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
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
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