Anti-Terror Measures and Federal Balance in India
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0019556120150102 |
| Author | Rajendra Kumar Pandey |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ANTI-TERROR MEASURES
AND
FEDERAL
BALANCE IN INDIA
RAJENDRA
KUMAR
PANDEY
In the
federal
framework
of
Indian polity, countering
terrorism
has
been
complicated
by
an
unsavoury
spat
between Centre
and
States
over
their
respective
competencies
and
roles in the matter. Centre seeks to
play
a proactive
and
commanding role on the
plea
of
protecting the unity and integrity
of
the nation. However,
states perceive such a central role as an encroachment in
their eminent constitutional domains
of
public order
and
police. Amidst these contending positions, the course
of
anti-terror measures has tended
to
disturb the precarious
federal balance
in
the
field
of
Centre-State administrative
relations.
By
asserting its domineering role in anti-terror
activities, Centre seems to be claiming a prominent role
in
the domains constitutionally and conventionally vested
with the States. But such tendencies on the
part
of
the
Centre may neither augur well
for
tackling terrorism nor
the endurance
of
federal balance. The article, therefore,
argues that Indian federalism may be placed in a perilous
position in the course
of
anti-terror measures unless States
are taken as the constitutionally empowered stakeholders in
coping with the menace
of
terrorism.
INCREASING SCOURGE
of
terrorism over the years in India has presented
a complex
conundrum
of
evolving
a fine
and
consensual
policy
of
its
effective
control
and
management. Such a strategic plan
of
action not
only needs to take into consideration all the critical concerns lying
at
the
root
of
the problem, it should also minimally upset the basic constitutional
design and political conventions
of
the country. However, both seem to be
at a loss in so far as anti-terror measures in India are concerned. As for the
first, indeed, the anti-terror strategy is mired into the competing claims
of
two contending approaches: contextualist and confrontationalist.1 While
· the contextualists seek to locate the origj.n and development
of
terrorism in
24
/ INDlAN JOURNAL
OF
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
VOL.
LXI.
NO
1,
JANUARY-MARCH 2015
the complex historical socio-economic and political factors lying beneath
deprivation and consequent alienation
of
the people, the confrontationalists
take terrorist activities as 'misconceived causes espoused by the misled and
crime-prone individuals and groups whose sole purpose is to disturb the
social order as that is the only way they know how to express themselves'.
2
Accordingly, the two advocates' differing strategies to deal with the
challenge. The former argues for a concerted and long-drawn strategy
of
planned socio-economic development coupled with effective political
empowerment to dispel the sense
of
deprivation and alienation. That is
the only way these people can be encouraged to give up arms and abjure
violence to
join
the mainstream
of
peaceful and constructive life. On the
contrary, the latter unhesitatingly takes terrorism as nothing more than a
law and order problem and calls for preponderant use
of
force to counter
the menace. Clearly, the confrontationalist approach seems to have been
the dominant approach in the echelons
of
decision-making in the Central
Government.
On the second proposition, the situation appears to be more precarious
with far-reaching consequences for the constitutional foundations
of
federalism, given the original constitutional mandate and recognisable
political conventions in the country. As such the constitutional scheme
stipulating distribution
of
responsibilities
between
the
Centre
and
states, the latter has primarily been vested with power and responsibility
of
maintenance
oflaw
and order in the state. For this purpose, police has
specifically been placed under the primary jurisdiction
of
states presumably
not only to emphasise the primacy
of
the states functional domain but
also to indirectly rule out any explicit overlapping jurisdiction
of
the
central government. In the course
of
working
of
the Constitution for
over six decades, the sanctity and viability
of
these stipulations have been
recognised to a great extent. Sporadic attempts to undermine and violate
the constitutional mandate on the part
of
the Centre have met with stiff
resistance from both the constitutional luminaries as well as the states
that eventually repelled all such moves, to a large extent. Thus, a political
convention has also emerged that recognises states' ordinarily inviolable
jurisdiction over the matters
of
law and order, and police. Nonetheless,
over the years, the country has witnessed a massive growth
of
centralised
paramilitary forces which are increasingly deployed in localised conflict
management, along with a centralisation
of
intelligence functions.
3 Above
all, with the rise and growing menace
of
terrorism, a sense
of
disdain has
sought to be created that terrorism is an exceptional threat to public order,
and the states are unable to cope with it. Resultantly, a natural space exists
for the Centre to be dominant and proactive partner with the states in
To continue reading
Request your trial