Issues related to National Integrity and Security :

Table of contents:-

  1. Potential areas of Socio-political conflicts between and within Indian States,
  2. Traditional, Contemporary and Emerging Threats
  3. Internal and External Threats;
  4. Threats of Conflicts,
  5. Naxal Problems,
  6. Terrorism,
  7. Trans-border Infiltration and Insurgency Issues,
  8. Communalism,
  9. Organised crimes,
  10. Cyber issues,
  11. Drug trafficking
  12. and other such issues.

Potential areas of Socio-political conflicts between and within Indian States,

Various disputes amongst the Indian states are :-

1-Inter State River Water Disputes

2- Land Boundary Disputes

3- Trade Imbalance

4- Migration and encroachment.

Various interstate river water disputes are :-

(i) Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

(ii) The Krishna water dispute between Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

(iii) The Tungabhadra water dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

(iv) The Aliyar and Bhivani river water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

(v) The Godavari river water dispute between Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Karnataka.

(vi) The Narmada water dispute between Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

(vii) The Mahi river dispute between Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

(viii) The Ravi and Beas river water dispute between Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi.

(ix) The Satluj-Yamuna Link canal dispute between Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.

(x) The Yamuna river water dispute between Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi.

(xi) The Karmanasa river water dispute between Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

(xii) The Barak river water dispute between Assam and Manipur.

Efforts are made to resolve disputes through negotiations amongst the basin states with the assistance of the Central Government. Many of these interstate river water disputes have been settled on the basis of equitable apportionment which is the universally accepted principle. Adjudication through appointment of water disputes tribunals is also resorted to as and when require. So far, the following tribunals have been appointed to resolve inter-state water disputes:

(i) The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal

(ii) The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal

(iii) The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal

(iv) The Ravi and Beas Water Disputes Tribunal

(v) The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal

(vi) New Krishna Water Disputes

The first three Tribunals have given their final reports.

Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal gave its interim order in June 1991 and the final order is awaited. The Ravi and Beas Tribunal submitted its report in January, 1987. A further reference was made to the Tribunal comprising of a suo-moto reference by the Central Government and references received from the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan seeking explanation/guidance on certain points in the report. Further report of the Tribunal is awaited. The New Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was set up on April 2, 2004.

Central Government has also received request from the state Government of Goa in August 2002 for the constitution of Tribunal for adjudication of water disputes relating to Madei Inter-state River among the states of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Subsequently, Goa expressed the desire in June, 2003 to settle the disputes through negotiations.

In developing country like India, the inter-state river water disputes have to be resolved quickly and amicably. This is most urgent for the proper utilization of water resources and economic growth.

Various Land Boundary Disputes amongst Indian states are:-

1. Assam – Nagaland:- These two states share a 434 kilometre boundary, but Nagaland has behaved aggressively towards Assam ever since its inception in 1963 and has in fact encroached on vast tracts of land in upper-Assam districts of Sivasagar, Jorhat and Golaghat.
The Centre had tried to resolve the turmoil by forming the Sundaram Commission in 1971 and Shastri Commission in 1985, and though both commissions ruled in favour of Assam, no solution was implemented, as Nagaland refused to accept the recommendations. Assam currently has a pending lawsuit with Supreme Court on these border issues: a verdict is still awaited.

2. Maharashtra-Karnataka:- Five decades ago, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, some parts of Bombay, Hyderabad, Madras and Coorg were joined with the erstwhile state of Mysore to form Karnataka. In the process, 865 Marathi-speaking villages in Belgaum, Karwar, Gulbarga and Bidar were merged with Karnataka. This is the primary cause of dispute between the two states.

 

 

3. Gujarat – Rajasthan:- The dispute between Gujarat and Rajasthan relates to Mangadh Hill, located on the border of the two states. Gujarat claims half of the hill, while Rajasthan claims the entire hill is theirs. The dispute is 40 years old, though the Rajasthan Government presently has control over the hill.

According to folklore, hundreds of tribals were killed in the hills while protesting against British rule in 1911. Their relatives gather there every year in the month of January to pay their respects to the dead. The Panchmahal district administration of Gujarat recently started constructing a road to reach hill, along with forest huts and hand pumps for the pilgrims. The Rajasthan government raised strong objections to this.

Many land owners have filed complaints for illegal encroachment on their land, alleging that Rajasthanis owning the adjacent pieces of land indulge in illegal activities on their lands. So far, no development from both sides has taken place to resolve the issue.

4. Karnataka- Kerala:- In 1956, the Reorganisation Committee decreed that the district of Kasaragod, comprising mainly of Kannada- speaking people, be made part of Kerala. Since then, people in the district have complained of “step-motherly” treatment from Kerala Government.

5. Odisha – West Bengal:– The dispute between these states has been going on for more than 30 years. This is a fierce territorial dispute between the states at all levels – points of skirmish are farmers disputing land at the border, land grabbing by both states to build government institutions and people living at the border holding dual voter ID cards to achieve political motives.

 

6. Assam – Meghalaya:- These states have been embroiled in a border dispute for decades now. It first started when Meghalaya challenged the Assam Reorganisation Act of 1971, which gave Part 1 and Part 2 of Mikir Hills to Assam and those, according to Meghalaya, are part of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills.

 

7. Assam – Arunachal Pradesh:- The Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh was formed on January 20, 1972. Later when Arunachal Pradeshwas carved out of Assam in 1987 as a state under the North East Reorganization Act, 1971, the people of Arunachal Pradesh accepted their notified borders with Assam. However, subsequent to this, there has been the issue of alleged Assamese encroachment.

 


Back to Table of Contents


Traditional, Contemporary and Emerging Threats;
  1. Various Traditional Threats Faced by India are as follows:-
  2. Regional Diversity:- India has been blessed with variation of culture and customs throughout the length and breath of the nation. Unity in diversity has been the major problem for national integration.
  3. Casteism:- Indian society is divided into several castes and sub-castes, The conflicts between several castes has intensified in the advent of increasing caste politics.
  4. Internal and External Threats;
  5. Threats of Conflicts,
  6. Naxal Problems,
  7. Terrorism,
  8. Trans-border Infiltration and Insurgency Issues,
  9. Communalism,
  10. Organised crimes,
  11. Cyber issues,
  12. Drug trafficking


Back to Table of Contents


Internal and External Threats;

Internal Threats Faced by India are as follows:-

  1. Secessionist Movements in Key States
  2. Left Wing Extremism:- Naxal Problems,
  3. Black Money
  4. Organized Crime

External Threats Faced by India are as follows:-

  1. International Terrorism
  2. Piracy and Maritime security
  3. Challenges to security through communication Networks
  4. Terror Financing and Money Laundring


Back to Table of Contents


Threats of Conflicts,

Back to Table of Contents


Naxal Problems,

Back to Table of Contents


Terrorism,

Terrorism is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Mazor terrorists faced by india are:-

  1. Millitant Terrorism in Kashmir
  2. Khalistan- oriented terrorism in punjab
  3. Naxal terrorism in Bengal,Bihar,Jharkhand,Chattisgarh,AndraPradesh
  4. Terrorism in NE States

India has been effected by the terrorist activities in the past as follows:-

  • Bomb blasts in Mumbai on 13th July
  • The recent incidents of mv Wisdom and mv Pavit landing up at the Juhu beach give an impression that the coast-guard is not fully equipped
    • The CAG in its report said that coast guard was “ill-equipped” to discharge its enhanced role
  • Bomb blast in Delhi in Sept 2011.

 

Anti-terrorism agencies

  • National Investigations Agency (NIA)
  • National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC)
  • National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)

The problems in dealing with terrorism

  • Grassroots police capabilities and competence leave much to be desired
  • Intelligence sharing and action on intelligence information seems poor
  • Bihar has a pathetic 74.29 police for every 100,000 residents, about a quarter of what it needs.


Back to Table of Contents


Trans-border Infiltration and Insurgency Issues,

Back to Table of Contents


Communalism,

Communalism is a strong allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole. Communalism become extreme when the ethnic group feel that their issues are different from other ethnical groups and are conflicting.

India is a land of several religions and different communities have coexisted here peacefully throughout the history. Divide and rule policy of Britishers have caused the problem of ethical conflicts in the nation.

Possible questions.

  1. Is a communal violence bill needed? Aren’t the existing provisions in law enough?
  2. What are the major features of the communal violence bill?
  3. How can communal harmony be promoted in the country? Suggest steps.

Why a law needed?

  • Commissions of enquiry setup after every major conflagration have consistently come down heavily on the State authorities as also certain parties and organisations for their role in violence
  • However, it is in very rare cases that perpetrators have been convicted.
  • By and large, police and the administrative class have been left untouched by the law
  • Hence, a carefully designed law on communal violence is the need of the hour

More arguments for a separate law

  • It can be seen that various provisions exist in the IPC to punish the perpetrators of violence. Under sections 153A and B of the IPC even hate speeches are actionable. Similarly, even a public servant can be charged under the ordinary law.
  • So it seems that at least a section of communal or targeted violence can be dealt with under the existing criminal law.
  • Failure to implement the law rather than its absence is one of the major problems confronting the prevention of communal violence.
  • But caveats exist
    • Turning a blind eye to communal and targeted hate speech
    • Refusal to register FIRs or registering them without naming the culprits even when some of the perpetrators are identified
    • Refusal to take adequate action to disperse mobs
  • However there are large areas where laws are absent or inadequate
  • Mass violence is a quantitatively different category from stray individual violence. The impact and trauma of mass violence is long term and ongoing.
  • Second, though laws exist on hate speech, they cannot be set into motion without the prior sanction of the government. In this case what really matters is which party is in power.
  • Third, even to prosecute public servants it becomes necessary to obtain the consent of the state which is a long, tedious process.
  • Fourth, a large number of cases in court collapse because witnesses are too frightened to depose truthfully. Though an individual witness can ask for police protection against threats there is no comprehensive witness protection law in India
  • Fifth, while in the aftermath of every carnage, a relief and rehabilitation package is announced, there is no uniformity in these packages. There is no legislative mandate or compulsion for reparation including relief and rehabilitation.
  • Besides, communal violence is a specific form of brutality which is required to be dealt with in a holistic and comprehensive manner since it includes within it element of hate propaganda, sexual assault, uprooting of communities, societal bias, state complicity and judicial indifference.
  • A law which deals specifically with targeted or communal violence thus becomes necessary

Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005

Objective:

  1. Prevention and control of communal violence
  2. Speedy investigation and trials
  3. Rehabilitation of victims

Sets conditions for the state government to declare an area as communally disturbed.

A competent authority can take measures (such as regulating assembly, directing persons to deposit their arms etc) to control communal violence.

Special courts to try offences under this law. Increased punishment.

Features in the draft bill

  1. Union Home Minister headed 11 member national council to oversee relief and the rehabilitation of victims. <Civil society is proposing instead a Communal harmony Justice and Reparation Commission (CHJRC) with national, state and district councils and wider powers>
  2. There is a provision to declare certain areas as communally disturbed. <Civil society objects to this on the ground that such declaration would give the government a free hand to use draconian laws in such areas>

This bill has been amended by the NAC and a new draft introduced in 2011.

 Communal Violence Bill, 2011

The draft law features

  • Defines communal and targeted violence as
    • Any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property, knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group, which destroys the secular fabric of the nation
  • Elaborate definition of sexual assault to cover not just women but men as well
  • Apart from treating some of the offences under the IPC as crimes under this law, the bill also creates certain additional offences like torture, command responsibility, etc
  • Public Servants
    • Penalises public servants for torture to specific groups
    • Penalises for dereliction of duty
    • Breach of command responsibility treated as an offence
    • Public servants with the duty of maintenance of public order also given the duty to prevent communal and targeted violence
    • Command Responsibility: Any public servant in command of forces who fails to exercise control over his sub-ordinates which results in offences under the bill shall be guilty of breach of command of responsibility
  • Emergency provisions can be invoked
    • The occurrence of communal and targeted violence shall constitute ‘internal disturbance’ within the meaning of Article 355 of the constitution and the Central Govt may take such steps as the nature and circumstances of the case so requires.
  • Witness protection provisions are incorporated.
  • Accountability framework set up concerning the police.
  • Entails the provision of relief and rehabilitation. Creates the Communal and Targeted Violence Relief and Rehabilitation Fund
  • National Authority for communal harmony, justice and reparation
    • The authority can initiate investigation and enquiry into complaints
  • Similarly, state authorities for communal harmony, justice and reparation
  • The act waives constitutional immunity for the purpose of proceedings under the act

Some issues with the draft

 

  • The law applies to only the minorities – religious or linguistic – in a state (+ SCs and STs)
    • This assumes that the majority community is always the perpetrator of violence and never the victim
    • This criticism however misses the basic point of democracy: that majority can take care of itself but minorities need certain protection
    • Article 29 and 30 in the constitution are such provisions
    • Worldwide minorities are protected through laws – blacks in US, aborigines in US
  • Communal violence defined in terms of an act that destroys ‘the secular fabric of the nation’
    • This definition is liable to be misconstrued
    • Even large scale riots may not present an actual threat to the secular fabric of the nation.
  • The incorporation of the emergency provision

Conclusion

  • Amended draft of the Communal and Targeted Viiolence Bill is a major step forward.
  • However, it needs to incorporate within it lessons learnt from recent international advancement especially in matters pertainin g to reparation and command responsibility.
  • The chapters concerning setting up of national and state level bodies need a complete review as do the provisions concerning dereliction of duties and witness protection


Back to Table of Contents


Organised crimes,

Back to Table of Contents


Cyber issues,

Back to Table of Contents


Drug trafficking

Back to Table of Contents


and other such issues.
Back to Table of Contents