http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/NewsDetail/index/4/11861/The-Military-Police-And-Those-in-Between
The
Military, Police and Those in Between
Friday,
September 29,2017
When India became independent in 1947, there were only two
agencies responsible for security, the military and the police. In addition,
there was the Intelligence Bureau (IB), which looked after intelligence, both
internal and external. In the intelligence segment, the situation remained
unchanged for the next thirty years or so until the creation of a separate
agency for external intelligence, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) in
1968. Subsequently, another agency known as the National Technical Research
Organisation (NTRO) was formed in 2004 for acquisition of technical
intelligence.
In contrast to the intelligence sector where the number of agencies increased from one to three, there has been an exponential increase in the number of agencies responsible for security. Today, there are virtually dozens of organizations providing security, often with overlapping responsibilities. What is worse, there seems to be utter confusion in the nomenclature and the charter of duties of these agencies.
The organisation that is primarily responsible for the nation’s defence against external threat is the military, which includes the three Armed Forces of the Union – the Army, Navy and Air Force. The police is primarily responsible for maintaining law and order, thus providing internal security. In addition to the military and the police, there are two other organizations that play a role in security. These are the para military forces (PMF) and the central armed police forces (CAPF). It is in respect of these that the confusion prevails, not only in the minds of the public but also the media and the bureaucracy.
To end the confusion, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an Office Memorandum on 18th March 2011, with the subject title: Adoption of new nomenclature of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). It clarified that the term Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) will be used when referring to the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).
In spite of the above clarification, the organisations mentioned in the MHA letter continue to be referred to as Para Military Forces (PMFs) by newspaper correspondents, bureaucrats and politicians. In fact, there are only two PMFs – the Assam Rifles and the Special Frontier Force (SFF). An easy way to distinguish between the PMFs and the CAPFs is that the former are always commanded by Army officers while the latter are commanded by IPS officers. The DG Assam Rifles is a Lieutenant General while the IG SFF is a Major General.
Surprisingly, the confusion about the distinction between CAPFs and PMFs prevails even among senior police officers themselves. After the violence that erupted in Panchkula on August 25, 2017 in the wake of the sentencing of Ram Rahim, the city Police Commissioner, AS Chawla, tweeted that it was the para military forces and not the Indian Army that helped state police in controlling unruly dear followers. He followed this up with an interview to Hindustan Times reporter Vivek Gupta which was published in an article in Hindustan Times, which went on to state that the para military forces includes Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), and Border Security Force (BSF).
In fact there were no PMFs deployed in Panchkula. The forces that assisted the police were all CAPFs. Apart from his ignorance about the nomenclature of the forces involved, Mr Chawla’s remarks are ungracious, to say the least. In addition to several news channels that showed the police and CAPFs beating a hasty retreat, several eye witnesses have categorically asserted that it was only after the arrival of the Army that the violence was contained.
Apparently, Mr Chawla is not the only IPS officer who cannot distinguish between PMFs and CAPFs. In an article in the Hindustan Times on 18th September, Mr MP Nathael, a former IG of the CRPF, argued that there must be a separate tribunal for the PMFs such as CRPF, BSF, ITBP etc, on the lines of the Armed Forces Tribunals.
Some officers in CAPFs such as the BSF and the ITBP argue that since they too are deployed on the borders, they have an equal right to be called a para military force like the Assam Rifles. This is a valid point, in line with the Report of the Group of Ministers on National Security of 2001, which had clearly stated that border guarding forces being more akin to the Army are different from central police organisations which are called in aid of civil power from time to time. A simple solution would be to classify the border guarding forces such as BSF and the ITBP too as PMFs, with slight changes in the command set up. However, any suggestion to place them under the command of Army officers like the existing PMFs is certain to draw howls of protest from the IPS fraternity, and thus unlikely to bear fruit.
Apart from the confusion about PMFs and CAPFs, another classification that that needs to be clarified is that of security and intelligence agencies. As already explained, the military, PMFs, CAPFs and Police all perform tasks related to security and should be correctly referred to as security forces or agencies. (The police has a dual role, since it is also an investigation agency, like the CBI).
The IB, RAW and NTRO are all intelligence agencies, though the media often clubs them with the security forces and refers to all of them as security agencies. Once again, an easy way to distinguish between the two is that security forces always wear a uniform and carry arms openly, whereas intelligence agencies neither wear a uniform nor carry arms openly. Of course, smaller forces with specialised roles may not strictly adhere to these rules.
For instance, the Special Protection Group (SPG), modelled on the Secret Service in USA that protects the President, provides personal security to the Indian Prime Minister and his family. SPG personnel do not wear a uniform, though they are uniformly dressed. They carry arms, but not openly.
(Maj Gen VK Singh is retired from the Indian Army)
In contrast to the intelligence sector where the number of agencies increased from one to three, there has been an exponential increase in the number of agencies responsible for security. Today, there are virtually dozens of organizations providing security, often with overlapping responsibilities. What is worse, there seems to be utter confusion in the nomenclature and the charter of duties of these agencies.
The organisation that is primarily responsible for the nation’s defence against external threat is the military, which includes the three Armed Forces of the Union – the Army, Navy and Air Force. The police is primarily responsible for maintaining law and order, thus providing internal security. In addition to the military and the police, there are two other organizations that play a role in security. These are the para military forces (PMF) and the central armed police forces (CAPF). It is in respect of these that the confusion prevails, not only in the minds of the public but also the media and the bureaucracy.
To end the confusion, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an Office Memorandum on 18th March 2011, with the subject title: Adoption of new nomenclature of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). It clarified that the term Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) will be used when referring to the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).
In spite of the above clarification, the organisations mentioned in the MHA letter continue to be referred to as Para Military Forces (PMFs) by newspaper correspondents, bureaucrats and politicians. In fact, there are only two PMFs – the Assam Rifles and the Special Frontier Force (SFF). An easy way to distinguish between the PMFs and the CAPFs is that the former are always commanded by Army officers while the latter are commanded by IPS officers. The DG Assam Rifles is a Lieutenant General while the IG SFF is a Major General.
Surprisingly, the confusion about the distinction between CAPFs and PMFs prevails even among senior police officers themselves. After the violence that erupted in Panchkula on August 25, 2017 in the wake of the sentencing of Ram Rahim, the city Police Commissioner, AS Chawla, tweeted that it was the para military forces and not the Indian Army that helped state police in controlling unruly dear followers. He followed this up with an interview to Hindustan Times reporter Vivek Gupta which was published in an article in Hindustan Times, which went on to state that the para military forces includes Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), and Border Security Force (BSF).
In fact there were no PMFs deployed in Panchkula. The forces that assisted the police were all CAPFs. Apart from his ignorance about the nomenclature of the forces involved, Mr Chawla’s remarks are ungracious, to say the least. In addition to several news channels that showed the police and CAPFs beating a hasty retreat, several eye witnesses have categorically asserted that it was only after the arrival of the Army that the violence was contained.
Apparently, Mr Chawla is not the only IPS officer who cannot distinguish between PMFs and CAPFs. In an article in the Hindustan Times on 18th September, Mr MP Nathael, a former IG of the CRPF, argued that there must be a separate tribunal for the PMFs such as CRPF, BSF, ITBP etc, on the lines of the Armed Forces Tribunals.
Some officers in CAPFs such as the BSF and the ITBP argue that since they too are deployed on the borders, they have an equal right to be called a para military force like the Assam Rifles. This is a valid point, in line with the Report of the Group of Ministers on National Security of 2001, which had clearly stated that border guarding forces being more akin to the Army are different from central police organisations which are called in aid of civil power from time to time. A simple solution would be to classify the border guarding forces such as BSF and the ITBP too as PMFs, with slight changes in the command set up. However, any suggestion to place them under the command of Army officers like the existing PMFs is certain to draw howls of protest from the IPS fraternity, and thus unlikely to bear fruit.
Apart from the confusion about PMFs and CAPFs, another classification that that needs to be clarified is that of security and intelligence agencies. As already explained, the military, PMFs, CAPFs and Police all perform tasks related to security and should be correctly referred to as security forces or agencies. (The police has a dual role, since it is also an investigation agency, like the CBI).
The IB, RAW and NTRO are all intelligence agencies, though the media often clubs them with the security forces and refers to all of them as security agencies. Once again, an easy way to distinguish between the two is that security forces always wear a uniform and carry arms openly, whereas intelligence agencies neither wear a uniform nor carry arms openly. Of course, smaller forces with specialised roles may not strictly adhere to these rules.
For instance, the Special Protection Group (SPG), modelled on the Secret Service in USA that protects the President, provides personal security to the Indian Prime Minister and his family. SPG personnel do not wear a uniform, though they are uniformly dressed. They carry arms, but not openly.
(Maj Gen VK Singh is retired from the Indian Army)
No comments:
Post a Comment