INTELLIGENCE TERRORISM – A THREAT TO INDIAN DEMOCRACY

 INTELLIGENCE TERRORISM – A THREAT TO INDIAN DEMOCRACY

By V.K. Singh

The recent report of phone tapping of prominent politicians by the NTRO has highlighted, once again, the urgent need to review the functioning of our intelligence agencies. As is amply clear from the revelations of the officials who were involved in the operation, as reported in the Outlook journal, the NTRO was intercepting cell phone calls without any valid authorization. This is clearly illegal. There is no reason to believe that the other intelligence agencies, such as the IB and RAW, have more respect for the law than the NTRO, which has drawn a large number of personnel form the two older agencies. Are our intelligence agencies above the law, or what is even worse, a law unto themselves? It may appear implausible to the common citizen, but is not far from reality.

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 Kargil war in 1999 was the result of a massive intelligence failure – we failed to detect the infiltration of a large number of Pakistani troops who occupied features that dominated the Srinagar – Leh highway, posing a threat to Ladakh. After the war, the Kargil Review Committee found glaring anomalies in functioning of Indian intelligence agencies. One of its important recommendations was to group all technical intelligence resources under a single organisation like the National Security Agency of USA. This was the genesis of the National Technical Facilities Organisation (NTFO), which later became National Technical Resources Organisation (NTRO).

The recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee were examined by the Group of Ministers (GoM) on National Security, which was headed by LK Advani, with Jaswant Singh, George Fernandes, and Yashwant Sinha as members. In February 2001, the GoM submitted its report to the Government. The Report was formally 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. After it was released, 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. Apparently, someone forgot to inform the PIB, which issued a press release that gave out the salient recommendations of the GoM Report, including those pertaining to the deleted chapter on dealing with intelligence.

            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?  Is this not an example of intelligence terrorism?  

In August 2001, news reports quoted Shri LK Advani saying that the report would be discussed in Parliament.  However, the reports were never tabled in Parliament. Obviously, there was no debate. 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? Apart from the implied insult to the members – the intelligence agencies felt that they could not be trusted – the failure of the NDA government to table the Report constitutes a breach of privilege of Parliament. However, during the last ten years, not a single Member of Parliament has raised this issue in the house. Surely, the UPA government can correct the mistake now. Should not the public, through their representatives in Parliament, know if the country’s security is being properly managed? Should the views of the intelligence agencies override the parliamentary propriety and privilege?

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 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. The Inter Ministerial Group (IMG) Committee constituted by the Government to examine the recommendations of the ARC rejected them. The IMG had representatives from the Police, CBI, Intelligence Agencies, Law Ministry, but none from the Armed Forces, though the genesis of the OSA was the need to prevent spying and wrongful communication of military secrets. The punishment for disclosure of military secrets in the OSA is 14 years imprisonment, while it is only 3 years for all others. It does not require much imagination to guess who is behind the decision to reject the recommendations of the ARC, whose chairman – Veerappa Moily – is now the Law Minister. Is this not another   example of intelligence terrorism?

Another 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.

5 Jan 2010