The intimate enemy

The political discourse around the recent blasts in Jaipur has fallen into a predictable pattern.

The political discourse around the recent blasts in Jaipur has fallen into a predictable pattern. Not surprising, for most such discourses are state-propelled, if not state-sponsored. The opposition and government-in-waiting BJP has been quick to demand the anti-terrorist law repealed by the UPA government, blaming the absence of such laws for the rise in terrorism during the UPA8217;s tenure. The prime minister stressed the need for a federal agency to deal with terrorism and federal crimes, an assertion repeated after each 8220;terrorist8221; attack since the UPA came to power.

Both these 8220;anti-terrorism8221; assertions of the Indian state, represented by the two political formations that are likely to alternate in power in near future, deserve to be analysed. States and international state systems, as well as non-state actors, are implicated in the savagery of blowing innocents to pieces to achieve political ends. The matter of concern is that people who are helplessly caught in the collateral damage zone are orchestrated to play the state-composed tune.

Interestingly, the organised use of political terror coincides with the emergence of the most notable slogan of democracy since the French Revolution 8212; liberteacute;, eacute;galiteacute;, fraterniteacute; . Obviously, the use of terror as a tool by state or non-state actors receives political-moral justification from similar sources. Even religious validation of terror has lately been used as a political instrument of mobilisation by non-state actors and condemnation state systems. Further, both in national and international contexts, states and regimes have created terrorist monsters they then lost control over.

It is not surprising that the post-colonial Indian state, retaining many of the harsh features of the colonial state, has also dabbled in the politics of terrorism. It has maintained and perpetuated the colonial criminal justice system, insensitive to democracy in several ways. It has also enacted and re-enacted 8220;security8221; acts 8212; Defence of India Rules, Preventive Detention Act, Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, Unlawful Activities Prevention Amendment Act and the Armed Forces Assam and Manipur Special Powers Act in the context of the Northeast, Punjab and Jammu 038; Kashmir 8212; with strong anti-human rights features, such as arrest on suspicion and long detention without trial. Not all of these have been in response to terrorism, neither have they minimised, let alone eradicate, terrorism; they have nonetheless been a source of state terror. A look at the legal instruments available within India8217;s criminal justice framework would suggest that the country8217;s arsenal of normal laws is not too deficient, if properly utilised.

Whether or not a Central counter-terror agency is eventually created, the Indian state8217;s role in internal security has been constitutionally obligated. Even before entry 2A of the Union list was inserted in 1976 to empower the Centre to deploy the armed forces or the paramilitary 8220;in any state in aid of the civil power8221;, qualifying the entry on 8220;police8221; in the state list, Article 355 charged it with a clear duty 8220;to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance8230;8221; Moreover, the suggestion of a parliamentary panel on the law to give special powers as well as responsibilities for intelligence to a Central agency like the CBI to investigate terror-related cases on its own, also suggests that institutional instruments for counter-terror exist with the Centre; these have to be properly utilised.

The key to effective counter-terror, however, is a balanced and non-partisan partnership between the Centre and the states. For, the police stations are the nodal policing agencies, as they alone can discover and keep tabs on the sleeper cells within their territories. Police reforms therefore are key to effective counter-terror; an inefficient, corrupt and brutal police system cannot take on terrorism despite a Union body to fight terrorism. The Punchhi Commission, assigned a fresh look at Centre-state relations, has a task in hand in this regard too.

Last but not the least, the political blame game amongst politicians obfuscates the real issue of the 8220;ticking bomb8221; scenario presented by the politics of terror. Considering that the extreme use of terror is only a deviant extension of mainstream politics I am indeed implying that the use of a certain degree of terror is implied in politics, the politics of terror finds space, if not justification, in democratic politics, which condemns terrorism day in and day out.

Story continues below this ad

The writer is Ford Foundation Professor, Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia

drmehravsnl.com