The multitude of security threats India faces – Islamist terrorism, left-wing extremism, communal violence, ethnic violence, espionage, secession movements, border security on six international borders, and drug trafficking, to name a few – necessitates an effective and coordinated mechanism designed to deal with related issues and situations on the homeland. The Ministry of Home Affairs is the primary federal agency tasked with the maintenance of internal security in India. The Department of Internal Security (“the Department”) within the ministry is responsible for carrying out this mandate. The department works in close coordination with the Department of States, Department of Home, Department of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, and the Department of Border Management, all within the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and the seemingly endless Naxalite insurgency, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and consequently the Department of Internal Security, have come under increasing media and public scrutiny and pressure to undertake reforms to enhance its effectiveness. 

The need for an internal security department can be traced back to the Constitution of India. The Constitution holds the states responsible for “public order” and “police.” However, Article 355 of the Constitution dictates that the federal government protect the states against external aggression and internal threats, and to ensure the continuity of a functioning state government (in accordance with the Constitution). A department dealing with internal security issues under the aegis of the Ministry of Home Affairs would aid in fulfilling these constitutional requirements.

Article 77 of the Indian Constitution states that “The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business.” In 1961, Rajendra Prasad, the first president of independent India, established rules for the day-to-day functioning of the Indian government. The exact origins of the department can be traced back to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. The rules serve as a blueprint for how the executive branch will carry out its day-to-day duties. It stipulates, “The business of the Government of India shall be transacted in Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and Offices.” After discussions with then Home Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, the rules established a Department of Internal Security under the Home Ministry and tasked it with the maintenance of federal police and law and order.

Right from the outset, the rules delegated to the department an extensive array of responsibilities. Broadly, it was responsible for:

• Police, which included the paramilitary forces under the Home Ministry, Indian Police Service as well as various police-directed initiatives;
• Law and order dealing with the then developing problems of insurgency and terrorism, VIP and government building security, immigration enforcement, dealing with issues pertaining to the protectorate of Sikkim and territory of future Nagaland, and infrastructure security;
• Rehabilitation. In accordance with its immigration duties, the department was to be the primary agency for dealing with refugees, illegal immigrants, and repatriated Indian nationals as well work on displacement and compensation issues arising from the partition of India and Pakistan. The department was also put in charge of negotiating with Pakistan on these issues.
• The department was also responsible for the administration of various existing legislation such as the Official Secrets Act. 1929, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, and the Arms Act, 1959.

The evolution of internal security threats to India along with its changing role in the world resulted in an expansion of the department’s duties and powers. This was primarily done through legislative means by putting the department in charge of administering various agencies and acts and laws. Such legislation included the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal Act, and the more recent Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. Other legislation established the various central paramilitary forces and agencies whereas other authorized operational and/or administrative control of these forces to the Home Ministry (e.g.: the Assam Rifles Act, the Central Industrial Security Force Act, the National Security Guard Act, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, etc).

The primary responsibility of the department is to safeguard the homeland. Its responsibilities include maintaining the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Central Police Forces (see ‘Autonomous or Attached Bodies’ section), countering terrorist and Naxalite threats, counterinsurgency, protecting vital infrastructure, internal intelligence and counterintelligence, immigration and visa issues, and background checks. Within the Home Ministry, internal security duties are further split up by divisions.

Internal Security-I Division

This section handles internal security and law and order, which includes Islamist terrorism, Naxalism, terrorist financing, policy and operational issues on terrorism, counterterrorism, monitoring Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence and other foreign intelligence activities.

Internal Security-II Division

Oversees issues pertaining to arms and explosives, narcotics (including the Narcotics Control Bureau), extradition, and the National Security Act.

Police-I Division

Handles the Indian Police Service IPS, the branch of India’s three major bureaucracies that controls law enforcement in India. Like the other two branches, candidates are selected through exams. 

Police-II Division

Deals with matters pertaining to the Central Armed Police Forces (CPF), whose eight police forces are deployed for tasks that range from containing various domestic insurgencies to guarding railways.

Police Modernization Division

This division aims to modernize the Central Police Forces by procuring and providing state of the art equipment and other materials needed to perform effectively, and by instituting measures and policies to strengthen overall capabilities. The division is also charged with VIP security as well as security at certain vital installations and religions shrines (except the hotly disputed Ram Janam Bhumi / Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya).

Border Management Division

Works on matters involving the coordination of actions among the country’s various administrative, diplomatic, intelligence, security, and other vested agencies for the management of India’s borders.

Freedom Fighters & Rehabilitation Division

Manages the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme and administers assistance to refugees from Sri Lanka and Tibet.

Jammu & Kashmir Division

Handles militancy and security issues in this disputed region, which is mostly controlled by India but also has significant territory in Pakistan and China.

North East Division

Handles the internal security, deals with the various militancies and security issues in the ethnically East Asian region, where several low intensity insurgencies continue to simmer.

Naxal Management Division

Handles among other things, monitors the security situation in Naxal-affected states as well the measures adopted by those states.

The Department’s biggest achievement, arguably, has been a net reduction of violent incidents in Jammu & Kashmir and the northeastern states. Data provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs reveals that in Jammu & Kashmir, from 2004 onwards, there has been a steady decline in the number of incidents, number of security forces personnel and civilians killed as well the number of terrorists killed. A large part of this has been due to the deployment of the Central Police Forces in affected states, the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme of the Ministry that reimburses states for broadly defined security related costs as well other measures instituted by the central government through the Home Ministry. States affected by left-wing extremism have not shown improvement in their security situations; this has resulted in a reinvigorated effort by the central government to adopt a more efficacious strategy.

Jammu & Kashmir has received over Rs. 3,000 crore ($599 million USD) under SRE since 1989; for 2010, it received Rs. 354.90 crore ($71 million USD). A new program announced in March 2010 provided up to Rs. 10 lakhs ($20,000 USD) for property damage. Substantial amounts of money have also been devoted to the J&K police modernization programs. On a similar note, the northeastern states of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya received Rs. 2024.09 crore ($404 million USD) from 2000-01 to 2010-11 for SRE. The six states mentioned above plus Mizoram and Sikkim also received a total of Rs. 1599.35 crore ($319 million USD) for state police modernization from 2000-01 to 2010-11. For states hit by left wing extremism, Rs. 580 crore ($115.8 million USD) was set-aside for SRE in 2011.

Along with the Indian Army, CPF have been heavily deployed in sensitive security regions. Deployed CPF include the National Security Guard (counter-terrorism and other special operations in all areas), the Central Reserve Police Force (deployed throughout the country), Border Security Force (in Jammu and Kashmir), the Assam Rifles (in the northeastern states) , and the Central Industrial Security Force (for the protection of vital infrastructure). Under the leadership of the Department of Internal Security, 73 battalions of CPF were deployed to states affected by left wing extremism – Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Additionally, the Central government has sanctioned 37 India Reserve (IR) Battalions for states affected by left-wing extremism and 51 for the northeastern states at a cost of about Rs. 27 crore ($5.4 million USD) for each raised battalion. A total of 15 Counter Insurgency and Anti Terrorist (CIAT) Schools have also been set up in states affected by left wing extremism.

In all three conflict areas (Jammu & Kashmir, Northeastern states, and states affected by left-wing extremism), the Ministry of Home Affairs, in conjunction with other ministries and state governments, has undertaken development programs aimed at addressing the underlying socio-economic causes of the violence.

The Department of Internal Security, through the CPF, is also responsible for guarding India’s borders with six countries. In this respect, the department works in partnership with the Department of States, Department of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, and the Department of Border Management. The Assam Rifles guards the Indo-Burma border, the Border Security Force guards the Indo-Pakistan and the Indo-Bangladesh borders (75 battalions along 1185 border out posts), the Indo-Tibetan Border Police guards the Indo-China border, and the Sahastra Seema Bal (Special Services Bureau) guards the Indo-Nepal (450 border out posts) and Indo-Bhutan borders.

Taking into account the responsibilities of the department, it can be inferred that Intelligence Bureau (IB), India’s internal intelligence and security agency, is a part of, if not under, the Department of Internal Security. IB is responsible for intelligence collection within Indian borders and along the border areas, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, VIP security, infrastructure protection, and background checks for security clearances. These tasks also fall under Internal Security-I Division’s jurisdiction. 

The Department has taken proactive steps to strengthen the internal security structure. A significant part of this is bolstering CPF manpower, capabilities, and equipment. An estimated 38 Central Reserve Police Force and 20 Border Security Force battalions are slated to be added. Four new National Security Guard hubs, one each in Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Kolkata, were created to facilitate their timely deployment to crisis situations. A Quick Reaction Team of the National Security Guard is also stationed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi.  Additionally, policy changes are being considered to give more leeway to CPF in matters relating to their usage, finance, and equipment procurement. The Multi Agency Center (MAC) within IB was also augmented to function 24/7. Additionally, to promote cooperation and coordination, an executive order mandated sharing of intelligence by and with MAC. A variety measures aimed at strengthening coastal security have either been implemented or are currently being considered. Other important measures include setting up the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID – which will become operational in January 2013) as well as the progress in creating the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), an executive body designed to integrate and coordinate intelligence nationally.

Attached Offices or Autonomous Bodies

Central Police Forces: The Ministry of Home Affairs is in charge of seven CPFs. These include the Assam Rifles (AR), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP), National Security Guard (NSG), and Sahastra Seema Bal (SSB). Out of the seven, AR, BSF, ITBP, and SSB are tasked primarily with border security duties. CISF provides security at critical infrastructure, both public and private. NSG is a special operations force specializing in counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and anti-hijacking operations. CRPF is the largest paramilitary force in the country and handles a wide range of internal security duties, from the counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency to maintenance of law and order. The Rapid Action Force (RAF) of the CRPF is a specialized arm dealing with riots and crowd control whereas the Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA) was formed to counteract Naxals.  

NATGRID:  The 26/11 attacks in Mumbai highlighted significant structural problems within India’s intelligence and security establishment. One of the major flaws was the lack of information sharing and coordination between the various security agencies. To rectify this, P Chidambaram, Union Minister for Home Affairs, recommended the creation of a centralized database collection called the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) for 11 authorized security, intelligence, and investigative agencies. These agencies include  “Research and Analysis Wing, the Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, Financial Intelligence Unit, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence.” NATGRID aims to link together 21 different databases– “rail and air travel, phone calls, bank accounts, credit card transactions, passport and visa records, PAN cards, voter ID card details, ration card details, land and property records, automobile ownership and driving licenses, degrees from schools and colleges, sale of certain chemicals, and police station and jail records” – and make it accessible to concerned agencies to monitor potential terrorist threats. A fundamental cornerstone of this plan is the Unique Identification assigned to Indian citizens that will enable real time monitoring.  NATGRID was set up as an attached office of the Ministry of Home Affairs in April 2010. The Cabinet Committee on Security approved setting up NATGRID in late December 2011.

National Investigation Agency: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) was created in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Created under the NIA Act, 2008, the agency is tasked with an investigative role. It is currently the “Central Counter Terrorism Law Enforcement Agency” in India. The agency primarily investigates and prosecutes terrorism related crimes, most notably the 26/11 attacks.

The lion’s share of the internal security budget is devoted to police. Out of the about ~Rs. 40,000 crore ($7.9 billion) budget for 2011-2012, Rs. 26,475.30 crore ($.5 billion) was spent on police. Out the money spent on police, CRPF and BSF took up over half of the money. CRPF accounted for Rs. 7,368.79 crore ($1.48 billion) whereas BSF accounted for Rs. 7,628.79 crore ($1.5 billion). Other big police budget consumers were CISF (Rs. 2,930.77 crore - $585 million) and AR (Rs. 2,543.88 crore - $508 million).  For the purposes of the budget, police includes the Central Police Forces as well as other federal agencies and offices involved in internal security. This includes NATGRID, IB, Bureau of Immigration and others. The ‘police’ category does not involve the Delhi Police.

The other major spending categories include the Delhi Police (Rs. 3,309.75 crore - $661 million) and assistance to states (Rs. 1,527.55 crore - $305 million). Assistance to states includes the Security Related Expenditure scheme as well as state police modernization support. Construction of residential accommodation for police cost the government Rs. 2,690.00 crore ($537 million).

The successful completion and operationalization of NATGRID is expected to cost around Rs. 1,200 crore ($240 million). As such, NATGRID will most likely have its budget increased substantially in the 2012-2013 budget.

Human Rights Violations

One of the strongest condemnations of the Central Police Forces has been allegations of human rights violations in their operation areas. Forces stationed in Jammu and Kashmir, the northeastern states, and areas affected by left-wing extremism have come under scrutiny and criticism for their tactics and abuses. Abuses also frequently occur at India’s borders, especially the Indo-Bangladesh border guarded by BSF. Charges include indiscriminate firing on civilians, torture, rape, harassment, extrajudicial killings, use of excessive force, unwarranted accusations, custodial deaths, and murder. The brutal rape and murder of a Manipuri woman, Thangjam Manorama, by the Assam Rifles and the subsequent inability of the Indian judicial system to punish the perpetrators despite a mass uproar has highlighted the power of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act which provides special provisions for armed forces in “disturbed areas.” A Human Rights Watch report in 2010 stated that over 900 Bangladeshis have died from 2001-2010 at the hands of the Border Security Force. Over 250 cases of sexual harassment and corruption had been filed against Central Industrial Security Force personnel between 2001 and 2010. Human rights violations are also rampant among India’s police forces, mostly headed by IPS officers. The lack and inability of the government to rectify and put an end to the spate of abuses has revealed fundamental problems within the internal security apparatus – a dismissive attitude among higher ups, a bureaucratic maze that is almost impossible to navigate, corruption, and a lack of desire to change the status quo.

Over 260 Corruption, Sexual Harassment Cases Against CISF Men (Zee News)

India: New Killings, Torture at Bangladeshi Border (Human Rights Watch)

Broken System: Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police (Human Rights Watch)

CRPF Denies Rights Violations Charge (Times of India)

Armed Forces Special Powers Act: A study in national security tyranny (South Asia Human Rights Documentation Center)

A Culture of Impunity in J&K (by Dilnaz Boga, Daily News & Analysis)

India: Human Rights a Utopia without Justice (Asian Human Rights Commission)

Trigger-happy Border Security Force, Alleges Human Rights Report (InfoChange)

NATGRID

While the Cabinet Committee on Security recently approved setting up NATGRID, the process of getting there, and it seems the future and its dependability, has not been without controversy or debate. The idea originated in the wake of 26/11 attacks. Instead of acting decisively on what could potentially be a critical counter-terrorism tool, the entire project got bogged down in bureaucratic red tape, turf wars, and incompetence. NATGRID’s control by the Home Ministry raised a lot of objection from other intelligence and security agencies and their parent ministries. This was one of main reasons why the approval for the first two phases was not granted till mid-2011, almost 18 months after the Mumbai attacks. Even within the Department, there were turf issues concerning NATGRID. IB strongly opposes the implementation of NATGRID because it believes such a tool would “dilute” its responsibilities and mandate. While the NATGRID budget from 2011-2012 was Rs. 50 crore ($10 million USD), some believe that successful completion will take over Rs.1000 crore ($200 million USD).

Apart from bureaucratic and financial hassles, two operational problems plague NATGRID. The first is concern among officials and the public about privacy. NATGRID would effectively give agencies complete access to an individual’s private data. The potential for misuse for political or personal gain is high. The other problem deals with the purported effectiveness of NATGRID. NATGRID is trumpeted as the ultimate counter-terrorism tool that would have been able to prevent 26/11. However, this is questionable. For example, individuals who are not suspected of ties to terrorism or those who use aliases would be difficult to track.

Modest But Promising (Indian Express)

Turf War Delays National Intelligence Grid Project (Times of India)

A Long Distance From A Fully Secure India (by Dr. Bibhu Prasad Yadav, Eurasia Review)

India to have National Intelligence grid soon: Home Secretary (Jagran Post)

NATGRID may miss a David Headley like person (by Radhavinod Raju, Daily News & Analysis)

NATGRID to be operational by Jan 2013 (Governance Now)

IB chief against P Chidambaram's plan to create NATGRID (by Saikat Datta, Daily News & Analysis)

Establish A Ministry of Internal Security

It has been argued for some time that one of the best ways to reform internal security in India is by setting up a Ministry of Internal Security, something akin to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the United States.  The Ministry of Home Affairs performs both internal security and non-internal security related tasks. One of the criticisms has been that Home Affairs is doing too much, and that a quick fix to this problem is to convert the Department of Internal Security to a Ministry of Internal Security. This would ensure a dedicated internal security entity reporting to the PM without getting intertwined with the other, non-related duties of the Home Ministry.

Wanted: Ministry of Internal Security (by Sushant Singh, Mid-Day)

Should J&K Repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)?

A relatively peaceful 2011 summer in Jammu & Kashmir has reignited the debate over AFSPA. Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has demanded the immediate repeal of AFSPA in certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir.  The AFSPA was passed on September 11, 1958, and granted armed forces more powers and legal protection in certain “disturbed areas.”

Pro-Repeal

It has since been criticized for enabling human rights abuses and violating India’s constitutional protections. Since the provisions of the act protect CPF, this debate has also become Home Ministry’s headache. Human rights defenders say this amounts to a shoot- first-ask-questions-later policy that has left scores of unarmed civilians, who are not militants, dead. There is almost no mechanism to court martial government paramilitary troops for alleged civilian atrocities.  

India: Repeal Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Human Rights Watch)

Anti-Repeal

The Home Ministry shows support for Omar Abdullah’s case. However, elements in the security establishment, notably CRPF and BSF have voiced their concerns over the repeal of the Act. Abdullah’s comments drew sharp criticism from Army leadership with Army Chief General VK Singh stating that a premature repeal will only aid and encourage the growth of terrorist organizations.

Indian Army Chief Says, APSPA Repeal Will Create Militant Havens (Kashmir Observer)

Ajay Chadha

Ajay Chadha headed the Department of Internal Security until December 2012. A 1977 batch AGMU (Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Union Territory) cadre IPS officer, he previously served as a Special Commissioner (Traffic) in the Delhi Police. During the Commonwealth Games in 2010, Chadha served as Special Commissioner of Police for the Games. Before his move to Home Affairs, Chadha served as the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh. 

In April 2012, Chadha joined Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh in talks with the banned militant group the United Liberation Front of Asom to end their three-decade long war for independence.  In March 2012, Chadha was mentioned as a possible replacement for BK Gupta, who will retire as Delhi Police Chief in June 2012.