Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, through the Seventh Schedule, clearly demarcates law and order as a State subject, granting states the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security within their territories. However, a seemingly paradoxical trend has emerged in recent decades: a significant increase in the deployment of para-military forces (like the CRPF, BSF, CISF) and other security forces under the Union Government within state boundaries. This expansion of central security presence, despite constitutional provisions, raises questions about the evolving dynamics of Indian federalism and the changing nature of internal security challenges. The rise of Naxalism, insurgency in the Northeast, and cross-border terrorism have all contributed to this increased reliance on central forces.
Reasons for the Paradox
Several factors contribute to this apparent contradiction between constitutional provisions and ground realities:
- Internal Security Threats: The proliferation of insurgencies (Northeast, J&K), Naxalism (central India), and the threat of terrorism necessitate the intervention of central forces equipped with specialized training and resources. States often lack the capacity to effectively counter these threats independently.
- Capacity Deficits in State Police: Many state police forces suffer from deficiencies in manpower, training, equipment, and intelligence gathering capabilities. This compels states to request assistance from central forces. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) highlighted the need for modernization and capacity building of state police forces.
- Political Considerations: Central forces are sometimes deployed at the request of state governments facing political instability or seeking to suppress dissent. This can be seen as a tool for central intervention in state affairs.
- Economic Factors: The presence of central forces can be linked to areas rich in natural resources, where conflict arises over resource control and distribution. This is particularly evident in Naxal-affected regions.
- Inter-State Disputes: Central forces are often deployed to maintain peace during inter-state disputes, particularly those involving boundary issues or water sharing.
- Border Management: Forces like the BSF are crucial for border management and preventing trans-border crime, which is a Union responsibility.
Constitutional Provisions and Their Limitations
While the Constitution designates law and order as a State subject (Article 246), the Union Government has certain powers that allow it to intervene:
- Article 355: This article obligates the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance. This provides a constitutional basis for deploying central forces in states facing serious threats.
- Article 356 (President’s Rule): In cases of constitutional breakdown in a state, the President can impose President’s Rule, giving the Union Government direct control over law and order.
- All India Services (AIS): Officers of the Indian Police Service (IPS) are allocated to states, but they can be recalled by the Union Government in certain circumstances.
- Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) Act, 1948: This Act provides the legal framework for raising and deploying CAPFs.
However, these provisions are often subject to interpretation and political considerations. The deployment of central forces is often negotiated between the Union and State governments, leading to complexities and potential friction.
Consequences of Increased Central Security Presence
The growing reliance on central security forces has several consequences:
- Erosion of Federalism: Excessive central intervention can undermine the autonomy of states and erode the principles of federalism.
- Strain on Centre-State Relations: Disagreements over the deployment and control of central forces can lead to tensions between the Union and State governments.
- Accountability Issues: Determining accountability for actions taken by central forces operating in states can be challenging.
- Impact on Local Policing: The presence of central forces can sometimes hinder the development of effective local policing capabilities.
- Human Rights Concerns: Concerns have been raised about alleged human rights violations by central forces in certain areas.
Recent Trends and Developments
In recent years, the trend of increased central security presence has continued, particularly in states affected by Naxalism and insurgency. The Union Government has also been increasingly using central forces for tasks such as VIP security and maintaining law and order during major events. The creation of the National Security Guard (NSG) in 1984 and the Rapid Action Force (RAF) within the CRPF demonstrate the Union’s focus on specialized counter-terrorism and riot control capabilities.
Conclusion
The increasing presence of central security forces in states, despite law and order being a State subject, is a complex phenomenon driven by a confluence of internal security threats, capacity deficits in state police, and political considerations. While constitutional provisions allow for Union intervention in certain circumstances, it is crucial to strike a balance between maintaining national security and respecting the autonomy of states. Strengthening state police forces, improving Centre-State coordination, and addressing the root causes of conflict are essential steps towards a more sustainable and cooperative approach to internal security management. A clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, coupled with robust accountability mechanisms, is vital to prevent the erosion of federal principles.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.