Tag Archives | Home

Everything you wanted to know about the IAP

By on January 10, 2012 in Uncategorized

Integrated Action Plan to develop tribal and backward districts in Maoist-affected areas

While the Home Ministry’s press release on IAP — to  be implemented by district level officials with a block grant of Rs 25 crore and Rs 30 crore per district during 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively in 60 districts — is self-explanatory, the process of identifying the districts under the IAP deserves to be highlighted.

At the time of presentation of the budget for the year 2010-11, the Government had announced its decision to introduce a special scheme to address the development of 33 Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected districts.   It was inter-alia, stated that the Planning Commission would prepare an Integrated Action Plan (IAP) for the affected areas and that adequate funds would be made available to support the action plan. The 33 districts (later expanded to 34) referred to in the Finance Minister’s announcement were a sub-set of the 83 LWE affected districts identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs for coverage under its Security Related Expenditure (SRE) Scheme.  This sub-set consisted of those districts where more than 20% of the Police Stations experienced some incidents of naxal violence.  Subsequently, West Medinipur district of West Bengal was added to the list due to the situation prevailing there, taking the total to 35 districts.

While formulating the scheme, the Planning Commission considered that the scheme should not be limited only to the severely LWE affected districts.  It was proposed by them that the scheme should cover other tribal and backward districts also and the following criteria was adopted to identify districts for inclusion in the scheme:

(a)                Whether the district is included in the list of 83 SRE districts identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs;
(b)               Whether the tribal population exceeds 25%;
(c)                Whether the forest area exceeds 30%;
(d)               Whether the poverty ratio in the district exceeds 50%; and
(e)                Whether the district is covered under the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF).

Districts meeting four of the above-mentioned five criteria and forming a contiguous block were selected for coverage under the proposed scheme.  Thus, with this criteria, a total of 60 districts were selected for coverage under the scheme.

The 60 districts comprised 48 districts covered under the SRE scheme and 12 other districts not falling under the SRE scheme.  The 60 districts thus selected are : Adiliabad and Khammam (2 districts) in Andhra Pradesh; Arwal, Aurangabad, Gaya, Jamui, Jehanabad, Nawada and Rohtas (7 districts), in Bihar; Bastar, Bijapur, Dantewada, Jashpur, Kanker, Kawardha, Koriya, Narayanpur, Rajnandgaon and Surguja (10 districts) of Chhattisgarh; Bokaro, Chatra, Garwha, Gumla, Hazaribagh, Kodarma, Latehar, Lohardaga, Paschim Singhbhum, Palamu, Purbi Singhbhum, Ramgarh, Saraikela and Simdega (14 districts) of Jharkhand; Anuppur, Balagahat, Dindori, Mandla, Seoni, Shahdol, Sidhi and Umaria (8 districts)  in Madhya Pradesh; Gadchiroli and Gondiya (2 districts); Balangir, Debagarh/Deogarh, Gajapati, Kalahandi, Kandhamal/Phulbani, Kendujhar/Keonjhar, Koraput, Malkangiri, Mayurbhanj, Nabrangpur, Nuapada, Rayagada, Sambalpur, Sonapur and Sundargarh (15 districts) of  Orissa; Sonbhadra (1 district), Uttar Pradesh; Paschim Medinipur (1 district) in West Bengal.[PIB]

Read the complete press release here.

Just one question. Expanding the IAP from 33 to 60 districts was hard to explain; how is the government going to justify increasing the IAP to 78 districts now?

Comments { 1 }

Home Minister answers the questions

By on September 15, 2011 in Uncategorized

A need for more transparency in providing information.

After the Mumbai blasts in July earlier this year, this blogger had posted four questions for the Union Home Minister, Mr P. Chidambaram. You can read them here or here. The questions were about the lack of progress in four critical institutions pertaining to internal security: CCTNS, NATGRID, NCTC and a Ministry for Internal Security.

In his speech while inaugurating the DGPs/IGPs Conference at Delhi today, the Home Minister answered three of the four questions.

Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). From time to time there have been slippages but we have taken corrective steps and I am hopeful that the nationwide network will be in place by March, 2013. Some States have not yet selected the system integrator; some have not yet set up State Data Centre. These are matters that require the personal attention of the DGP of the State.

The other ambitious project is NATGRID. Government approved the project on June 6, 2011 and I believe that it is proceeding according to schedule and the phases that have been approved will be completed in 18 months.

The most important unfinished agenda is the National Counter Terrorism Centre. It was an idea that I had unveiled in my Intelligence Bureau Centenary Endowment Lecture delivered in December, 2009. The underlying premise is that there is a subtle difference between anti-terrorism and counter terrorism. To borrow a phrase from the National Strategy for Counter Terrorism published by the US Government in June, 2011, the goal must be “to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat” the terrorist groups. Today, we do not have an organisation devoting its whole time and energy to that task. I hope to secure a Government decision on setting up the NCTC. Once there is a decision, I am confident that the core team of NCTC can be installed within 60 days and the full structure can be put together within 12-18 months.[PIB]

While work on CCTNS and NATGRID has finally started, albeit belatedly, the proposal for an NCTC is being spoken about now. But what is completely missing from the agenda is a dedicated Ministry for Internal Security. If one were to be cynical, would it need another big terror attack to get the idea of a ministry for internal security up for discussion?

Another noteworthy highlight of the speech was the Home Minister’s willingness to share more information about actions taken to prevent terror attacks.

Since 26/11, security forces and intelligence agencies have neutralised 51 terror modules. To illustrate, Abdul Latif and Riyaz who were planning to attack ONGC installations were arrested in Mumbai in March, 2010. Zia ul Haque was arrested in Hyderabad in May, 2010 and a major terrorist action against a multinational company was disrupted. A 10 member SIMI module was busted in Madhya Pradesh in June, 2011 and their plan to assassinate three Judges was foiled.[PIB]

This should hold a lesson for the home ministry too. They should stop classifying every information as ‘sensitive’ or ‘confidential’. They could make the interrogation details of suspects — up to a certain level — more accessible to the public. Unless the ministry communicates to the public what it has done successfully, the attention will always be directed at its failures. The role of counter-terror machinery is akin to those of a goal-keeper in football or a wicket-keeper in cricket. You only get noticed for your mistakes; the successes are a part of your routine.

Finally, the Home Ministry must advice all the state police departments to update their websites with more relevant information — the dossiers of the Most Wanted, and the confessions and charge-sheets of those arrested and convicted in terror cases.

In these cynical times, an emphasis on increased transparency in their dealings will not only regenerate the common man’s trust on the government agencies but also make the agencies more accountable and responsible. It means that there should be no need for anyone to ask questions of the government agencies. The answers should always be publicly available.

Comments { 8 }

Fireworks, not fire

By on July 24, 2011 in Uncategorized

The build-up to the meeting of India-Pakistan foreign ministers at Delhi

From the Indian Home Minister’s opening remarks at the Fourth SAARC Interior/Home Ministers Meeting:

Honourable Members, The South Asian region is perhaps the most troubled and vulnerable region in the world.   The vast majority of major terrorist incidents this year – as well as last year – have occurred in this region.  Terrorist groups in this region have flourished because of the support they have found from State and non-State actors.  Sometimes, I think that the distinction between State actors and non-State actors is misplaced and intended to misdirect our efforts to deal with terrorist groups at the very source – the recruitment centres, the training camps and their safe havens and sanctuaries.  If I may speak frankly, let me say that no State and no Government can escape responsibility by pointing to non-State actors.  As long as the territory of a country is used by non-State actors to prepare for terrorist attacks, that country owes a legal and moral responsibility to its neighbours and to the world to suppress those non-State actors and bring them to justice.[PIB]

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that Mr Chidambaram’s statement was directed at Pakistan.The lack of progress on bringing the perpetrators of the November 2008 terror strike in Mumbai was flagged by an Indian government source in Delhi too.

During the talks between external affairs minister S M Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar on July 27, the Indian side will emphasise that Pakistan needs to take action on 26/11 cases because terror-free atmosphere is very important for the talks to be more meaningful and productive.[HT]

It is not that only the Indians have been talking tough. Pakistan PM, reacting to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement asking India to play a leadership role in the Asia-Pacific, said that “we do not want any chaudhry [chieftain]” in the region.

However these barbs are not an indicator of things to come. The India-Pakistan Foreign minister’s meeting will, in all probability, be without any fireworks. We can instead expect announcement of some confidence-building measures over Kashmir at the end of the meeting.

Comments { 2 }

Why o’ why?

By on July 14, 2011 in Uncategorized

Four questions for the Home Minister.

Qn #1: Where is the CCTNS?

Realising the gross deficiency in connectivity between police stations, the Central Government decided to implement an ambitious scheme called “Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS).”  It was conceived on 7th May, 2008 as per MHA’s letter No. IV.24021/2/08-PM-I dated 7th May 2008, well before the Mumbai terror strike. The goals of the system were to facilitate collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, transfer and sharing of data and information at the police station and between the police station and the State Headquarters and the Central Police Organisations.

The progress report of the CCTNS at the NCRB website (here) tells that the project is yet to see the light of the day. Why?

Qn #2: Where is the NCTC?

The National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) ws to be set up with the broad mandate to deal with all kinds of terrorist violence directed against the country and the people. As the name suggests, the goal is to counter terrorism.  This was to include preventing a terrorist attack, containing a terrorist attack should one take place, and responding to a terrorist attack by inflicting pain upon the perpetrators.  NCTC was to therefore have to perform functions relating to intelligence, investigation and operations. As per the proposal, while the nature of the response to different kinds of terror has to be different and nuanced, NCTC’s mandate would be to respond to violence unleashed by any group – be it an insurgent group in the North East or the CPI (Maoist) in the heartland of India or any group of religious fanatics anywhere in India acting on their own or in concert with terrorists outside India.

The United States was able to create the NCTC from scratch within 36 months of September 11, 2001.  You had promised that India must succeed in setting up the NCTC by the end of 2010 but your recently retired Home Secretary accepts that the NCTC is in a limbo, with the proposal not even approved by the government so far. Why?

Qn #3: Where is the NATGRID?

NATGRID, an umbrella organisation of investigating agencies to provide quick-time response to the demand for information on suspected terrorists and offenders of the law. It was meant to be the basic foundation over which the “new architecture of India’s security” promised by you had to take shape. Under NATGRID, 21 sets of databases are to  be networked to achieve quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence/enforcement agencies.

You had promised in December 2009 that this project was likely to be completed in 18 – 24 months from then. However, only the in-principle approval for the first phase of the project has been given by the Union Cabinet last month. Why?

Qn #4: Where is the Ministry of Internal Security?

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) performs a number of functions that have no direct relation to internal security.  For example, it has a division dealing with freedom fighters but it does not have even a desk for dealing exclusively with forensic science.  There are other divisions or desks that deal with Centre-State Relations, State Legislation, Human Rights, Union Territories, Disaster Management, Census among other subjects.  Internal security is a more important function that deserves the highest attention.

Late K Subrahmanyam had strongly advocated the the setting up of a ministry — under the charge of a Cabinet Minister — that would be dedicated to internal security. He opined that internal security should not be part of the Home Ministry’s responsibilities. Just as we have a ministry for external security, which is the Ministry of Defence, India needs a Ministry for Internal Security.

In 2009, you had suggested that subjects not directly related to internal security should be dealt with by a separate Ministry or should be brought under a separate Department in the MHA and dealt with by a Minister, more or less independently, without referring every issue to the Home Minister.  The Home Minister should devote the whole of his/her time and energy to matters relating to security. Evidently, there has been no progress on this promise so far. Why?

(A version of this blogpost, along with this one, appears at Outlook Web)

Comments { 6 }

Break the NATGRID-lock

By on May 19, 2011 in Uncategorized

The New Architecture of India’s Security rests on the foundation of a NATGRID.

For the second time — that too after the Union Home Minister had himself gone public owning the first SNAFU — the list of 50 Most wanted Indian fugitives based in Pakistan has an individual listed who is on Indian soil. It is an embarrassing mistake and reflects poorly on the government of India, and the Union Home Ministry in particular.

This embarrassment could, in all probability, have been avoided if the NATGRID would have been in place. After taking over as the Union Home Minister, P Chidambaram had laid out “A New Architecture of India’s Security” in a speech on 23rd December 2009. On the NATGRID proposal, he had said:

Some steps in this direction are self-evident.  For example, there is a need to network all the databases that contain vital information and intelligence.  Today, each database stands alone.  It does not talk to another database.  Nor can the ‘owner’ of one database access another database.  As a result, crucial information that rests in one database is not available to another agency.  In order to remedy the deficiency, the Central Government has decided to set up NATGRID.  Under NATGRID, 21 sets of databases will be networked to achieve quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence/enforcement agencies.  This project is likely to be completed in 18 – 24 months from now.[PIB]

Eighteen months down the line, the project has not even got the go-ahead from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). The Detailed Project Report for NATGRID has been ready since December 2010. Once it gets CCS approval, the entire system will be in place in three phases within a period of two years. The stipulated tenure of the CEO of NATGRID, Raghu Raman is expiring on 31st May. The government is reported to have sanctioned a six-month extension for him.  Last week, Union Home Secretary wrote to the Cabinet Secretary asking him to seek the Prime Minister’s intervention in sanctioning the project.

Here are more details about the NATGRID project.

A Home Ministry document acknowledges sensitivity and secrecy of the data available on the grid by stressing that only 11 selected government agencies will be able to access the grid and a special mechanism will prevent any leakage of data. As such, the raw data will reside with the provider agencies and will be readily available to NATGRID, as it will only take abstracted and approved subsets of information from the original databases.

The new system is being designed to help the government agencies combat terror and threats to internal security by generating “actionable” intelligence through search and retrieval from the networked databases. The grid will have a command centre that will double up as an anti-terror hotline and will have an international connect to network with data available in other countries that is useful to keep a tab on suspects.

The Home Ministry’s proposal before CCS for administrative and financial sanction envisages a total workforce of 290, including 98 ‘outside consultants,’ who have all been identified by the CEO. The unit is ready to get cracking with the mission of linking various databases in four phases.

The eleven agencies who will have access to the database include the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Military Intelligence, Revenue Intelligence, National Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. Personnel from these agencies will be work with NATGRID to liaison with their parent organisations and guide them in usage of the data generated.

The first phase is limited to linking up only the databases that are available with the Centre, besides those of one or two state entities as a concurrent pilot project. The first phase is limited to the data already accessible through the current procedures.

All the authorised agencies will be linked up among themselves as also with government agencies like Railways, Air India [ Images ], Income Tax department and state police and the private agencies like banks, insurance companies, telecom service providers and the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Sources say a limited analytical capability will begin as the networking begins in the first phase, though the operationalisation of the intelligence produced will remain the responsibility of the operating units like the National Security Guard, Army or Police.

It is the second phase of networking that will provide NATGRID with the analytical capability to cross-link different pieces of information and flag “tripwires” that indicate some unlawful or terrorist activity is in progress or likely to take place. In this phase and onwards, NATGRID will recommend improvements of the databases and development of unconventional but highly valuable data sources like visitor records of jails and checking sales of fertilizer,which can be used to make improvised explosives.

The telecom and internet service providers will be mandated by regulations to compulsorily link up their databases with NATGRID. The databases so far identified for being linked in the grid include those of rail and air travel, phone calls, bank accounts, credit card transactions, passport and visa records, PAN cards,  land and property records, automobile ownership and driving licences.

With the 11 user agencies and 21 databases identified for networking, Chidambaram is hopeful of a fully operational NATGRID within two years. Though it is envisaged to be implemented in four phases, sources say the grid will start providing relevant information even while integration under these phases is in progress.[Rediff]

There are primarily three objections to the NATGRID proposal. One, concerns over the possibility of compromising with individual privacy or the data being misused if such details fell in wrong hands. Many civil rights groups having described the plan as security agencies being given “the rights to spy” on the common man. The Home Ministry counters that charge by suggesting that has taken all care to have an inbuilt safeguard mechanism within NATGRID so that the available data is not misused. After all, the data, which is to be collected/processed at one place within the Grid, is already available with various agencies like income tax, immigration, passport and telecom authorities.

Two, the question of duplication. Some ministries have objected to the project, saying that it was duplication of work already being done by the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) functioning under the National Security Adviser (NSA), which coordinates and collates inputs available with various security and intelligence agencies. The Home Ministry has clarified that NSCS is only a policy making body and may use the databases interlinked by NATGRID while the latter will be actually developing and maintaining grid and associated applications to ensure smooth information search and retrieval over a range of databases with a focus on terrorist activities.

Three, turf wars. The NSA already has under its aegis, since 2004, the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) – a highly specialized technical intelligence-gathering “super-feeder agency” – to act as a clearing house for all other members of the security establishment. The NTRO was setup under the NSA to augment the technical intelligence capabilities of the country, with huge budget, manpower and technical resources. The NTRO was set up for cyber security, crypto systems, strategic hardware and software development, strategic monitoring, data gathering and processing and aviation and remote sensing. The Home Ministry shot down the suggestion to bring NTRO, with its technical intelligence capabilities, on the NATGRID board, pointing out that the two agencies have different charter as NTRO’s main role was that of technical interception, whereas NATGRID’s role is that of connectivity and retrieval of information.

These objections were reportedly raised in the CCS meeting last year, and have stalled the project since.

Sources say finance minister Pranab Mukherjee objected to the proposal of NatGrid on the grounds that it will violate the privacy law. Defence minister AK Antony reportedly expressed reservations contending that the system of Joint Intelligence Committee, where all top notch intelligence agencies share information, was working satisfactorily; hence there was no need for a new body.[DNA]

There is a likelihood that the public embarrassment of producing a wrong list of most wanted fugitives might finally spur the government into action. The pressure from the Home Ministry, and the forthcoming inaugural India-US Bilateral Homeland Security Dialogue in Delhi later this month may also lead the government to decide on this long-delayed project.

NATGRID, an umbrella organisation of investigating agencies to provide quick-time response to the demand for information on suspected terrorists and offenders of the law, can prevent a repetition of the embarrassing error witnessed now. It has to be the basic foundation, over which this new architecture of India’s security can take shape. One hopes that Mr Chidambaram still remembers the concluding words of his speech of 23rd December 2009.

There is the danger of a terror-free year inducing complacency, signs of which can be seen everywhere.  A strange passivity seems to have descended upon the people: they are content to leave matters relating to security to a few people in the Government and not ask questions or make demands.  I wish to raise my voice of caution and appeal to all of you assembled here, and to the people at large, that there is no time to be lost in making a thorough and radical departure from the present structure.  If, as a nation, we must defend ourselves in the present day and prepare for the future, it is imperative that we put in place a new architecture for India’s security.[PIB]

Can we start with getting the NATGRID in place at the earliest? Cabinet Committee on Security, are you listening?

Comments { 5 }

Discoursing Kashmir

By on February 14, 2011 in Uncategorized

A look at the Union Home Secretary’s views about Kashmir

As a rule, Pragmatic Euphony is wary of reading too much into extracts of an interview by a government official. However, the PTI is holding back the full transcript while releasing a few extracts from its interview with the Union Home Secretary, Mr GK Pillai. One such PTI report contains certain statements made by Mr Pillai on Kashmir.

There were a couple of noteworthy points made by the Union Home Secretary.

When asked how many personnel are being pulled out from the state, he said in 2009, the centre pulled out 10 battalions (10,000 men) from the state. Last year, it did not take out any because of the agitation from June to September.

“I think this year, we can easily take out 10 battalions if not more. Irrespective of the situation, I can take out 10 battalions and it would not have any impact.

“We have about 70 battalions in Kashmir and we have 62 battalions in seven Left-wing affected states which are big states…. I think if I can take out, I will try to pull out as many as I can,” he said.[Indian Express]

It is inexplicable that the Union government and the state government did not adequately publicise the withdrawal of 10 paramilitary battalions from Kashmir in 2009. This deinduction was perfectly understandable in light of the sharp decline in violence witnessed in the Valley in the last few years. Greater publicity for this action of the government would have perhaps led to a more balanced narrative of the situation in Kashmir in the national and international media.

One hopes that the decision of the home secretary to withdraw at least 10 paramilitary battalions from Kashmir this year — irrespective of the situation — is based on professional inputs from the security forces, and not dictated by other extraneous factors. The home secretary’s statement hints at this decision being driven by a pressing requirement to provide more paramilitary battalions to the Maoist-affected states. While the home ministry remains the final arbiter of such competing requirements, it would perhaps be prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to Kashmir. However it is also possible that such a clear declaration of intent will goad the state police to step up and fill the void, if any, created by the deinduction of central forces from the Valley.

On the amendments on AFSPA, whose withdrawal has been demanded by the state, he said this is an issue which has to be decided politically.

“But OK, even if it is not done I think you can move forward and say some parts of Kashmir need not be declared disturbed,” he said.

Pillai said that if there was no change being made in the AFSPA than the area can be denotified (as disturbed) and the law will not be applicable there.

“You keep the act as it is which is what the Army says don’t meddle with the Act but if you want me (Army) to act, I need that Act… You see law and order situation in Srinagar has improved. Anyway, Army is not in Srinagar. They are not operating in Budgam.

“You say remove it from there…. That area is no longer disturbed. This is a notification of the state government not a state notification by Central Government,” the Home Secretary said.

He said the proposals for amendments in the AFSPA were before the Cabinet Committee on Security.[Indian Express]

The debate over amending the AFSPA has become extremely polarised in the recent years. This has led to hardening of positions in both the defence ministry and the home ministry. While this stalemate awaits a political resolution by the Cabinet Committee on Security, the disposition of the home secretary to shift the onus of decision-making on to the state government is not estimable.

Essentially, there are two distinct issues on the table concerning the AFSPA. The state government can very much withdraw the notification of disturbed areas act from the districts where no army is deployed — Srinagar and Badgam in the Kashmir valley. But that is not the major concern here. The major concern, not only in Kashmir but in the North-East as well, still remains the amendment of the AFSPA which can only be undertaken by the Union government. [See these posts on the Background of the AFSPA and Why AFSPA is not worth it]

“I have seen many of these conferences… same old fifteen fellows in the last ten years in backstage, stage two.. same people, same thing coming out. You have to start talking to other people and get fresh ideas so I think we have to reach out to the people of Kashmir,” Pillai said.

He said the Centre is planning to hold seminars in remote areas of the state with a team of 100 officers of the Centre along with state government officers listening to the problems of local Kashmiris.

When asked whether this move will not impinge on the authority of the state government, he said the state government will be on board and the location will be selected by them.[Indian Express]

With the Panchayat elections scheduled to be held in the state in the next few months, it would be far more advisable for the Centre to empower these local self-governance bodies than push central teams to resolve local issues. The endeavour of the Union government should be build governance capacity at the state level, whereas these central teams are likely to further undermine the authority of the state government.

Even as a short-term strategy to paper over the lack of administrative capacity at the state level, this is unlikely to pay huge dividends. It will strengthen the hands of the separatists who always arouse Kashmiri emotions by highlighting the control exercised by Delhi over the state government in Srinagar. The Union Home Secretary would be best advised to either drop this idea altogether or implement it in as discreet a manner as possible, where the state government completely leads, owns, defines and executes the process.

It must be conceded, in all fairness, that the Union Home Secretary’s candidness in sharing his thoughts with the public, via the media, comes as a whiff of fresh air in the moribund bureaucratic stonewalling usually witnessed in the government of India. As long as it leads to a healthy debate and provides constructive feedback to the home ministry, Mr Pillai is on the right track.

And for those who perpetually criticise the unlearning nature of the Indian government, whether in Kashmir or elsewhere, they need not go further than this John Adams’  letter to Thomas Jefferson, circa July 9, 1813:

While all other Sciences have advanced, that of Government is at a stand; little better understood; little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago.

198 years on, and the view still holds good.

Comments { 13 }

Sopore girls: Children of a lesser God?

By on February 2, 2011 in Uncategorized

Guest post by Raheel Khursheed

Sometimes home is best experienced by way of detachment…through picture perfect postcards that don’t capture people’s hypocrisy and your subsequent disappointment by it. Particularly so when your home is Kashmir!  The abduction and murder of two teenaged sisters in Sopore, Akhtara & Arifa, for ‘Moral Turpitude’ as reported by Mail Today News paper by alleged Lashkar terrorists is medieval in its exhibition and impact.

What’s more heart-wrenching is that there have been no protests over the two murders, as say happened over the Shopian alleged rapes & murderers. Not like people are scared of protests! If 15 year old boys can face off a police van and tear it to bits with bricks and stones, they surely can let out a few slogans against what is obviously a grave crime against the very fabric of Kashmiri society by brutal gun-totting terrorists.

If two young Kashmiri women being dragged out of their home and shot dead in cold blood doesn’t shake the conscience of people and evoke condemnation with a wide spread anger, what will?  And yet it’s this collective inability of the Kashmiri people to see, recognise and raise their voice against cutting-across-lines-brutality that this incident has highlighted & underlined. If the cry for justice for the victims of the Shopian alleged double rape & murder rang across Kashmir, why not a similar cry for justice for these two sisters? Or has Kashmir decided that it’s okay for terrorists to abduct and murder its daughters & sisters as long as there’s a convenient label to attach to the heinous crime?

On the contrary, there’s an argument that the murder of these girls is justifiable in the larger ‘Azadi’ narrative. As if ‘Azadi’ is blood thirsty demon that needs the two young sisters sacrificed at it’s altar to quench its sacrificial thirst.

Even as condemnation from separatists has been muted, even main stream political leaders – the notable exception being CM Omar Abdullah – have been apologetic in their reactions to the incident! PDP Chairperson Mehbooba Mufti who visited Shopian at the peak of the protests in the 2008, hasn’t deemed it fit to even issue a strongly worded statement condemning the murders unequivocally, let alone visit the family.

One can’t even begin to imagine the magnitude of protests that would’ve hit Kashmir if there was even a slight hint or indication that the security forces were involved in the incident in any way and the political opportunism that would’ve been on display subsequently.

You can follow @raheelk on Twitter.

Comments { 98 }

No-go for police reforms

By on February 1, 2011 in Uncategorized

Not much hope from the reactions in the CM’s conference on internal security

From the Prime Minister’s address at the Chief Ministers’ Conference on Internal Security:

We cannot continue to police our society with archaic laws and policing systems. We are aware that many Police Commissions have made various recommendations on police reforms. I urge the states to seriously look into this aspect. I would like the Ministry of Home Affairs to carry forward this exercise to its logical conclusion in the Union Territory of Delhi during the coming years so that Delhi Police becomes a model for other state police forces to emulate.[PIB]

It is no secret that despite strictures by the Supreme Court, no state in India — irrespective of the party in power — is keen on police reforms. As law and order happens to be a state subject, the new acts will have to be passed by the state legislatures and fresh notifications issued by the state governments. The centre can only request the states to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

However, Delhi Police happens to come directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs at the centre. The central government thus has no excuse for not initiating police reforms in Delhi. MHA’s Year-end review for 2010 states this on the subject:

…as per the directives of the Supreme Court on police reforms, MHA decided to set up a State Security Commission for all UTs which would lay down broad policies and evaluate performance of the police in each UT, to set up two Police Establishment Boards (PEB) in each UT, one for the the ranks of Inspectors and above and the other for Sub-Inspectors and below. The PEBs would decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters set up a Police Complaints Authority in each UT accord two-year tenures in UTs to key police functionaries, except under exceptional circumstances and administrative exigencies which would be recorded in writing and separate police personnel into law and order and investigative wings in UTs.[ANI]

This seems to be a good move on the face of it. Even if the PM did not lay down any time-frame for completing the reforms in Delhi, it generates hope that some progress is being made on the subject by the centre. But wait till you read the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative’s critique of the the setting up of a Union Territories Security Commission (pdf here). It is now up to the monitoring committee formed by the Supreme Court to ensure that these anomalies are fixed by the MHA at the earliest.

In the CM’s conference, two CMs have been reported to be particularly opposed to the Supreme Court mandated proposal of police reforms. One was Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi:

On the issue of police reforms, the chief minister said the Supreme Court order in the Prakash Singh Vs Union of India case would lead to ‘creation of new power centres’ in the forms of Security Commission and Police Complaints Authority, which may become difficult to be handled even by the judiciary.[Rediff]

The other one to oppose the proposals was Bihar CM Nitish Kumar:

“The Centre should also desist from framing rules providing for any type of role to be exercised by the UPSC or Ministry of Home Affairs in matters like selection of DGP. The efforts of the Union government to maintain internal security will succeed only if states are enabled to exercise effective control over policing, dilution of which under the guise of police reforms must be avoided,” he said.

Urging the participating CMs to build a consensus to protect the accountability of the police force to the state government, Kumar said, “If some people think that powers of the state governments need to be curtailed…they should press for constitutional amendment to remove police and public order from the administrative and legislative purview of the states and give the powers and the responsibility to the Centre.”[Rediff]

There are arguments made by various people that reform can never be a top-led initiative in a democracy. It has to be a people’s movement at the grass-roots that will lead to change in political outlook. While this romanticism sounds good in theory, the reality is totally opposite. The Indian Constitution, though a very fine document, was purely a product of a top-down process. The military reforms after 1962 and economic reforms in 1991 were driven by crisis, not by any constituency canvassing for those reforms. The Right to Information (RTI), though canvassed by a vocal minority for years, had not captured the popular imagination of the masses. The UPA 1.0 did not win the 2004 polls on the promise of the RTI. It was the influence wielded by the proponents of the Act in the NAC headed by Mrs Sonia Gandhi that led to the promulgation of the RTI act.

It is presumptuous to assume that a large number of Indians are going to come on to the streets, as is being witnessed in Egypt now, and ask for police reforms or a Blue Ribbon Commission on defence. That is not going to happen in our lifetime. These initiatives will be driven by the political class only under two conditions: one, a crisis of immense magnitude that leaves no option but to reform; and two, a political leader who genuinely believes in these reforms and has the political capital to push them through.

Yes, it is all about politics. And politics has never been better defined than by Ambrose Bierce in The Devil’s Dictionary:

Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

Q.E.D.

P.S. – Do read the opening remarks by the Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram, giving an overview of the security situation in the country and the progress made on various security related aspects since the last conference. They are educative and sensible, far away from platitudes and clichés usually heard at such conferences.

Comments { 11 }

IAP – What a perfect mess!

By on January 21, 2011 in Uncategorized

Government’s development plan for Maoist areas is a case-study in how not to do things.

For the last few months, all of us have been told that tackling Maoism needs a two-pronged approach of development and security. The newly appointed minister of state for home affairs, Mr Gurudas Kamat, who has been given charge of the seven Maoist-affected states (along with the Gorkhaland statehood problem) has repeated this mantra: “The states need a mix of development and security.” This blogger has always held that the two cannot happen simultaneously: while development is a must, there has to be security first.

As part of its strategy to focus on development in the Maoist areas, the government has brought out an Integrated Action Plan (IAP) for Selected Tribal and Backward Districts, which covers 60 districts. When this plan was initially envisaged, it was supposed to be a part of the Focused Area Approach of the Home Ministry. To quote from the MHA website:

In dealing with this decades old problem, it has been felt appropriate, after various high-level deliberations and interactions with the State Governments concerned, that an integrated approach aimed at the relatively more affected areas would give surer results. With this in view, a detailed analysis of the spread and trends in respect of naxalite violence has been made and 34 affected districts in 8 States have been taken up for special attention on planning, implementation and monitoring of development schemes.[link]

This is in agreement with what was enunciated by Sudha Pillai, member secretary of the Planning Commission in May last year.

We are preparing an Integrated Action Plan for the 33 districts affected by the Maoist problem. I have written to the states to prepare a plan for each district. These have to be sent to us by May 31.[ToI]

By August last year, the focused area approach had gone out of the window. The Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia had then suggested:

We are really thinking of IAP for poor and backward districts which includes 35 naxal districts. Don’t think it makes sense to have ‘Integrated Action Plan’ only for Naxal- hit districts. The action plan would have 60 to 65 districts including 35 Left wing extremism (LWE) districts. [Deccan Herald]

Meanwhile, there is something called the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme of the Home ministry. The list has 83 districts in the country[pdf] wherein all the expenses incurred on security in these districts are reimbursed by the MHA. These are the districts identified after a survey where Maoist violence incidents are more than 20 percent of all the incidents in that district.

It would be logical to presume that the 60 districts selected for focused development under the IAP would be part of the 83 districts listed under the SRE scheme. After all, the plan is to focus on development in the Maoist-affected districts.

But lo and behold, it ain’t so. The original list proposed by the MHA for inclusion under the IAP was of 48 districts. These 48 districts were part of the 83 listed under the SRE scheme. However, 12 more districts were added later, none of which form part of the SRE scheme.

Of the 12 districts, at least eight fall within the Lok Sabha constituencies of Congress MPs. Seven of the districts are in Madhya Pradesh and were apparently included under pressure from an influential MP from the state. Four are in Orissa and one in Chhattisgarh.[Telegraph]

This reflects the level of seriousness of the government in implementing its own agenda of development of Maoist-affected areas. In any case, the whole IAP plan has been amended so many times that even the Planning Commission, which originally floated the idea, no longer believes in it. Planning Commission Member Mihir Shah has already written to the Prime Minister that the scheme be taken off from their watch.

Endorsing Shah’s review, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia said such discretionary powers would not have any positive impact. “This will only result in a feeling of disempowerment among the people and leave them disenchanted,” Ahluwalia wrote in his note to the PM while forwarding Shah’s letter to the Prime Minister.

“Since none of our recommendations have been accepted, I suggest the scheme be transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs or any other department deemed suitable,” Shah told the PM.

“Indeed, the Honourable Home Minister, among others, has often correctly observed that more money down the same leaky pipes without reform will not serve any useful purpose. Many commentators have further said that more money without reform is in danger of landing in the hands of Maoists themselves,” Shah wrote to the PM.[Indian Express]

Of course, the government continues to labour under the misbegotten idea that throwing money at the problem will lead to a solution. The government continues to live in denial about the fact that it can not undertake development in the Maoist-affected districts without first ensuring security there. Even then, the problem is not of the availability of funds but of improvement in governance which is the key for capacity-building, without which the allocated money can not be utilised properly.

All this leads you to wonder if Ronald Reagan was right in his first inaugural address as the US President: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Comments { 4 }

Beyond the misleading headline

By on January 14, 2011 in Uncategorized

What is the confusion over Union Home Secretary’s statement about troop reduction in J&K?

BBC: India ‘to cut Kashmir troops by a quarter’ || Reuters: India looks to cut troops to boost Kashmir peace || Times of India: Govt contemplating troop reduction by 25% in J&K: Pillai

Forget the headlines that the statement by the Union Home Secretary about withdrawing troops from Kashmir has made. Take a look at what precisely Mr. GK Pillai said:

“If we can manage with local police, that would be the most ideal situation, and this is one of the confidence-building measures, that people don’t get harassed by the over-presence of security forces”[Reuters]

“As a confidence building measure in Jammu and Kashmir, the strength of the security forces would come down by 25 per cent. We would like to reduce it as soon as possible depending on the ground situation.”

…”If violence is not there, if people are comfortable, we can gradually reduce the strength of security forces and make sure that all forces are only at the border and for preventing infiltration”[The Hindu]

The above statement means that only the local police should ideally handle the law and order situation in Jammu and Kashmir. And more importantly, it also means that withdrawing army from internal security duties in J&K would only mean a 25 per cent reduction in the troop-levels deployed in the state. This is because 75 per cent of the Indian Army troops are deployed at the Line of Control for preventing infiltration from Pakistan.

Did the Home Secretary say that it is happening now? No. He said it can only happen when the “violence is not there”. That is an unambiguous statement by Mr Pillai. How did it turn out to be a declaration by India, as the BBC says, “to cut Kashmir troops by a quarter”?

This seems to agree with the views expressed by the army chief on the subject. It certainly doesn’t deserve a controversy, not even a manufactured one.

Comments { 9 }