A flawed model

When people say that India is not a security conscious nation, they are probably missing the woods for the trees. It would be difficult to find another example of a nation rated as the second largest growing economy in the world also being among the most security slack countries in the world. Pulp analysts are wont to tell us that policing is so inadequate and the issue of peoples’ alienation so overwhelming that we may as well forget about saving ourselves from being blasted out of existence by a thoughtfully planted RDX at some supposedly safe public place.

The situation is far more complex. For a vast democracy such as India, the challenges of maintaining security is enormous — and prickly. The policing system is archaic and very short on resources. Just visit the local police station (thana) and judge for yourself whether it has the firepower to take on heavily armed and trained professional terrorists or the sophistication of intelligence to be able to bust a plot at the planning stage. At least three major terror plots were nipped in the bud in the US and UK in the last one year. That happened through sustained shadowing, decoding and interception. In one case in the UK, a group of suspects were sitting around the drawing board making plans when the police stormed in and picked them up, with all evidences intact. It is little surprise that US has not been hit since 9/11 while Britain has tightened security in a way that has made movement of suspects extremely difficult.

In India, policing is geared towards VIP security leaving the common citizenry hapless against terror attacks. In Delhi, since most VIPs live in heavily guarded elitist NDMC with their offices in close proximity, there is little concern as to what happens to the common citizenry. All encompassing police reforms on the table since civil servant Dharamvira proposed them in 1977 have been gathering reams of dust. The political class is not willing to let go of the police as an instrument to further their petty interests, a fact noted in abundant measure by the Dharamvira committee. Unless that happens and the police made more accountable, sophisticated and resourceful, India is going to be repeatedly embarrassed and its innocents killed and maimed. 

The police today is a caricature of the classical colonial police where native Indians could only be reined in with the help of brute force. This image — reinforced in daily TV grabs of police manhandling victims in various parts of the country — is hardly conducive to getting it crucial inside dope against those sponsoring terror.

Notwithstanding an aggressive media campaign, it is doubtful if members of the public are going to act as volunteers of information to a police which continues to be trapped in its pre-1947 mode. In the absence of timely and actionable intelligence, it is also difficult to make a fool proof case in a court of law. The number of alleged terrorists who have been let off by the courts only demonstrate that gathering information and putting it together to build up a sound case requires a sophistication not yet in evidence.

Should we have more stringent laws? That debate lends itself to other subterranean issues. TADA and POTA were seen to be too harsh and hence scrapped. So effectively what we have are 19th century legislations concerning law and order. Are they sufficient to match the wits, guile and daring of modern day anarchists? Your guess is as good as mine.

India’s geographical position makes it a special case. Hemmed in by two vast military oligarchies China and Pakistan — who also happen to be allies — it has roughly two fronts to tackle. If Pakistan by its own admission has been sending in terrorists to India, China’s provocative postures and hyperactive cyber militants have hacked into as many sensitive websites as they possibly can. 

The biggest challenge is to maintain the very delicate balance between intelligence and democracy. In non-elected governments, collecting information is easy, torture and tapping being two time tested sources of information. In democracies, no one can - and should - be harassed. There are well laid out procedures which are time consuming and which need resources. Unless India works on these two aspects, its security is going to be compromised. For a nation that seeks to lead the world in economic change, that is hardly a good sign.

Perception as Reality

The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation, held 18th-19th century English jurist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In India, legislations have followed a similar logic and plot since 1947. They have helped shape contemporary thought, in addition to moulding public opinion, influencing politicians and policymakers in such a way they constitute an integral part of contemporary Indian history.

In doing so, they have tried on most occasions to adhere to the single touch stone which believes that legislation can neither be wise nor just which seeks the welfare of a single interest at the expense and to the injury of many and varied interests. To be sure rulers have tried at different points of time to turn this tide of history or to introduce overtly political strands into what is essentially a bi-partisan motion, but they have been repelled.

More than anything, legislations have decisively proved to be the barometre of public opinion. When the Congress government in the 1980s decided to impose India’s own version of press censorship, it was defeated through a well crafted strategy of opposition both inside and outside the Parliament. Similarly the scandalous 42nd Amendment which sought to bestow the office of the Prime Minister with extra constitutional powers in the Emergency years, was repealed. In some cases, apart from generating heat and debate, it has also guided political destinies. 

When legislation in the Shah Bano case was forced down the throat of a one-party dominated Parliament, the issues that it threw up eventually turned out to be more powerful than the enactment itself. It eroded Congress’ mass bases in the most politically crucial state of India: Uttar Pradesh.

To be sure, a popular piece of legislation has also been welcomed. When Indira Gandhi decided to abolish privy purses of princely dynasties in the early 1970s, it may have evoked great consternation in the minds of the Maharajas, Rajas and erstwhile rulers who stood to lose a lot but inside the Parliament, members did not see it that way. For them, this was a popular move in a day and age when everything stood to be nationalised and if the opulent princelings were to be put into their place, be it so.

In the new millennium, new issues have come to dominate and by the looks of it, they are no easy meat either. Take for instance, the Lokpal Bill. Introduced for the first time in the 1960s, its passage of introduction has been tortuous. Introduced, withdrawn and re-introduced. In its latest avatar, the bill has finally seen the light of the day but only after a comprehensive light and sound show involving protagonists holding forth on corruption. Despite the bill’s introduction, its enactment is quite another thing altogether and is likely to see more pitched battles in and outside the Parliament. 

But given that drama is part and parcel of democracy, there is little doubt that the government has sensed the public mood on graft and has decided it would be safer to introduce the bill in whatever form and then see how the cookie crumbles. 

Often enacting legislation turns into a playground for political shadow boxing and there is no better embodiment of it than the Women’s Reservation Bill. Parties are candid in their off-record assessment that of all the bills pending, this is the one which will be the hardest to enact. Reason: in an overcrowded theatre where reservations of all kinds are on the cards, the last thing a politician wants is competition from inside his own household. Which is what is likely to happen should women’s reservation in political parties become a reality. The threat of losing a long-held constituency to a cousin or even a wife or a sister is particularly galling.

On the face of it, everyone favours more representation for women but that could well be the public persona. The irony of the situation is typical Indian: even despite no reservations, Indian politics is dominated in a big way by women. 

It is this dichotomy that this current issue of Governance Watch seeks to explore with 12 of the most significant legislations since 1947. Assuredly more could have been added to the list but that is also a question of perception.

Things that make India tick

A year after the 1857 revolt had been well and truly quelled, the British in India embarked upon their first major administrative voyage, the Act for the Better Government of India, 1858, a legislation of far reaching import.

It made changes at three levels in British India’s governance policy, first at the imperial level in London, the second at the capital of India in Calcutta and the third at the level of states or provinces. This approach introduced by the British – and subsequently carried on in toto by the Indians – deftly divided Indian polity into two pillars. The first pillar was Politics which comprised elections, legislation, representations to the government, dissent, drama and all activities which personified democracy.

The second was more complex. It laid down Policy, the execution of government plans, development initiatives, a bureaucracy to oversee and meet targets and objectives and to ensure that what the politician promised, reached the people, at least in theory. So in effect, while Politics in India is flexible in terms of who or which political party comes to power, on the question of Policy there can be no real changes, except those brought about by legislation and common consent.

A Policy introduced by, lets say, the Congress will be carried on by the BJP and vice versa. Globalisation as Policy was adopted by the Congress government in the early 1990s. But it was pursued equally vigorously by the BJP-led NDA government. While Politics is flexible and in the hands of generalists in which any member of the public can participate, Policy is cast in stone, and in the hands of specialists, either bureaucrats or technologists. Thus was laid down the concept of governance.

It is common for experts and laity alike to prophesise that in India it is only politics that works, that the alignment of caste and religion and other emotional strings ultimately decide the fate of politicians in elections.

While this may be partially true, it does not provide all answers. Increasingly, voters are asking more questions than those relating just to ethnic affinity.

A candidate contesting polls at the national or the state level now has to have at their finger tips a list of development activities that he or she intends to pursue. If a legislator has served a full term, then a listing has to be made of the targets promised and met. One good example of this growing awareness of the importance of Policy is the office of the Ministry of Power in Delhi.

At any given time of the year, there are a horde of MPs waiting to meet the power minister with one fervent request: please allocate some megawatts from the central or state power grid to my constituency, no matter how meagre. Apparently the first question people ask these days is electricity shortage and politicians seeking a second term have to know all the right answers or be prepared to face the consequences.

It is this triumph of democracy that The Sunday Indian seeks to reflect through this edition which will be on stands once every two months.It will look at the biggest topics around which the Indian growth and power devolution story revolves. The executive, judiciary and the legislature will in focus as will be the increasing role of activists who have an influential voice when it comes to introducing amendments in Policy matters.

There is no greater evidence of this clout than the National Advisory Council (NAC) which has had an important role to play in the two UPA-led governments since 2004.By its very nature, Politics is populist and impulsive, but Policy or governance is more steady, has to keep an eye on detail and not give in to sudden flights of imagination, fancy or enterprise.

The Sunday Indian’s Governance Watch is going to do just that –  keep an eye. It will also meet a critical need. While the media is filled with so-called political stories, based on palace intrigues and personal likes and dislikes, this issue will examine how India is being run and bring readers close to home truths, to the nuts and bolts that actually move the country and its sytems.