States unable to fight terror, onus on Centre

by Dr P.C. Alexander

(August 13 , Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The reason given by the Delhi high court tribunal while quashing the ban on the Student Islamic Movement of India (Simi), on August 5, 2008, has come as a rude shock to all those who believed that the government would be vigilant in its fight against terrorism. The ban on Simi, imposed in 2001, was being extended every two years based on information furnished by the government before the court. But this year, the court was not satisfied by the material given by the government. The court found it inadequate to justify continuation of the ban. No doubt the Supreme Court’s interim stay has given another opportunity to the government to come up with proper justification for extension of the ban. But the entire episode has cast a doubt on the alertness and even seriousness with which crucial issues like internal security are being handled by the government. The primary duty of all governments in all circumstances is to maintain peace and order in the territories under their charge. In fact, every other duty can be discharged by governments successfully only if they are successful in their duty to protect people from anarchy and violence.

There are now three major sources of challenge to the authority of the State:

* The Naxalite or Maoist terrorism
* Insurgency in certain areas of the northeast mainly instigated by racial antagonisms
* Jihadi terrorism inspired by religious fanaticism.

Let us examine how far the governments, both at the Centre and the states, have been able to meet these challenges.

The Naxalite or Maoist movement in India was, till a few years ago, limited to three-four states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand, though it had a limited presence in some neighbouring states also. The Naxalites were then operating under different leadership in different states, without much coordination in the planning and execution of their attacks. However, with the merger of People’s War Group (PWG) and the Marxist Communist Centre of India (MCCI) in September 2004, nearly 90 per cent of Maoist activities have come under a united leadership. The ideological garb these terrorists wear — that their fight is for the rights of the exploited and weaker sections of society — has given the movement a philosophical justification for their war against the State. In the last few years, the movement has gained followers in several more states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. And today, 157 districts in the country are affected by varying degrees of Naxalite terror. Some of their operations have exposed the utter weakness of the governments in the states concerned to cope with this challenge. In November 2005, an armed Maoist group of about 1,000 attacked the jail at Jehanabad in Bihar and took away several weapons and 390 terrorists lodged there. The recent incidents in Chhattisgarh and Orissa, where several police personnel were massacred by Maoists, illustrated the audacity with which they can strike anytime and anywhere they want to.

In several areas of the north-eastern region, insurgency is inspired by racial antagonisms, but it is also thriving on the easy money being acquired through extortion, kidnapping for ransom and protection fees. It is no secret that some senior government employees, including police and revenue officers in these areas, have been "buying peace" by meeting demands for money without resistance. The rule of the gun rather than the rule of law prevails in these troubled areas. Insurrection in these economically-backward areas has brought development to a standstill. Cynics say that the only industry that is thriving there is the extortion industry as it needs no capital investment and involves no risks!

The third group of terrorists, namely jihadi terrorists, seem to have gained so much striking power in recent years that they are now emboldened enough to explode serial bombs in crowded places of their choice, killing several innocent people and spreading insecurity among citizens. Starting with the serial blasts in Mumbai in 2003, the jihadis have now extended their programme of death and destruction to several cities such as Jaipur, Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad.

After every terrorist strike, government agencies come out with familiar statements — "security has been beefed up" and a "massive manhunt has been launched to nab the culprits". People who have been hearing these phrases for over a decade now know that the culprits are very rarely nabbed and that the government’s record of bringing them to book has been dismal.

The irresistible conclusions to be drawn from the state governments’ inability to deal effectively with terrorism are that the task is too much for them, that they are not equipped to cope with the terror threat, and that it is time Centre takes on the direct responsibility to meet this danger. Whenever such suggestions have been made in the Parliament in the past, the stock reply of the home ministry has been that "law and order" and "police" (except the Centre’s armed police) are, according to the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, included in the "state list" and therefore the Central government cannot take direct action and responsibility. The Central government has taken the stand that its role is limited to providing advice and financial and other support to the state governments, and that it is ready and willing to give more such assistance to the states. Several constitutional experts have disputed the veracity of this claim in the Parliament itself and have expressed the view that the Centre can, without any amendment to the Constitution, take on such responsibilities. If, however, an amendment is necessary then that can be done with the cooperation of the states, without diluting their authority and responsibility.

The need for suitable legislative measures to deal more effectively with terrorists has been pressed by several state governments. In fact, bills submitted by about half-a-dozen state governments for the Centre’s approval have been pending for long periods, ranging from two to five years. Several advanced democracies like the US and the UK have already brought into force new laws in order to enable the government to deal with anti-national forces expeditiously. No one has questioned the commitment of these countries to democracy because of the new laws they have introduced to fight terrorism. But the Indian government appears to be overly apprehensive about misuse of such powers by government agencies. If fear of misuse becomes a reason for not having a law then that argument can apply to several existing laws also. What is at stake now is the security and integrity of the nation and hesitation to do what is necessary today can prove to be very costly tomorrow.

The slide of States to the level of "soft States" may take a long time, but the fall from "soft States" to "failed States" is always very quick. We should not ignore that five of the 20 countries that have been listed as "failed States" — Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Nepal — are our close neighbours and the danger India faces today is what our neighbours had failed to handle adequately and in time.

Dr P.C. Alexander was the Governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra
- Sri Lanka Guardian