Indian Internal Security - 3

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.sulekha.com/news/newsitem.aspx?cid=454637
<b>Man in the muddle </b>

In the backdrop of the Indian state showing its soft underbelly to terrorists of every description, BIBHUTI BHUSAN NANDY argues that the responsibility for the mess lies squarely with the national security advisor

Long before MK Narayanan would even have dreamt of becoming the country’s national security advisor, an eyewitness gave a graphic description of how the then Intelligence Bureau sleuth had felicitated Makhan Lal Fotedar on the latter becoming a Cabinet minister. Stooping his frame in craven genuflection, Narayanan reportedly offered the minister a big bouquet, saying with flourish: “Congratulations from your most obedient servant, sir.” Now this, many may argue, is nothing more than the “courtesy” afforded by a bureaucrat to his political master. But is it not a fact that the top positions in the intelligence apparatus are often gained on strength of being close to one politician or the other?

Narayanan’s rise to the top of Indian Intelligence was during the Rajiv Gandhi regime. Though VP Singh unceremoniously removed him from the Intelligence Bureau and banished him to the relative obscurity of the Joint Intelligence Committee, he swung back to his former high-profile position as soon as Chandrasekhar was enthroned with the support of the Congress.

During Narayanan’s second term as the country’s intelligence czar, LTTE suicide bombers assassinated Rajiv Gandhi on Indian soil when he was on a comeback trail. The Verma Commission that probed the Rajiv assassination lambasted Narayanan for the failure of the IB to protect the former Prime Minister. Justice Verma said: “In view of the continuing high threat to Rajiv Gandhi even on his ceasing to be the Prime Minister, the decision of the Central government on 30.1.90 to withdraw the Special Protection Group cover to him without provision of a suitable alternative for his proximate security and the subsequent withdrawal of the SPG cover reducing the level of his protection without any reduction in the level of threat to him was contrary to the Central government’s own earlier decision as well as his security requirement and was unjustified<b>.” Justice Verma held the IB squarely responsible for the failure to disseminate information on the threat perception regarding Rajiv Gandhi to the Tamil Nadu state government</b>.

So much for Narayanan’s judgement and capability as an intelligence professional and concern for the security of the Prime Minister he had served! It is widely believed in New Delhi’s intelligence and higher bureaucratic circles that the UPA government appointed MK Narayanan first as senior advisor to the Prime Minister and then, after the passing away of JN Dixit, as the national security advisor, reportedly following the wishes of 10 Janpath. It will forever remain a mystery to many how in the face of Justice Verma’s damning findings he, of all persons, could be the choice of the Nehru-Gandhi family. <b>In fact, the inquiry commission recommended departmental proceedings against Narayanan, but no action could be taken as he had already retired from service</b>.
Even as the CBI was grappling with the sensational war-room leak investigation, a recent espionage scandal allegedly involving the communication systems manager in the office of the national security advisor, a former computer scientist in the Navy and an Army brigadier serving in the RA&W has stunned the country. It has exposed the extreme vulnerability of our national security system and personnel.

Coming in the wake of this shattering espionage blow, the devastating 7/11 serial bombing of suburban trains in Mumbai has compounded the insecurity of the Indian state and people. And MK Narayanan is at the helm. The defection of the R&AW joint secretary Ravinder Singh to a foreign intelligence agency had left no one in doubt about the depth and dimensions of foreign intelligence penetration of the country, most notably its intelligence and security systems. Narayanan’s primary task ought to have been to clean the Augean Stables, ruthlessly hunt down the other moles in the organisation, fix responsibility and take all necessary corrective measures, not to mention effective legal steps to put an end to the plunder of national secrets once and for all.
<b>At the end of two years of labour, all that he has to show is that a mole working for a foreign intelligence agency in a sensitive post in his own office is suspected to have stolen its entire database and passed them on with the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of all officers of the NSC including that of the NSA to his case officer</b>. To give the devil its due, the IB top brass including the officer handling the case wanted a proper investigation into the exact nature and extent of the damage caused, but for reasons best known to Narayanan, they were reined in. 

The espionage scandal in the NSC involving its contractually appointed systems manager is reminiscent of the foreign intelligence infiltration of the Prime Minister’s Office in the mid-1980s when PC Alexander was the principal secretary to Rajiv Gandhi. But this time over, it has been much more damaging. The terrorist bombings in Mumbai, in the backdrop of the past few years’ devastating attacks on targets in Jammu and Kashmir, Coimbatore, Delhi, Ahmedabad and Varanasi, and earlier the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane to Kandahar and the Pakistani offensive in Kargil, have proved once again that ours is a soft state; <b>our intelligence organisations are simply no match for the security challenge facing the country. </b>

The secret services are, of course, responsible for the repeated intelligence failures; but the government cannot shrug off its share of the blame. The post-Kargil intelligence reforms carried out by the NDA government on the advice of a high-powered committee headed by the former R&AW chief and J&K Governor GC Saxena and comprising among others MK Narayanan as a member have not been enough.<b> By appointing the ruling party’s blue-eyed boys to important national security slots, the UPA government has hampered much-needed reforms</b>. The appointment of an academic by the present government soon after it came to power in May 2004 as a member of the Advisory Board of the National Security Council is a case in point.  Both IB and R&AW field formations had reported his prejudicial contacts and activities including clandestine interactions with a foreign intelligence office to their respective headquarters. There was a lot of frustration in intelligence circles that despite adverse reports on the man he was appointed to the National Security Advisory Board. There has been no let up in his prejudicial activities in the past two years. Within weeks of Narayanan taking over as the special advisor to the Prime Minister in 2004, this writer called on him in his South Block office by prior appointment and briefed him on what appeared to be an academic’s undesirable activities. I asked him if people proposed for appointment in the National Security Advisory Board were security-vetted. Narayanan replied: “Possibly not”. He, however, noted down the name, address and other details of the man, saying he would do the needful. Nearly two years have since elapsed, but the academic continues undisturbed.

An IPS officer of the 1955 batch, Narayanan joined the IB as an earmarked recruit soon after completing his institutional and district training. He spent his whole career in the safe sanctuary of IB headquarters dealing solely with Communism. Except for a couple of years spent in the SIB, Chennai, he had no direct exposure to the challenge of the socio-political and socio-religious dynamics of the 1970s and 1980s which have produced many of our present-day security problems. Having no experience whatsoever in practical police working, counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism and the intricacies of international relations,<b> except for some post-retirement lecture trips to the USA, Narayanan is ill-equipped to meet the demands of the office of national security advisor. Unsurprisingly, the country’s security has taken a beating in his hand</b>.

(The author is a former Additional Secretary, Research and Analysis Wing.) 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->