The Hindu : Army and deployment

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 15, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Army and deployment

IT MAY SEEM ironic that such divergent and seemingly irreconcilable views exist between the Centre and the States over the application of an Article of the Constitution that has never been used or availed of. But the divisions in the Inter-State Council's standing committee, over whether the Centre has the right to unilaterally deploy armed forces in the States, are a reflection of a familiar and perhaps understandable tension that results from the quasi-federal nature of the Indian state. Article 355 states that it is the duty of the Centre to protect all States against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the governance of every State is carried on in accordance with the Constitutional provisions. Fearful of a perceived erosion of their authority and worried about the possible misuse of power by an insensitive or partisan Centre, the States want the Army to be deployed only with the "concurrence" of the appropriate State Government. The Centre's argument in favour of retaining the power to deploy troops unilaterally rests on a hypothetical scenario, but a potentially dangerous and not totally inconceivable one. As the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, put it, what happens in the event the Centre feels troops must be deployed and a certain State (particularly sensitive ones such as Jammu and Kashmir or those in the Northeast) simply refuses to concur?

The two major emergency provisions in the Constitution, Article 352 (proclamation of Emergency) and Article 356 (dismissal of a State Government), have been used with devastating effect — the first only once (by Indira Gandhi in 1975 to suspend the very democratic process) and the second numerous times (to dismiss `inconvenient' State Governments). In contrast, Article 355 has never been employed and, unlike other emergency provisions, the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations made no recommendation about altering the scope of its application. The Commission held that in the unusual event where a situation is "fast drifting towards anarchy" or a "physical breakdown of the State administration", the Centre may suo motu deploy its armed forces in order to deal with the internal disturbance and restore public order. In adopting this view, the Commission was concerned about the possibility of a State Government being "unable or unwilling to suppress an internal disturbance" or even refusing to "seek the aid of the armed forces of the Union in this matter". Ordinarily, however, the Commission held that the Union Government should invariably consult and seek the cooperation of the State Government concerned before sending troops in.

Given that there has been no concrete instance of the Centre having deployed the Army suo motu, the disagreement over the scope of Article 355 at this juncture may be of largely academic interest. Modelled on Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which lays down that the Federal Government shall guarantee a republican form of Government in every State, Article 355 has been subjected to relatively little examination or scrutiny. This is partly because it is the subsequent Constitutional provision, the more potent and the frequently misused Article 356, that has plagued Centre-State relations. Also partly because Article 355 is ambiguous about how the Union Government should discharge its obligations of protecting a State. Through mere advice? Through assistance in the shape of materials and finance? Through deployment of the Army to aid the State police? During the communal carnage in Gujarat, the ruling BJP had supported a parliamentary motion that called on the Centre to intervene effectively under Article 355. Despite repeated assurances that the Centre would do everything to fulfil its Constitutional obligations under this Article, the NDA Government did next to nothing towards restoring public order in the State. All in all, it seemed that the Centre had endorsed the Opposition plea for the use of Article 355 in Gujarat only because it knew it would not be held accountable due to the ambiguity of this Constitutional provision.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Army and deployment

Combating paedophilia

The Judiciary

Alternative as dilution

Speed up the peace process