War On Terror?

The PM’s meeting with his Pakistani counterpart in the SAARC summit didseem positive. But, in the immediate context, was it relevant? Even with thebest of intentions, it is very doubtful if Prime Minister Gilani can translatehis assurances into genuine policy. The terror crisis in India is immediate. Andbefore effective Pakistani cooperation is forthcoming, there is need for much tobe done by India within its own borders.

Politicians in different parties are solemnly referring to India's war onterror. War on terror – what a nice sounding phrase! It provides good copy toheadline writers in the media. But do politicians really believe we are facing awar unleashed by terrorists? Nations brush aside all obstacles when they fightfor survival in wars. Our leaders are content to mouth stale platitudes andtattered resolves after every act of terrorist violence. This scribe does notwant to repeat the same views and suggestions expressed in these columns on 9May 2007, 17 January 2007, 19 July 2006, and several timesearlier. No suggestion is either dismissed or accepted.

A successful war on terror requires curbing political corruption that leads topolitical collusion with terrorists; recognizing the terrorist violence by alloutfits espousing separate causes as a single war in different battlefieldsagainst one mastermind exercising centralised control; identifying the foreignpower which is the mastermind and suitably revising India's relationship withit; and addressing the genuine grievances of those frustrated sections of thepopulation that are cleverly exploited by the terror mastermind. It must berecognized that this is war. And that is how wars are really fought and won.

The measures mentioned above can become meaningful only if there is an executiveinstrument capable of implementing policy. Does India have that? Consider thecurrent state of national unity on the question of terrorism. The centralgovernment proposed a federal agency to fight terrorism. Ignore the merits ordemerits of the proposal. Possibly, there are better alternatives. Consider thereasons why state governments are overwhelmingly opposing the proposal. Theybelieve that the central government will misuse the proposed federal agency toderive political partisan advantage. Can the state governments be blamed forbelieving this? The record speaks for itself.

Recall how the existing central agency, the CBI, has been used as a politicaltool by successive governments to either harass or protect politicians,depending on the central government's disposition towards them. Recall also howthe NDA government failed to sack or censure the BJP ruled Gujarat governmentafter the Godhra riots. Recall how the UPA government threw law to the winds bydissolving the Bihar assembly to pre-empt an opposition government being swornto power in the state.

Currently there is an even more glaring example of the centre misusing its powerfor partisan ends. BJP ruled state assemblies have passed anti-terror laws. Butthe centre's nod is not forthcoming. Gujarat is denied thereby an anti-terrorlaw that is similar to the anti-terror law already operating in neighbouringMaharashtra, which is ruled by the Congress. The centre found no difficulty ingiving assent to the law passed by the state ruled by the Congress party. Eventhe tallest leaders from different parties in the centre have failed to avoidpartisanship in their dealings with state governments. In this situation, canstate governments be blamed for being wary of any central proposal? Can thissituation of political paralysis created by mutual suspicion ever allow aneffective instrument to emerge for governance?

It cannot. So does the fault lie with the Constitution? No, it lies with thepoliticians and jurists of India who persist in misinterpreting theConstitution. How can the centre block an anti-terrorist law passed by a stateassembly that does not violate the Constitution? Quite simply, the centralcabinet prevents the President from signing the Bill. But how does the centralcabinet exercise jurisdiction over an elected state assembly for enacting laws?It doesn't. The central cabinet enjoys this power by subverting the Constitutionand exercising power to which it is not entitled. The Prime Minister is electedonly by a majority of Lok Sabha MPs. The President who is treated like a puppetby the central cabinet is elected by both Houses of Parliament and by all thestate assemblies across the land. The President alone, in the centre, has thedemocratic mandate and the moral right to decide on matters related to stategovernments. Even a child conversant with simple English would interpret thus onreading the powers of the President as written in the Constitution.

And yet, an entire galaxy of celebrated jurists through the last six decadeshave knowingly, willfully, distorted the Constitution by quoting this or thatpast legal luminary to obfuscate the truth. Recourse to legal comment in thepast becomes valid only if the text in a written constitution is obscure or opento diverse interpretations. That is not the case with the Indian Constitution.The section describing the President's powers is explicit and unambiguous. Evenafter Indira Gandhi, sensing the danger to her father's flawed interpretation ofthe Constitution, amended it to curtail the President's powers, she did notsucceed in substantially diminishing the powers of the presidency conferred bythe Constitution. 

India's Constitution and the prevalent political system may appear to be a farcry from the war on terror. But without a suitable systemic instrument nooperation can succeed. Terrorism has forced India to make a choice betweenperformance and paralysis. This scribe and some others may be able to wait andsee if India's politicians make the right choice. But will the terrorists wait?

rajinderpuri.com