Causal Analysis – case of India’s internal security

Political Aspects

The British exploited Indian society to divide it on communal and religious lines for their colonial interests. On eve of independence, Indian state inherited only the physical base consisting of the territory and people, the state and its democratic institutions had to provide the cohesiveness to weld India into a nation state. Based on the colonial experience, our political leadership decided on integration as a cornerstone of its policy. This was to be achieved through economic development along with nation building through cultural and social interaction, as these linkages were considered durable and stronger rather than political assimilation. However, in later years since late sixties, our second generation of political leadership lost sight of federalism and political assimilation became the main thrust.

The state policy of secularism came under threat in 1960’s when the politicians started manipulating emotional sensitivities of communities and words majority and minority were formally introduced and accepted in politics and vote banks of communities on communal and religious denomination were created. The electoral politics since eighties have resulted in diffusion of both the state and politics, the institutions of governance have been diluted and politics have lost their ideological and moral moorings. While on one hand it has led to expansion of the social base of politics, on the other hand due to bad politics it has resulted in politicization and aggravation of all problems.

the exploitation of diversities has resulted in breakdown of the cohesiveness of the society, created insecurity of cultural identity, encouraged religious revivalism in its fundamentalist form, heightened ethnicity and widened the gap between the sub national groups and nationalism.

Inept handling of Babri Masjid issue and failure of government to prevent its destruction resulted in communalism entering as a key element in the fragmentation of the society and the nation. The digging out of Mandal Commission Report added to the fragmentation. The net result of all these and similar maneuvers for vote catching was a divide and set back to consolidation of the Indian society two decades after independence.

Economic Aspects

In the economic and development field central planning and control of resources left the states at the mercy of the Central Govt. Entrepreneurship and human endeavour suffered. Gradually, government and bureaucracy became all pervading in the economic fields. This resulted in leakages and corruption. Today we have bitter reality of ‘Two India’s coexisting’

• We have extreme poverty at one end of spectrum and some of richest few at the other end
• Lack of opportunities coexists in rural India contrast with rapid economic growth in urban areas.
• Huge geographical variations compounded by issues of language, culture, ethnicity and caste.
• Chronic and endemic malnutrition and vast developmental dislocations that punish the poor.

These discrepancies, compounded by huge population pressures and a wide range of external and internal destabilizers, produce enormous potential for discord as well as a number of enduring internal conflicts. The tensions between these “two Indias” are fraught with political and security risks, and that the dynamism and growth of the first is potentially jeopardized by the stagnation, inertial resistance, and violent reaction of the second.

Spatial disparities in development emerged. Large areas of our country (BIMARU states, North-East etc), lagged behind on economic front. This gave rise to ethno-communal strifes in country having roots in uneven economic development and unfulfilled aspirations of people, which creates a sense of deprivation. This may be partially due to modernization itself, result of socio-economic developments and changes and literacy and awareness, resulting in what is perceived to be uneven economic well being. Educated unemployed further add to the economic and social pressures. The sum total of it is the mobilization of the society in the shape of ethno-nationalism.

Tax evasion and round tripping undermines financial security of India by generating black money, hawala transactions, money laundering and above all existence of large cash economy enables cross border terrorist activities and establishment of links with the underworld as gains can be channelized through the hawala routes.

Issues of Governance and Integration

In a well-established political system and a developed economy, conflicts between the various group identities are kept under check as in due course they get assimilated into the national identity. But that has not happened in India as yet, where the wounds of the partition and the colonial rule have still not fully healed. Moreover, the dependence on the government by a large section of our people for their very survival sharpens these conflicts among them. The democratic institutions and the state structures are still not strong enough to fully harmonise these conflicts in a peaceful manner. Violence erupts when conflicting interests cannot be consensually reconciled. The hostile external forces, taking advantage of this situation through subversive propaganda, further accentuate these conflicts. They give material and ideological support to aggravate this sense of grievance to such an extent that a small minority are willing to become tools in their hands to subvert the stability and security of the country.

There are long-running separatist movements in several north-eastern States (Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura). The insurgency in Assam began in 1979, with the formation of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) aimed at establishing a “sovereign, socialist Assam”. ULFA’s targets include businessmen, Government Security Forces, and infrastructure facilities, such as oil pipelines, freight trains and Government buildings. Since 2005, ULFA has been in a process of indirect negotiations with the Government via a People’s Consultative Group; however, they continued their campaign of violence, and did not respond to a unilateral ceasefire announced by the Government in 2006. The Government was more successful in dealing with another insurgency in Assam, which began in the late 1980s with the goal of autonomy and greater recognition for the Bodo tribe.

Another source of internal violence in India comes from incidents perpetrated by left-wing extremist groups (“Naxalite” movements) in many States of India. Hon’ble Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has identified Naxalism as “the single biggest security challenge to India”. Left-wing extremist movements are often called “Naxalite” movements and the people involved in them are “Naxalites”. The Government responded with a heavy use of force, and the movement splintered into many different extremist groups in the 1970s. Left-wing groups were especially active in the lagging States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal, and the leading States of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The leading extremist group is the Communist Party of India — Maoist (CPI-Maoist), formed by the merger of the People’s War Group with the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in 2004. This group has an explicitly Maoist ideology, committed to a “democratic revolution” to be achieved by a “protracted people’s war with an armed seizure of power remaining as its central and principal task”.

The mushrooming of armed ‘Senas’ on caste and ethnic lines in some parts of the country is a direct consequence of the polarisation of the society. This phenomenon has also affected the police and the administration in general. Loss of public confidence in the capacity of the state to protect their life and property is the primary cause of this dangerous development. Far from controlling them, a politicised and partisan police actually encourages this development. The tensions in some parts of the country, especially in the tribal areas, due to a perceived threat to their identity is not new, but the rise of so many violent movements is a relatively recent development. In the Border States these movements become secessionist because of the support they receive from the hostile neighboring states.

The police-politician-criminal nexus can embolden the criminal elements. Their activities can create an environment of lawlessness, where influential and rich people violate the law with impunity. The police is not the only component of the criminal justice system that has suffered because of this nexus. In fact, the entire criminal justice system is under strain. Not all crimes are being registered and those registered are not being properly investigated; and even out of those charge-sheeted, very few are ending in conviction.

The real losers are the people. The development process gets seriously hampered in a violent environment. When large development funds are siphoned out by this unholy alliance between the criminal and corrupt forces, even the delivery of the most basic services like water, power, healthcare, education and communications becomes a stupendous task.

A vicious circle starts. The deprived and the marginalized sections of the society, unable to survive in the present system, get alienated. The militant and extremist forces thrive in this environment.

Constitutional Arrangement

Constitutional provisions relating to the responsibilities of the Centre and the State Governments on matters pertaining to internal security:

Part XVIII of Constitution, Article 355: It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

Seventh Schedule, Article 246, Union List, 2 A : Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment.

Seventh Schedule, Article 246, State List, Item 1: 1. Public order (but not including 3[the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof] in aid of the civil power).

Seventh Schedule Article 246, State List, Item 2: Police (including railway and village police) subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I.] (Cited above)

It has been a matter of concern that that Item 1 and 2 of State List have often come in the way of the clear mandate of Article 355 empowering the Centre to act in cases of internal disturbances.

In the deliberations on the constitutional responsibilities for dealing with challenges to internal security, it was emphasized that the following from the clear mandate of Article 355, the ultimate responsibility does lie with the Union Government.

Several judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting the relevant constitutional provisions attest to this. However, since the responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the State governments, there are at least two compelling reasons for involvement of and cooperation with the Union Government.

Firstly, several states witnessing internal disturbances are at the nation’s frontiers, and there is a discernible external dimension to the internal security issues.

Secondly, there is also a pernicious nexus between domestic miscreants and the international criminal networks. The problem thus requires a combined response in the spirit of collective responsibility. As suggested by the Punchi Commission on Centre-State Relations, some constitutional amendments such as limiting the application of emergency powers to only the affected parts of a State may prove useful in minimizing Centre-State tensions.