When a State burns, the Republic is on trial
|
Nil Konsam
A popularly elected Government, restored to office pursuant to Constitutional and political compulsions, now confronts a decisive test of governance. The recurrence of serious law and order challenges marked by inter community violence, arson, and destruction of civilian property, is not merely a local administrative failure. It represents a direct challenge to Constitutional authority, democratic legitimacy, and the State’s monopoly over the legitimate use of force. When such disturbances persist or threaten to escalate, the issue ceases to be one of routine governance and becomes a matter of National concern.
Public order is not a peripheral or optional function of the State. It is the foundational condition upon which all Constitutional guarantees rest. The rights to life, liberty, movement, occupation, and expression are rendered hollow when citizens live under fear, displacement, or the constant threat of violence.
Electoral mandate alone does not sustain democratic legitimacy; it must be reaffirmed daily through the visible capacity of the State to protect life, property, and civil peace.
Recent tensions must be examined against the cautionary backdrop of 3 May 2023, a date that should be remembered not only for its human tragedy, but for its Constitutional implications. What began as a containable disturbance escalated into widespread violence across the State because early warning signs were not met with timely, proportionate, and protocol-mandated deployment of security forces. Delay, hesitation, and fragmented command allowed disorder to metastasise. Homes were burnt, civilians displaced, normal civic life collapsed, and governance slipped into prolonged crisis management mode.
This escalation was neither spontaneous nor inevi- table.
It was the foreseeable consequence of executive under response at the critical initial stage. In matters of public order, delay is not neutrality; it is abdication. The first hours of unrest determine whether Constitutional authority is asserted or surrendered. Once violence spreads, even the most forceful interventions become reactive fire- fighting-costly, disruptive, and morally inadequate.
A persistent misconception in public discourse is the tendency to treat such breakdowns as “State problems.” In Constitutional and practical terms, a serious law and order crisis in any State is undeniably a National issue. Internal disturbances strain the country’s security architecture, destabilise neigh- bouring regions, disrupt economic and social networks, and expose vulne- rabilities that hostile and opportunistic forces are quick to exploit. Geography does not confine instability; violence spills over, narratives radicalise, and insti- tutional fatigue sets in.
Federalism does not permit indifference; it man- dates coordination. While the State executive bears primary operational responsibility for maintaining public order, the Union carries a Constitutional obli- gation to ensure that governance is conducted in accordance with Constitutional norms and that internal disturbances do not overwhelm the State’s capacity. This responsibility is neither partisan nor discretionary. It is structural to the survival of a functioning republic.
National leadership, therefore, cannot afford episodic engagement or rhe- torical concern. Stake-holders across the National security, intelligence, and administrative apparatus must apply sustained focus, integrated assessment, and concentric effort guided by foresight and institutional wisdom. Crisis management cannot be reduced to press statements, symbolic visits, or post-facto deployment. What is required is anticipatory governance, early intelligence consolidation, unified command, clarity of authority, and visible deterrence against escalation.
The Constitutional obligation is fundamentally proactive and preventive, not merely reactive. Fire- fighting after homes have been reduced to ashes and communities displaced is not governance; it is damage control. A reactive State is always one step behind violence. Each delayed response emboldens non-State actors, armed elements, and sectarian mobilisers, shrinking the space for lawful authority. Preventive action - lawful, proportionate, and timely - is the true measure of Constitutional fidelity.
Selective or inconsistent enforcement further accelerates breakdown. When the law is perceived to be applied unevenly, softened for political convenience, or constrained by hesitation, public confidence erodes rapidly.
Public order collapses not only because violence occurs, but because citizens lose faith in the impartiality and resolve of the State. Once that faith is lost, communities retreat into self help, militias, or silence - each corrosive to Constitutional order.
The aftermath of 3 May 2023 illustrates another uncomfortable truth: once Constitutional authority is weakened, restoring it becomes exponentially harder. Security deployments multiply, restrictions deepen, economic activity slows, and civil liberties are inevitably strained. Preventive firmness protects rights; delayed force endangers them. This paradox is repeatedly ignored, at great cost to society and institutions alike.
Arguments that confuse restraint with inaction are particularly dangerous. Constitutional restraint does not mean administrative paralysis. It means calibrated, lawful assertion of authority at the earliest moment, guided by intelligence and accountability. The longer the State hesitates, the greater the force eventually required-and the higher the collateral damage to social cohesion and institutional credibility.
National political leadership must also recognise that persistent internal disorder carries consequences beyond immediate geography. A republic that appears unable or unwilling to contain internal violence pro- jects weakness - not only to its citizens but to the world. Economic confidence, social trust, and in- ternational standing are quietly but decisively shaped by how effectively a nation preserves internal stability.
For the State Government, the present moment is existential. Authority cannot be asserted through assurances alone; it must be demonstrated through consistent enforcement, protec- tion of civilians, and refusal to yield space to unlawful actors. Electoral legitimacy, once regained, must be reaffirmed through gover- nance. The choice is stark: govern firmly within the Constitution, or allow Constitutional authority to be hollowed out by drift and delay.
For the Union, responsibility is no less grave. Silence, excessive deference, or delayed engage- ment in the face of persistent disorder risks norma- lising breakdown. Constitutional balance requires timely support and coordination - not post collapse intervention when options are already constrained.
For the public, too, there is a responsibility: to resist the normalisation of violence, to reject partisan rationalisations for disorder, and to demand governance rather than rhetoric. Democracies rarely collapse over- night; they erode gradually when lawlessness is tolerated and institutional failure is explained away.
The lesson of recent history is unambiguous. When early warning signs are ignored, when security pro- tocols are diluted, and when responsibility is diffused, violence fills the vacuum. When authority is asserted lawfully and promptly, peace is preserved with minimal cost. A State burning is not a spectacle - it is a stern warning. And when that warning is ignored, the Republic itself stands on trial.
In the end, Constitutional governance endures not through rhetoric or political survival, but through fidelity to Constitutional duty; it is therefore hoped that the oath of allegiance taken by lawmakers is not reduced to a procedural formality, but honoured as a solemn privilege-an unwavering commitment to uphold the Constitution in letter and spirit and to serve the people whose rights, lives, and dignity it exists to protect.
A popularly elected Government, restored to office pursuant to Constitutional and political compulsions, now confronts a decisive test of governance. The recurrence of serious law and order challenges marked by inter community violence, arson, and destruction of civilian property, is not merely a local administrative failure. It represents a direct challenge to Constitutional authority, democratic legitimacy, and the State’s monopoly over the legitimate use of force. When such disturbances persist or threaten to escalate, the issue ceases to be one of routine governance and becomes a matter of National concern.
Public order is not a peripheral or optional function of the State. It is the foundational condition upon which all Constitutional guarantees rest. The rights to life, liberty, movement, occupation, and expression are rendered hollow when citizens live under fear, displacement, or the constant threat of violence.
Electoral mandate alone does not sustain democratic legitimacy; it must be reaffirmed daily through the visible capacity of the State to protect life, property, and civil peace.
Recent tensions must be examined against the cautionary backdrop of 3 May 2023, a date that should be remembered not only for its human tragedy, but for its Constitutional implications. What began as a containable disturbance escalated into widespread violence across the State because early warning signs were not met with timely, proportionate, and protocol-mandated deployment of security forces. Delay, hesitation, and fragmented command allowed disorder to metastasise. Homes were burnt, civilians displaced, normal civic life collapsed, and governance slipped into prolonged crisis management mode.
This escalation was neither spontaneous nor inevi- table.
It was the foreseeable consequence of executive under response at the critical initial stage. In matters of public order, delay is not neutrality; it is abdication. The first hours of unrest determine whether Constitutional authority is asserted or surrendered. Once violence spreads, even the most forceful interventions become reactive fire- fighting-costly, disruptive, and morally inadequate.
A persistent misconception in public discourse is the tendency to treat such breakdowns as “State problems.” In Constitutional and practical terms, a serious law and order crisis in any State is undeniably a National issue. Internal disturbances strain the country’s security architecture, destabilise neigh- bouring regions, disrupt economic and social networks, and expose vulne- rabilities that hostile and opportunistic forces are quick to exploit. Geography does not confine instability; violence spills over, narratives radicalise, and insti- tutional fatigue sets in.
Federalism does not permit indifference; it man- dates coordination. While the State executive bears primary operational responsibility for maintaining public order, the Union carries a Constitutional obli- gation to ensure that governance is conducted in accordance with Constitutional norms and that internal disturbances do not overwhelm the State’s capacity. This responsibility is neither partisan nor discretionary. It is structural to the survival of a functioning republic.
National leadership, therefore, cannot afford episodic engagement or rhe- torical concern. Stake-holders across the National security, intelligence, and administrative apparatus must apply sustained focus, integrated assessment, and concentric effort guided by foresight and institutional wisdom. Crisis management cannot be reduced to press statements, symbolic visits, or post-facto deployment. What is required is anticipatory governance, early intelligence consolidation, unified command, clarity of authority, and visible deterrence against escalation.
The Constitutional obligation is fundamentally proactive and preventive, not merely reactive. Fire- fighting after homes have been reduced to ashes and communities displaced is not governance; it is damage control. A reactive State is always one step behind violence. Each delayed response emboldens non-State actors, armed elements, and sectarian mobilisers, shrinking the space for lawful authority. Preventive action - lawful, proportionate, and timely - is the true measure of Constitutional fidelity.
Selective or inconsistent enforcement further accelerates breakdown. When the law is perceived to be applied unevenly, softened for political convenience, or constrained by hesitation, public confidence erodes rapidly.
Public order collapses not only because violence occurs, but because citizens lose faith in the impartiality and resolve of the State. Once that faith is lost, communities retreat into self help, militias, or silence - each corrosive to Constitutional order.
The aftermath of 3 May 2023 illustrates another uncomfortable truth: once Constitutional authority is weakened, restoring it becomes exponentially harder. Security deployments multiply, restrictions deepen, economic activity slows, and civil liberties are inevitably strained. Preventive firmness protects rights; delayed force endangers them. This paradox is repeatedly ignored, at great cost to society and institutions alike.
Arguments that confuse restraint with inaction are particularly dangerous. Constitutional restraint does not mean administrative paralysis. It means calibrated, lawful assertion of authority at the earliest moment, guided by intelligence and accountability. The longer the State hesitates, the greater the force eventually required-and the higher the collateral damage to social cohesion and institutional credibility.
National political leadership must also recognise that persistent internal disorder carries consequences beyond immediate geography. A republic that appears unable or unwilling to contain internal violence pro- jects weakness - not only to its citizens but to the world. Economic confidence, social trust, and in- ternational standing are quietly but decisively shaped by how effectively a nation preserves internal stability.
For the State Government, the present moment is existential. Authority cannot be asserted through assurances alone; it must be demonstrated through consistent enforcement, protec- tion of civilians, and refusal to yield space to unlawful actors. Electoral legitimacy, once regained, must be reaffirmed through gover- nance. The choice is stark: govern firmly within the Constitution, or allow Constitutional authority to be hollowed out by drift and delay.
For the Union, responsibility is no less grave. Silence, excessive deference, or delayed engage- ment in the face of persistent disorder risks norma- lising breakdown. Constitutional balance requires timely support and coordination - not post collapse intervention when options are already constrained.
For the public, too, there is a responsibility: to resist the normalisation of violence, to reject partisan rationalisations for disorder, and to demand governance rather than rhetoric. Democracies rarely collapse over- night; they erode gradually when lawlessness is tolerated and institutional failure is explained away.
The lesson of recent history is unambiguous. When early warning signs are ignored, when security pro- tocols are diluted, and when responsibility is diffused, violence fills the vacuum. When authority is asserted lawfully and promptly, peace is preserved with minimal cost. A State burning is not a spectacle - it is a stern warning. And when that warning is ignored, the Republic itself stands on trial.
In the end, Constitutional governance endures not through rhetoric or political survival, but through fidelity to Constitutional duty; it is therefore hoped that the oath of allegiance taken by lawmakers is not reduced to a procedural formality, but honoured as a solemn privilege-an unwavering commitment to uphold the Constitution in letter and spirit and to serve the people whose rights, lives, and dignity it exists to protect.