11-05-2017 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:11-05-17
Delhi’s Colombo hug
PM Modi’s Sri Lanka diplomacy is a vital test case for his neighbourhood first policy
Even as the rich cultural tapestry of Buddhism frames the backdrop of this visit to Colombo, also on the agenda are crucial bilateral meetings with President Maithripala Sirisena, who just this week harked back to India and Sri Lanka’s old Buddhist linkages to question opposition leaders who are protesting a deal for India to jointly operate strategic oil tanks in the eastern port of Trincomalee. “Are they Buddhists?” Sirisena famously asked.
In a week in which India launched its South Asia satellite, Modi’s Sri Lanka diplomacy is also a crucial test case for his ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy. The trajectory of Delhi’s Colombo relationship is instructive in this regard. In political terms, the sheer volume of bilateral visits at the highest levels of government on both sides over the last couple of years speaks for itself. President Sirisena first visited India in February 2015, within a month of being elected to office, and has been to India thrice more since then. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has also been to Delhi thrice, most recently in April this year. Modi is going to Colombo for the second time now.After the previous Rajapakse government’s tilt towards China as a weapons and credit supplier, sharply focussed in the public eye with the docking of a Chinese submarine in Colombo harbour in 2014, there has certainly been a rebalancing in Sri Lanka. As former Sri Lankan naval chief and director of Colombo’s Centre for India-Lanka Initiatives Admiral Jayanath Colombage says, “at the leadership level the relationship hasn’t been better ever”.
Yet quite often, when it comes to leveraging high aspirations and implementing real changes on the ground, joint initiatives end up being seen on the one hand in Delhi, from the lens of China’s deepening footprint on the island, and on the other hand in Colombo, from a perspective of resistance to ‘Big Brother’ India, as evidenced by the recent anti-India strike by Colombo Petroleum Corporation Trade Union collective against the Trincomalee deal.Both are legitimate political concerns. For Delhi, to invoke former NSA Shivshankar Menon, Sri Lanka is also an aircraft carrier 14 kilometres off the coast of India. For Colombo, the old legacy of Tamil politics and its civil war still hangs heavy when selling new initiatives publicly. So, while leaders from both sides keep talking the talk, their real challenge is to break out of the binaries of history.
At a time when China is trying to weld India’s wider neighbourhood and beyond in an ambitious web of connectivity through its Belt and Road initiative on a scale that has never been done before, for India to build and strengthen economic connectivity becomes even more vital. Delhi cannot match Beijing as a moneybag but it can certainly leverage its traditional strengths. It has long been Sri Lanka’s biggest trade partner, has a development portfolio worth $2.6 billion and has played a vital role in rebuilding northern and eastern Sri Lanka road and rail links over the past few years.
A few clear opportunities present themselves. First, a long-pending proposal for inter-connecting the Indian and Lankan power grids. Sri Lanka currently accounts for only 56% of its energy demand from indigenous sources with an energy demand growing annually at 6%. The result is that fossil fuel imports are 25% of Sri Lanka’s import expenditure and nearly 50% of export income. The economic argument for cross-border electricity trade is clear.India already has such arrangements in place with Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan and technical details of such an arrangement with Colombo, through under-sea HDVC cables, have been discussed in detail between experts. If the costing works out, it is a win-win for both India and Sri Lanka.
Second, shipping data shows that while the Chinese may have built the international container terminal at Colombo, 70% of its freight is from India. Colombo, in that sense, may already be India’s second largest port and, according to Suren Ratwatte, CEO of Sri Lankan Airlines, one of its biggest airports in terms of passenger traffic. It makes sense to build on these economic linkages by working out an easier visa regime; even to think, as Ratwatte suggests, of pre-visa clearance arrangements in the manner the US has with several airports in say Canada or even Abu Dhabi.
Third, while transport minister Nitin Gadkari has for some time been talking about a proposed 26-kilometre rail link connecting Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar, this is yet to be negotiated seriously. A good step would be to at least start ferry services across the sea link. Tuticorin-Colombo ferry services commenced in 2011 but were suspended. A Rameswaram-Talaimannar ferry has been talked about for almost a decade. At a time when Indian companies are vying to build the east terminal of Colombo port, starting boat services would be a welcome connecting step.
Date:11-05-17
For the first time the Court punishes one of its own, but damages itself and free speech in the process
In the Mahabharata, Kunti abandoned her first child, by setting him afloat down the river to hide the embarrassment of being mother to an illegitimate son. That son, later the arch enemy of Kunti’s legitimate sons, the Pandavas, was Karna, immortalised in Tamil cinema by Sivaji Ganesan as Karnan.
In a 21st century retelling of the story the Supreme Court of India disowned one of its own – Justice Karnan, formerly of the Madras high court – by convicting him of contempt of court. By ordering his imprisonment for six months the Court attempted to hide from public view its enfant terrible, and with it, the embarrassment he caused the institution with his public utterances, actions and conduct.
There can scarcely be two views on the fact that Justice Karnan’s actions eroded the dignity of the judiciary immeasurably. He made unsubstantiated allegations against his brother judges, including of custodial rape; stayed his own transfer order to the Calcutta high court and passed ‘orders’ imprisoning the Chief Justice of India and seven other judges of the Supreme Court. Having taken the step of initiating contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court was left with little option other than to convict him. His conviction sends out a clear message that scurrilous attacks against the judiciary will be met with the strictest censure, even when it emanates from within the judiciary.
But if the Court thinks that by acting against its own, it has exorcised the enemy within, it would be mistaken. The Karnan episode says as much about the judge himself as it does about the processes of the Supreme Court. First, it is indicative of the fatal deficiencies of the collegium system of appointment of judges. For a person like Justice Karnan, with rarely any semblance of judge-like qualities and virtually no known practice at the Bar to speak of, to be appointed is a sign that the opacity of the collegium system is a cloak for extraneous considerations to creep in.
If this episode does not make the judges introspect on the need for transparency in their selection mechanism, nothing else can. Second, it demonstrates a complete absence of judicial accountability mechanisms, short of impeachment. Much of the damage done by Justice Karnan could have been averted if the judiciary evolved a credible in-house procedure to discipline errant judges. Though a procedure exists on paper, this episode has proved its utter worthlessness.
Third, and most worryingly, it demonstrates a disdainful judicial attitude towards a free press. By barring all print and electronic media from publishing any statements by Justice Karnan, the Supreme Court has passed an order against the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom of the press to report what it deems newsworthy is a fundamental right protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The test of such freedom is when speech that is uncomfortable, annoying and even contemptuous can be expressed freely.
The Supreme Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot abrogate the fundamental rights of the press, which is not the contemnor before it, to report what it feels is newsworthy. Doing so would be an impermissible prior restraint that the court itself has declared unconstitutional on several occasions.This order leaves the press in a double bind. Not only can it now not report any statements made by Justice Karnan, it cannot approach any authority, judicial or otherwise, for a remedy against it. In its determination to make an example of Justice Karnan, the Supreme Court has not only shot the messenger – the print and electronic media – but also exposed its own fault lines.
An opaque appointments system that keeps out civil society, the failure to develop a workable accountability mechanism that makes the court more democratic, and a blanket ban on media reporting of Justice Karnan’s statements are all symptoms of a court where divergent viewpoints are prohibited, the concept of popular accountability questioned and citizens viewed as subjects to be protected rather than participants in a democratic exercise. This is the real enemy within. Sending Karnan down may stop people talking about a matter of personal embarrassment for a while. But it can only provide a stopgap measure before the real enemies within need to be confronted. Just ask Kunti.
Date:11-05-17
An unseemly affair
The Karnan episode shows judicial reform must go beyond clearing case backlogs
Karnan has had a history of bizarre behaviour going back many years. He frequently levelled capricious charges against other judges who were his colleagues. As a judge at Madras high court, he precipitated a crisis by passing strictures against its then Chief Justice. When, in a move to resolve the crisis he was transferred to the Calcutta high court, he issued a suo moto order against his own transfer before sense prevailed. This experience starkly exposed a shortcoming in the current framework to discipline a judge, for incidents that may not require a cumbersome impeachment procedure. This gap in the statutory framework needs to be addressed.
The Karnan episode also shows up the inadequacy of filters in the collegium system which enabled his appointment as a judge despite his evident incapacity to hold the post. It is inconceivable that an effective system for appointing judges would have permitted him entry, leading to the current embarrassing situation the judiciary finds itself in. It is time for the judiciary to reflect on the infirmities of the existing system.
The gag order on media that accompanied the apex court’s order on Kannan – asking the media to refrain from reporting any future statements made by him – suggests, however, judicial disinclination for such reflection yet. Free speech is often challenged in India but the apex court has stood by the principle of freedom of expression, a critical freedom in any democracy, in the past. But the gag order on media is tantamount to prior restraint. It is an unhappy situation when the judiciary becomes a vehicle to restrain expression. The Karnan episode shows that judicial reforms ought not to be limited to finding ways to clear case backlogs. It should also be about finding better ways to appoint judges and discipline errant ones among them.
Date:11-05-17
Solar power calls for new accounting
There is sense in heeding this caution. True, solar power costs, complete with the cost of storage, tend to be compared with thermal power costs without adding on two elements of cost implicit in thermal power: the costs of pollution and the cost of extending the grid, which could be avoided in the case of solar installations in remote areas meant for local distribution.
Even so, what the article brings out starkly is the conceptual deficiencies in integrating solar into the power mix without causing financial disruption. Integrating solar power calls for a system of accounting different from that of commercially charged tariffs.In the case of thermal power, the costs of pollution and greenhouse effects besides the cost of bridging gaps in the grid to transfer thermal power to remote areas need to be factored in.
In the case of solar, the costs of generation, storage and added investments to make the grid technically capable of absorbing distributed generation of solar power without frequency disruption need to be taken into account. The costs of potentially lower capacity utilisation of thermal power on account of being substituted with solar should also be factored in.These notional costs have to be compared to determine the merit order of dispatch. The difference between the cost to the consumer of choosing power sources based on such normative and conventional commercial modes of accounting must be borne by the government, rather than by the power sector.
This is the cost of meeting India’s climate-change commitments and promoting a solar power industry, which could yield long-term competitive advantages. Solar generation and storage technologies are poised to change dramatically. India must both participate in and take advantage of that change.
Date:11-05-17
Judicial dysfunction calls for a new fix
Members of India’s higher judiciary sentencing one another to jail terms is a clear symptom of dysfunction. It does nothing to enhance India’s ease of doing business ranking. This calls for a fix.On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ordered the arrest of Calcutta High Court judge C S Karnan, sentenced him to six months’ incarceration for contempt of court, and sought to gag media from carrying any statement by Justice Karnan, who immediately filed a counter-order against the gag. Nothing like this has ever happened in India’s judicial system before.
In the past, Justice Karnan, originally from the Madras court, has accused at least 20 fellow judges in top courts of graft and, more recently, ordered the arrest of six Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice J S Khehar.Justice Karnan claims he is being persecuted for speaking truth to power and because he is a Dalit. Incidentally, he has never withdrawn his original graft charges against the top judiciary, and faces no charges himself.
The only things his fellow judges can pin on him is a charge of ‘mental instability’ and ‘contempt of court’. So far, Justice Karnan has repudiated a medical test, arrest and all charges made against him by the Supreme Court.Here is an alternative: let a body of judges and lawyers try any judge accused of impropriety in open court, hearing all evidence, with media reporting.It looks a mess, but could be a blessing in disguise. India lacks an efficient system to investigate and prosecute judicial misdemeanour. Impeachment in Parliament, a politically overlaid option, has not worked well in the past.This trial will be neither kangaroo court, nor a chat behind closed doors. Justice Karnan, whatever the truth of his allegations, has probably opened the door in that direction. The status quo will not do.
Date:11-05-17
सरकार चार क्षेत्रों पर दे ध्यान तभी होगा कारोबार आसान
Date:10-05-17
Over-Reaction
Does the apex court need to lock up an errant judge and gag the press to protect its dignity?
When the press is prevented from reporting something, it’s almost always a red flag. It immediately lets everyone know that a mess has been created, that it has been mismanaged and the powers that be would like to mop up in peace and spare themselves embarrassment. Usually, it’s been the government trying to spin a narrative or hinder free and fair reporting and it’s been the Supreme Court which has stepped in to protect — and often expand — the contours of free speech. But now, in an unusual departure, it’s the highest court which has banned the press from reporting on the orders of Justice C.S. Karnan, the Calcutta High Court judge who has been controversial since January, when he shot off an open letter to the prime minister, providing an “initial list” accusing 20 sitting and retired judges of the higher judiciary of corruption. This is most unexpected and disappointing.
When Justice Karnan broke ranks, the situation could have been handled with greater circumspection. Here was an angry judge, headline hunting, clearly displaying a temper and temperament not quite in tune with the dignity of his office. The Supreme Court, its shoulders broad enough to shrug off such criticism, reacted as if one judge’s rants threatened to undermine the edifice of the higher judiciary. It seemed to dispense with the dispassionate distance which is its essence. So this week, when the running battle erupted into a shooting war, the apex court and the maverick judge hurled sentences at each other. In absentia, and from a makeshift court in his residence in a Kolkata suburb, Justice Karnan, in a bizarre order, sentenced top Supreme Court judges, including the chief justice of India, to five years rigorous imprisonment under the law penalising discriminatory action against the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. This was in response to the apex court’s directive requiring him, to put it plainly, to have his head examined. What has followed was only to be expected and yet it is regrettable. A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has made an example of Justice Karnan, sentencing him to six months behind bars for contempt. He is the first judge in the history of the judiciary to receive such a sentence.
The court is justifiably outraged — Justice Karnan’s wild and sweeping allegations have little factual basis. But the circumstances of his tantrums also tell a story that dates back to 2011 when he first alleged, as a Madras High Court judge, that he was being discriminated against because he was Dalit. Since then, the fracas has played out in public, which is precisely what was undesirable. To see a seven-judge bench sending a brother judge to jail for stepping out of line is not edifying. Banning the press from reporting one side of the story only strengthens the conviction that the Justice Karnan affair was poorly handled. If the judge’s head needs to be examined, as the Supreme Court suggests, then why take his rant so seriously?
Duplication isn’t synergy
Indian science needs hard work and a critically large base of experts, not more management
SPARK (Sustainable Progress through Application of Research and Knowledge) is a proposed initiative to synergise science activity in India. A new, more efficient way of managing science is surely welcome, but one needs to put in a lot of thought before taking any action.
The existing systems of science governance in this country are robust with departments reporting to ministers who in turn report to the Union Cabinet. There is no lack of sound advisory bodies and committees within these departments. As for overarching bodies, we already have the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Prime Minister and the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India. Why are there two such similar bodies? Have any of their recommendations resulted in concrete actions? In the end, they have remained toothless. Do we need a third such body?
The science departments are too different from one another to come under the purview of one “overarching” body like SPARK. The Department of Science and Technology and Department of Biotechnology are purely funding and outreach organisations. The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) has a special and tricky mandate which involves interaction with industry.The Department of Atomic Energy, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Department of Space and others are into mission-mode projects. There is hardly a government department or ministry that science does not touch.
Reality of Indian science
The goals of SPARK seem to be most closely attuned with NITI Aayog, and it might well be effective only within this parent organisation, taking inputs from various quarters such as industries, the ministries themselves and NGOs to make proposals, some of which could move forward to become major initiatives. What one needs is a management technique that effectively identifies scientific challenges and links the resulting breakthroughs with national problems.However, the issue is not that we need a new system of science management. The bald fact is that we do not have so much to manage. The report of top science administrators that recommended the setting up of this independent authority is correct in that “the stature of Indian science is a shadow of what it used to be” but this is not because of “misguided interventions”.
It is because there is a lack of scientific expertise across all levels. We have failed in our educational system to harness the enormous latent talent in our country and build a solid foundation of science.Science does not end with the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research and other elite institutions. I disagree with the report’s contention that “there is a huge support system”, and “global goodwill” which is “positive”. We have none of these.Anyway, India does not need global goodwill to succeed in science. It needs hard work, honest management and a critically large base of experts.
Soothing yet baffling expedients to solve the problems of Indian science might make for good copy in the short run but they are not going to yield real results. For example, SPARK is not even required to “closely work with industry and evolve public private partnerships”. That is the mandate of CSIR.Decisions on new initiatives like SPARK should not be taken within government departments in Delhi following a proposal from one closed administrative group to another. A broad-based consultation with stakeholders is a must.
Even if SPARK is constituted, it needs financial independence; given the relationship between the Ministry of Finance and its Department of Expenditure on the one hand and the science departments on the other, this remains a moot point.
Large systems that work even moderately satisfactorily should not be tinkered with too much, for we may then have to face unintended consequences. Indian science is certainly not in a good state of health today. But what is wrong is not the structure of the system. The wrongs emanate from the many sins of omission and commission over the years by the individuals who have led the system.
Gautam R. Desiraju is a professor at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, and former president of the International Union of Crystallography
सख्त संदेश देता फैसला
भारतीय न्यायिक व्यवस्था के इतिहास का यह दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण अध्याय है, जब देश की सर्वोच्च अदालत को एक वर्तमान जज के लिए अवमानना के मामले में छह माह के कारावास की सजा सुनानी पड़ी है। अच्छा तो यह होता कि मामला यहां तक पहुंचता ही नहीं। फिलहाल 13 महीने से चल रहे एक अप्रिय न्यायिक विवाद के इस पटाक्षेप का स्वागत होना चाहिए कि यह न्यायपालिका में भरोसा बने रहने का संदेश दे रहा है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट अपनी ही बिरादरी के अत्यंत जिम्मेदार पद पर बैठे जस्टिस कर्णन को सजा देकर बहुत गौरवान्वित नहीं महसूस कर रहा होगा, लेकिन सच तो यही है कि यह प्रकरण न्यायपालिका की विश्वसनीयता पर सवाल बन गया था। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने फैसले से उसी विश्वसनीयता को बहाल रखने की कोशिश की है कि न्यायिक मूल्यों के लिए अपनी ही बिरादरी के एक वरिष्ठ सदस्य को सजा सुनाने में उसे हिचक नहीं है। प्रकरण के इस मोड़ तक आने के संकेत सोमवार को उसी वक्त मिल गए थे, जब कोलकाता हाईकोर्ट के मुख्य न्यायाधीश सीएस कर्णन ने टकराव को चरम पर पहुंचाते हुए भारत के प्रधान न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति जेएस खेहर और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सात अन्य जजों को पांच साल के कठोर कारावास की सजा सुना दी थी।
प्रकरण की असल शुरुआत तब हुई, जब कुछ माह पहले जस्टिस कर्णन ने प्रधानमंत्री को पत्र लिखकर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय और हाईकोर्ट के कई जजों पर भ्रष्टाचार में लिप्त होने के आरोप लगाए थे। उन्होंने अपने पत्र के साथ उन जजों की एक सूची भी दी थी, जो उनकी नजर में भ्रष्टाचार में लिप्त थे। कर्णन की विवादों से यह पहली मुठभेड़ नहीं थी। इससे पहले भी वह तब विवाद में आए थे, जब मद्रास हाईकोर्ट से कलकत्ता हाईकोर्ट तबादला होने पर उन्होंने न सिर्फ अपने ही तबादले पर स्थगनादेश जारी किया था, बल्कि वहां के मुख्य न्यायाधीश को नोटिस भी जारी कर दी थी। इस मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट को हस्तक्षेप करना पड़ा था और मामला तूल पकड़ने के बाद अंतत: राष्ट्रपति के निर्देश पर उन्होंने कलकत्ता हाईकोर्ट में काम संभाला था। आरोपों की प्रकृति और टकराव को चरम पर पहुंचते देख सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उनकी दिमागी हालत की जांच के लिए एक मेडिकल बोर्ड भी बनाया, लेकिन जस्टिस कर्णन इसके लिए तैयार नहीं हुए। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मद्रास हाईकोर्ट और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के कई जजों के खिलाफ चिट्िठयां लिखने के मामले का संज्ञान लेते हुए उनसे चिट्िठयां वापस लेने और बिना शर्त माफी मांगने को कहा था। इसके बाद कई समन पर भी कर्णन के पेशी पर न आने को सर्वोच्च अदालत ने जान-बूझकर अवमानना का दोषी माना। हालांकि एक बार व्यक्तिगत रूप से पेश होकर उन्होंने अपने न्यायिक और प्रशासनिक अधिकार बहाल करने की अपील जरूर की, जिससे इनकार के बाद उन्होंने दोबारा कोर्ट में पेश होने से मना कर दिया था। भारतीय न्यायिक इतिहास में यह भी पहली बार हुआ था, जब कोई मौजूदा जज सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सामने व्यक्तिगत रूप से पेश हुआ था।इस मामले ने कई सवाल भी उठाए हैं। क्या इस पूरे प्रकरण को भारतीय समाज में हो रहे मूल्यों के उस क्षरण से जोड़कर देखने की जरूरत नहीं है, जिससे हम रोज दो चार होते हैं? सवाल न्यायपालिका जैसी सर्वोच्च संस्था से ऐसे विवाद उठने पर भी है। यह फैसला आम जन में न्यायपालिका के प्रति भरोसा जगाए रखने के साथ हर उस ताकतवर के लिए सोचने का भी अवसर है, जो कानून-व्यवस्था से बेपरवाही में ही शान समझते हैं। जाहिर है, फैसले की धमक दूर तक सुनाई देगी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने एक मिसाल पेश की है। अब बाकी स्तंभों के लिए भी मिसाल पेश करने का वक्त है।
दोनों की समस्या नक्सल
केंद्रीय गृह मंत्री राजनाथ सिंह के साथ नक्सल पीड़ित 10 राज्यों के मुख्यमंत्रियों की बैठक में बिहार के मुख्यमंत्री नीतीश कुमार ने केंद्र की नीतियों की आलोचना करते हुए कुछ बुनियादी सवाल भी उठाये। उनका कहना था कि नक्सली समस्या के संदर्भ में केंद्र की भूमिका सिर्फ पुनर्समीक्षा करने तक सीमित रह गई है। नक्सलवाद से लड़ने के लिए यदि राज्य सरकारों को ही समूची रणनीति बनानी है और इसके लिए अपने संसाधनों का इस्तेमाल करना है तो फिर केंद्र की भूमिका क्या रह जाती है? यह सच है कि नक्सल-पीड़ित राज्य सरकारें अपने-अपने स्तर से फैसले लेती हैं और इस हिंसक चुनौती से लड़ती हैं। दरअसल, इसके पीछे सच यह है कि नक्सलवाद की समस्या को कानून व्यवस्था के साथ जोड़कर देखा जाता है और विधि-व्यवस्था संविधान के राज्य की सूची के तहत है। लिहाजा, राज्यों की ही जिम्मेदारी बनती है कि नक्सल समस्या पर प्रभावी नियंतण्रलगाए। अलबत्ता, इस व्यवस्था के रहते केंद्र सरकार कोई महती भूमिका का निर्वाह नहीं कर सकती। इसलिए इस बात पर संदेह की ज्यादा गुंजाइश है कि एकीकृत कमान का गठन और साझा रणनीति बनाने का सुझाव शायद ही परवान चढ़ सके। ये दोनों ही सुझाव केंद्रीय गृहमंत्री राजनाथ सिंह ने दी है। तो क्या नक्सलवाद के खिलाफ कारगर अभियान चलाने के लिए इस मसले को केंद्रीय सूची में शामिल किया जाना चाहिए? यह सवाल महत्त्वपूर्ण और विचारणीय भी है। क्या यह माना जाना चाहिए कि बिहार के मुख्यमंत्री नीतीश कुमार ने जो सवाल खड़े किये हैं, उसके जवाब का रास्ता इसी ओर से गुजर कर जाता है। इसमें दो राय नहीं कि यदि केंद्र सरकार देश की एकता और सम्प्रभुता के लिए नक्सलवाद को आतंकवाद से ज्यादा बड़ा खतरा मानती है तो इस मसले को राज्य सरकारों के पाले में डालने के बजाय सीधे तौर पर अपने हाथों में लेना चाहिए। नक्सलवाद विरोधी अभियानों में केंद्रीय सुरक्षा बलों और राज्य पुलिस के बीच तालमेल न होने के पीछे की एक बड़ी वजह यह भी हो सकती है। इसलिए एकीकृत कमान साझा रणनीति और केंद्रीय सुरक्षा बलों और राज्य पुलिस के बीच बेहतर संवाद बनाने के लिए इस मसले को कानून व्यवस्था के साथ जोड़कर देखने की नीति बदलने की जरूरत है। क्या केंद्र सरकार इस पर गंभीरता से विचार करेगी?
