send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
In the federal framework of Indian polity, countering terrorism has been complicated by an unsavoury spat between Centre and States over their respective competencies and roles in the matter. Centre seeks to play a proactive and commanding role on the plea of protecting the unity and integrity of the nation. However, states perceive such a central role as an encroachment in their eminent constitutional domains of public order and police. Amidst these contending positions, the course of anti-terror measures has tended to disturb the precarious federal balance in the field of Centre-State administrative relations. By asserting its domineering role in anti-terror activities, Centre seems to be claiming a prominent role in the domains constitutionally and conventionally vested with the States. But such tendencies on the part of the Centre may neither augur well for tackling terrorism nor the endurance of federal balance.
Thus, Indian federalism may be placed in a perilous position in the course of anti-terror measures unless States are taken as the constitutionally empowered stakeholders in coping with the menace of terrorism. Given the overall centrist disposition of the Constitution, it is obviously the Centre that has been destined to gain an upper hand in the standoff. But what transformed the basic contours of Centre-state administrative relations beyond even the imagination of the founding fathers has been the fundamental changes effected in the provisions ordaining primary role to the states in the domain of public order and police. The judicial pronouncements guaranteeing almost unfettered powers to Centre in the area of anti-terror measures sprang presumably out of the retro-fitments carried out in the relevant provisions during emergency. Thus, in a sphere that has perfectly been assumed to be the core concern of states in the original constitutional scheme ultimately turned out to be completely out of their reach. Nevertheless, effective handling of the menace of terrorism remains an unprecedented challenge not only to the unity and integrity of the nation but also to the mundane realm of public order and tranquil life of the common people. Despite its unrestrained powers and enthusiastic activism, Centre might never be able to tackle terrorism single-handedly. Being the first response point, states will have to be involved in that endeavour.
At the outset, tackling terrorism need not turn out to be a turf war between the two constituent stakeholders of the Indian federation. Complexity of the conundrum is that while the ultimate accountability to cope up with the challenge of terrorism is that of the Centre, it is the spatial domain under immediate access of states that becomes the theatre of mindless violence. Therefore, it is out of question to conceive that terrorism can be tackled by either of the two exclusively. Consequently, what seems sine qua non is a cooperative, coordinated and strategically supplemented approach of eliminating terrorism involving both the Centre and states. Clearly, the two levels of governments must perform the tasks for which they are best suited. With a view to nip in the bud the cache and cadre of the terrorists, Centre needs to be best equipped in intelligence and connoisseur activities. Logically, therefore, field operations to bust the terror plans and nab terror operatives should lie with the states. Reports suggest that all-encompassing central anti-terror agencies like NIA have not been able to serve the purpose substantially.
In any earnest attempt to stamp out the strands of terrorism, manifest need for a sound legal framework has long been advocated. But such legal framework needn’t be reduced to the modicum of linear and frictional bodies like the NIA. Instead, a comprehensive legislative enactment stipulating the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders and operating units of the federal system must be put in place. At the core of such a framework may lay a nodal anti-terror agency. Indeed, such an agency must be formed after comprehensive consultation with and taking into confidence all the states as well. Above all, in no way, the central endeavour at anti-terror measures may look like creeping into the prime domain of the states by the Centre. Being the dominant partner in the federal set up, the onus of responsibility in this regard rests with the Centre to be considerate and sensitive to the concerns and apprehensions of the states. Once the infallible mantra of mutual trust and cooperation between the two layers of the federation is operationalised, anti-terror measures are in all probability likely to prove a nemesis of terrorism rather than the federal balance of the country.
By: Abhishek Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources