India: Challenge to federative spirit in Arunachal Pradesh?
Satish Misra
The north eastern state of Arunahcal Pradesh, bordering China, was brought under the central rule on 26 January, the day on which the nation celebrated its Republic Day.
The imposition of the President’s rule using the much decried and highly controversial Article 356 of the Constitution on a state where a democratically- elected government was in place throws up many questions, both political and constitutional. It also raises doubts about the promises made by the present-day ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) about strengthening the federal set-up, made during the 2014 poll campaign. The mantra of “cooperative federalism” was used extensively in the electoral discourse of the prominent leaders of the BJP, including the prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, now the PM.
The Union Cabinet, chaired by PM Modi, held a meeting on Sunday, 24 January, and invoked Article 356 to recommend the central rule on Arunachal Pradesh. President Pranab Mukherjee gave his assent after a day on Tuesday after seeking clarifications from Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh. The Centre’s notification said:”Taking cognizance of the constitutional breakdown that has taken place in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Union Cabinet” had recommended to the President to issue such a proclamation.
According to Article 356 of the Constitution, President’s rule can be imposed in a state “if a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.
Severe criticism
The imposition of the Central rule on a state which had democratically-elected government has come under severe criticism from the non-NDA parties but the BJP led government has defended its move saying that the state was facing a constitutional crisis and there was a breakdown of law and order.
Whether the Modi government was right in recommending President’s rule on Arunachal Pradesh or not, will be decided by the Supreme Court as the petition challenging the central rule filed by Assembly Speaker Nabam Rebia is being currently heard.
Notwithstanding the final judgment of the Supreme Court, a couple of observations by the justices on the five-judge constitutional bench are worth taking note of. The bench observed that State governors on whose ‘advise’ President’s rule is imposed, are political appointees and therefore cannot have unbridled powers.
In an yet another intervention, the Supreme Court took strong note of a submission that all decisions of the Governor are not open to judicial review and said it cannot be a mute spectator when democratic processes are being “slaughtered”.
Vertical split
In order to understand the issue, a closer look at the political developments in the state needs to be taken. The Congress has been ruling the state with the support of 47 MLAs in the 60-member Assembly. First signs of a crisis surfaced when Chief Minister Nabam Tuki sacked his Finance Minister Kaiko Pul. This led to a vertical split within the Congress legislature party, with 21 of the 47 legislators rebelling against the Chief Minister.
The rebel Congress legislators have openly sided with the 11 legislators of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and two independent MLAs to unseat Tuki. They have been accusing the Chief Minister of financial mismanagement and corruption.
In a pre-emptive move against the rebels convening the Assembly on the Governor’s order, the Tuki government locked down the legislature building and the Speaker disqualified 14 out of the 21 dissidents to bring down the numbers required for a majority against the Government.
It is worth noting that disqualification under the anti-defection law is subject to judicial review and the rebels could have challenged the Speaker’s order in the court of law. Instead, the Deputy Speaker, a dissident himself, moved hurriedly to revoke their disqualification.
All the rebels along with 11 BJP and two independent MLAs held a ‘sitting’ of the ‘Assembly’ at a community centre to impeach the Speaker and the next day they gathered at a hotel to pass a “no-confidence” motion against the Tuki government. They also elected the sacked finance minister as the new leader to make him eligible for the chief minister’s chair.
Governor J P Rajkhowa gave permission to law-makers to hold a meeting at makeshift place. The Chief Minister and the Speaker had declared both the meetings as “illegal and unconstitutional”.
Floor-test
It must be said that the Speaker should have held an Assembly session by January 14, but the political crisis started developing in December itself when rebels became active seeking support from the BJP law-makers.
The Tuki government would have lost in the event of a floor test but it appears that there was some urgency to the act as the Governor stepped in to reschedule the state Assembly session from January 4 to December 16. The Governor asked Deputy Speaker T N Thongdok to take up the motion seeking the removal of Speaker Rebia from the post. Rebia retaliated by expelling 14 MLAs.
Forced by the series of developments, the two sides approached Gauhati High Court. Speaker Nebia obtained a major relief on December 18 when the Gauhati High Court directed the Governor’s order to be kept in abeyance till February 1, 2016. Through a subsequent order, the court stopped the Speaker from holding any session till January 4.
Crux of the issue
The Supreme Court was approached and the case has been referred to a constitution bench. The bench has begun to deliberate upon the entire sequence of events leading to the imposition of the President’s rule on the state.
In a prima facie comment during the hearing of several pleas over the imposition of the President’s rule in the state, the bench headed by Justice J S Kehar wondered whether the Governor could act in his discretion in convening the Assembly session.
And this point is the crux of the whole issue. An answer to this would resolve many issues as the Centre had appointed Rajkhowa as the Governor of the state in May, 2015 after shifting Lt-Gen (Retd) Nirbhay Sharma from Itanagar to Aizwal. It was said at that time that the state BJP leaders were not happy with Gen Sharma and that is why Rajkhowa, an Assamese by birth, was brought to the Itanagar Raj Bhavan. Was it so important to bring in a new Governor in the Congress-ruled state?
Blame-game
Such moves raise doubts on the BJP-ruled Centre’s belief in the federal principles, about which there was so much talk during the Lok Sabha elections. Since independence, there have been 124 instances of President’s rule being imposed on states. This includes six times on JJammu and Kashmir and 10 instances of the central rule in Manipur. It is for the second time that Arunachal Pradesh has come under the President’s rule with first being imposed in November 1979 which lasted till January 1980.
A detailed analysis of all instances of the President’s rule being imposed since the promulgation of the Constitution shows that the Congress has used Article 356 for 88 times during its 54 years of its being in power at the Centre, while non-Congress governments (NDA, Janata Party, etc) have imposed central rule 36 times during a total of 14 years in power.
Notwithstanding the statics or indulging in blame-game, bringing Arunachal Pradesh under central rule appears to be a case of violation of the federative principles. The judgement of highest court of the land, hopefully, will clear many lingering doubts on the use of the Article 356 though its earlier judgement in S R Bommai versus Union of India had clarified many issues.
(Dr. Satish Misra is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)
Afghanistan: Making ‘Operation Resolute Support’ to work
Kriti M. Shah
Afghanistan seems to be slowly and steadily losing its war on terror. The year 2015 was the bloodiest year of fighting in Afghanistan since the US-led international intervention in 2001. The resurgence of the Taliban, the arrival of the ‘Islamic State’ coupled with political bickering and corruption in Kabul have caused an increase in effective insurgent attacks and higher security forces and Taliban casualties.
The Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF), a term for the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP), require immediate solutions for its chronic problems that are causing an overall security deterioration in the country. With the change in timeline for the withdrawal of the US troops, ‘Operation Resolute Support’ must use the time given to address the existing gaps in the nation’s security infrastructure.
‘Operation Resolute Support’ began on 1 January 2015 with the goal to “train, advise, and assist” the ANSF for them to assume their security functions of defeating insurgency, protecting the population from internal and external attacks and maintaining overall security in the country. The ANDSF has demonstrated its ability to hold territory once cleared by insurgents.
But without the same level of coordination and intelligence-support as before, they continue to remain in a defensive position, limiting their agility across the country and their ability to take new ground. In addition poor logistics, maintenance, operation planning, gaps in delivering aerial support and deficiencies in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) have all eroded the credibility of the ANDSF and undermined the government in Kabul.
Centralisation issue
Another fundamental problem with the Afghan security forces has been the centralisation of government and administrative positions, which has resulted in a strong patronage system centred in Kabul. As a result of this, many generals and military leaders are appointed based on their political affiliations. They then use their positions of influence to enrich themselves by appropriating large amounts of donor and resource money for themselves. This is done by selling fuel earmarked for the army and taking the salaries of ‘ghost’ soldiers who do not exist.
The lack of Afghan air-support assets has been another shortfall of the ANDSF that has proven to be a great boost Taliban insurgency. Dominated by patronage networks and factional interests the security forces also tend to prevent information or intelligence from being distributed the way it should. Officials tend to not share knowledge, apprehensive that it might give other security forces an advantage in the internal competition.
All of these issues combined with increasing insurgent threats have lead the ANDSF to suffer a loss of more than 20,000 soldiers in 2014 due to death, injuries and desertions. At the present rate such trends will not only worsen the security situation but also lead to a failure of Operation Resolute Support.
Ensuring air-support
The US and NATO should ensure that the ‘Operation’ focuses on the critical areas where the ANDSF is lacking. Their support should range from short term needs such as air support and intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance to long term requirements such as institutional development on planning, budgeting and training. While the fledgling Afghan air force has already taken on responsibilities, ‘Operation Resolute Support’ should focus on developing a quality cadre of air commanders capable of delivering close air support and medical evacuations.
In addition, structural reforms within the bureaucracy and the armed forces are also desperately needed. The government must work to bolster a transparent and systemic ANDSF recruitment and vetting process given the nepotistic nature of the present forces.
With the support of the US and NATO, Kabul should also build logistical, maintenance and supply chain systems that rely on civil servants and not politicians serving their own selfish needs. By making the financial management systems of Ministry of Defence (that looks after the ANA) and the Ministry of Interior (that regulates the ANP) more transparent, the government can ensure that donor-driven funds and aid are being used effectively and are not siphoned off at the source.
Community-policing
In addition to the institutional changes, the ANP should move towards a community policing model that relies on building relationship and trust with the villages and communities they protect. While the popularity of the Taliban has decreased over the years, the Taliban still hold loyalties in the hearts of many citizens residing in rural areas and other traditional Taliban strongholds.
The ANP should focus on changing this mindset and building a relationship with citizens in such fragile areas. Effective engagement at all levels of the community will enable better information and intelligence gathering and will help the ANP address conflicts and skirmishes at a local level before they escalate.
Leaders must also show flexibility in incorporating the country’s ethnic and tribally diverse population into the national security architecture. This can be done by localising the security apparatus to ensure that that the police protect local community ties and that such communities believe that the police force can be held accountable.
Despite progress in operational planning, there is no Afghan-led mechanism that is in place to link management of personnel, resources and objectives. The Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan (LOTFA) which is tasked with managing international funds to pay the salaries of Afghan police officers, has made significant improvements in its latest July 2015 programme.
However, there is still no course of action for transferring fund management to Afghan ownership. ‘Operation Resolute Support’ should therefore assist the Afghan government in taking ownership of its own funds and aid, enabling them with the skills needed to create, allocate and enforce budgets and deliver salaries to troops.
Overall, it is of vital importance that the US maintains troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016 to train, advice and assist their Afghani counterparts. They should ensure that international aid focuses on development of the ANDSF as well as on human capital, including education and literacy training for officers in the ANA and the ANP.
By focussing on institution-building and addressing bureaucratic inefficiencies, the US can hope to strengthen the ministries’ abilities to manage the complex security organisations in an increasingly threatening security environment. In turn, all this can help make ‘Operation Resolute Support’ a resounding success.
(Kriti M. Shah is a Research Assistant at Observer Research Foundation in Delhi)
Country Reports
Afghanistan
Economic corridor with India
No comments:
Post a Comment