Timely Invervention

There have been several sordid incidents in recent days. Besides the ‘porngate’ in Karnataka, the rape of a young Anglo-Indian lady in Kolkata (that hogged the headlines because of certain remarks by the West Bengal CM considered to be insensitive) and the unprovoked firing by Italian Navy marines killing two Indian fishermen off the coast of Kerala have caused widespread concern. Secularists have been dismayed not just due to the return to power of the Shiv Sena in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation elections but also because of the explanation of political analysts that ‘suggesting to finish off the Sena in Mumbai is indirectly saying you want to undermine the existence of the Marathi manoos’ in the metropolis which is why the SS-BJP alliance worked aggressively to ensure its victory and defeat the Maharashtra CM’s bid to wrest control of the BMC in league with the NCP.

In the midst of such happenings the stiff resistance put up by a large number of CMs to the proposed National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC), on the ground that the powers conferred on that body amounted to an encroachment on the States’ turf, has placed the Centre, and the Union Home Ministry (which mooted the idea) in particular, on the defensive. In the wake of vehement opposition to this entity to counter terror at the national level, best articulated by Orissa CM Navin Patnaik and West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee, its formation on March 1, as was conveyed earlier, has become uncertain. This uncertainty has been heightened following Mamata’s meeting with PM Manmohan Singh in the Capital yesterday and her claim after the discussions that the PM had assured her that the NCTC would be launched only after a consensus was reached with the States over its powers.

Without mincing words Mamata emphatically pointed out that the NCTC proposal “will disturb the federal structure of the country and hence should not be implemented in the present form”. One can take exception to several of the West Bengal CM’s utterances, made in utter haste without due conside-ration of their consequences, but on this issue she was dead correct. The States’ grievances are legiti-mate. The NCTC has been envisaged such as to be empowered to make arrests and conduct searches throughout the country without consulting the State governments. Moreover it is to function as a division of the IB and as such there is valid apprehension of it being politically misused by the Centre against opponents runing some States. In any case, the Union Government—and especially the Home Ministry—should have consulted the States before drafting the NCTC. Now belatedly it would have to go through that very exercise. What was the need on its part to hurriedly make such a thoughtless move creating friction with the States?

Likewise the Union Government needlessly sparked off a controversy over its reported proposal to curb the Election Commission’s power to enforce a model code of electoral conduct. This triggered allround outrage that finally compelled the govern-ment to backtrack. What was being sought to be done was to give statutory backing to the electoral code of conduct; such a step would have prevented the Commission from examining violations of the code which would have had to be tried in a court of law thus making the whole exercise highly time-consuming and hence counterproductive. It is good that the government has eventually clarified that it was not contemplating such a measure. That means the EC’s independence and efficacy remain intact and will not be tampered with.

Timely intervention has helped to preserve the country’s federalism and democracy, the two basic attributes of post-independence India that the nation and its citizens can justifiably be proud of.

February 23 S.C.