The central government has recently set up a commission headed by former Chief Justice of India, M M Punchhi, to take a fresh look at the centre-state relations, which is, in fact, a long-felt need.

Some of its terms of reference, however, have become controversial. They include: (i) the role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the centre vis-à-vis states during major and prolonged outbreaks of communal violence, caste violence or any other social conflict; (ii) the need for setting up a Central Law Enforcement Agency empowered to take up suo moto investigation of crimes that have serious inter-state and/or international implications for national security; and (iii) the feasibility of a supporting legislation under article 355 for the suo moto deployment of central forces in the states, if and when the situation so demands.

These issues are related to law and order which falls under state jurisdiction, and hence, the appointment of the Punchhi commission has resulted in the ruling party and the opposition attacking the terms of reference of the commission. Some states see it as a design to interfere in their internal affairs. Seen objectively, there is no justification for the centre appointing the panel without adequate discussions with the states. However, this controversy has come to an end, at least for now, following an assurance by the Home Minister that the new commission would consult the Chief Ministers and other state leaders before taking any decision on these sweeping powers, including sou moto sending forces to the States.

This has, however, raised several important security issues on which the central government seems helpless: (i) states like Bihar under RJD rule were practically in the medieval age with organized crime becoming an industry. Recent police brutality in Nandigram (West Bengal) has been much written and commented upon; (ii) separatist movements in several parts of the country have become volatile and violent, threatening not only the federal structure, but also posing a great danger to the nation; (iii) communal riots in UP, Maharashtra and Gujarat could not be prevented; and (iv) Left-wing extremists have spread their tentacles over several districts in the country and control a large part of India, mainly in the interior, presenting a great danger to national security. Should the centre not be empowered to intervene on these issues?

The states today enjoy greater autonomy, partly because successive coalitions at the centre have accorded unprecedented weightage to regional parties, but significantly due to economic reforms that have enabled the states to attract large investments. The Union Government's ability to influence events in the states has sharply reduced. It has no jurisdiction currently over criminal offences that affect public order or national security. The complicity of the politicians is increasing. If the state governments are determined to prevent violence, no communal riots or caste violence can occur; in case it does, it can be easily countered. Needless to say, some chief ministers have encouraged communal violence for their selfish political gains. The police has openly supported rioters and criminals.

Article 355 of the Constitution of India makes it a constitutional duty of the Union to protect the states against external aggression and internal disturbance, and ensure that the government of states is carried out in accordance with the Constitution. The responsibility cast on the Union has to be discharged by exercising all the powers at its command before resorting to the ultimate device of imposing President's rule under article 356. There are strong grounds for drafting a supporting legislation under article 355 for deploying central forces in the states if they fail to check widespread communal and caste violence, Left-wing inspired violence and to ensure law and order. Similarly, there is a need to set up a Central Law Enforcement Agency and empower it to investigate inter-state crimes having serious implications for national security. It would be too early, however, to say much as the commission will take two years to complete its work and suggest recommendations.

The big question is: if the existing laws are being violated with such impunity, what will the new laws enacted on the recommendations of the Commission by Parliament achieve? This question cannot be dismissed lightly. Given the deteriorating law and order situation, problems of ethnic conflict and insurgency in several states, the centre must be empowered to intervene through a new legislation. At the same time, the central government's intervention should not be for electoral gains. The Punchhi Commission, while making its recommendations, must ensure that the new supporting legislation for Article 355 is not violated by the central government for political gains, as has been the case with the existing Article 356.