By Inder Jit
(Released on 14 July 1987)
Top level exercises are on once again at New Delhi and Chandigarh to cope with terrorism, which continues to play havoc with our peace-loving people. Appropriately, the Prime Minister, Mr Rajiv Gandhi and the other Government leaders have expressed great horror at the latest savage slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Punjab and Haryana. In addition, the Union Home Minister, Mr Buta Singh, air dashed to the scenes of the gruesome bus shootings. But veteran and reputed administrators candidly feel that little will come out of the latest spurt of activity unless first things are tackled first. Mr Dharma Vira, former Union Cabinet Secretary and former Governor of Punjab, West Bengal and Karnataka, for instance, said to me on Friday: “A Government must govern. It must also be seen to govern. Alas, this has not been happening for some time now. There seem to be no priorities—and too much of ad hocism and fire-fighting. We need to take a leaf out of Sardar Patel’s book. He said what he meant and meant what he said. This earned the Sardar nation-wide respect and enabled him to govern this country firmly”.
There is no denying the fact that terrorism is not easy to tackle. A terrorist chooses his victim or victims at will—as also the place and timing of the crime. Further, no Government can possibly post policemen at every single meter of its territory, nor has it the whe-rewhithal to do so. What, however, enables any Government to ensure peace and security is what has been called down the centuries as its “waqar” or “roaab”-namely respect, reputation and fear. The older among our fellow citizens often recall nostalgically some great boons of the British Raj. For one thing, the dreaded thuggery. For another, law and order was ensured. No one during those times dared so much as touch the uniform of a policeman, let alone take a shot at him. The reason was simple. The people were left in no doubt that the entire might of the British empire would come crashing down on their heads if they committed even a technical assault on the guardians of law and order. But things have undergone a sea change. Even stern warnings from the highest in the Government have lost meaning.
Tragically, fighting terrorism has not received the priority it deserves. Indeed, if the truth be told, it continues to receive an incredibly low priority, notwithstanding tall claims. The National Police Commission, which was headed by Mr Dharma Vira and included Mr K.F. Rustamji and Mr N.S. Saksena, two of India’s finest policemen, was keen to devote a whole chapter to terrorism in its reports. But the Centre was not interested. Mr Rustamji himself told me some two years ago: “Before we could conclude the work of the Police Commission, we got a letter from the Home Ministry that we should wind up our work. We informed the Ministry that we had made studios on important subjects like terrorism and security on railways, and we thought we should include subjects like para-military forces and intelligence. But the Home Ministry said in an abrupt reply that all this was unnecessary and that we must complete our work immediately. Five years ago there was some complacency regarding terrorism. This probably accounts for it.” Clearly, those who took this view showed lack of foresight. Terrorism had already raised its ugly head.
Meanwhile, the police and its capacity to maintain order has gravely declined. No, this is not an off-the-cuff personal opinion. The view is shared by some of India’s most respected and experienced administrators, according to an informal poll conducted by me over the past week. Among other things, opinion appears agreed that the police force has been, more or less, rendered ineffective during the past two decades. Much of the problem has arisen because of political interference. What is more, even the armed police has been greatly emasculated. Nothing reflects this more than increasing dependence on the army and para-military forces for maintaining peace and order. Time and again, the Army has been called in by the civil power in preference to the armed police and the para-military forces. Worse, the army’s help is being sought not for short periods but for months, even years at end. All this is being done without the slightest efficiency in the process? Should this work not be done by the para-military forces?
Ironically, the present culture of the police system, according to the Dharma Vira Commission, “appears to be a continuation of what obtained under the British regime when the police functioned ruthlessly as an agent for sustaining the Government in power.” (The Police Commission of 1860 had observed that the organised police as proposed by them would be “politically more useful.”) Equally ironically, the system has not moved far since the days of the Indian Police Commission of 1902-03. This Commission found the police far from efficient, defective in training and organisation, and one which was generally regarded as “corrupt and oppressive.” It concluded that “the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the Government, and that radical reforms are urgently necessary…” The Dharma Vira Commission commented: “What the Police Commission said in 1903 appears more or less equally applicable to the conditions obtaining in the police force today.”
That is not all. Only last week, Mr Saksena, who was IG of police, UP, and later Director General of CRP before he was appointed a member of the Police Commission, went on record to confirm something that has been happening for long. He wrote: “Fighting terrorism is quite low on our priority. The first priority of the rulers is to ensure, in the light of their own perception, that votes are not lost… The second priority is that their own party members—many of them are goondas —-are not harmed. The third priority is to ensure that maximum damage is inflicted on the Government’s political opponents. Maintenance of law and order comes only after this.” In fact, he went on to assert that the ruling party politicians did not need a popular police. Instead, they needed “a stooge police force 365 days a year for their needs.” The National Police Commission, for its part, discovered that police officers and policemen had been frequently and arbitrarily transferred, mostly as a means of punishment and harassment. An average period of stay in the same post for Inspector or General of Police between 1973 and 1977 was one year and eight months!
Terrorist activity is linked with the problem of unlicensed arms and the violation of the Arms Act. The Commission found an increasing trend to use firearms in the commission of offences. The crimes involving use of firearms was found to be the highest in UP, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan. More than 80 per cent of the arms used in offences in 1972 and 1974 were found to be unlicensed. A sharp increase of 109.5 per cent was recorded in the registration of cases under the Arms Act in 1977 as compared to 1972.
Among the States, UP showed the highest volume of Arms (2010) (Perhaps Punjab now leads all.) The Commission was clearly of the view that there was urgent need for reforms in the Arms Act, preferably, a new Arms Act. Among other things, the Commission expressed itself in favour of making the Arms Act more stringent and prescribing severer punishments. In the UK, possessing a firearm with the intent to endanger life, or using a firearm to resist arrest carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Should we not go one step further in combating terrorists?
Much of the terrorism in Punjab today springs from the demand for Khalistan, especially from the youth. Not many among them know that the issue came up for discussion between Nehru and Master Tara Singh, as disclosed by Durga Das in his memoirs: India from Curzon to Nehru And After. He recalls that a deputation of which Bakshi Tok Chand, Lala Yodhraj and he were members, waited on Nehru on September 20, 1947 in the Ministry of External Affairs and urged him to ask the Sikh refugees to state categorically whether they wished to have a small province of their own. The deputationists did not want this problem to take a serious turn later. Nehru replied “that Master Tara Singh had met him the previous day and that he had asked the Sikh leader whether his community wanted Khalistan (a Sikh State). Pandit Nehru said he had never seen Master Tara Singh so crestfallon as on that day. The Sikh leader vehemently protested against any idea of Khalistan and said that the Sikhs, being a very small section of the people of India, would not pick any quarrel with them. They wished to remain citizens of India and live with the Hindus as brothers.”
Several themes resonate even more strongly now:
- The need for a police force protected from political interference.
The article highlights how frequent transfers, patronage, and political pressures undermine policing. This issue continues to be debated in India, where calls for police reforms, autonomy, and insulation from political misuse remain unresolved.
- The challenge of terrorism and internal security.
While the specific context of Punjab in the 1980s has changed, the broader question-how the State should maintain authority (“waqar” or “roaab”) without losing democratic legitimacy-remains central in dealing with insurgencies, extremism, and organised crime.
- Institutional inertia.
The text criticizes the reluctance of governments to act on recommendations of expert commissions. This pattern persists: commissions still produce detailed reports on police reform, federalism, intelligence coordination, and criminal justice-but implementation often lags.
- Balancing firmness with political wisdom.
The article argues that while strength and decisive action are necessary, so is building trust with alienated communities. This duality remains at the heart of contemporary internal security policy.
Political wisdom demands that this basic unity and brotherhood between the Hindus and the Sikhs is preserved at all costs—and that meaningful steps are taken to win back the hearts and minds of those who have unfortunately chosen to take to the destructive path of violence and bloodshed. At the same time, there is need to take both short-term and long-term measures to combat terrorism and to tackle it with an iron hand. Surprisingly, little appears to have been done so far to implement many common sense suggestions made inside Parliament and outside. These include provision of armed escorts and wire-less on buses, movement through terrorist-prone areas in convoys and use of helicopters for tracking down offenders against humanity. The Dharma Vira Commission could perhaps be revived briefly to go into the question of terrorism and submit a report which it was ill-advisedly prevented from preparing. Above all, the Prime Minister and his colleagues should be clear on one basic point. There is no substitute for strength and action and for sending the right signals. Ultimately, a Government must govern.— INFA