid things (present case, for example), but at least it's not from government influence
We were badly burned by Indira Gandhi's tenure, and since then, there hasn't been so much influence peddling in these matters. Some corruption, yes. But normally they're quite jealous in protecting their independence from the government.
hardly get beaten or raped at all, much, compared to fifty years ago?
Yes, actually... Things are improving, though there's a long way to go. It's a flawed process, but the point is, it's happening
At least we didn't continue with the practice for a good 90 years after independence, fight a civil war over it and then spend the next 100 years not actually granting civil rights to those who were supposedly "freed" by the civil war...
Occasionally high courts go crazy. Usually, either the bench rules sensibly, or it goes to the Supreme Court, who do the right thing in about 99% of cases.
Besides, this is only the Delhi High Court, who's writ extends to the whole grand National Capital Territory, all of 1500 square kilometers. A ruling in this case shouldn't be binding on the rest of the country. And finally, the court really has no power to make this happen. That power is with the government, who probably won't this being an election year, their backs being against the wall in several corruption cases, and that's before considering that enforcement of any such thing would rank next to impossible.
I'm not particularly worried, except for the shameful scene of the Delhi High Court comparing us with China! Seriously, China?
Why should those companies go away? Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime (I don't consider any of the above serious crimes FYI either because they weren't that serious or didn't happen as in the case of Pfizer)? Or should we execute you when you jaywalk?
Entire ecosystems destroyed, livelihoods (for fishermen, for example) ruined, 200000 people poisoned in Bhopal,...
That's JAYWALKING ?
Union Carbide at the very least deserves execution (i.e., revocation of the corporate charter, maybe imprisonment of the top management on manslaughter charges).
Forget AGW - though I don't agree with you on that (that's another discussion)
The real problem is that when you indiscriminately burn junk like plastics and other long-chain polymers, you end up with dioxins and furans. Those are some seriously toxic chemicals coming out of that mix. It's essentially burning an unholy mess of everything known to man that we ever throw out. Any of those toxins get into the water supply somewhere, you've got SERIOUS problems!
And why burn the compostable solids, anyway? We've got a better use for them; really composting, and then using the compost as manure for our gardens and farmlands...
The summary is stupid, but that's to be expected, I guess...
This is not from the government; I'm sure they'd try, but they'd just not be able to get the appropriate legislation passed and implemented. Not because Parliament wouldn't want it, but because they'd probably just end up delaying for another couple of years, bouncing it around committees and then go into election mode. In any case, the government infrastructure for this kind of censorship, especially of the internet, is just not there.
A few years ago, they tried to block Yahoo groups, on the basis that there were seditious groups on there. That lasted all of 24 hours! The public outcry, combined with the total impossibility of actually enforcing the ban, made them back down. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
More to the point, as I said earlier, this is NOT the government. It's an activist judge in the Delhi High Court, which has NO POWERS over the rest of the country. In fact, given that this would violate a large portion of the fundamental rights section of the constitution, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would strike it down. With extreme prejudice!
I doubt that this case will really proceed. Right now, it's one judge making stupid off-the-cuff remarks, not giving a judgement. More to the point, a judgement is not policy, and enforcement is a whole other ball game. It's out of the court's powers, and there's no mechanism in the government for it.
There are Indians on Slashdot, you know...
Besides, the experiences of one country are applicable in others too
Revolution? No... We don't think like the Middle East. We're more likely to work around laws than to get them overturned violently. On the other hand, it would be impossible to enforce.
Consider, 10% of the Indian population is One Hundred Million People. The smarter, more educated 100 million. The class from among whom the enforcers would have to be drawn. You think it's going to be easy (or possible) to close the cracks on that?
Besides, mobile penetration has reached a whopping 73%, which is better than China, and in absolute terms, is far far more than the US. This is anecdotal, but i've seen agricultural day-wage earners, stevedores, bus drivers - generally the poorest groups, having some pretty decent instruments. A phone and its connection can cost a little less than two dollars a month, and call charges are in the cents. With that mobile penetration, do you really think that internet penetration is going to be far off? We're just taking a different route to it; through the mobile, rather than the desktop.
Along with most civilized countries, the Indian defense forces are just that; defense forces (for the most part, anyway, leaving aside Kashmir and the North West, where the forces have special powers to deal with the insurgency). They are not generally used for policing. Even if they were, they would truly suck at it. They're set up to deal with other militaries, and maybe with paramilitary infiltrators on the borders (i.e., terrorists in Kashmir). They have no investigative or crowd control capacity.
There are paramilitary police forces; notably the Central Reserve Police Forces, the Home Guards, and one or two others. But they mostly perform similar functions to the US Marshals, or other federal agencies in the US. Unlike the military, they don't have the equipment to become a ruling force. Also, their roles are separated into different agencies. Local law enforcement is in the hands of state and municipal police forces, which are state government controlled (law and order is a state subject under the constitution), and various other functions like industrial security (for power plants, for example) are provided by the centre. None of these agencies really interfere each other, even though they're all technically "the Police". This can sometimes be a problem, but in this case, it's a good thing!