The Home Ministry is possibly the most crucial cabinet portfolio after the prime minister’s seat. Under Narendra Modi's leadership, veteran Bharatiya Janata Party stalwart Rajnath Singh bagged the coveted spot on Raisina Hill, an appointment that was widely predicted during post-poll speculation in the capital, New Delhi.
Singh played the part of Modi's right-hand man for much of the former Gujarat chief minister's gruelling campaign. But Singh did much more than help with Modi's election trail; he was effectively Team Modi's chief executive, managing the power games and personality clashes erupting in the party and, above all, placating the old guard’s resentment toward Modi’s popularity and apprehension about their status.
For many days after the BJP-led National Democratic Front swept the election, Singh said that he would be glad to continue as the party president and was not angling for a cabinet berth. Yet he got possibly the most important cabinet position, besides the prime minister's, and accepted it with great alacrity.
But many people did advise him against moving to Raisina Hill's North Block, where the ministry is located, and to stay on as the party president, a position they said was more powerful than a cabinet berth. But Singh has his own political ambitions and the cabinet berth certainly has greater national prestige.
Today, it's unclear why exactly Modi’s right-hand man is in the government, especially after Singh's outburst last week following reports that his son had been upbraided by the prime minister for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for arranging police postings. The battle for that primacy is between Singh and Arun Jaitley, the finance minister who is doubling up as defence minister, both wily politicians who know how to navigate the BJP and its various spheres of influence.
Systemic change
Setting aside the politics within politics, the Home Ministry could do with systematic change. Yet it is precisely where this may be the most difficult to accomplish because it handles issues directly linked to society, politics and indeed the very idea of India, besides having the massive logistical task of ensuring security within the country.
Some problems the Home Ministry faces today are institutional. These problems have been exploited by consecutive governments for their own political and at times personal ends. Opposition politicians are known to complain, for example, about the government of the day using the Intelligence Bureau, which falls under the ambit of the Home Ministry, to illegally tap their phones, particularly before and during elections.
Some experts say too much power is concentrated in the Home Ministry, especially in matters relating to terrorism and counter-terrorism, where not enough authority has been delegated to states. But changing this may be politically impossible because national parties are likely to close ranks on this one issue, with both the government and opposition likely to oppose a dilution of the Home Ministry’s authority in favour of state governments.
In addition to a clear structure outlining the role of the centre and states in maintaining internal security, reforming the IB is crucial, say experts. The IB, they say, needs more independence for it to become free of political interference and more effective in internal security matters.
“There is a need for the IB to be detached from the Home Ministry and to be made an independent entity reporting to the prime minister via the national security advisor," said Manoj Joshi, a distinguished fellow at the think tank Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. "The IB should also slowly forget its police heritage and become a true intelligence organisation. There should be a separate internal security minister."
India needs a new federal-state compact for counterterrorism operations and dealing with federal crimes, Joshi said. "Right now, the states resent the central government encroaching on their authority," he said. "May be a new internal security legislation to sharply define the responsibilities of the different stakeholders would help. But the legislation should avoid the mistakes of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which did not provide for enough checks to prevent their misuse.”
The Maoist challenge
Maoism is the other internal security matter that remains a top priority for the Home Ministry. Maoism was listed as one of the biggest threats to the country, according to a report released in June by the Institute of Economics and Peace, a think tank in Sydney, Australia. The report also found that violence had cost India's economy $177 billion in 2013.
As experience has shown, dealing with Maoism calls for a long-term strategy from the ground up. From 2009, under the leadership of P Chidambaram, who was then home minister, the government launched an all-out offensive against the Maoists through parts of states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and other neighbouring areas known as the red corridor.
But political compulsions and clashes between the Centre and the affected states, many ruled by opposition parties impeded security operations, while the Maoists met violence with violence, leading to significant casualties in the Central Reserve Police Force. Finally, in 2012, Chidambaram said the government was fighting a "losing battle" with the insurgents.
"Maoism is a political problem," said Observer Research Foundation's Joshi. "Wherever it involves militancy, it should be fought as such, but otherwise it requires a more complex strategy, involving infrastructure development, tribal rights, good governance, good ground intelligence and counter-insurgency."
“The CRPF and paramilitary units are simply not good enough to fight the Maoists," he said. "Better units modelled on the Greyhounds of what used to be Andhra Pradesh are needed." The Greyhounds were a special counter-insurgency force set up by Andhra Pradesh and are widely believed to have helped reduced Maoist activity in the state, although many top Maoist leaders from the state then regrouped in neighbouring states.
So Singh clearly has his work cut out. But his tenure has not got off to the most pleasant of starts. The prime minister's office reportedly now handles most appointments in his ministry, with Singh left only to sign on the dotted line. Therefore, if Singh does not assert himself, change will be driven more by the PMO. Whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen, but what will definitely not be good is a power struggle between the two offices.
To read all Kabir Taneja's pieces evaluating key ministries 100 days after the formation of the new government, click here.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Singh played the part of Modi's right-hand man for much of the former Gujarat chief minister's gruelling campaign. But Singh did much more than help with Modi's election trail; he was effectively Team Modi's chief executive, managing the power games and personality clashes erupting in the party and, above all, placating the old guard’s resentment toward Modi’s popularity and apprehension about their status.
For many days after the BJP-led National Democratic Front swept the election, Singh said that he would be glad to continue as the party president and was not angling for a cabinet berth. Yet he got possibly the most important cabinet position, besides the prime minister's, and accepted it with great alacrity.
But many people did advise him against moving to Raisina Hill's North Block, where the ministry is located, and to stay on as the party president, a position they said was more powerful than a cabinet berth. But Singh has his own political ambitions and the cabinet berth certainly has greater national prestige.
Today, it's unclear why exactly Modi’s right-hand man is in the government, especially after Singh's outburst last week following reports that his son had been upbraided by the prime minister for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for arranging police postings. The battle for that primacy is between Singh and Arun Jaitley, the finance minister who is doubling up as defence minister, both wily politicians who know how to navigate the BJP and its various spheres of influence.
Systemic change
Setting aside the politics within politics, the Home Ministry could do with systematic change. Yet it is precisely where this may be the most difficult to accomplish because it handles issues directly linked to society, politics and indeed the very idea of India, besides having the massive logistical task of ensuring security within the country.
Some problems the Home Ministry faces today are institutional. These problems have been exploited by consecutive governments for their own political and at times personal ends. Opposition politicians are known to complain, for example, about the government of the day using the Intelligence Bureau, which falls under the ambit of the Home Ministry, to illegally tap their phones, particularly before and during elections.
Some experts say too much power is concentrated in the Home Ministry, especially in matters relating to terrorism and counter-terrorism, where not enough authority has been delegated to states. But changing this may be politically impossible because national parties are likely to close ranks on this one issue, with both the government and opposition likely to oppose a dilution of the Home Ministry’s authority in favour of state governments.
In addition to a clear structure outlining the role of the centre and states in maintaining internal security, reforming the IB is crucial, say experts. The IB, they say, needs more independence for it to become free of political interference and more effective in internal security matters.
“There is a need for the IB to be detached from the Home Ministry and to be made an independent entity reporting to the prime minister via the national security advisor," said Manoj Joshi, a distinguished fellow at the think tank Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. "The IB should also slowly forget its police heritage and become a true intelligence organisation. There should be a separate internal security minister."
India needs a new federal-state compact for counterterrorism operations and dealing with federal crimes, Joshi said. "Right now, the states resent the central government encroaching on their authority," he said. "May be a new internal security legislation to sharply define the responsibilities of the different stakeholders would help. But the legislation should avoid the mistakes of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which did not provide for enough checks to prevent their misuse.”
The Maoist challenge
Maoism is the other internal security matter that remains a top priority for the Home Ministry. Maoism was listed as one of the biggest threats to the country, according to a report released in June by the Institute of Economics and Peace, a think tank in Sydney, Australia. The report also found that violence had cost India's economy $177 billion in 2013.
As experience has shown, dealing with Maoism calls for a long-term strategy from the ground up. From 2009, under the leadership of P Chidambaram, who was then home minister, the government launched an all-out offensive against the Maoists through parts of states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and other neighbouring areas known as the red corridor.
But political compulsions and clashes between the Centre and the affected states, many ruled by opposition parties impeded security operations, while the Maoists met violence with violence, leading to significant casualties in the Central Reserve Police Force. Finally, in 2012, Chidambaram said the government was fighting a "losing battle" with the insurgents.
"Maoism is a political problem," said Observer Research Foundation's Joshi. "Wherever it involves militancy, it should be fought as such, but otherwise it requires a more complex strategy, involving infrastructure development, tribal rights, good governance, good ground intelligence and counter-insurgency."
“The CRPF and paramilitary units are simply not good enough to fight the Maoists," he said. "Better units modelled on the Greyhounds of what used to be Andhra Pradesh are needed." The Greyhounds were a special counter-insurgency force set up by Andhra Pradesh and are widely believed to have helped reduced Maoist activity in the state, although many top Maoist leaders from the state then regrouped in neighbouring states.
So Singh clearly has his work cut out. But his tenure has not got off to the most pleasant of starts. The prime minister's office reportedly now handles most appointments in his ministry, with Singh left only to sign on the dotted line. Therefore, if Singh does not assert himself, change will be driven more by the PMO. Whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen, but what will definitely not be good is a power struggle between the two offices.
To read all Kabir Taneja's pieces evaluating key ministries 100 days after the formation of the new government, click here.
