The national security problems, arising from varied sources, are influenced by a host of factors among which are its past history, geography, colonial legacy, growing population, sharp social and economic disparities and complex socio-cultural and ethno-religious traditions which interplay freely in the country’s democracy. As many events in the past decades have shown, regional and global developments have also been impacting significantly on India’s security concerns. The shifting of the second edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) Twenty20 Championship is a testimony to this fact.
The country has been facing increasing internal security threats in the past and today, public order in about 40 per cent of the districts is seriously affected by insurgencies, terrorist activities or political extremism. Since the early 1980s, Pakistan’s ISI has succeeded in launching terrorist activities in India.
People have been critical of the intelligence agencies and inadequate coordination between Central and State intelligence agencies. But the roots of India’s terrorism problem go much beyond the efficiency of intelligence collection and coordination between the Centre and the States. The malaise is, to a significant extent, linked to political corruption. In India, terrorist acts are invariably followed by mutual recrimination among political parties.
Political Permissiveness
Why is the Harkat-ul-Jehad-e-Islami (HuJI) able to get through Indian borders and why are hundreds of illegal Bangladeshis spread all over the country? It is obviously because of political permissiveness and vote-bank politics pursued by political parties at the cost of national security. There is no point in blaming any particular agency, administration or political party. Most of the political parties, administration and security agencies have adopted a permissive attitude over the years.
Transnational terrorist organisations have understandably taken advantage of the weaknesses of the Indian polity. Instead of recognising this basic weakness and coming together to collectively tackle the problem, party parochialism, personal antagonisms among leaders and the need to depend on money-muscle politics for electoral gains appear to have overwhelmed concerns over national security.
Time-bound Initiatives
The deployment of the Central Police Forces or the Army for carrying out anti-insurgency or anti-terrorist operations may not yield the expected outcome unless the entire State administrative machinery, led by the Chief Minister, devotes continuous organised attention to sensitively dealing with the root causes which contributed to the breakdown of public order.
Time-bound initiatives will need to be implemented to identify and resolve the social and economic problems or the political demands and aspirations of the agitating groups. Simultaneously, the entire apparatus of the State Administration would require to devote close and continuous attention to providing effective governance, systemic attention being paid to ending the day-to-day difficulties faced by the common people, particularly those who may have emerged on account of the ongoing disturbed situation.
To timely deal with the arising internal security problems, the State Governments need to exercise constant vigil, especially in regard to the complex pending issues, and launch prompt initiatives to open meaningful dialogues with the leaders of the aggrieved groups or communities. Past experience has shown that very high human and economic costs have to be paid if there is a failure to timely deal with the issues which can lead to conflicts and violence. The situation is further complicated when a violent agitation, arising from a sensitive demand or issue, is dealt with the application of force.
However, the continuing determined efforts of adversary external agencies to destabilise India by spreading religious fundamentalism, inciting tensions which lead to conflicts, and perpetrating violence and subversion have generated challenges which impinge on issues of external security management. As issues related to internal and external security have got inextricably interwined, the Centre should evolve a holistic approach to internal security management in close coordination with the States.
Lack of Cooperation from States
The Chief Justice of India Justice K.G. Balakrishnan has spoken in favour of an anti-terror law recently. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has lamented the lack of cooperation from the States. The consent of the States is required since law and order is a State subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The point at issue has not been rightly judged. Terrorism and insurgency are not identical with law and order. Both are far graver. They fall under the definition of internal security and the necessary amendment to the Constitution can be effected with the cooperation of the right-minded political parties.
If one goes by the observation of the Supreme Court that terrorism is more than an ordinary law and order issue and that it relates to the sovereignty of the country, there is no need to take the consent of the States for the creation of the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA).
Certain laws impinging on law and order are awaiting the approval of the President, which effectively means the approval of the Central Government. Article 254 is relevant in this regard. It states that the President is not a condition precedent for passing laws by the States affecting law and order. If the laws passed by the State Legislatures are repugnant to the Central law, they are void.
The country has been facing increasing internal security threats in the past and today, public order in about 40 per cent of the districts is seriously affected by insurgencies, terrorist activities or political extremism. Since the early 1980s, Pakistan’s ISI has succeeded in launching terrorist activities in India.
People have been critical of the intelligence agencies and inadequate coordination between Central and State intelligence agencies. But the roots of India’s terrorism problem go much beyond the efficiency of intelligence collection and coordination between the Centre and the States. The malaise is, to a significant extent, linked to political corruption. In India, terrorist acts are invariably followed by mutual recrimination among political parties.
Political Permissiveness
Why is the Harkat-ul-Jehad-e-Islami (HuJI) able to get through Indian borders and why are hundreds of illegal Bangladeshis spread all over the country? It is obviously because of political permissiveness and vote-bank politics pursued by political parties at the cost of national security. There is no point in blaming any particular agency, administration or political party. Most of the political parties, administration and security agencies have adopted a permissive attitude over the years.
Transnational terrorist organisations have understandably taken advantage of the weaknesses of the Indian polity. Instead of recognising this basic weakness and coming together to collectively tackle the problem, party parochialism, personal antagonisms among leaders and the need to depend on money-muscle politics for electoral gains appear to have overwhelmed concerns over national security.
Time-bound Initiatives
The deployment of the Central Police Forces or the Army for carrying out anti-insurgency or anti-terrorist operations may not yield the expected outcome unless the entire State administrative machinery, led by the Chief Minister, devotes continuous organised attention to sensitively dealing with the root causes which contributed to the breakdown of public order.
Time-bound initiatives will need to be implemented to identify and resolve the social and economic problems or the political demands and aspirations of the agitating groups. Simultaneously, the entire apparatus of the State Administration would require to devote close and continuous attention to providing effective governance, systemic attention being paid to ending the day-to-day difficulties faced by the common people, particularly those who may have emerged on account of the ongoing disturbed situation.
To timely deal with the arising internal security problems, the State Governments need to exercise constant vigil, especially in regard to the complex pending issues, and launch prompt initiatives to open meaningful dialogues with the leaders of the aggrieved groups or communities. Past experience has shown that very high human and economic costs have to be paid if there is a failure to timely deal with the issues which can lead to conflicts and violence. The situation is further complicated when a violent agitation, arising from a sensitive demand or issue, is dealt with the application of force.
However, the continuing determined efforts of adversary external agencies to destabilise India by spreading religious fundamentalism, inciting tensions which lead to conflicts, and perpetrating violence and subversion have generated challenges which impinge on issues of external security management. As issues related to internal and external security have got inextricably interwined, the Centre should evolve a holistic approach to internal security management in close coordination with the States.
Lack of Cooperation from States
The Chief Justice of India Justice K.G. Balakrishnan has spoken in favour of an anti-terror law recently. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has lamented the lack of cooperation from the States. The consent of the States is required since law and order is a State subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The point at issue has not been rightly judged. Terrorism and insurgency are not identical with law and order. Both are far graver. They fall under the definition of internal security and the necessary amendment to the Constitution can be effected with the cooperation of the right-minded political parties.
If one goes by the observation of the Supreme Court that terrorism is more than an ordinary law and order issue and that it relates to the sovereignty of the country, there is no need to take the consent of the States for the creation of the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA).
Certain laws impinging on law and order are awaiting the approval of the President, which effectively means the approval of the Central Government. Article 254 is relevant in this regard. It states that the President is not a condition precedent for passing laws by the States affecting law and order. If the laws passed by the State Legislatures are repugnant to the Central law, they are void.
What is urgently required is an appropriate legal framework and an extremely well-considered strategy which is expected in most effective coordination between the Centre and the States, to deal with each and every aspect of national security management.
No comments:
Post a Comment