07-31-2006, 05:54 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>What ails our intelligence? </b>
Pioneer.com
Joginder Singh
Every time there is a major terrorist strike, the imprint of Pakistan comes out glaringly. Islamabad, on the contrary, accuses our intelligence agencies of having inspired and perpetrated serious incidents not only in India but also Pakistan.
<b>Washington DC-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a privately funded non-profit policy organisation, whose board of sponsors includes half of America's living Nobel laureates, brushes aside such charges as frivolous. It would be unusual for an intelligence agency to mastermind an operation that had the potential of endangering its own country's citizens, it reasoned. If something did go wrong, it would have been an awfully big disaster. </b>
<b>The FAS reveals that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence has become a state within a state, answerable neither to the Army, nor the Government. The result is there has been no real supervision of the ISI. Drug money was used by it to finance not only the Afghanistan war, but also the proxy war against India. It reportedly supplies weapons, besides giving training to terrorists in Kashmir and the North-East.</b>
Are we equipped to deal with the challenge posed by Pakistan? The problem is highlighted by 7/11 serial blasts in Mumbai, which left 200 people dead. Regardless of Pakistan may say, we need to introspect and examine whether our own house is in order. Are our intelligence agencies and Government displaying enough vigilance to prevent the leakage of intelligence? How is it that, in spite of a large number of agencies, terrorists are able to strike at will?
One Union Minister in the previous Government had told a gathering of intelligence officials that the Kargil conflict was a result of the "failure to converge the information into actionable intelligence which led to the subserving of national security."
Have we learnt from our past mistakes? While talking to a police officer, I asked him what was wrong with the intelligence. He said that, with the creation of a plethora of Intelligence agencies, things had gone from bad to worse. Most intelligence officials sit in police stations and send reports based on the information collected by the police. The officer further added that the police station is the key point for interaction with the public and informants.
In our desire to collect more and more security related information, we have not only diluted the responsibility of the local officers in charge of the police stations, but also removed them from the responsibility of gathering intelligence. Apart from the central intelligence agencies, each State has its own intelligence set up. Also, each central paramilitary and defence force has its own system of intelligence gathering, including the Defence Intelligence Agency.
It is the reports collected and collated from different levels and sources that go into the formulation of the national policy on terrorism. Despite everybody trying his luck at collecting intelligence, we do not have an effective management system of intelligence.
Intelligence coordination should be at the heart of intelligence management, which includes gathering and analysis. As each department is an empire unto itself, we do not have clearly earmarked turf and every agency is stepping on the toes of others for inputs to impress their respective bosses. Intelligence relating to national security is provided not only by the IB and RAW, but also military intelligence, BSF, the Customs, Enforcement Directorate, and State police. In a midnight meeting during the VP Singh regime, then Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed remarked that the intelligence agencies were more keen to inform him as to what was likely to happen, instead of passing on the actionable intelligence to the ground level.
<b>The ideal arrangement would be to have all agencies assemble their information at one point, so that a complete picture is available to the decision-makers. It is best to do so at the district level, whether they are Central or State agencies</b>. Theoretically, the Joint Intelligence Committee and the National Security Council report to the National Security Adviser. But in practice, each agency works independently. The collection, collation and analysis of information are done by each intelligence agency in a veritable vacuum.
Over the years, political parties have misused intelligence and investigating organisations. <b>It is an open secret that governments in power misuse the agencies to bring about changes in political compositions, besides indulging in toppling games and spying on worthwhile individuals</b>. In fact, Rajiv Gandhi had openly accused the Government in 1991 of keeping him under watch. This allegation was repeated in 1996 and 1997 by the then Congress president against the United Front Government.
The bureaucracy, police and intelligence agencies weigh as to what should be reported and what should be watered down. They want to make certain that their bread is buttered on both sides. No wonder they present reports in such a way that they convey only what the bosses would like to hear or believe. This approach proves their loyalty not only to their bosses, but also to ideology. Such stance not only helps them in service, but also after retirement. This fact can be confirmed from the number of Ambassadors, Chairmen of Government Tribunals, Commissions and even Governors chosen from the rank of civil service.
When I was Superintendent of Police, a senior officer told me that the best approach is to guard from all sides and then take action. I told him that he was entitled to his approach and style of working, but putting the facts as they are and not as bosses want would be disloyalty to the nation. He said that sometimes telling the truth could harm one's interest.
We must not only be careful from external enemies, but also from the moles within. Former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that there was a mole in Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's office. Besides streamlining external and internal intelligence set up, we must make sure that the country does not leak like a sieve, whether it is about defence or the officials of intelligence agencies deserting their jobs and seeking shelter abroad.
The political executive needs to take more interest in the intelligence and security matters, instead of leaving everything on god and bureaucracy. It was Albert Einstein who once said that<b> the world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Joginder Singh
Every time there is a major terrorist strike, the imprint of Pakistan comes out glaringly. Islamabad, on the contrary, accuses our intelligence agencies of having inspired and perpetrated serious incidents not only in India but also Pakistan.
<b>Washington DC-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a privately funded non-profit policy organisation, whose board of sponsors includes half of America's living Nobel laureates, brushes aside such charges as frivolous. It would be unusual for an intelligence agency to mastermind an operation that had the potential of endangering its own country's citizens, it reasoned. If something did go wrong, it would have been an awfully big disaster. </b>
<b>The FAS reveals that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence has become a state within a state, answerable neither to the Army, nor the Government. The result is there has been no real supervision of the ISI. Drug money was used by it to finance not only the Afghanistan war, but also the proxy war against India. It reportedly supplies weapons, besides giving training to terrorists in Kashmir and the North-East.</b>
Are we equipped to deal with the challenge posed by Pakistan? The problem is highlighted by 7/11 serial blasts in Mumbai, which left 200 people dead. Regardless of Pakistan may say, we need to introspect and examine whether our own house is in order. Are our intelligence agencies and Government displaying enough vigilance to prevent the leakage of intelligence? How is it that, in spite of a large number of agencies, terrorists are able to strike at will?
One Union Minister in the previous Government had told a gathering of intelligence officials that the Kargil conflict was a result of the "failure to converge the information into actionable intelligence which led to the subserving of national security."
Have we learnt from our past mistakes? While talking to a police officer, I asked him what was wrong with the intelligence. He said that, with the creation of a plethora of Intelligence agencies, things had gone from bad to worse. Most intelligence officials sit in police stations and send reports based on the information collected by the police. The officer further added that the police station is the key point for interaction with the public and informants.
In our desire to collect more and more security related information, we have not only diluted the responsibility of the local officers in charge of the police stations, but also removed them from the responsibility of gathering intelligence. Apart from the central intelligence agencies, each State has its own intelligence set up. Also, each central paramilitary and defence force has its own system of intelligence gathering, including the Defence Intelligence Agency.
It is the reports collected and collated from different levels and sources that go into the formulation of the national policy on terrorism. Despite everybody trying his luck at collecting intelligence, we do not have an effective management system of intelligence.
Intelligence coordination should be at the heart of intelligence management, which includes gathering and analysis. As each department is an empire unto itself, we do not have clearly earmarked turf and every agency is stepping on the toes of others for inputs to impress their respective bosses. Intelligence relating to national security is provided not only by the IB and RAW, but also military intelligence, BSF, the Customs, Enforcement Directorate, and State police. In a midnight meeting during the VP Singh regime, then Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed remarked that the intelligence agencies were more keen to inform him as to what was likely to happen, instead of passing on the actionable intelligence to the ground level.
<b>The ideal arrangement would be to have all agencies assemble their information at one point, so that a complete picture is available to the decision-makers. It is best to do so at the district level, whether they are Central or State agencies</b>. Theoretically, the Joint Intelligence Committee and the National Security Council report to the National Security Adviser. But in practice, each agency works independently. The collection, collation and analysis of information are done by each intelligence agency in a veritable vacuum.
Over the years, political parties have misused intelligence and investigating organisations. <b>It is an open secret that governments in power misuse the agencies to bring about changes in political compositions, besides indulging in toppling games and spying on worthwhile individuals</b>. In fact, Rajiv Gandhi had openly accused the Government in 1991 of keeping him under watch. This allegation was repeated in 1996 and 1997 by the then Congress president against the United Front Government.
The bureaucracy, police and intelligence agencies weigh as to what should be reported and what should be watered down. They want to make certain that their bread is buttered on both sides. No wonder they present reports in such a way that they convey only what the bosses would like to hear or believe. This approach proves their loyalty not only to their bosses, but also to ideology. Such stance not only helps them in service, but also after retirement. This fact can be confirmed from the number of Ambassadors, Chairmen of Government Tribunals, Commissions and even Governors chosen from the rank of civil service.
When I was Superintendent of Police, a senior officer told me that the best approach is to guard from all sides and then take action. I told him that he was entitled to his approach and style of working, but putting the facts as they are and not as bosses want would be disloyalty to the nation. He said that sometimes telling the truth could harm one's interest.
We must not only be careful from external enemies, but also from the moles within. Former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has said that there was a mole in Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's office. Besides streamlining external and internal intelligence set up, we must make sure that the country does not leak like a sieve, whether it is about defence or the officials of intelligence agencies deserting their jobs and seeking shelter abroad.
The political executive needs to take more interest in the intelligence and security matters, instead of leaving everything on god and bureaucracy. It was Albert Einstein who once said that<b> the world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->