Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram must be complimented for the loud thinking he did on India’s internal security administration and counter-terrorism machinery. His key proposal to create an internal security czar, to whom all agencies dealing with internal security issues report, is well taken. The implied criticism that today there are parallel centres of authority is also correct. The proposal to create a National Counter-terrorism Centre (NCTC) that will prevent, contain and respond to terrorist attacks is also well taken. There are two aspects to Mr Chidambaram’s proposals — first, a reform and restructuring of his own ministry; second, institutional changes that involve other ministries, including the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat. As Home Minister, Mr Chidambaram has already done a lot to revitalise a moribund ministry that has suffered for long due to a lack of imaginative leadership. If he believes there is more to be done, he should get on with the job. If he needs Cabinet approval for his proposals, he should seek it. But why give a public lecture on what needs to be done? If the real problem is one of inter-ministerial and inter-agency turf battles, they cannot be settled through public debates either. Mr Chidambaram is correct when he says parallel centres of authority and parallel institutions have made the task of countering terrorism and other internal security threats far too complicated with no one taking ultimate responsibility. But the public would like to know what is being done about it rather than be told that there is a problem that needs addressing!
There are two issues that Mr Chidambaram’s proposals raise. The first is whether the head of the proposed NCTC will become an all-powerful security and intelligence czar with too much concentration of power and authority. Is this good and necessary? It is not an accident that the institutional evolution in the security area has deliberately created multiple, if regrettably parallel, centres of authority. Internal checks and balances within the security apparatus are helpful to the functioning of democratic governments. It is dictators who like centralising! Second, countering terrorism is not the only, even if the major, internal security challenge facing India. The institutional response to cross-border and jihadi terrorism has to be very different from that to Naxalism, other forms of extremism, including communalism and casteism, and insurgency. These are all very different internal security challenges. Finally, dealing with national and inter-state issues that have law and order implications, like the situation in Andhra Pradesh today, is also an internal security problem. A good home minister with access to adequate intelligence and the ability to deal with law and order problems in different parts of the country can make a difference to dealing with complex political challenges. In such matters, political wisdom, administrative experience and intelligent use of time as a healer can go a longer way than just super efficient and centralised reporting and response systems, and knee-jerk reactions.
