The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : A new internal security agenda

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

A new internal security agenda

By Harish Khare

The Indian state's obligation to protect itself and its citizens has to be anchored in the democratic sentiment. There can be no basic conflict between the interests of the state and those of the citizens.

NOW THAT the Maharashtra Assembly elections are out of the way, it is up to the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, to decide whether or not the country needs to have a new Home Minister; but there can be no disagreement that the Government needs to redefine, and if possible, finesse, its internal security agenda. Mere coping with one "crisis" after another will not do.

The task of defining an internal security agenda has become all the more urgent because of neglect on the home front during the last six years, when presumably an Iron Man presided over the Union Home Ministry. These last six years, there was too much reliance on body counts, "operations," and busting of "modules," rather than on analysis and imagination required to bring about reconciliation.

The only exception to this uninspiring record was the "peace process" in Nagaland; this too was botched up by political clumsiness, resulting in the ungainly sight of the Governor of Manipur having to leave post-haste a burning Imphal. Unhelpful neighbours — Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan — remain unhelpful, despite the deshbhakts having elevated us to the status of a nuclear power. That status in no way seems to have enhanced our capacity to deal with our internal demons. Nor were the deshbhakts able to exorcise the baneful influence the assorted underworld bhais exercise long-distance on our police forces.

However the deficiencies of the National Democratic Alliance regime can be no source of comfort. The internal security scene remains marred on account of three fault lines: Kashmir, Northeast and naxalites. Hence the need for political and intellectual clarity.

At the core of the new internal security agenda has to be a recognition of the fundamental proposition that while the Indian state has the obligation to protect itself and its citizens against external challengers and internal disruptionists, this obligation has to be firmly and unambiguously anchored in the democratic sentiment. The state discharges its obligation in the interest of the citizens and there can be no basic conflict between the interests of the state and those of the citizens. The state and the citizens both have a common and convergent stake in the absence of violence, fear and insecurity.

The challenge, then, is twofold: how to enlist civil society against those who believe in deploying violence and terror as an acceptable — and probably as the only workable — idiom of political protest. The other side of the coin is to develop the capacity, willingness and ingenuity to accommodate dissent and to address disenchantment and anger in this or that group. This means breaking out of the policy stranglehold of coercion. Violence whether by the state or its military, paramilitary or police forces or by the "freedom fighters," mujahideen, jihadis, secessionists, naxalites, insurgents, etc. generates its own justification, resentment, victims, heroes, medals, decorations, promotions, history, emotions, and sociological consequences.

It is easy to remain stuck in the quagmire of heroic pointlessness of violence; especially when weak political leadership does not have the elbowroom to break out of the familiar liturgy of sins and absolutions. A weak political leadership does not want to provide its opponents any opportunity to brand it as "weak" or "indecisive." And in a weak political set-up, the pronounced preference is for the mediocre but loyal officers to man the rusted bureaucratic tools. These "loyal" officers, in turn, deepen the politician's sense of hesitancy and cowardice.

A new internal security agenda can only begin with an obvious but often neglected proposition: no Central Government can possibly hope to address and cure the domestic sources of unrest and turmoil if it chooses to play favourites between groups of citizens. It has to spread its affection and exercise its sternness equally with all; any hint of exclusion or discrimination would open up a fault-line, which can only be exploited by those who do not wish us well.

The security-bureaucratic tools need to be recharged and revalidated. No government has the luxury of discarding the existing lot of security agencies, whatever the limitations; but the least it can do is to see to it that the key positions are manned by competent officers. The first task then is to begin the process of depoliticisation of appointments and promotions at the senior level — in armed services as well as Central police organisations. Unfortunately, the essence and intention of the Vineet Narain regime imposed by the apex court are already being suborned, if not downrightly abused. Having put in place deserving officers in leadership slots, the Government should insist that they inculcate a new organisational culture of integrity and professionalism. In particular, the Manmohan Singh Government must set a timetable for itself to free the Army from all internal security duties. Overuse of armed forces for internal duties is already causing regrettable erosion. There is no reason why the Central forces' skills, weapons, doctrine and leadership cannot be upgraded to enable them to perform internal security duties.

Having selected competent leaders, the Government must demand that they put an end to smuggling of arms, weapons and narcotics across the borders. It would mean that the Government be prepared to break the nexus between the smuggler, the gun-runner, the narcotic facilitator and the politician.

If an "honest" Manmohan Singh is not able to accomplish this task, then no other Prime Minister would even want to undertake such a mission. There is a wider dimension. Only when the government and its leaders prove themselves capable to letting the law takes its own course against the criminals — irrespective of their political patronage — will they be in a moral position to demand obedience to seemingly draconian laws.

This brings us to the Northeast. The Government has nothing to lose from thinking unconventionally. For instance, the Congress can take the initiative to form a group to review the working of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958. It could be a Congress-Left working group or even an all-party panel, which could open up a dialogue with the activist groups. Political parties can help in breaking out of the familiar reliance on failed administrative formats.

As a gesture, even as a bargaining strategy, the AFSPA can be withdrawn and its useful aspects incorporated in a new law while discarding the provisions, which have been abused. The Act has not worked; we can live without it for six months. All our collective legal and political imagination cannot begin and end with one piece of law.

Similarly, can the new Government move away from the political economy of body counts in Jammu and Kashmir? Without in any way diluting our vigilance and preparedness against vendors of terrorism, let us also find ways of having faith in our democratic pluralism. To begin with, why not involve and entrust the Indian Muslim leadership with the responsibility of bringing about a reconciliation in Kashmir? All these years we have relied on the Track II route, which has only provided gainful employment to retired generals and former diplomats. New interlocutors with new slates and new life experiences are needed. After all, Indian Muslims have the biggest stake in a democratic and secular India and they are ideally suited to address the Islam-centric secessionist sentiment in Kashmir.

The naxalite problem is deemed to be have acquired a pan-Indian dimension; there is evidence of "linking" up of various naxalite groups and the Maoists in Nepal. Here again we have to watch against the policeman's impulsive reaction. Reliance on coercion and the Indian Penal Code has not helped; it is time for a democratic code to come into play. Bent and corrupt police forces have merely helped enlarge the naxalite area of influence.

The Andhra Pradesh experiment in reconciliation with various naxalite groups needs to be genuinely encouraged and blessed as a precursor.

Lastly, we need to recognise the linkage between bad politics and bad security. The onus is on the ruling coalition and its outside supporters. We cannot pursue our electoral calculations at the expense of the abiding national interests. The Congress and the Left Parties in particular need to do a bit of honest introspection on whether they have provided patronage and sanctuaries to those who create vulnerabilities in the entire Northeast.

Since the Congress and the Left have competed with each other for a few parliamentary seats in the border districts, they have abetted unhealthy forces and trends. Now both owe it to themselves and to the country to move away from potential security hazards.

A new Home Minister, armed with a new internal security agenda, and hopefully a new thinking would start the process of blunting the disruptionists while making the Indian democratic project an attractive proposition to the periphery and to the disaffected. Tough decisions are needed. But it must be presumed that neither Manmohan Singh nor Sonia Gandhi, for that matter, would allow themselves to be blackmailed by a few Congressmen, or the allies or the "secularists."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

LOOKING FOR A BREAKTHROUGH

TRADE SANS QUOTAS

A new internal security agenda

U.S. security plan rests on hope

Historic

Not justified

Reservation in industry