1

TRANSPARENCY AND INTERNAL SECURITY:

A STUDY OF SECURITY REFORMS IN INDIA

Paper prepared for the Global Transparency Conference

Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey

May 19th

, 2011

By:

SHAILZA SINGH

Research scholar

Center for US, Canadian and Latin American Studies

School of International Studies

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Assistant Professor

Department of Political Science, IP College for Women

University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

shailza134@gmail.com

2

Introduction

Secrecy and confidentiality have been the hallmark of security policies world over. Majority of

documents exposed in the wikileaks are related to security or foreign policy issues. There have

been continuous demands for more openness and transparency in the security matters, internal as

well as external. It has been emphasized in the literature on the security that a more open,

participatory and transparent system leads to higher confidence amongst the people which gets

materializes into reduction in the number and types of threats.1

In response to such demands for transparency in the internal security, one major breakthrough

has been the incorporation of principles of transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the

United States in security policy making in order to effectively meet the threats and challenges of

the twenty first century. This is widely reflected in the concept of security governance enshrined

in the US Homeland Security policy. Many European countries as well as Asian counties have

also made progress in this regards.

As a maturing democracy, India too in the recent past, has sought to revamp its security

structures to enable them to adequately respond to the threats and challenges presented by the

changing environs particularly made glaring after the episode of 26/11. There are efforts to

institutionalize a mechanism of coordinated policy response to address threats to internal security

on the lines of the US model.

On the theoretical front this paper seeks to examine how initiatives based on transparency are

instrumental in making the security policies more effective and responsive to both conventional

and newer range of threats. For this purpose it takes up the US model and security reforms

introduced in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

The second section analyses the recent efforts to bring reforms in the security structure in India.

In the Indian context the paper argues that despite various claims of brining efficiency, people‟s

participation and transparency, a clear conceptualization of security in consonance with

requirements of newer range of threats seems to be lacking amongst the policy makers. This has

1 For more details on the issues of transparency, war and security see a study by Bates Gill and J.N. Mak (1997),

edited, Arms, Transparency and Security in South East Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

3

resulted into perpetuating the conventional notion of „policing‟ and not security. The entire

debate on security in India is narrow and conventional in nature and is focused broadly on the

police reforms keeping the larger contemporary issues of security and democratic governance out

of its purview. Hence, notwithstanding the efforts by the federal government to put in place

mechanisms of greater coordination, modernization of security structure, procurement of arms,

equipment and technology as well as measures towards compliance by the state governments, the

security environment of the country doesn‟t seem to be making much headway and making

people feel secure, mainly due to absence of a clear and comprehensive vision of security.

I

CONCEPT OF SECURITY AND TRANSPARENCY:

A THEORATICAL ANALYSIS

The end of cold war witnessed a change in the contours of conflicts, crises and wars. Military

threats in the traditional sense no longer remain the only predominant security concerns. Both the

international and national security environment sought to encompass non-military dimensions in

a manner that the focus on military questions was augmented by political, environmental, social

and economic threats to stability. Such conceptualization of non-traditional security issues

reflected an evolving alternative understanding of the security. This led to the emergence of new

security concepts such as „societal security‟ and „human security‟.

Initially developed in the UNDP‟s 1994 Human Development Report, the concept of human

security came to the forefront acknowledging the individual level of security: the importance of

the individual in the overall scheme of things. In this concept security symbolizes protection

from the threat of disease, hunger, unemployment, crime [or terrorism], social conflict, political

repression and environmental hazards. Human security is described as “a shift in the angle of

vision” to analyse the transformative changes taking place in the international system, where

both man-made and natural disasters like terrorist attacks, epidemics, pandemic diseases and

economic downturns constitute the new breed of threats to human security apart from the

traditional sources of threats such as arms race and weapons proliferation etc. This kind of

4

approach to security has led to a shift from secrecy-oriented policies to initiatives aiming at

greater transparency.

A link can be traced between the level of democratization and transparency in the internal

security matters of different countries. An authoritarian regime governed state‟s internal secret

services and police forces have been more used for the purpose of suppression of civilian unrest

and diversity of opinion. On the other hand the history of liberal democracies especially of

Europe as well as countries like United States gives an opposite picture. In other words, political

liberalization has direct implications on the internal security structures. One crucial factor has

also been an effective civilian control over the armed forces. This has been a crucial

measurement of effective governance.

However, unlike their own examples, the colonial powers used the internal security agencies for

the purpose of preserving their colonial rule. The police system as well as the intelligence

agencies were created and modernized for this purpose. Most of the Asian as well as African

countries have this legacy of the colonial past. Besides, due to lack of democratization in many

countries army and other internal security agencies play a very critical role in the political

developments. Pakistan, Myanmar is few examples.

Unlike the authoritarian and countries undergoing political transition like post-Soviet states,

there are many countries who have positively responded to the issues of transparency and

participation in the matters of internal security. With the changing nature of threats, from local to

global, and more involvement of non-state actors in the political activities, it has been

acknowledged that a more effective system cannot be created unless a more open and transparent

system is introduced. In addition to this, there needs to be a more holistic and comprehensive

understanding of secutiry unlike the conventional meanings which emphasized only on the police

reforms and weapons modernization.

Such an evolution in the concept of security and the response to it is traceable in the security

policy of the United States. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security by United

States is a case in point reflecting the changed approach towards addressing the security threats

through such newer mechanisms. In view of the fact that today‟s security challenges are

5

extremely complex and interrelated, this policy response seeks to bring within its fold a diversity

of issues thus giving rise to an enhanced security environment. Homeland security in the United

States is one area which has, in the recent past, witnessed the acceptance of the broadening

conception of security. The NSHS 2007 mentions that,

“security is not an end in itself; rather, it is an important means to a vital end: preserving the

values, principles, and way of life we pursue as Americans……our most solemn duty is to protect the

American people.”2

This approach to security adopts the protection of the freedom and well being of the American

people as the focal point of its concern and hence its philosophy is largely committed to the

concept of human security and societal security

2 The national strategy for homeland security. Washington, DC: Office of Homeland Security, available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007.pdf

6

The major intent behind the setting up of a separate department for homeland security was to put

in place a security structure that enhances the capability for providing a prompt and effective

response to any kind of threat to the US homeland on the basis of concerted and coordinated

efforts by the different departments and agencies concerned. The mandate of the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) included the following seven missions:

a) Prevent terrorist attacks within the US,

b) Reduce the vulnerability of the US to terrorism,

c) Minimize the damage , and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do

occur within the US,

d) Carry out all functions of entities transferred to the department including by

acting as the focal point regarding natural and man-made crises and emergency planning,

e) Ensure that the functions of the agencies and subdivisions within the department

that are not related directly to securing the homeland are not diminished or neglected

except by a specific explicit act of Congress,

f) Ensure that the overall economic security of the US is not diminished by efforts,

activities and programs aimed at securing the homeland and,

g) Monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate

Homeland Security

Territorial Security

Human Security

Societal Security

7

efforts to sever such connections, and otherwise contribute to efforts to interdict illegal

drug trafficking.

Mentioned as the „homeland security enterprise‟3 (Quadrennial Homeland Security Review

Report 2010), it is an evolving security paradigm. Homeland security describes the intersection

of evolving threats and hazards with traditional governmental and civic responsibilities for

civil defense, emergency response, law enforcement, customs, border control, and

immigration. In combining these responsibilities under one overarching concept, homeland

security breaks down longstanding stovepipes of activity. Homeland security also creates a

greater emphasis on the need for joint actions and efforts across previously discrete elements of

government and society.

Transparency in Homeland Security

Homeland security/internal security is the area where provision of security ostensibly is sought

to be interlinked with precepts of good governance like transparency, accountability and

efficiency. Governance is a broader notion than government and is the interaction between

formal institutions and those in civil society. It focuses on the role of networks, inter-

organisational as well as inter-governmental, in the pursuit of common goals.4

With profound changes of immense magnitude in the US policy system this policy response aims

to put in place a unified national effort to secure the country and to preserve the „American way

of life‟ through safeguarding their constitutional rights and protecting the economy. This effort is

targeted at unifying a vast country with many layers of authority by integrating the various

agencies in one governing body. The principles of transparency and open government are

extended to the realm of security policy making. The linking of governance principles to the

security issue is seen in the efforts of the department which aims at greater participation,

transparency, accountability and efficiency in the management and response to security threats.

3 The Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/qhsr_report.pdf 4 Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997), Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and

Accountability, Buckingham, Open University Press.

8

The commitment to transparency in principle is clearly reflected in measures like the Open

Government Initiative5. The initiative seeks to encourage transparency in the working of the

DHS. There is much emphasis on information-sharing between the various components of the

department and ensuring access to security related information to people under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA).6 Also there is much emphasis on reducing the FOIA backlog by 15%

per year and call for monthly meetings and quarterly reviews to this end.

The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review 2010 report mentions that “Homeland security

captures the effort to adapt the traditional functions such as civil defense, emergency response,

law enforcement, customs, border control, and immigration to confront new threats and evolving

hazards……..also creates a greater emphasis on and need for joint actions and efforts across

previously discrete elements of government and society.”7

Subscribing to a newer understanding of security and seeking to address the threats to it through

an approach devised from such understanding, homeland security is referred to as an

„enterprise‟- a national objective. It refers to “collective efforts and shared responsibilities of

Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners—as well as

individuals, families, and communities—to maintain critical homeland security capabilities. It

connotes a broad-based community with a common interest in the public safety and well-being

of America and American society and is composed of multiple partners and stakeholders whose

roles and responsibilities are distributed and shared”. This brings to fore an observation that

homeland security concept tries to address security issues by a multidimensional approach which

concentrates not just on territorial security but also on human security and societal security.

There is a vision for security and a commitment to transparency so that the internal security

apparatus reflects the aspirations of a democratic people.

5 The Department of Homeland Security clearly delineates the measures that are put in place to encourage

transparency like flagship initiatives for information sharing, data dissemination website, declassification of

homeland security information and so on. Available at, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/gc_1301083622064.shtm

6 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal statute. FOIA generally provides that any person has a right to

request access to federal agency records. FOIA also establishes a presumption that records in the possession of

agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the U. S. government are accessible to the people, except to

the extent the records are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of

three special law enforcement record exclusions.

7 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report 2010

9

II

INTERNAL SECURITY AND REFORMS IN INDIA

This section looks into the internal security threats in India, the existing security apparatus the

reforms being undertaken and the major challenges that continue to exist therein. Security

structure reforms have recently become a priority for the Indian government, particularly after

the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. It is observed that a larger focus of security reforms in India has

been on police reforms.

The „insecurity structure‟ is quite like its complex society and politics. There are large numbers

of factors contributing to increasing sense of insecurity ranging from day to day street crimes,

secessionist movements, insurgencies, naxalism to the threats of cross border terrorism or

nuclear threats (See table 1 and 2). The state machinery in India has been struggling hard to

respond adequately to these increasing levels of threats to the citizen‟s security, political stability

and so on. The security structure in India has shown relatively lesser degree of responsiveness to

meet the requirements of the changing nature of threat environment. Moreover, the „agony of

26/11 terrorist attacks‟ in Mumbai made evident the sorry state of our security architecture loud

and clear. The credibility and efficiency of the much lauded security agencies, the police, the

National Security Guard, the central and the state governments and the crisis management

system was called into question because of the manner in which the Indian state was rendered

helpless in the face of the attacks. In the wake of the attacks, the issue of security structure

reforms became a compelling urgency.

Table 1

Crime In India: From 1953 and 2009 (National Crime Records Bureau)

Total

cognizable

crimes

Murder Rape Kidnapping and

abduction

Dacoity Riots

Year Incide

nce

Year Incidence Year Incidence Year Inciden

ce

Year Inci

denc

e

Year Incidence

1953 60196

4

1953 9,802 1971 2487 1953 5261 1953 557

9

195

3

20529

10

2009 21213

45

2009 32,369 2009 21,397 2009 33860 2009 458

6

200

9

62942

%

chang

e

252.4 230.2 760.4 543.6 -

17.8

206.6

11

Map 1: Incidence of Crime in India in 2009

(Source: National Crime Records Bureau

12

The Security Structure in India

A three tier security structure exists in India; at the federal level, at the unit levels, and the

intermediary structure. The armed forces are under the federal control along with the central

intelligence services. The police forces on the other hand are the subject matters of the state

governments. The paramilitary forces which are under the control of the federal government are

given the responsibility of security in case the state governments require more forces. There is

also an intelligence agencies structure in all the states. According to the constitution of India

which establishes a federation, internal security is a matter with the federal units. The external

security on the other hand is the subject matter of the federal government. The Ministry for

Home Affairs is responsible for internal security at all levels. At the federal level there is a

Department of Internal Security under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Since 26/11, the demand for rethinking about security structure in India is ever growing. The

security structure in India at the federal level can be understood with the help of the following

diagram:

13

Two of the main issues that can be brought forward about the Indian internal security

establishment are:

1) There has been no single authority to which these organizations and agencies can

report, also there has been no unified command to issue directions to them. This, in

effect, means there has been lacking a policy coordination mechanism that is necessary

for any effective response required to repulse any serious attack on internal security.

2) The second issue gaining greater attention was that the problem of lack of

coordination mechanism has been compounded by the ineffectiveness of the enforcement

element i.e. the police. Whereas on the one hand the role of police is primarily

responsible and instrumental in the provision of security to the people, on the other hand

this is one domain where the task of bringing about any meaningful reform is most

challenging. Police reforms continue to be one of the most contentious issues in India.

In December 2009, the Indian Union Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram proposed a radical

restructuring of the security architecture. This included police reforms putting in place

transparent, objective and corruption-free recruitment procedure that will be totally technology-

Security Structure in India at the Federal

level

Political Element

The Cabinet Commitee on

Security

Adminitrative Element

Ministry of Home Affairs

The PMO

The Cabinet Secretariat

National Security Council

Intelligence Element

Intelligence Burueau

R&AW

JIC, NTRO,ARC

Enforcement Element

The Central Para Military Forces: CRPF, BSF, CISF,

ITBP, Assam Rifles,SSB and NSG

14

based and free of any human interference. Also the Central Government implemented the new

procedure in the recruitment to the Central Para Military Forces. Measures have also been

proposed to create multi-agency centers functioning on the principle of transparency in data and

information sharing to make the security structure more effective and more responsive to the

newer kind of threat scenario. As part of the new security system he outlined the following

measures8:

Recruitment of more policemen/women increasing the number of police available

to per 1,00,000 population to match the international average (270).

Implementing of the ambitious “Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System

(CCTNS)” to facilitate collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, transfer and sharing of

data and information at the police station and between the police station and the State

Headquarters and the Central Police Organisations.

To make intelligence gathering more comprehensive, State Governments should

adopt “Community Policing” and establish a toll-free service under which a citizen

can provide information or lodge a complaint. This will enable myriad bits of

information flowing from different sources to be sifted, analysed, matched, correlated

and pieced together, leading to actionable intelligence.

In order to make intelligence a „specialized function‟, the intelligence gathering

machinery should be restructured to create special branches at the district and state

level equipped with trained analysts to analyse information and draw correct

conclusions.

Quick Response Teams must be positioned in every district capital and in

important towns and a special Anti-Terrorist Unit should be created at the State level

to pre-empt terrorist activities and investigate terrorist crimes.

An Executive Order issued on 31December 2008 operationalised the Multi Agency Center

(MAC) with the purpose of bringing on the table relevant information or intelligence from every

participating agency. Also the reach of MAC was extended to the State capitals. Through the

MAC-SMAC-State Special Branch network, the Intelligence Bureau has been able to pull more

8 Home Minister proposes radical restructuring of security architecture, Ministry of Home Affairs, Press Release, 23

December 2009 available at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=56395

15

information and intelligence from the State capitals. It has also been able to push more

information and intelligence into the State security system.

Provisioning and procurement of all items for the modernization of central police forces is

handled by the Police Modernization Division (PMD) of MHA. The Indian Government through

MHA is likely to spend over $ 7.5 billion and state governments close to $ 2 billion on the

modernization of their police and para-military organizations in the next 3-5 years. The bulk of

the expenditures will be on arms, ammunition, transport, communication equipment, bullet proof

jackets, and explosive handling devices. 9

The urge to acquire the capacity to respond swiftly and decisively to a terror attack led Home

Minister Chidambaram to discuss with U.S. officials how to model India's future Homeland

Security Agency on the lines of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during visit to

Washington in January 2010. Counter terrorism/Homeland security has also been defined as one

of the five pillars of cooperation between the U.S. and India during Secretary Hillary Clinton’s

visit to India in 2009.

Two basic observations at this juncture are:

1) The point of emphasis in the entire talk of reforms seems to converge largely on

the issue of police reforms. It appears as if policing is a synonym to security.

2) What also seems not to have come to the fore is how does the state conceptualize

security i.e. security of whom? Security from what? What is to be secured and how?

Analysing the first observation: Do the reforms actually talk about a restructuring or only

modernization and certain alterations within the existing structures which are plagued by lack of

transparency and accountability. In fact, they have overtime cultivated an entrenched resistance

to a transparent and accountable manner of functioning which is resulting in their pervasive

inefficiency.

9 India Opportunities for Homeland Security Equipments Industry, available at

http://www.ivgpartners.com/reports/US_India_Homeland_Security_Equipment_Opportunities.pdf

16

How effective can these suggested reforms turn out to be? The answer to this will not be very

positive if we look at the history of earlier efforts at reforming the police structure in India. In

order to understand the complexities and challenges that hinder any reforms in a structure that

has imbibed undemocratic values like control-orientation, non-transparency and unaccountability

in its organization and working, the paper looks into the history of police reforms in India. What

is needed therefore is not reforms in the structure but reform of the structure.

Police Reforms in India

Police is a subject in the State List10

in India. Its organization and functioning are governed by

rules and regulations framed by the state governments that are outlined in the Police Manuals of

the state police forces. Each State/Union Territory has its separate police force. However, there is

a greater element of commonality among the police forces due to four main reasons11

:

The structure and functioning of the State Police Forces are governed by the

Police Act of 1861, which is applicable in most parts of the country, or by the State

Police Acts modeled mostly on the 1861 legislation.

Major criminal laws, like the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the Indian Evidence Act etc are uniformly applicable to almost all parts of the country.

the bulk of senior officers to the State Police Forces is provided by the Indian

Police Service (IPS) which is an All India Service recruited, trained and managed by the

Central Government and

Also certain provisions of the Constitution authorize a coordinating and

counseling role for the Centre in police matters and even allow it to set up certain central

police organizations in the states.

10

The Indian Constitution prescribes dual set of governments-the Union Government and the State Governments.

The subjects of administration have also been classified into three lists-the Union List, the State List and the

Concurrent List. Whereas subjects of national importance like currency, defense, railways, post and telegraph,

foreign affairs, citizenship, survey and census have been assigned to the Union Government and placed under the

Union List, subjects of local importance like agriculture, law and order, health and entertainment have been assigned

to the States and form a part of the State List. Both the Union Government and the State Governments operate

within the spheres of their authority. The Union Parliament and the State Legislatures enjoy co-equal powers to

make laws in regard to the Concurrent subjects. These subjects are of common importance such as marriage and

divorce, adoption, succession, transfer of property, preventive detention, education, civil and criminal law, etc. 11

CHRI, Police Organisation in India, available at

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_organisations.pdf

17

This section looks into how the police in India does not effectively address the aspirations of a

democratic polity and does not establish its accountability to them. The issue of meaningful

reform, despite several repetitive efforts in that direction, remains on the table and has not yet

seen the light of the day.

Indian Police Act 1861

Still carrying the legacy of the colonial past, the Police Act of 1861 remains in effect, governing

the structure and functioning of the Indian police in an outdated mode. The British structured

policing in the colonies after the militaristic Irish Constabulary rather than the more civilian

London Metropolitan model. This formula was suited a small number of foreigners ruling over a

vast heterogeneous population.12

The colonial rulers objective for policing was majorly control-

oriented where law and order was maintained through measures which were repressive and

therefore undemocratic in essence. Clause 23 of the 1861 Act describes the duties of police

officers as such:

It shall be the duty of every police-officer promptly, to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to

him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; to prevent the

commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offences to justice and to apprehend all persons

whom he is legally authorised to apprehend, and for whose apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be

lawful for every police-officer, for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and

inspect, any drinking-shop, gaming-house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters.13

12

CHRI (2010), Feudal Forces: Reform Delayed-Moving from Force to Service in South Asian Policing,

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report, available at

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/feudal_forces_reform_delayed_moving_from_force_to_se

rvice_in_south_asian_policing.pdf ,p11

13

Government of India(1861), The Police Act 1861: An Act for Regulation of Police, 22 March 1861 available at http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/police_act_1861.pdf

18

Such an act guiding the organization and functioning of police in a modern democracy has

resulted in, “problems such as inefficiency, corruption, and an insular police culture adversely

affect police performance and create negative public perceptions”14

.

National Police Commission

In 1977, the National Police Commission (NPC) was set up to give recommendations for improving the

effectiveness, accountability and public image of the police in order to make its role more responsive to

the democratic aspirations of people of independent India. Very few of its recommendations were put into

practice. Since then, there have been a series of commissions aimed at reforming various aspects of

policing all of which met the same fate.

In response to a writ petition filed by two retired Directors General of Police (Prakash Singh and

N.K. Singh) in July 1996 asking the intervention of the Supreme Court to direct the government

to implement NPC‟s recommendations. In 2006, the Supreme Court gave a judgement in Prakash

Singh v/s Union of India case instructing the state and the Centarl governments to comply with

certain directives. These directives aimed at removing the ills pervasive in the police system,

keeping it out of undue political interference, and providing the police with professionalized

internal systems of management based on transparent mechanisms that will make it more

accountable for wrongdoing as well as performance. Till date most of the reforms continue to be

on paper and none of the states have fully complied with the court‟s directives.

Also to establish police accountability Police Complaints Authorities (PCA) have been set up

whose members consist of serving or retired police officers and not independent civilian

authorities. This clearly means that police are themselves given the task of correcting the ills in

the police system which doesn‟t amount to establishing accountability in any real sense. Further,

not many states have set up PCAs and wherever it exists it is largely dysfunctional.

The police have consistently continued to be resistant to reforms and what has been at stake is

the safety and security of the people. A major reason for this is the fact the talk of reforms meets

the reality only in the shape of provision of arms, ammunition and equipments. The role of the

14

Abhijit Banerjee et al. in “Making Police Reform Real: The Rajasthan Experiment”(2006)

19

police in a mature democracy reflecting the needs and aspirations of people for security is never

the central theme of any reform debate at the level of implementation.

Soli Sorabjee Committee

In 2005, the Government of India set up the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC), known as

the Soli Sorabjee Committee, which was required to draft a new Model Police Act. This was

supposed to guide the states keeping under consideration the changing role of police in Indian

democracy. The Model Police Act aimed at changing the police from a feudal force to a

democratic service. As in the earlier cases, only few states attempted to draft new police

legislation conforming to the guidelines of the MPA, but its full implementation have not been

the case till date in any of the states.15

Further, the process of drafting legislations in the states according to the MPA wherever it has

been taking place is totally non-responsive to the needs of the citizenry. It is non-transparent,

lacking awareness generation among the public, without community consultation and non-

inclusive of inputs from civil society organizations.

In 2005, a National Police Mission was set up by the government of India to carve out a „new

visions for the police….to make it an effective instrument of internal security…. and transform it

from a reactive to a proactive organization.‟

The Mumbai Terror Attacks

Despite all the above mentioned efforts toward reforms, the systemic collapse during the

Mumbai terror attacks visualized most glaringly the fact that something is fundamentally wrong

with the police and needs to be changed. Sadly enough, it took a devastating event to bring such

a matter of crucial significance to the fore. The public angst was further infuriated by the fact

that we already had paid too heavy a price by the time the terrorist attacks were arrested. The

role of police is not meant just for times of crisis and emergencies but it is meant to be

15

According to the CHRI Report till date, only 11 states have enacted fresh Police Acts to replace the old legislation

and two states have amended their earlier laws on the subject to accommodate the new directives of the Court. The

Union Territory of Chandigarh has chosen to adopt the Punjab Police Act. Six states have completed the drafting of

new police legislations or tabled bills in the Assembly.99 Two states are currently in the process of drafting.

20

instrumental in providing service in the everyday functioning of democracies. Its role in

democracies is not just restricted to maintenance of law and order but also working towards

prevention, detection as well as mitigation of crime of diverse natures.

Another significant fact about 26/11 is that it not only reinforced the demand for police reforms

with a greater intensity but also gave a new rigor to debate on the nature of reforms. The

dialogue on reform has begun to incorporate within its framework concepts like community

policing as well as aspects of human rights, constitutional values and law. Voices about human

security informing the agenda of police reforms have now begun to be raised. The police is now

required to be specially sensitive to the problems faced by the Scheduled Castes & Tribes and

women and be people friendly in their approach.16

During the Chief Minister‟s conference on Internal Security in 2011, Home Minister Mr. P.

Chidambaram mentioned that the internal security situation in India vastly improved in the

previous two years, the Centre-State cooperation has increased, a decrease in the number of

casualties of security forces was recorded. However, there was an increase in the number of

civilian casualties, there were two major terrorist incidents- in Pune on 13 February 2010 and in

Varanasi 7 December 2010, naxalism continues to pose grave challenge to internal security

situation. The security situation in terms of mitigation of crime is still not without worries and

the efforts in this direction remain inadequately addressed.

Here what is important to take note of is the fact that despite persistent efforts in the past toward

reforms there has been a pervasive resistance to reform in the police which is generally held as

the most effective instrument of internal security by the government. There is a distance between

the people and the police, there is opacity in its functioning and aversion to transparency. Where

can the problem be located? To the government‟s vision and approach to security. A

comprehensive vision for security needs to be conceptualized and then various departments and

agencies need to be linked in manner that their respective efforts at multiple levels contribute

towards making the nation secure. This of course cannot be brought about merely by

16

Prime minister‟s speech at he chief minister‟s conference on Internal Security, available at

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/papers/07feb10_pmspeech.htm

21

modernization of the existing structures. This requires profound systemic changes to replace the

culture of secrecy by a transparent and accountable structure.

Problems with the Indian government’s approach to security

The government of India doesn‟t mention its vision about security as its objective anywhere. The

model police act which has been proposed by the above mentioned Sorabjee committee

incorporates various roles of police in ensuring security of people including human rights, civil

liberties, internal security, prevention and mitigation of crime and so on, it has failed to look into

the complexities involved in implementation of such provisions. The commission puts almost all

responsibilities related to security on the police departments. The lacunae in the police structure

in India with regard to providing effective security in a people friendly manner have already

been discussed. Implementation of such provisions is almost impossible. In fact this has been a

major reason behind the failure of the Model Police Act which came into existence in 2006.

The US Department of Homeland Security which defines its objective as,

“The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation

from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 230,000

employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency

response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are

wide-ranging, but our goal is clear - keeping America safe”17

To achieve this mission, over 22 departments and agencies have been brought within the

fold of the DHS. Following is the organizational structure and components of the

department:

1. The Directorate for National Protection and Programs works to advance the

Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that

encompasses both physical and virtual threats and their associated human elements.

17

Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/

22

2. The Directorate for Science and Technology is the primary research and

development arm of the Department. It provides federal, state and local officials with the

technology and capabilities to protect the homeland.

3. The Directorate for Management is responsible for Department budgets and

appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and finance, procurement; human

resources, information technology systems, facilities and equipment, and the

identification and tracking of performance measurements.

4. The Office of Policy is the primary policy formulation and coordination

component for the Department of Homeland Security. It provides a centralized,

coordinated focus to the development of Department-wide, long-range planning to

protect the United States.

5. The Office of Health Affairs coordinates all medical activities of the Department

of Homeland Security to ensure appropriate preparation for and response to incidents

having medical significance.

6. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is responsible for using information and

intelligence from multiple sources to identify and assess current and future threats to the

United States.

7. The Office of Operations Coordination and Planning is responsible for monitoring

the security of the United States on a daily basis and coordinating activities within the

Department and with governors, Homeland Security Advisors, law enforcement partners,

and critical infrastructure operators in all 50 states and more than 50 major urban areas

nationwide.

8. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides career-long training to

law enforcement professionals to help them fulfill their responsibilities safely and

proficiently.

9. The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office works to enhance the nuclear detection

efforts of federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector

and to ensure a coordinated response to such threats.

10. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the nation's

transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

23

11. United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting

our nation‟s borders in order to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the

United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

12. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for the

administration of immigration and naturalization adjudication functions and establishing

immigration services policies and priorities.

13. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest

investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying

and shutting down vulnerabilities in the nation‟s border, economic, transportation and

infrastructure security.

14. The United States Coast Guard protects the public, the environment, and U.S.

economic interests—in the nation‟s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international

waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.

15. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares the nation for

hazards, manages Federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident,

and administers the National Flood Insurance Program.

16. The United States Secret Service protects the President and other high-level

officials and investigates counterfeiting and other financial crimes, including financial

institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our

nation‟s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.

There is an Office of the Secretary for overseeing activities with other federal, state, local, and

private entities as part of a collaborative effort to strengthen American borders, provide for

intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection, improve the use of science and technology to

counter weapons of mass destruction, and to create a comprehensive response and recovery

system. The Office of the Secretary includes multiple offices that contribute to the overall

Homeland Security mission.

Apart from these, there are a number of advisory panels and committees to assist and

facilitate the effective functioning of the various components bringing about greater

coordination.

24

The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs: An Overburdened Ministry

Here it is important to note that in the US model agencies dealing with disaster management,

pandemic diseases, civil rights and liberties have been integrated within the scope of Department

of Homeland Security as these issues are considered crucial components of the concept of

homeland security. Any policy response is based on a particular conceptualization of the problem

and accordingly the institutional requirements are devised. This has to be kept in mind while any

attempt to borrow from the US model of homeland security is made in the context of security

needs in India. The former is contingent upon a particular conceptualization of security whereas

the latter is lacking in any such conceptual understanding.

More importantly, the Ministry of Home Affairs which is a federal agency responsible for the

maintenance of law and order in the country and under the aegis of which the various security

related agencies work, includes variety of discrete functions which has hampered the evolution

of an effective security structure in India. When the process of security related restructuring of

was initiated, on one hand it was decided to set up a central agency for coordinating technical

intelligence details from various assets of the Indian defense forces and other intelligence

agencies, including the Research and Analytical Wing and the Central Bureau of Investigation,

on the other it was felt that the Ministry of Home Affairs should give the prime most attention to

internal security issues and to this end its portfolio should be relieved of certain subjects not

directly related to internal security, like Centre-State Relations, State Legislation, Human

Rights, Union Territories, Disaster Management, Census etc.

The Ministry of Home Affairs which is responsible for the security within the Indian territory

comprises of so many vast functions which do not connect with each other anywhere. This is to

say these discrete functions are not knitted together in comprehensive vision of security. The

ministry‟s official webpage explains its main functions18

:

1. India - large country - ancient civilisation - complex social dynamics.

2. Federal Structure - preserves diversity - sustains unity.

3. Union-State relations - dynamic.

18

Government of India(2010-11), Ministry of Home Affairs Annual Report, available at

http://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/AR(E)1011.pdf

25

4. Public order and police - prime responsibility of the States - Part XI and Seventh Schedule

- The Constitution of India.

5. Duty of the Union-protect States against internal disturbance - ensure that governance of

States carried out in accordance with The Constitution.

6. MHA - Nodal Ministry.

7. All Matters relating to internal security.

8. All matters relating to Centre-State and Inter-State relations.

9. Implementation of the provisions of the Constitution relating to Official Language and the

provisions of the Official Languages Act, 1963.

10. Certain basic functions under the Constitution like notification of assumption of office by

the President and Vice-President; notification of appointment of the Prime Minister and other

Ministers; notification of appointment, resignation and removal of Governors of States and

Lieut. Governors and Administrators in Union Territories.

11. Matters like Citizenship and Naturalisation, Census of Population, National

Anthem, National Flag, etc.

The ministry‟s organization also reflects its wider nature of functions. It mainly comprises five

departments. They are:

Department of Border Management - deals with - Management of Borders

including Coastal Borders.

Department of Internal Security - deals with - Police, Law and Order and

Rehabilitation of Refugees.

Department of States - deals with - Centre-State Relations, Inter-State Relations,

Union Territories and Freedom Fighters‟ Pension.

Department of Official Languages - dealing with - implementation of the

Constitutional and legal provisions relating to Official Languages.

Department of Home - deals with - notifications relating to assumption of office

of President/Vice-President, appointment of Prime Minister /Ministers, etc.

Department of Jammu & Kashmir Affairs - created w.e.f. November 1, 1994 -

deals with - Constitutional provisions and other matters relating to the State of Jammu &

Kashmir.

26

The lack of a comprehensive vision of security binding the discrete elements into a coherent

system of government providing effective and efficient governance to the citizens has

contributed to keeping the distance between the government and the people intact. There is

increase in all sorts of threats to secure living. Managing these threats takes place through

policing which is control oriented and not people-friendly due to the legacy of deeply entrenched

colonial structures.As a result of these the Indian police has become a threat than the criminal

themselves. There have been continuous reports of serious human rights violations by the Indian

police. A recent report by the Asian Center for Human Rights it has been shown that from 2001

to 2009 at least 1, 184 persons were killed in police custody. 19

The growing number of crime, as

shown in table 1, also shows increasing inefficiency of the Indian internal security structure.

Unlike the United States where since the implementation of homeland Security Act no terrorist

activity has taken place, in India two more major accidents have happened. A large number of

people along with the police are also killed in the naxal problem. (See table 2)

2008 2009

States Incidents Deaths Incidents Deaths

Andhra Pradesh 92 42 66 18

Bihar 164 73 232 72

Chatisgarh 620 242 529 290

Jharkhand 484 207 742 208

Madhya Pradesh 7 - 1 0

Maharashtra 68 22 154 93

Orissa 103 101 266 67

Uttar Pradesh 4 - 8 2-

West Bengal 35 26 255 158

Others 14 4 5 -

Total 1591 721 2258 908

Table 2

State-wise left wing extremism in India (2008-09)

Source: Annual Report, Ministry of Home Affairs

19

For more on the report see http://www.achrweb.org/press/2009/IND0209.html

27

What needs to be done?

A comprehensive vision for security needs to be carved out- a vision that is built on the

foundation of democratic aspirations of the people. Structures need to be so designed that a

system is put in place which is transparent and accountable to the people not merely to the

government in power. The debate on security issues should incorporate several phases: 1) the

development of security policy, 2) the decision-making phase, 3) the implementation and

evaluation of the pursued policy. They should provide for necessary level of transparency

towards the society and the people and must also enough space for inputs as well as scrutiny

from them because ultimately it is their security that these structures aim to guarantee.

Transparency is very important because it gives the people a sense of being stakeholders in the

security system of the nation.

A major reason why security reforms are so difficult to be brought about is the fact they attempt

to impose democratic principles on structures which have been historically used to of operating

behind the veil of secrecy and unaccountability- an insurmountable legacy of the past. These

structures need to be reorganized on democratic lines. A very crucial space for the inputs from

civil society actors needs to created. The think tanks, research institutes, and people from the

academia and media need to engage in public debate, contribute expertise on specific issues, and

offer alternative courses of policy action. Stimulating the existence of a nongovernmental

defense community supports the objective to foster transparency and accountability in the

sensitive field of the security. Procedures for adequate dissemination of information on security

related issues need to be put in place. Only when restructuring of security apparatus is based on

such a vision, the security policies can be really effective contributing to the development of the

country, striking the right balance between the demands of security and upholding the

democratic freedom and civil liberties.

Conclusion

On the basis of above analysis it can be concluded that the efforts in India to institutionalize a

mechanism of coordinated policy response to address threats to internal security are inadequate.

28

The mechanisms to ensure transparency and win people‟s confidence are yet to be created. Due

to lack of such institutions, the crime and insecurity has increased to a greater level. Besides the

US type model in case of India will not be appropriate unless it is accompanied by equally

rigorous research to make it responsive to India-specific requirements.

References:

Banerjee, Abhijit et.al(2006), Making Police Reform Real: The Rajasthan Experiment, available

at http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/5933

Bellavita, Christopher (2008), “Changing Homeland Security: What is Homeland Security?”

Homeland Security Affairs 4(2) available at http://www.hsaj.org/?article=4.2.1.

Caroline Thomas (2001), "Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the

Links", Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp 167-168.

CHRI, Police Organisation in India, available at

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_organisations.pdf

CHRI (2010), Feudal Forces: Reform Delayed-Moving from Force to Service in South Asian

Policing, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report, available at

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/feudal_forces_reform_delayed_moving

_from_force_to_service_in_south_asian_policing.pdf

CHRI (2007), Feudal Forces: Democratic Nations-Police Accountability in Commonwealth

South Asia, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report, available at

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/feudal_forces_democratic_nations_poli

ce_acctability_in_cw_south_asia.pdf

(2006) The Model Police Act, PADC Proposed Bill, available at

http://uppolice.up.nic.in/All%20Rules/ModelAct06_30_Oct.pdf

Government of India(2010-11), Ministry of Home Affairs Annual Report, available

athttp://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/AR(E)1011.pdf

29

Government of India(1861), The Police Act 1861: An Act for Regulation of Police, 22 March

1861 available at http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/police_act_1861.pdf

Hanlon, Michael O. et al (2002), Protecting the American Homeland: A Preliminary Analysis,

Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Homeland Security Department (2010), The Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland,

Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report, available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/qhsr_report.pdf

Homeland Security Department (2007), One team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2008-2013, available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_StratPlan_FINAL_spread.pdf

Kirchner, Emil J. & Sperling, James (2007), Global Security Governance: Competing

Perceptions of Security in the 21st Century, Routledge, London.

Office of Homeland Security (2002), The national strategy for homeland security. Washington,

DC: Office of Homeland Security, available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_hls.pdf

Office of Homeland Security (2007), The national strategy for homeland security. Washington,

DC: Office of Homeland Security, available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007.pdf

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997), Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity

and Accountability, Buckingham, Open University Press.

Roberts, Patrick S.(2006), “Dispersed Federalism as a New Regional Governance for Homeland

Security”, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol.38. no.3, pp 416-443.

Transparency at the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/gc_1301083622064.shtm