ARE SPOOKS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY?

ARE SPOOKS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY?

By V.K. Singh

India became free of British rule in 1947, becoming the largest democracy in the World. Since then, her citizens have enjoyed freedoms available in few societies, even in developed countries. However, these rights and freedoms are now under threat, not from outside, but from within. Slowly but surely, our intelligence agencies are making their presence felt in Indian polity. Their growing clout in governance is becoming a threat not only to the nation’s democratic credentials but also the life of the populace. Unless this new form of terrorism is recognised and nipped, there is grave danger of it causing irreparable damage to our way of life, achieved at great cost.

           The Official Secrets Act (OSA) was passed in 1923 to prevent spying and wrongful communication of military secrets. When the Bill was presented in the Assembly, it had a very controversial provision. Section 3 that dealt with ‘spying’ stipulated that it was not necessary to prove that the accused was guilty of any particular act – he could be convicted based on his past conduct and character. This was strongly objected to by the Indian members, especially Mr. K.C. Neogy, a member of the Select Committee, who gave a dissenting note. As a result, the draconian provision was made applicable only to military secrets, which carried a maximum punishment of 14 years imprisonment. For the non-military offences, the ordinary rules of evidence would apply. Military offences were made cognizable and non bailable, while the non-military offences were non-cognizable and bailable.

           Twenty years after Independence, the Indian Parliament passed an amendment in 1967, which nullified the efforts of K.C. Neogy and others. The special rule of evidence, which earlier applied only to military offences, was made applicable to non military offences also.  All offences were made cognizable and non-bailable, and the maximum punishments provided in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 were enhanced from 2 to 3 years and in Section 10 from 1 to 3 years. No reasons were given for these severe amendments, which were carried out by a subterfuge, at the instance of the intelligence agencies. If one goes through the debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha it becomes clear that even the Minster of State for Home, V.C. Shukla, who moved the bill, was unaware of the implications of the proposed amendments. The result - The Indian Official Secrets (Amendment) Act, 1967 made the Official Secrets Act much more draconian than it was under British rule.

 In 2001 the Group of Ministers on National Security – it was headed by LK Advani, with Jaswant Singh, George Fernandes, and Yashwant Sinha as members - submitted its report to the Government. The Report was released on 23 May 2001, though articles containing the gist of its contents and its tabling in Parliament had been appearing in the media from February onwards. When it was made public, it was found that the entire chapter on Intelligence (pages 16 to 40) had been deleted. The Home Minister stated that this had been done at the behest of the intelligence agencies. Strangely enough, the PIB release of 23 May 2001 gave out the salient recommendations, including those pertaining to the deleted chapter on dealing with intelligence. These were also covered by several newspapers during the next few days, which quoted from the Report. In August 2001, another news report quoted Shri LK Advani saying that the report would be discussed in Parliament.  However, in response to an RTI application, both Houses of Parliament have confirmed that the GOM Report was never tabled in Parliament and there was no debate. The news agencies stand by their reports. Obviously, like the deletions, the withdrawal of the report from Parliament was also a last minute decision. Did the intelligence agencies have a hand in this too?

            The ‘sanitized’ version of the 137 page Report is available on the web site of the Ministry of Defence.  The four major divisions of the report are Internal Security; Intelligence Apparatus; Border Management; and Management of Defence. The entire chapter on Intelligence has been deleted. However, there is only one minor deletion in the chapter on Internal Security, dealing with archaic laws and one minor deletion in the Chapter on Defence Management dealing with Military Civil Interface. The Official Secrets Act 1923 makes it amply clear that Defence matters are considered more sensitive than others. Is it not strange that the entire chapter on Intelligence has been deleted from the GOM Report, while there is almost no deletion in the chapter on Defence? 

The Right to Information Act, 2005 has brought in a new era of transparency in the government. There is little doubt that this is perhaps the most empowering piece of legislation in recent times. However, once gain the ubiquitous hand of the spooks is visible. The Second Schedule lists 18 intelligence and security agencies to which the provisions of the Act do not apply. Apart from RAW and IB, it also has all the para military forces and some police establishments.  Once again, the defence forces are not in the list. According to Section 8 of the Act, any government department can refuse information that is likely affect national security. Then what is the justification for a separate list for the intelligence and security agencies? Clearly, it is to keep their misdeeds hidden from public view and to reiterate their self proclaimed status as ‘secret’ agencies. The law makers who lent their voice to the Act did not realise its far reaching the implications. Today, a soldier, sailor or airman can ask for information concerning his salary, accommodation, promotion prospects etc. However, this privilege is denied to a man serving in the BSF, ITBP, CISF and Assam Rifles. If this is not grave injustice and discrimination, then what is?

In June 2006 the second Administrative Reforms Commission chaired by Shri Veerappa Moily submitted its first report on ‘Right to Information – Master key to good governance’ to the Government. One of the key recommendations was that the Official Secrets Act, 1923 should be repealed, and suitable safeguards to protect the security of State should be incorporated in the National Security Act. In response to an RTI application, the Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that “The Government has constituted a Committee of Secretaries to examine the recommendations made by the 2^nd Administrative Reforms Commission.  The Committee did not accept the recommendations made by the Commission in view of the submission made by the Ministry of Home Affairs”. It does not require much imagination to guess who is behind the submission of the MHA.  Significantly, the decision not to accept the recommendations of the ARC was taken by bureaucrats, not the Cabinet or the PM.  

This is not all. When asked to provide information about the deliberations of the Committee of Secretaries, the Home Ministry refused, on the specious ground that since officers from certain organisations that were exempted also attended these meetings, the record of its deliberations could not be provided. In other words, any department that wishes to keeps its deliberations secret has to simply invite a representative from RAW, IB, NSG or BSF, even if the agenda is arrangements for a Diwali Mela or a musical concert! Brilliant, is it not? Surely, Parliament did not visualise such contingencies when it agreed to exempt these organisations from the Right to Information Act.

The most recent example of ‘intelligence terrorism’ is the ban on writing books and articles about intelligence agencies by retired personnel. The Gazette of India of 31 March 2008 contains a memorandum requiring all officers serving in intelligence and security agencies to give an undertaking that they will not publish any book or article that is likely to damage National Security after they retire from service, or their pensions will be stopped. Why not ask every citizen to give an undertaking that he will not commit theft, or murder? Are there not laws to punish them if they do? The OSA can be used to haul up those who reveal state secrets, undertaking or no undertaking. Then why make another rule, which is clearly unconstitutional?

Clearly, it is the intelligence chiefs who call the shots today in South and North Block. The Ministers and Secretaries are either too preoccupied with other matters or feel it prudent to leave such ‘sensitive’ issues to experts, so that their backs are covered in case things go wrong. With increase in terrorism, nobody wants to risk disregarding the advice of intelligence czars, who are not accountable to anyone. The heavy veil of secrecy that covers our intelligence agencies hides little else than their shortcomings. In spite of the astronomical sums spent on them, they have utterly failed to provide information about a single terrorist attack in recent years. Yet, no one has been sacked. They are not subject to parliamentary oversight or financial audit. Is it any wonder that they have become a law unto themselves? They are the only public institution which is not accountable to the public, through Parliament. Their sins remain hidden due to the mantle of secrecy that they have deliberately covered themselves with. It is high time the people who pay their salaries – the Indian tax payer – held them accountable.

           

The amendments to the Official Secrets Act; the sanitization of the GOM Report; the exemption from the Right to Information Act and the recent gag order are all examples of ‘intelligence terrorism’, which is in fact more dangerous than the type that is being covered in the media. Ironically, the latter is raising its head mainly because of the former. If the intelligence agencies did what they are being paid for, terrorism would be severely curtailed, if not eliminated. One only has to compare their performance with their predecessors to see the depths to which they have fallen. In 1914 -15 thousands of Ghadrites came to India from USA and Canada to foment trouble and carry out terrorist strikes. The Indian CID caught most of them as soon as they landed. Those who succeeded were arrested, tried and sentenced to death. During World War II the INA led by Subash Chandra Bose sent dozens of agents to India, by submarine or overland routes. Almost all were caught as soon as they arrived. When Lord Mounbatten took over as Viceroy in 1947, he commented that he was lucky to have inherited one of the best intelligence services in the World. With such an impeccable pedigree, why can’t our intelligence agencies do half as much? Is it not time for our spooks to stop their own acts of terrorism and concentrate on those of others? And start running agents, instead of trying to run the country.

26 Jan 2009