Home Minister Shivraj Patil has arguably been an unmitigated disaster for the country’s internal security. The Jaipur blasts, the latest in the series to rock the country, have revived at the Centre the idea of setting up a federal investigation agency for inter-state and transnational acts of crime and terrorism. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh threw open the much-needed concept for public debate on his return from Bhutan last Saturday. But Shivraj Patil, to be fair, had seized this idea and given a green signal to his ministry way back in June 2004.
It was the audacious Naxalite attack on the Koraput police armoury in Orissa in February 2004 that led to brainstorming on this concept in North Block, as the then police chiefs of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh levelled charges of laxity against each other. On June 14, 2004, the then Union home secretary put up a note to Patil mentioning the need for a federal agency. The note was put up after due diligence involving extensive discussions with the Intelligence Bureau and Central Bureau of Investigation chiefs, who came round to the proposal after spilling blood over turf in the meeting. The note to Patil recommended the establishment of a federal agency by amending the Constitution and empowering the new agency with special powers to tackle eight inter-state crimes including terrorism, left-wing extremism and narcotics. The federal agency was proposed to be set up by introducing a fresh clause to item nine (preventive detention for reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs, or the security of India; persons subjected thereof) on the Union List.
The model for the proposed agency was the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States. Unlike the Central Bureau of Investigation in India, the FBI does not require the permission of state governments to investigate a specified list of crimes. For these, it has the independence to investigate and collect intelligence as it sees fit.
Patil endorsed the note and said that the matter should be deliberated in Parliament and with state governments. Thereafter, the issue was referred to the Centre-state commission as law and order is a state subject, and as often happens, lost urgency.
Interestingly, the Justice V.S. Malimath Committee on Police and Criminal Justice reform in 2003, set up by the then home minister, L.K. Advani, had supported the idea of a federal agency by giving the Centre concurrent jurisdiction on the following categories of crime: terrorist activities/war against the state; arms and drug trafficking; hijacking; money laundering; crimes related to counterfeit currency; espionage and crimes targeting national infrastructure. Justice Malimath’s report, in fact, argued in favour of the setting up of a special federal crimes court as the committee believed that cases relating to underworld crimes/criminals were complex and that these criminals had access to the best legal defence available. It sought Central legislation on the pattern of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999.
But it’s not just the Centre. State governments too, cutting across party lines, view it as an encroachment on their domain and a blatant violation of the federal structure. The rise of regional parties has ensured that national issues are largely sacrificed on the altar of local political considerations. Last December, both the prime minister and the home minister faced serious opposition after they mooted the idea of the federal agency in meetings on internal security with chief ministers. The chief ministers, in fact, wanted their own state police forces strengthened (that is, given access to more Central funds) and trained to tackle terrorism and the underworld rather than have the Centre “impose its authority” through a new agency. Their argument was that even today the states seek investigation by the CBI if and when desired and thus there was no need for a new federal agency. One could not have argued against this if the CBI had not stood accused of being a political tool of the party in power at the Centre. The same is the case with the Intelligence Bureau, which today picks more political intelligence than that related to terrorist groups.
Why is a federal agency needed? As can be seen from Delhi October 2005 to Jaipur May 2008, conspiracies are hatched on an international scale with inter-state ramifications. But as no state police or Central agency has the powers of hot pursuit, the investigation becomes an exercise in letter-writing, with the affected state seeking assistance from another state, with a copy duly marked to North Block. And by this time the culprits are far away from the scene of crime. This stands substantiated by the fact that none of the bombers have been caught for the Delhi, Varanasi, Mumbai, Hyderabad or Samjhauta Express blasts.
The original proposal for a federal agency, before it was buried, recommended giving the power of hot pursuit to the new outfit. India, according to the US National Counterterrorism Centre, has lost some 3,715 lives on account of terrorist attacks. And the latest Jaipur blasts show that the situation is going from bad to worse, with terrorists now sending videos of targeted police stations to the media.
Even though the states vehemently oppose the idea of a federal agency, the time has come for at least the Congress and the BJP to forge consensus on the subject as both have voiced support for it. There is a need to convince the states that this agency would not become a tool of the ruling government in New Delhi but that it would be in the larger national interest. After all, even Manipur is today crying for a Central agency to tackle the underground militia that is mixed up with the ruling state leaders. The Jaipur serial blasts are a wake-up call for the Central and state governments. One hopes they do not lose their sense of focused urgency any time soon.
shishir.gupta@expressindia.com