Premium
This is an archive article published on April 20, 1998

Terrorism more than a footnote in Central team report on TN

New Delhi, April 19: Deciding it would rather err on the side of caution this time, the two-member team of Central observers that submitted ...

.

New Delhi, April 19: Deciding it would rather err on the side of caution this time, the two-member team of Central observers that submitted its report to the Union Home Ministry on the situation in Tamil Nadu has delved into both the terrorism and the law and order front in the state. And it has not recommended any stringent action against the state government.

If the report has not given a clean chit to the Tamil Nadu Government, it has not been exceedingly harsh on it either, according to sources in the Home Ministry. It has sought to project a balanced view of the goings-on in Tamil Nadu. The aspect of growing terrorism in Tamil Nadu has been covered extensively. But it forms only a part of the report as the team has also dealt with various issues on the law and order front.

Commenting on the “harsh” media reports claiming that the team forgot its brief and totally overlooked the terrorism angle, a senior Ministry official observed that “the team members, having years of experience in internalsecurity behind them, are no greenhorns. The team, comprising Special Secretary Ashok Kumar and Joint Secretary (Internal Security) A K Patendy, is learnt to have offered several suggestions to to tackle the rising menace of terrorism. But at the same time, the team has given due credit to the state wherever it has succeeded in curbing the menace.

Commenting on the report, observers held that it was more of a fact-finding mission. The important thing now is how it would be interpreted by the Home Ministry. “And in case Home Minister L K Advani wants any action taken against the state government – its dismissal, for instance – he can’t do it on the basis of this report alone. The report, of course, will be instrumental in persuading the Governor that it was a fit case for imposition of President’s Rule.”

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement