Federal investigative agency alone will not help

Federal investigative agency alone will not help

— Sudhanshu Ranjan

After the Jaipur blasts, again there is a demand for the creation of a federal investigative agency a la the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the US. The Prime Minister feels that there is a need to create such an agency as the terrorist acts have inter-state or even international linkages, but the states are opposed to it which do not want to part with the power they have. Under the Constitution, the law and order is a state subject. The basic question is that if terrorist activities were simply a law and order problem the need for such an agency would not have arisen at all. It is a more sinister problem aimed at destabilizing the country which is a direct threat to its sovereignty. It is to protect the sovereignty of the country that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) which was challenged on this very ground that the centre cannot legislate on a state subject.Security of the country is the responsibility of the centre. Entry no. 1 of the Union List empowers it to make law for Defence of India, and Entry no. 9 for preventive detention for reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs, or the security of India. Under Articles 355 of the Constitution, it is incumbent on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance. Similarly, under Article 356, the centre may dismiss a state government in case of failure of constitutional machinery. So, the centre is fully empowered to legislate for ensuring the safety and integrity of the country. This is one option before the centre, and it can go ahead. Let the Supreme Court pronounce on its constitutionality if it is challenged. However, if it is taken to be a state subject then the Constitution will have to be amended which will also require ratification by half of the state legislatures. This is an issue on which politicos must abstain from politicking and join hands to find out ways for extirpating the virus of terrorism gnawing at the flesh of the nation. India has a federal agency like the CBI but it can investigate only at the request of the state government or by the order of the court. Every state has to notify that the CBI will be allowed to work in the state. Goa did not do it for several years and Karnataka government withdrew the notification when Devraj Urs assumed the rein of the state. So, its hands are tied. When Naxalites raided the Koraput police armoury in Orissa in February 2004, the then police chiefs of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh traded charges against each other for being lax. It is where a federal agency may help. The FBI in the US does not need the permission of state governments to investigate a specified list of crimes. It was created to override the checks foisted by state laws and to enforce interstate laws. Its motto is “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity”, and its top investigative priorities are to protect the US from terrorist attacks, against foreign intelligence operations and espionage, cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes, combat public corruption at all levels and protect civil rights, among others. The FBI has its genesis in a force of Special Agents created in1908 at the behest of Attorney General Charles Bonaparte during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The two happened to meet first when they shared dais at a meeting of the Baltimore Civil Service Reform Association, Roosevelt, then Civil Service Commissioner bragged how he had brought about reforms in federal law enforcement when doing so was often political rather than professional. He went on that Border Patrol applicants pass marksmanship tests, with the most accurate getting the jobs. Bona-parte, in his speech, made a frontal attack on him that target shooting was not the way to get the best men.However, the question arises whether the FBI is a model for India. Though it is true that terrorist acts have inter-state or international ramifications, it is equally true that a federal investigative agency will invariably depend upon local investigators for a graphic information about a neighbourhood’s or city’s crime conditions. Rivalry between the local and the federal agencies may accentuate the problem rather than resolve it. In India, every incident leads to blame game as political parties eye its electoral dividends. In England, there are no national police. There are local police under the control of local bodies but they get their salaries from the home office. Thus the control is dual. There is a Chief Inspector of Constabulary for coordination among them. Their coordination is perfect and politicians do not wash their dirty linen in public. A big burglary was committed in the main branch of the Bank of England the day the famed Scotland Yard, the CID of the London Police, moved to its new building in New Scotland Yard though both are housed in the same building. Till date, no body has been caught.What is needed in India is perfect coordination between the centre and states. Proliferation of new agencies or departments will not help without it. Defence Intelligence Agency and National Technical Research Organisation were created pursuant to the recommendation of the Kargil Committee, which looked into the reasons of the successful infiltration of Pakistani fighters across the LoC near Kargil, for setting up new intelligence agencies. Both of them are non-functioning calamities today. It is colossal waste of taxpayers’ money. Secondly, it must be ensured that such agencies are not against political adversaries. Even the RAW was accused of being used for political purposes and its redoubtable founder Director R. N. Kao was sacked by the Janata government in 1979. What is more. Such agencies are not accountable. In India, intelligence agencies are not answerable even to Parliament. It breeds corruption and even the FBI is known for it. Its chiefs, at times, have wielded huge political influence. Its first Director J. Edgar Hoover remained in his chair for 48 years till the last breath of his life. No American President dared to remove him. It was only after his death that the Congress made a law restricting the Director’s term to 10 years.In India, such a federal agency can work effectively only if the coordination between the centre and the state is superb. Its need is being felt for long. Even the Malimath Committee made such a recommendation in 2003, but the centre could not go ahead in the face of fierce opposition from state governments. Source: assam tribune editorial 15.06.08