Countering the National Counter Terrorism Centre
The National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) was countered before it could even come into existence. This UPA government has shown remarkable ability to kill its own ideas, even the good ones, through sheer brashness and lack of political management skill.
The outcry against the establishment of NCTC has been prompted as much by the way the notification was issued as by what it contained. The state governments felt hurt because they were not consulted on such an important proposal, which infringes on their powers. According to most chief ministers, the establishment of NCTC violates the principle of federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
The Police and Public Order are indeed State subjects under the Constitution of India. But then this is not the first time the central government has established a federal police organisation. The central government has taken active interest in policing in the country. From the very beginning, it has focused on raising and expanding its own para military set up. Till 1962, only two central para military forces existed- the Assam Rifles (AR) and the Crown Reserve Police (CRP), but now there are eight and their combined strength had reached a staggeringly large figure of 8,38,893 by the end of 2009. They have all been heavily deployed on law and order duties in states. The increasing deployment of central para military forces has come to be accepted by state governments. They indeed demand this deployment when needed.
So why this chorus of disapproval of a central organisation that is needed to fight terrorism? Obviously, the state governments are not convinced about the intentions of the central government. They are looking at NCTC not as an agency that will merely coordinate the functioning of different organisations engaged in the fight against terror, but also as an outfit that will function as a part of IB to create and fish in troubled waters. Ms Jayalalita’s apprehension that these powers “can be misused to suit ends that are motivated by reasons other than fighting terror” cannot be dismissed outright.
There are two clear problems with the way the NCTC has been conceived. One, it has been given wide ranging arrest and search powers under Section 2(e) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. Two, it will function under the IB, which is a clandestine intelligence organisation that specialises in collecting not only criminal and security related intelligence but also in gathering and feeding the government with political intelligence. In fact, the I B does not have any statutory base.
It was established as the Central Special Branch by an order of the Secretary of State for India in London on December 23, 1887 and given its present nomenclature (IB) in 1920. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the chief ministers, said that the “primary purpose of NCTC is to coordinate counter-terrorism efforts across the country as the IB has been doing so far. It is for this reason that the NCTC has been located within the IB and not as a separate organisation.” Location of NCTC in the IB may be all right, but in that case investing it with powers of arrest, search and seizure will always create the type of resistance that was recently seen. Since the NCTC has been put under the IB, the legal powers that the new organisation has been given will devolve on the IB too. In other words, an organisation that is not statutorily backed will come to enjoy legal powers.
The central government also forgot another important fact. A proposal may be legally viable, but along with that, its functional viability has also to be assured. An organisation like the NCTC cannot function effectively without full support and cooperation of the state governments. Turf wars also come on the way. When the Mumbai bomb blasts occurred in July 2011, there were reports that Mumbai Anti Terror Squad showed reluctance to associate National Investigating Agency with the investigation. Though at that time, P.C. Chidambaram issued a statement dismissing such reports, two months later the report was confirmed when the Union Home Minister sought transfer of the case to NIA, but the Maharastra Government prevailed on him not to shift the investigation from their team.
The Constitution establishes a federal system of policing, but there are clear indications of disturbance in the system. Heavy expansion of para military forces and the power to deploy them in aid of civil power, use of CBI to browbeat the ruling opposition in some states, establishment of a National Investigation Agency, setting up of four new NSG hubs in state capitals, amendment of All India Service Rules to dilute the disciplinary power of the state governments, the drafting of a piece of legislation on communal violence, the drafting of Lokayukta Bill, the amendment of Railway Protection Force Act and now the establishment of NCTC are some of the developments that indicate a trend towards centralisation of policing. If extremist or terrorist violence increases further in the country, this trend is likely to be accentuated.
With the emergence of coalition government at the centre and dominance of regional opposition parties in states, the trend towards centralisation of policing will always be challenged and resisted by states. Whichever party rules the centre, it will require a much more deft handling of such issues than has been shown by the present government at the centre. “Cooperative federalism” will have to be the order of the day
