06-09-2008, 07:51 PM
From Deccan chronicle, 9 June 2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Centre must be more proactive to set up a federal anti-terror agency
By Joginder Singh
<b>We are governed by laws given to us by the British more than 145 years ago. There was no need for them to have a federal investigating agency as the top rulers â the governors-general and viceroys, governors and district heads â were all British. There was no question of working at cross-purposes as sometimes happens now. As absolute foreign rulers they did not have to indulge in popularity contests or votebank politics as is now the case. Even in the first 30 years of Indiaâs independence, there was no need for a federal investigating agency because there was one ruling party, both at the Centre and the states. Besides, at that time, problems such as terrorism, hijacking and drug-peddling did not exist to the extent that they do now.</b>
Terrorists take advantage of a deficient and ill-trained police force, and an extremely pro-criminal and pro-accused liberal legal framework. Loopholes in the criminal justice system, delays in investigation and a long-drawn judicial process donât help matters any.
<b>India was among the countries worst hit by terrorism in 2007, with more than 2,300 deaths. The governmentâs counter-terrorism efforts remained hampered by an "ill-equipped" law-enforcement machinery and "slow and laborious" legal systems, said a US state department study. The report added that the Indian court system was "slow, laborious and prone to corruption. Terrorism trials can take years to complete. Many of Indiaâs local police forces are poorly staffed, lack training and are ill-equipped to combat terrorism effectively." The report also mentioned that the Indian governmentâs counter-terror measures remained hampered by outdated and overburdened law-enforcement and legal systems.</b>
<b>To eradicate terrorism, a focused response that includes intelligence gathering, data processing, investigation, and counter-terror operations on a national scale is required. At present, these tasks are carried out by a multiplicity of agencies keen to protect their turf and score brownie points with the powers that be. A federal investigating agency can be effective only if there are proper intelligence inputs to it and the present confusing intelligence scenario is rectified.</b>
The recent bomb blasts in Jaipur that left 70 people dead and 180 injured has again focused national attention on and reiterated the need for a federal investigating agency. The reasons for such an agency are obvious. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has expressed himself in favour of the proposal. In an earlier period, this had failed to materialise because of the reluctance of some states to "surrender" their powers.
<b>The Union government is responsible for safeguarding the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The onus of eradicating terrorism lies squarely with the Centre. Under Article 355 of the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Union government to protect every state against internal disturbances, and to ensure that governance in every state is carried on in accordance with the Constitution. What the terrorists aim to do with their activities is to wreck the Constitution, bring the State to its knees, leading ultimately to the disintegration of the nation. The kind of quibbling that we engage in, whether the Centre does or does not have the power to put things right, only serves to help the terrorist. The real problem is not the lack of strength, but the lack of "will". What the Centre should do and the way to do it is incredibly simple. But whether it is willing to do it is another matter altogether.</b>
If the Centre is serious about the setting up of a federal agency, it can simply pass a law like the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, under which the Central Bureau of Investigation derives its powers. <b>Surely, it does not need the consent of state governments to create a Central agency at the national level that could deal with crimes like terrorism, hijacking and drug-peddling and the like, which threaten Indiaâs integrity and security.</b> Nothing will ever be attempted or achieved if all possible objections are first sought to be removed. Once a law is in place, hardly any state will object to the Central investigative agency taking up tough cases of terrorism or counterfeit currency. If anything, they will welcome it, and eventually take the opportunity to pass on responsibility for crimes of an all-India nature to such an agency.
No two men ever judge alike. It is impossible to find two identical opinions. Theoretically, VIP security arrangements, including that of the Prime Minister, is the responsibility of the state governments. But no state has objected to the Special Protection Group providing security to the PM and his family, and to a few other SPG protectees. The responsibility for airport security used to be that of the state governments, but after the hijacking of IC-814 from Kathmandu in 1999, all states have accepted security provided by the Centre at airports. Besides, if some states do not accept such a Central law, they will have to face the blame for encouraging terrorism and not doing their best to curb it. The NDA governmentâs Group of Ministers had decided in February 2001 that the home ministry should be proactive in ensuring internal security safeguards and bear nodal responsibility for internal security. Unless that decision is cancelled by the present government, it is legally and morally bound to implement it. Karl Marx had once said: "It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving, as if it were an individual person... History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
Joginder Singh is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One comment. Even though he is former director of CBI he has to quote a US report for legitimacy of his arguements which should be based on Indian milieu. Could be the trap of Official Secrets Act eetc and US primacy in every walk of life due to globalization.
Having said that to make sure of the efficacy of a future all India organization, it is better to get the States buy-in failing which the Central legislation should be passed.However this new agency should not become another tool for the party in power at the Center to harrass its opponents because of absolute powers such an agency will have.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Centre must be more proactive to set up a federal anti-terror agency
By Joginder Singh
<b>We are governed by laws given to us by the British more than 145 years ago. There was no need for them to have a federal investigating agency as the top rulers â the governors-general and viceroys, governors and district heads â were all British. There was no question of working at cross-purposes as sometimes happens now. As absolute foreign rulers they did not have to indulge in popularity contests or votebank politics as is now the case. Even in the first 30 years of Indiaâs independence, there was no need for a federal investigating agency because there was one ruling party, both at the Centre and the states. Besides, at that time, problems such as terrorism, hijacking and drug-peddling did not exist to the extent that they do now.</b>
Terrorists take advantage of a deficient and ill-trained police force, and an extremely pro-criminal and pro-accused liberal legal framework. Loopholes in the criminal justice system, delays in investigation and a long-drawn judicial process donât help matters any.
<b>India was among the countries worst hit by terrorism in 2007, with more than 2,300 deaths. The governmentâs counter-terrorism efforts remained hampered by an "ill-equipped" law-enforcement machinery and "slow and laborious" legal systems, said a US state department study. The report added that the Indian court system was "slow, laborious and prone to corruption. Terrorism trials can take years to complete. Many of Indiaâs local police forces are poorly staffed, lack training and are ill-equipped to combat terrorism effectively." The report also mentioned that the Indian governmentâs counter-terror measures remained hampered by outdated and overburdened law-enforcement and legal systems.</b>
<b>To eradicate terrorism, a focused response that includes intelligence gathering, data processing, investigation, and counter-terror operations on a national scale is required. At present, these tasks are carried out by a multiplicity of agencies keen to protect their turf and score brownie points with the powers that be. A federal investigating agency can be effective only if there are proper intelligence inputs to it and the present confusing intelligence scenario is rectified.</b>
The recent bomb blasts in Jaipur that left 70 people dead and 180 injured has again focused national attention on and reiterated the need for a federal investigating agency. The reasons for such an agency are obvious. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has expressed himself in favour of the proposal. In an earlier period, this had failed to materialise because of the reluctance of some states to "surrender" their powers.
<b>The Union government is responsible for safeguarding the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The onus of eradicating terrorism lies squarely with the Centre. Under Article 355 of the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Union government to protect every state against internal disturbances, and to ensure that governance in every state is carried on in accordance with the Constitution. What the terrorists aim to do with their activities is to wreck the Constitution, bring the State to its knees, leading ultimately to the disintegration of the nation. The kind of quibbling that we engage in, whether the Centre does or does not have the power to put things right, only serves to help the terrorist. The real problem is not the lack of strength, but the lack of "will". What the Centre should do and the way to do it is incredibly simple. But whether it is willing to do it is another matter altogether.</b>
If the Centre is serious about the setting up of a federal agency, it can simply pass a law like the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, under which the Central Bureau of Investigation derives its powers. <b>Surely, it does not need the consent of state governments to create a Central agency at the national level that could deal with crimes like terrorism, hijacking and drug-peddling and the like, which threaten Indiaâs integrity and security.</b> Nothing will ever be attempted or achieved if all possible objections are first sought to be removed. Once a law is in place, hardly any state will object to the Central investigative agency taking up tough cases of terrorism or counterfeit currency. If anything, they will welcome it, and eventually take the opportunity to pass on responsibility for crimes of an all-India nature to such an agency.
No two men ever judge alike. It is impossible to find two identical opinions. Theoretically, VIP security arrangements, including that of the Prime Minister, is the responsibility of the state governments. But no state has objected to the Special Protection Group providing security to the PM and his family, and to a few other SPG protectees. The responsibility for airport security used to be that of the state governments, but after the hijacking of IC-814 from Kathmandu in 1999, all states have accepted security provided by the Centre at airports. Besides, if some states do not accept such a Central law, they will have to face the blame for encouraging terrorism and not doing their best to curb it. The NDA governmentâs Group of Ministers had decided in February 2001 that the home ministry should be proactive in ensuring internal security safeguards and bear nodal responsibility for internal security. Unless that decision is cancelled by the present government, it is legally and morally bound to implement it. Karl Marx had once said: "It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving, as if it were an individual person... History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
Joginder Singh is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One comment. Even though he is former director of CBI he has to quote a US report for legitimacy of his arguements which should be based on Indian milieu. Could be the trap of Official Secrets Act eetc and US primacy in every walk of life due to globalization.
Having said that to make sure of the efficacy of a future all India organization, it is better to get the States buy-in failing which the Central legislation should be passed.However this new agency should not become another tool for the party in power at the Center to harrass its opponents because of absolute powers such an agency will have.