MONTHLY FEATURE uuu POLICE AND SECURITY uuu JANUARY, 1993

Dr.S.Subramanian, IPS (Retd.)

The outrage at Ayodhya on Black Sunday - the December 6, 1992 - not only demolished a disputed monument but also shattered the confidence of the people of India in the capacity of the government to maintain order and tranquillity, when challenged by organised lawlessness. To prevent recurrence of such incidents, political, constitutional, legal and administrative reforms are called for. The need of the hour in not to reap political advantage from this tragedy but display political wisdom and sagacity in devising defences against such occurrences.

This shameful incident is only a symptom of the deep-rooted malady that has affected our body politic in recent decades, namely disdain, disrespect and utter contempt for the rule of law, lack of faith in expressing dissent with decency; criminalisation of politics and political processes; and the philosophy of might is right. Even since independence, all political parties have mobilised masses for organised lawlessness, violence and destruction to achieve their political objectives like dismissal of an elected state government in Kerala; for creation of linguistic states; for anti Hindi agitation; for banning cow slaughter; for total revolution; for foreigners issue; and so on. the common man had been conditioned to believe that no goal is beyond his reach in Indian polity if he adopts lawlessness, violence and destruction of life and property as his tools.

At Ayodhya, religion provided a convenient excuse but the sights were set at capturing power at Delhi. In this political maneuver, the union government was worsted. With the help of a pliant local administration, organised masses broke all canons of law, ethics and civilised behaviour and inflicted an injury to our polity which will take decades to heal.

In this vast country, any organised group can whip up passions on religious linguistic, ethnic, economic and other grounds, and mobilise masses for organised violence. The answer is not stifling dissent and a dictatorship at Delhi. This failed in 1975-77. India has to remain a federal polity. Political parties with divergent views will rule the states and centre. Heterogeneity of views and attitudes are inevitable. It is yet possible for the Union Government to discharge its primary obligation of maintaining internal order by making the following changes in the system dealing with order maintenance.

In the larger national interest, all recognised political parties should agree to:

1. have a code of conduct to express dissent with decorum and decency and abjure violence as a political weapon;
2. to enable the country to recover from the trauma of Ayodhya, declare a moratorium on all mass political actions for a period of five years;
3. enhance the prestige of Parliament and state legislature by settling all political disputes in these fora;
4. encourage affected parties to settle their non-political disputes through direct negotiations;
5. not to undermine the sanctity of Supreme Court by enacting enabling legislations to circumvent judicial decisions; and
6. establish a Supreme National Arbitration Council (SNAC) to arbitrate on controversial issues.

SNAC, a five member body of eminent apolitical jurists to be elected jointly by the Parliament and all state legislatures for a tenure of five years, enjoying the status, privileges and powers of the Supreme Court. SNAC, will take up matters for arbitration when requested to do so by a resolution of Parliament or a State Legislature. Once a dispute is taken up by SNAC for consideration, all legal proceedings on the disputes will cease and its findings will be binding on all parties and have the sanctity of an order of the Supreme Court and can not be challenged in any judicial forum.

It is not necessary to invoke Article 356 at all times to deal with the problem of order maintenance. The President of India and his representative in the State - the Governor, are the guardians of the constitution. It is likely in certain situations, as it happened at Ayodhya, the State Government may adopt a partisan attitude and abet and aid lawlessness through inaction or collusion. Lawlessness may be confined to only a part of the State. Through suitable constitutional amendment, ‘Order Maintenance’ should be made the concurrent responsibility of the governor and the State administration. Where in the opinion of the Governor, conditions in the State are leading towards large scale violence and lawlessness and the State Government is found wanting in the discharge of its basic duty of maintenance of order, he should, through a proclamation, assume direct responsibility for the maintenance of order. Once such proclamation is issued, the entire State Police organisation, the Army and the Central Police Forces in the State will automatically come under the operational control of the Governor and function under his orders. This will obviate the need of the central government to obtain the consent of the State Government for dispatch and deployment of Army and Central Police Forces. To prevent misuse of this provision, the proclamation will have to be approved by Parliament - in session or by the President and the Union Cabinet within fifteen days - after which it will automatically lapse. If lawlessness persists beyond this period, the State Administration will be dismissed under Article - 356 and full-fledged President’s rule will be imposed.

The advantage of this system will be that an elected government will continue to function to take care of other activities and unpopular but essential decisions for maintenance of order could be taken by the Governor without fear or favour.

All laws including the Criminal Procedural Code dealing with public order are to be suitably amended to empower officers of the Army and Central Police Forces to exercise full powers of the State Police functionaries while dealing with problems connected with maintenance of order. This would enable them to act independently to discharge their functions without waiting of the concurrence of the local administration. it may be recalled that at Ayodhya, though enough central police forces were available near at hand, they were not allowed to intervene in a grave law and order situation by the local administration. Such instances can be eliminated if the above suggestion is implemented.

Law mandates that the Police are responsible for maintenance of order and prevention and detection of crime. Yet, in order to perform these legal duties, police are required to seek the concurrence and approval of the executive. This anomaly makes police ineffective. Police are to be made accountable to law and the recommendations of National Police Commission in this regard are to be given effect to without delay.

To enable the Governor to monitor the conditions of order and tranquillity in the State on a continuous basis and tender him professional advice, a Senior Police Professional should be appointed as Internal Security Advisor to each Governor. The Central and State Intelligence agencies should submit reports to the Governor on Internal Security Status through the advisor. The Army and the Central Police organisations located within the State should report their operational status regularly to the Governor through the advisor. To enable this functionary to have freedom of action and decision, he should report to the governor only and he should neither belong to the state nor to that state cadre.

In the event of outbreak of serious disturbances, the reports of the State and Central Intelligence agencies submitted to the governor in the past will be examined and their failure to provide advance intelligence will dealt with severely.

None of these suggestions are difficult to implement if we have the required political will and sincerity of purpose.

[Back]    [Top]