A new plan for securing India?

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

A new plan for securing India?

Post by Aditya G »

Speech made by Home Minsiter contains many broad contours that are potentially going to share our overall strategy for the next decade at the least. The last time such sweeping changes were made due to KRC and GoM reports in 1999 and 2001.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=56395
Home minister proposes radical restructuring of security architecture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13:29 IST



The Union Home Minister, Shri P.Chidambaram has proposed radical restructuring of the security architecture at the national level. He unveiled the proposal while delivering the 22nd Intelligence Bureau Centenary Endowment Lecture here today. The topic of the lecture was “A New Architecture of India’s Security”. As part of the plan, the Home Minister said that India must be able to set up the National Counter Terrorism Centre(NCTC) by the end of 2010 and once set up, NCTC must have the broad mandate to deal with all kinds of terrorist violence, directed against the country and its people. The Home Minister also suggested restructuring of the Ministry of Home Affairs and said that the Home Minister should devote the whole of his time and energy to matters relating to security. Following is the text of his lecture:



“The Intelligence Bureau is 122 years old. It celebrated its centenary in the year 1987. Since 1988, a number of distinguished persons – political leaders, scientists, jurists, police officers and administrators – have delivered the Centenary Endowment Lecture. I find that the subjects chosen by the speakers covered a wide range. I confess that I toyed with the idea of speaking on something totally unrelated to the security establishment. However, I thought that discretion was the better part of valour and settled on a subject that is, I hope, both contemporary and futuristic. I thank Shri Rajiv Mathur, Director, Intelligence Bureau for inviting me to deliver this prestigious lecture.



Violence is Omnipresent



2. Humankind has, through the millennia, co-existed with violence. Hunting and gathering were marked by violence. Tribal groups employed violence to assert their authority over land to the exclusion of other tribal groups. Kingdoms were established by violence; kings were overthrown by violence. War was invariably an instrument of policy: to be a warrior was an honour and great kings were also great warriors. In the twentieth century alone, humankind witnessed two world wars and many smaller wars. About 15 million people were killed in the first World War. Nearly 60 million died in the second World War. In all the conflicts since 1945, it is estimated that nearly 30 million persons may have been killed.



3. It is only in the latter half of the twentieth century that the seeds were sown for a movement against war. The famous words of Pope John XXIII come to mind: “No more war, never again war.” Nevertheless, little wars were fought over territories or boundaries. Fierce civil wars were fought, and are being fought, within countries. Nations joined together to fight a despot or eject an invader or quell a rebellion. As I speak to you, there is an “official” war in Afghanistan and many more unofficial battles. A world free from war appears to be a distant dream. While accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s mightiest armed forces said: “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”



4. Can war be justified? It is a debatable point. Those who justify war point to the larger objectives of a war. That was the case in the Balkans, that was the case in Iraq, and that is the case in Afghanistan. The jury is still out.

5. Through the twentieth century, many small wars were waged within countries. In Russia and in China, war took the name of “armed liberation struggle” in order to liberate the country from the yoke of capitalism and usher in the so-called rule of the proletariat. The main driver was ideology. Stripped of the rhetoric, it is plain that such conflicts were also driven by the desire to establish the supremacy of a leader or a party. Such ideology-driven internal wars led to the establishment of one-party States such as in China, Vietnam and Cuba.



6. After the second World War, there was another kind of war. It was called the Cold War. It was fought not with armies or aircraft or ships. It was fought in the shadowy world of espionage and intrigue. Its soldiers were agents and double agents. Its objectives were not very different from the objectives of a regular war. The ultimate goal was military supremacy over other countries of the world. It is said that the Cold War came to an end with the fall of the Berlin wall on November 9, 1989, but that was not the end of all wars. Just as the Cold War came to an end, we witnessed the emergence of another kind of war, namely, jihad. Jihad is a war or struggle against unbelievers and, currently, it is waged by a number of groups owing allegiance to Islam. Unlike the original Crusades, jihad is not fought like a conventional war. Jihad employs terror as an instrument to achieve its objectives. Such terror is directed against all and sundry, its victims are usually innocent people, and its goal is to overawe and overthrow the established authority. The tactics of the jihadis have been copied by militants belonging to other groups too, not excluding militants professing the Hindu faith.



7. By a quirk of fate, India in the twenty-first century has turned out to be the confluence of every kind of violence: insurrection or insurgency in order to carve out sovereign States; armed liberation struggle motivated by a rejected ideology; and terrorism driven by religious fanaticism. Never before has the Indian State faced such a formidable challenge. Never before have the Indian people been asked to prepare themselves for such fundamental changes in the manner in which the country will be secured and protected.



The Agony of 26/11



8. Let me summarize the situation as I found it on December 1, 2008. Two days after the terrorist attack in Mumbai was repulsed – after paying a heavy price of 164 lives – the nation was in shock and anger. A billion plus people felt they had been humiliated and the country had been brought to its knees by a small band of terrorists. The security establishment was in disarray and numerous questions were being asked. Had the intelligence agencies failed? Did the first responder, the Mumbai police, prove to be totally inadequate? Was the famed National Security Guard too slow to get off the block? Did the leadership of the police let down its men? Did the security forces take too long to neutralise ten terrorists? Did the Central and the State Governments fail to provide strong leadership? Did the crisis management system collapse? Did the country pay too heavy a price before it repulsed the terrorist attack? Did the Government fail the people in not mounting a swift counter-attack on the perpetrators of terror?



9. These questions continue to haunt me and many others even today. I think I have found the answers to some of these questions, but I do not intend to fill this lecture with those answers. My purpose is to outline the broad architecture of a new security system that will serve the country today and in the foreseeable future.



The State of our Police



10. Let me begin with the foot soldiers. All the States and Union Territories put together had a sanctioned strength of 1,746,215 policemen as on January 1, 2008. Against that number, only 1,478,888 policemen were in place. There are 13,057 police stations and 7,535 police posts in the country. The ratio of available police to per 100,000 people for the whole country is about 130. The international average is about 270. There is no substitute for the policeman who walks the streets. He is the gatherer of intelligence, the enforcer of the law, the preventer of the offence, the investigator of the crime and the standard-bearer of the authority of the State, all rolled into one. If he is not there, it means that all these functions are not performed. That – the failure to perform essential police functions – is where the rot began and that is where the rot lies even today. The first step, therefore, in devising a new security system in the country is to recruit more policemen and policewomen. In my estimate, States would have to recruit over 400,000 constables this year and in the next two years in order to fill the vacancies and in order to provide for expansion of the police forces. A bad police constable is worse than no police constable. Recruitment must therefore be transparent, objective and corruption-free. The Central Government has devised and commended to the States a transparent recruitment procedure that will be totally technology-based and free of any human interference. On its part, the Central Government has implemented the new procedure in the recruitment to the Central Para Military Forces.



11. The police stations in the country are, today, virtually unconnected islands. Thanks to telephones and wireless, and especially thanks to mobile telephones, there is voice connectivity between the police station and senior police officers, but that is about all. There is no system of data storage, data sharing and accessing data. There is no system under which one police station can talk to another directly. There is no record of crimes or criminals that can be accessed by a Station House Officer, except the manual records relating to that police station. Realising the gross deficiency in connectivity, the Central Government is implementing an ambitious scheme called “Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS).” The goals of the system are to facilitate collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, transfer and sharing of data and information at the police station and between the police station and the State Headquarters and the Central Police Organisations.



12. If intelligence-gathering is the corner stone of fighting insurgency or insurrection or terror, the foot solider cannot work in isolation. He must be enabled to gather intelligence from the people as well as the representatives and quasi-representatives of the State such as the Sarpanch, the Lambardar, the village accountant etc. More often than not, intelligence is provided by the citizen who would wish to remain faceless and nameless. It is therefore important that State Governments adopt “Community Policing” and establish a toll-free service under which a citizen can provide information or lodge a complaint. It is the myriad bits of information flowing from different sources that, when sifted, analysed, matched, correlated and pieced together, become actionable intelligence. That function must be performed, first and foremost, at the police station.



13. To sum up, we must have more police stations and, at the police station level, we must have more constables, some of whom are exclusively for gathering intelligence. We must also have a system of community policing, a toll-free service, and a network to store, retrieve and access data relating to crimes and criminals.



14. Moving up the ladder, at the District and State levels, the Special Branch is the key to better intelligence and more intelligence-based operations. There should be at least one police officer in each police station exclusively for intelligence gathering. As the intelligence gathered flows up to the District Special Branch and State Special Branch, there should be an adequate number of well-trained analysts to analyse the intelligence and to draw the correct conclusions. Intelligence is a specialised function. Not every police officer is qualified to be an intelligence officer. It is therefore imperative that the State Special Branch should be restructured as a specialised and self-sufficient cadre of the State police in terms of personnel, funds and equipment. On January 7, 2009, the Central Government had circulated a proposal to restructure the Special Branch in the State police forces. The implementation of the proposal will mark the beginning of a long-haul effort to restructure the intelligence-gathering machinery at the District and State levels.



15. At the District and State levels, the police must also be the first responder in case of a militant or terrorist attack. 24 x 7 control rooms must be set up at the District and State levels. Quick Response Teams must be positioned in every district capital and in important towns. Commando units must be raised and placed at different locations. The Central Government is supporting and funding the conversion of two companies of selected IR Battalions into commando units. QRT and commando units should have modern weapons and equipment. The age profile of these units must be young and older men must, periodically, make way for younger men. A special Anti-Terrorist Unit should be created at the State level to pre-empt terrorist activities and investigate terrorist crimes. While States have begun to take steps on these matters, the pace is still slow. States must give a full and true picture of the tasks completed by them and their state of readiness to face any threat or attack.



The Difficult Tasks Ahead



16. From what I have said so far, the changes that are required to be made in the architecture are quite basic and simple. They can be done by providing more funds, tightening the administration and working to a time-bound plan. Of course, it will also require sound leadership at the political and police levels. However, when we move upwards, serious questions concerning constitutional responsibilities and division of powers will arise. Also, difficult questions would have to be posed and answered regarding the current responsibilities of different organisations. Questions concerning jurisdiction and turf would also arise. If our goal is just extracting a little more from the ‘business as usual’ model, then these questions can be brushed aside or provided ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ answers. I am afraid that would be self-defeating. Sooner than you think, there may be another crisis like the hijack of IC-814 or another catastrophe like the Mumbai terror attacks. Hence, the time to act is now and I would spell the last word with capitals: N-O-W.



17. I therefore propose a bold, thorough and radical restructuring of the security architecture at the national level.



18. The present architecture consists of political, administrative, intelligence and enforcement elements. At the political level, there is the Cabinet Committee on Security. The administrative element is the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Prime Minister’s office and the Cabinet Secretariat. The intelligence elements are spread over different ministries: there is the Intelligence Bureau which reports to the Home Minister; there is the Research and Analysis Wing which falls under the Cabinet Secretariat and, hence, reports to the Prime Minister; there are organisations such as Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and Aviation Research Centre (ARC) which report to the National Security Adviser; and there is the National Security Council Secretariat under the NSA which serves the National Security Council. The armed forces have their own intelligence agencies, one each under the Army, Navy and Air Force and an umbrella body called the Defence Intelligence Agency. There are other agencies which specialise in financial intelligence. These are the Directorates in the Income Tax, Customs and Central Excise departments, the Financial Intelligence Unit, and the Enforcement Directorate. The enforcement element of this architecture consists of the central para-military forces such as CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, Assam Rifles, SSB and the NSG. What will strike any observer is that there is no single authority to which these organisations report and there is no single or unified command which can issue directions to these agencies and bodies.



19. Some changes have indeed been brought about after December 1, 2008. The most beneficial change has been the operationalisation of the Multi-Agency Centre. By an Executive Order issued on December 31, 2008, the MAC was energised with a broader and compulsory membership and a new mandate. Every piece of relevant information or intelligence gathered by one of the participating agencies is brought to the table. It is analysed and the analysis is shared with the participating agencies. The key benefit is that no one can say that his/her organisation was kept in the dark. Another beneficial change has been the extension of the reach of MAC to the State capitals and the setting up of the Subsidiary-MAC in each State capital in which all agencies operating at the State level, especially the Special Branch of the State police, are represented. Through the MAC-SMAC-State Special Branch network, the Intelligence Bureau has been able to pull more information and intelligence from the State capitals. It has also been able to push more information and intelligence into the State security system.



20. Another innovation is the security meeting held every day, around noon, under the Chairmanship of the Home Minister. NSA, Home Secretary, Secretary (R&AW), DIB, Chairman, JIC, and Special Secretary (IS) attend the meeting. The broad directions issued at the end of the meeting have brought about better coordination in all aspects of intelligence including gathering, analysing and acting upon the intelligence.



21. We should resist the temptation to exaggerate the gains that have been made through these changes at the top. The Home Minister – and by extension the Government – is indeed better informed. The agencies involved are more alert. However, in my view, it does not mean that our capacity to pre-empt or prevent a terrorist threat or attack has been enhanced significantly. As far as responding to a terrorist attack is concerned, we may have enhanced the capacity to contain and repulse an attack, but I think that there is still some distance to go before we can claim to have acquired the capacity to respond swiftly and decisively to a terror attack. It is this assessment which leads me to argue that the security architecture at the top must be thoroughly and radically restructured.



The New Architecture



22. Some steps in this direction are self-evident. For example, there is a need to network all the databases that contain vital information and intelligence. Today, each database stands alone. It does not talk to another database. Nor can the ‘owner’ of one database access another database. As a result, crucial information that rests in one database is not available to another agency. In order to remedy the deficiency, the Central Government has decided to set up NATGRID. Under NATGRID, 21 sets of databases will be networked to achieve quick, seamless and secure access to desired information for intelligence/enforcement agencies. This project is likely to be completed in 18 – 24 months from now.



23. Two more projects will commence early next year. The first is the Business Process Re-engineering of the Foreigners Division at a cost of about Rs.20 crore. The second is the more ambitious Mission Mode Project on Immigration, Visa and Foreigners’ Registration and Tracking with the objective of creating a secure and integrated service delivery framework for facilitating legitimate travellers and strengthening security. The scheme will network 169 missions, 77 ICPs, 5 FRROs and over 600 FROs with the Central Foreigners’ Bureau. It is estimated to cost Rs.1011 crore, but the rub is it is slated to be implemented over a period of four and a half years. The gaps in the visa system have been exposed in a number of cases, the most notable among them being the case of David Coleman Headley. The compelling need to create a fool-proof system cannot be overstated. Hence, it is necessary to put the project on a fast track, engage a Mission Director, beg or borrow the money to implement the project, and complete the task within 24 months.



24 It is our experience that the networks of terror overlap with the networks of drug-peddling, arms-trading and human-trafficking. The agencies that deal with the latter category of crimes are scattered. For example, the Narcotics Control Bureau is under the Ministry of Home Affairs while the Central Bureau of Narcotics is under the Ministry of Finance. The Arms Act is administered by MHA. As far as human-trafficking is concerned, the primary responsibility lies with the State Governments, but anti-human trafficking cells have been set up only in 9 districts of the country. Regulation and enforcement in each of these areas require to be strengthened and brought under the overall management of internal security.



The Way Forward – NCTC



25. Another major idea is the proposal to set up the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC). As the name suggests, the goal is to counter terrorism. Obviously, this will include preventing a terrorist attack, containing a terrorist attack should one take place, and responding to a terrorist attack by inflicting pain upon the perpetrators. Such an organisation does not exist today. It has to be created from scratch. I am told that the United States was able to do it within 36 months of September 11, 2001. India cannot afford to wait for 36 months. India must decide now to go forward and India must succeed in setting up the NCTC by the end of 2010.



26. Once NCTC is set up, it must have the broad mandate to deal with all kinds of terrorist violence directed against the country and the people. While the nature of the response to different kinds of terror would indeed be different and nuanced, NCTC’s mandate should be to respond to violence unleashed by any group – be it an insurgent group in the North East or the CPI (Maoist) in the heartland of India or any group of religious fanatics anywhere in India acting on their own or in concert with terrorists outside India. NCTC would therefore have to perform functions relating to intelligence, investigation and operations. All intelligence agencies would therefore have to be represented in the NCTC. Consequently, in my proposal, MAC would be subsumed in the NCTC. Actually, MAC with expanded authority will be at the core of the new organisation and will transform itself into NCTC. The functions that will be added to the current functions of MAC are investigation and operations. As far as investigation is concerned, Government has set up the National Investigation Agency, and that agency would have to be brought under the overall control of NCTC. The last function – operations – would of course be the most sensitive and difficult part to create and bring under the NCTC. But I am clear in my mind that, without ‘operations’, NCTC and the security architecture that is needed will be incomplete. It is the proposed ‘operations’ wing of the NCTC that will give an edge – now absent – to our plans to counter terrorism.



27. The establishment of the NCTC will indeed result in transferring some oversight responsibilities over existing agencies or bodies to the NCTC. It is my fervent plea that this should not result in turf wars. Some agencies would naturally have to be brought under NCTC and what come to my mind readily are NIA, NTRO, JIC, NCRB and the NSG. The positioning of R&AW, ARC and CBI would have to be re-examined and a way would have to be found to place them under the oversight of NCTC to the extent that they deal with terrorism. The intelligence agencies of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Finance would, of course, continue to remain under the respective Ministry, but their representatives would have to be deputed mandatorily to the NCTC. NATGRID would obviously come under NCTC. So also, CCTNS would have to be supervised by the NCTC.



28. Given the overarching responsibility of NCTC and its mandate, it will be obvious that it must be headed by a highly qualified professional with vast experience in security related matters. Considering the structure of our services, it is natural to expect that the head of one of our organisations will be appointed to the post, by whatever name it may be called. He/she could be a police officer or a military officer. He/she must be one who has impeccable professional credentials and the capacity to oversee intelligence, investigation and operations. He/she will be the single person accountable to the country on all matters relating to internal security. At the Government level, and in order to be accountable to Parliament, it would be logical and natural to place the NCTC under the Ministry of Home Affairs.



29. That leaves the question of the structure of the Ministry of Home Affairs itself. MHA now handles a wide portfolio of subjects ranging from ‘freedom fighters’ to ‘forensic science’. Is this a functional arrangement to deal with the grave challenges to internal security that we face and that we will face from many more years? I am afraid not. It is true that the words ‘Ministry of Home Affairs’ have an authoritative ring, but the MHA now performs a number of functions that have no direct relation to internal security. For example, it has a division dealing with freedom fighters but it does not have even a desk for dealing exclusively with forensic science. There are other divisions or desks that deal with Centre-State Relations, State Legislation, Human Rights, Union Territories, Disaster Management, Census etc. These are undoubtedly important functions and deserve close attention. However, internal security is an equally, if not more, important function that deserves the highest attention. In my view, given the imperatives and the challenges of the times, a division of the current functions of the Ministry of Home Affairs is unavoidable. Subjects not directly related to internal security should be dealt with by a separate Ministry or should be brought under a separate Department in the MHA and dealt with by a Minister, more or less independently, without referring every issue to the Home Minister. The Home Minister should devote the whole of his/her time and energy to matters relating to security.



30. It is after one year in office that I have ventured to outline the new architecture for India’s security. There are two enemies of change. The first is ‘routine’. Routine is the enemy of innovation. Because we are immersed in routine tasks, we neglect the need for change and innovation. The second enemy is ‘complacency’. In a few days from today, 2009 will come to a close, and I sincerely hope that we may be able to claim that the year was free from terror attacks. However, there is the danger of a terror-free year inducing complacency, signs of which can be seen everywhere. A strange passivity seems to have descended upon the people: they are content to leave matters relating to security to a few people in the Government and not ask questions or make demands. I wish to raise my voice of caution and appeal to all of you assembled here, and to the people at large, that there is no time to be lost in making a thorough and radical departure from the present structure. If, as a nation, we must defend ourselves in the present day and prepare for the future, it is imperative that we put in place a new architecture for India’s security.



31. Thank you for your patience and courtesy.”



Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Sridhar »

These are very significant proposals. The overarching objective of the proposals seems to be the creation of a Homeland Security style structure for the Ministry of Internal Security. I think it is eminently sensible, but many hurdles need to be crossed before something like this can be done. There are many turf battles to be won, not just across different ministries within the Union Government, but between the Union and the States. The most significant restructuring, and the one that does not involve buy-in from states is the creation of the NCTC as envisaged (though the 'operations' part of the NCTC will require enabling legislation like in the case of the NIA). If there is one agency that can be responsible for collection of intelligence, investigation into crimes and also operations in times of crisis and otherwise (the minister hinted at even capabilities for covert action), in other words a super FBI, we would really have dramatically improved our security architecture.

Again, there are lots of issues to deal with before something like this can be operationalized. The head of the NCTC - India's counter terrorism czar - would report to the Minister of Internal Security and would control everything from IB to NTRO to NSG to potentially even some of RAW's assets. What would be the role of the NSA in these circumstances - only dealing with external threats? Would there be a dotted line relationship of the DG-NCTC to the NSA (who is after all a cabinet level appointee). These questions will need to be answered and clear chains of command evolved for the system to work.

In any case, this is the first time in years that some clarity is being demonstrated by the MHA in matters of Internal Security. Let's see how much of this actually gets implemented. In the meantime, the MHA has to also worry about Telengana and the welfare of freedom fighters and police housing.
Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 979
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Rupesh »

i hope PC succeeds and NCTC becomes a reality by 2010 end. For too long we have treated internal security casually, finally we have a HM who alteast seems to be aware of the problems. A dedicated intranet for all state Police force is a must. I would suggest keeping NTRO out of this set up,Its basically meant for external intelligence.
Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Sridhar »

True. However, NTRO has significant technical assets for internal security, other than the ones it has for external security. Perhaps a way out is to have a permanent detachment from NTRO stationed at NCTC, just as what is proposed for RAW, the intelligence agencies of the defence services and of the Ministry of Finance.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Aditya G »

http://www.ptinews.com/news/437871_Chid ... -NSA-wings

24 Dec 2009, 00:37 HRS IST

STAFF WRITER 19:16 HRS IST

New Delhi, Dec 23 (PTI) Union Home Minister P Chidamabaram's roadmap for a "bold, thorough and radical" reconstruction of the country's security architecture could possibly see the wings of the office of National Security Advisor getting clipped.

The blueprint unveiled today included setting up by 2010 end a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) whose objectives will be to prevent a terrorist attack, containing such a strike if one takes place and responding to a terrorist attack by inflicting pain upon the perpetrators.

"The establishment of the NCTC will indeed result in transferring some oversight responsibilities over existing agencies or bodies to the NCTC. It is my fervent plea that this should not result in turf wars.
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9420
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by vijayk »

Sounds good. I am glad that he at least put forward a vision. Let us see how much it will get implemented.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ShauryaT »

One may not agree with everything this Bhishma says, but a one man defense university, he is, for the GoI.
'India needs an internal security ministry'
Can we replicate such a system?
In my view, it would be good to have a wholly dedicated Ministry for Internal Security.

Secondly, India needs a Director for National Intelligence. A few days ago (January 6), Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said every intelligence report that comes in is actionable and it’s a matter of how it’s assessed. Intelligence assessment has been a neglected aspect of intelligence process in India. For example there used to be a Joint Intelligence Committee. When the National Security Council was created, it was converted into the Secretariat for that council. This shows it was not given due importance. It has been revived in the past two years. There are different intelligence agencies and the National Security Advisor is in charge of coordinating all these agencies.

The NSA is overloaded with too many responsibilities. Instead, there should have been a Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the NSA.

Thirdly, the assessed information must be reported to the Cabinet Committee on National Security so that the committee is sensitised. This practice does not exist and does not allow for the adoption of a proactive policy.

Also, India does not have a cadre dedicated to national security. For example, an officer who was previously Secretary (Fisheries) in a state is brought in as Joint Secretary in charge of internal security or defence. This generalism in the IAS needs to be reformed and therefore, there’s a need for a specialised cadre for national security management.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

I do not like the idea of splitting the Home Ministry as it has great political ramifications. MHA is the most powerful post after the PM. Reforms are good but not more splits.

MHA has delivered the goods in the last sixty plus years.
What is being proposed is a Ministry of internal security ala Soviet style and other is a Ministry of Interior. Neither of them can be as effective as a good MHA.

More important is a new covert service for RAW is totally cooked due to its bureaucratic heritage. The personnel think its govt service just like police etc etc.
Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Sridhar »

What exactly is achieved by unified MHA that will not get achieved if there is a separate Ministry of Internal Security? :?:

BTW, I remember that RG created the department of internal security for the first time, with a then young Chidambaram as the Minister of State with substantial powers. There was still an overarching MHA, but those were days when all files went to PMO and rank was not indicative of power necessarily (i.e. the Ministers of State in the Home Ministry were more powerful than the Cabinet Minister).

Perhaps the minister is proposing covert capabilities as part of the new NCTC rather than RAW because of the recognition of institutional handicaps in RAW?
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Jarita »

^^^ Maybe Yuvraj will hold whatever position emerges
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Muppalla »

What is the remaining part of MHA after the split? 90% of home ministry's work is anyway regarding internal security.
Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Sridhar »

The bigger responsibilities include
a. Centre-state relations
b. UT administration
c. Disaster management
d. Approval of state legislation in the concurrent list
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Muppalla »

They may already have sub-divisions and also different departments inside Home Ministry.

Any new agency/ministry to counter terrorism is only useful if the agency and the all the state police agencies can respond without much of political interference. For example can this new Agency help to bust a sleeper cell in downtown Hyderbad, Lucknow or Jogeshwari in Mumbai independently without caring for political repurcussions? If yes then good.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Rahul M »

very impressive thought process from PC, good to see an Indian politician serious about his job.

while the ideas mentioned sound good, I'm still wondering about duplication of capabilities of the proposed NCTC(and NIA) with organisations like CBI and overlap of mandate (organised crime and relationship with terrorism for instance).
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Jarita »

^^^^ These guys are discussing giving quite a bit away on J&K. They are certainly not serious abt the country
Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Rahul Mehta »

After reading the speech -- I impressed by this stand up comedian PC. It was very very funny.

First, IMO, we should profile PC. He and his relatives looted Indian bank by over Rs 600 cr some 10 years ago, and that would Rs 6000 cr by today's rupee supply level. And that is only one of his loots. I dont want to take too much space but let me summarize --- he is one of the most corrupt Ministers in India has seen in past 100 years. In last election, rumor mill says that he spent over Rs 100 crores and in the end had bribed the EC officials big time to get his defeat changed to a victory. (Yes, at the end of counting, he was behind his rival and then after re-counting, he was declared winner !!) And PC was also a lawyer in Enron's panel, in which he advised Enron that Enron should sue GoI in court in London (or Singapore?) !! IOW, PC is a confirmed MNC agent.

As per bold statements, anyone who has spent one year on BR can draft such a bold speech and talk about "re-organizing" and create a strong appeal that re-organizing will reduce problems. Words are dirt cheap in this cyberera where good writers are plentiful. Despite this, it looks like PC's bold speech has created many bhagats.

Now lets talk of some REAL issues. The REAL issue that is plaguing Home Dept is corruption. From Minister to CBI Directors to IGPs to Constable, one can perhaps find a dozen people who are still non-corrupt, and some 10 of them will be Constables. Can a PC-bhagat point out to me the drafts of the legislations PC proposed to reduce corruption in Home Ministry. Or is my question giving Takleeeef to you because PC in his 25 years of MPship never ever proposed any legislation to reduce corruption and my question exposes this defunctness? And my question also perhaps points out that you PC-worshiping is no different from some bhagats who worship their Godman because of aura he has around him? Well, please bear the Takleeeeef and pls show me the DRAFTS of the legislations that PC is proposing to reduce corruption.

Now many of you may claim that "corruption is cool", let it go unchecked, we can improve policing without reducing corruption even by 1%, and trying to reduce corruption is waste of time. Tough luck. Never happened, never will. Because of rampant corruption in Home Ministers (PC included), IPS etc, crime is crossing all limits in non-posh neighborhoods. Your posh neighborhoods are safe because policemen live their with their family members. So a common man has RIGHTLY lost faith in police. And these tall statements may appeal to you all as well researched speech. But please read this speech before some 2 bit laborer and he will take as stand up comedy, which it is.
Last edited by Rahul Mehta on 24 Dec 2009 11:50, edited 1 time in total.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Jarita »

^^^^ So true
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

Anybody wants to flow chart the various orgs that PC mentions in his speech?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

X-post....
On the MHA plan to emulate the US setup.

Here is K P Nayar's take in Telegraph,

Chidambaram's Fantasy
CHIDAMBARAM’S FANTASY
- India should think twice about copying American security systems

Diplomacy
K.P. Nayar


A doting father goes to the authorities to take the incredibly difficult step of telling them that his son may be palling around with terrorists. He is no ordinary father loitering on the streets, but a prominent citizen, a well known banker, someone not prone to airing his concerns without thinking, not a loose talker who easily flies off the handle.

There are other red flags. The son has disappeared in a country which is fast catching up with Pakistan as a fountainhead of global terrorism. But he has also told his family that he is voluntarily cutting off all contacts with them for the sake of what he considers to be a higher cause. And the son is no ordinary son; he is not an idler or a waster, but someone who measured up to the expectations of his prosperous family, which found it fit to send him to London where he graduated with a degree in engineering. The boy has cleared the rigorous vetting process by American and British consular officials, and both governments have given him long-term visas to visit or stay, as the case may be, in their countries.

Such a youth is a windfall catch for terrorists because he can travel around the world with ease, board airplanes without arousing suspicion and, as it turned out, can even take banned and dangerous stuff on-board an aircraft headed for a destination with extremely rigorous security checks.

And yet, the information given by the father and other hints of suspicion are filed away by spooks, and nothing is done about the suspect using tools that were specifically created to prevent terrorism in the air of the kind which destroyed the World Trade Center in New York. Until it is too late: the son boards a commercial plane and attempts to destroy the aircraft he is in with nearly 300 other people in mid-air.

Some readers may be forgiven for thinking that this is a plot that could have played out in India, given the security lapses that become talking points after every major terrorist attack in the country.

But no, this was an intelligence failure that happened in the United States of America on Christmas Day just a fortnight ago. And it happened despite tips and warnings that America could be targeted by terrorists during Christmas. Although the airliner that the Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to destroy was saved by a fortuitous combination of circumstances, it was a successful terrorist operation from al Qaida’s point of view. After all, their man managed to evade America’s vast tracking system that is designed to keep terrorists from flying, he managed to get an incendiary device on-board a US airliner and he tried to set off that device on American airspace.

Exactly a week ago, the Central Intelligence Agency suffered its worst setback in 27 years when a Jordanian double agent was admitted into the CIA’s most sensitive base in Khost province in Afghanistan: he killed seven US spies, a Jordanian intelligence officer said to be on loan to the CIA, and wounded six others by detonating an explosives belt that he was wearing under his clothes.

It defies all logic that the Jordanian was allowed into the base without being searched or frisked; that so many CIA operatives were with him for his debriefing when two would have been appropriate, that the Jordanian was allowed to stay in close proximity to valuable CIA agents whose main job at the critical Khost base was to supervise a covert US programme of unmanned aerial strikes in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. It is difficult to recall any security failure in India on this scale costing the lives of so many Indian intelligence personnel.

But then, the history of US intelligence has always been more hype and less accomplishments. The CIA has done extremely well in overwhelming poor societies or governments ill-equipped to contain its ideology-driven onslaughts. Chile under Salvador Allende, the Socialist president who was overthrown at Washington’s behest, is one example. But at crucial times in history, US intelligence has let down the people of America. The CIA could not predict or even report the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 quickly enough, although it was well known that the Bharatiya Janata Party was committed to exercising India’s nuclear option.

Recently, declassified documents in the West have revealed that contrary to popular myth, the Soviet Union and its former satellites did not collapse on account of any CIA heroism, but under the weight of the stagnant communist system and because of the momentum of a process that was triggered by Mikhail Gorbachev.

The botched CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro have led to a Channel 4 documentary entitled 638 Ways to Kill Castro. The credit for the film’s title goes to Castro’s aide, Fabian Escalante, who once had the responsibility of detecting and subverting CIA plots to kill the Cuban leader. He calculated that there have been 638 attempts on Castro’s life.

More recently, the longevity of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez in office, despite the Bush-era CIA’s attempts to overthrow him, is evidence that the American covert operations are falling behind even in the kind of anti-Allende-style coup attempts that they excelled in.

Yet, the Union home minister, P. Chidambaram, wants to recreate India’s counter-terrorism infrastructure in America’s failing image. It is true that when the home minister was in Washington and in New York, the Americans opened the doors for him like they have not done even for his counterparts from America’s allied states. Indeed, prominent elected representatives on Capitol Hill have complained, half in jest, that since Chidambaram’s visit they do not often get the kind of access to the US intelligence set-up that Chidambaram got when he was in the US from September 8 to 11 last year. :eek:

In the context of America’s most recent intelligence failures, that may well be a problem rather than an advantage. Chidambaram, as one among the more intelligent Indian ministers, returned to India from his September visit to the US with lots and lots of ideas, as he has acknowledged.The home minister is now looking at replicating in India a number of US institutions that are involved in the business of promoting national security: the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, as well as the work of the New York Police Department in securing a megalopolis like New York. Although he no longer has anything to do with finance, having been finance minister, Chidambaram has been trying to inject his ministry into the work of the global Financial Action Task Force, of which India is not yet a member.

The trouble with opening up sensitive American institutions to foreigners like Chidambaram, especially foreigners from developing countries, is that American installations like their Joint Terror Task Force or the NYPD are very impressive establishments on the surface and have a facade of quality and efficiency. The question that Indians must ask loudly before their country is firmly and inextricably linked with America in its counter-terrorism effort is how well have these impressive institutions, including the NYPD, performed during times of crisis.

The answer, alas, is in the negative. India should, therefore, think twice about copying American systems. Those systems, in the end, allowed the Nigerian terrorist to get on-board an American airliner and violate US airspace. In the final analysis, terrorism cannot be fought by huge systems that invariably lead to inefficiency and lethargy, systems of the kind the US has created after September 11, systems which leave false impressions of being close to the ideal. There should be greater emphasis, instead, on common sense and raw human intelligence output, which is the strength of India’s counter-terrorism efforts. The US systems lack these.

It is interesting that in the days after the Christmas Day flight carrying the Nigerian terrorist was saved, there were big calls in the US for using imaging techniques at airports, machines that hide nothing of the human body. They had been delayed because of concerns about privacy. But in recent days in the US, two top former officials of the department of homeland security have been campaigning in public about the need to use the all-revealing scanners. Obviously, they represent certain industry lobbies, which want to sell scanners for body imaging. For that they will do anything.

Chidambaram may have been pleased with the reception he got in Washington, but this is something that is worth analyzing at some stage. Experts in the US may well be targeting India for its slow response to terror threats, but it is necessary to see these criticisms and the home minister’s visit in the context of holding off pressure from Washington to buy US high-tech counter-terrorism products worth millions of dollars that are being projected as critical to Indian security.
My objection is the consolidation sets up single point of failure. Its India's multiple agencies that have stood it in good stead. Yes co-ordinate but dont sub-ordinate them.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by shyamd »

^^ Just thinking about the things Nayar said. He seems like he doesnt like the idea of india getting close with the US. I thought his reasoning for not partnering with the US is pathetic. He lists mistakes committed by the US intel community, ... the reason why P Chidambaram is running to the US because of the huge f ups Indian intel has made(I wouldnt obviously blame it all on intel guys but politicians as well). The rest of his article is okay though.

I say it for the nth time... India needs to improve its HUMINT. The CIA was in the same position late 80's early 90's, purely reliant on techint. It needs politicians that are ready to take risks. Focus on technological improvements that come from within India. A massive revamp of IB, NTRO is completely in charge of tech aspects, RAW is needed to conduct operations outside border areas. Offensive ops need to be conducted by MI/DIA (agent running in enemy territory etc). Both MI(focus on military and counter terror) and RAW(focus on political and all liaison work with foreign agencies (inc counter terror), RAW will have to work closely with MEA, so that political inputs are taken on board in negotiations) should be able to simultaneously run agents. After the Kolkata episode, central and relevant state agencies need to come to the table and say who they are running, this prevents agents workin for diff agencies hence earning money twice.

the NATGRID and other plans are a good step forward. Every border post should be linked etc.

I welcome your thoughts folks.
Karna_A
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 03:35

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Karna_A »

Corruption and incompetence are 2 different issues and should not be mixed and should not be excuse for each other.
I have seen corrupt but competent officers, and honest but incompetent officers.
For MHA competence is way more important than corruption.
In fact the greatest corruption I ever saw in my life was at IIT Annual functions. Tall prizes(Rs 10K+) were announced during the festivals, with prize winning ceremony in auditoriums, but the real people did not even get a single rupee. I personally know a few such people.
Now the organizers were quite competent in organizing the festivals as were they academically but their 100% corruption was percentage wise way greater than Chidambaram's. Even he cannot get away taking 100% of MHA budget and I doubt he takes cuts from Police Medal Prize money.
Again Corruption and incompetence are 2 different issues to be dealt separately and MHA needs competent leaders preferably who are honest also.
Rahul Mehta wrote:
Now lets talk of some REAL issues. The REAL issue that is plaguing Home Dept is corruption. .
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

shyamd wrote:^^ Just thinking about the things Nayar said. He seems like he doesnt like the idea of india getting close with the US. I thought his reasoning for not partnering with the US is pathetic. He lists mistakes committed by the US intel community, ... the reason why P Chidambaram is running to the US because of the huge f ups Indian intel has made(I wouldnt obviously blame it all on intel guys but politicians as well). The rest of his article is okay though.

I say it for the nth time... India needs to improve its HUMINT. The CIA was in the same position late 80's early 90's, purely reliant on techint. It needs politicians that are ready to take risks. Focus on technological improvements that come from within India. A massive revamp of IB, NTRO is completely in charge of tech aspects, RAW is needed to conduct operations outside border areas. Offensive ops need to be conducted by MI/DIA (agent running in enemy territory etc). Both MI(focus on military and counter terror) and RAW(focus on political and all liaison work with foreign agencies (inc counter terror), RAW will have to work closely with MEA, so that political inputs are taken on board in negotiations) should be able to simultaneously run agents. After the Kolkata episode, central and relevant state agencies need to come to the table and say who they are running, this prevents agents workin for diff agencies hence earning money twice.

the NATGRID and other plans are a good step forward. Every border post should be linked etc.

I welcome your thoughts folks.
Before all this we need to focus on what are the roles and functions of intelligence. Or else we will be like GOM reports focusing on fixing things without figuring out how that improves stuff.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by RayC »

Intelligence is the sum total of collection, evaluation, analysis, integration and interpretation of all available information. It can be for immediate planning of ops or kept as a data for future use depending of the situation arising then.

The varied types of intelligence are
(a) National intelligence.
(b) Strategic intelligence.
(c) Military intelligence.
(d) Combat intelligence.
(e) Counter intelligence.

Be it Maoists or foreign sponsored terrorism, I presume all aspects of intelligence mentioned above will have to come into play since such elements have foreign support, have ingress through Army held areas before they enter the hinterland to the areas where they are to operate.

Operational and counterintelligence would be essential since the former will provide those to take action with timely and accurate information regarding the strength, disposition, movement, intentions and methods, the latter would aim such info is not obtained by the terrorist or Maoists about the SF.

The critical aspect of such intelligence on the Maoists/ terrorists would be that there is Central Coordination so that all intelligence agencies work under one head and there is no waste of effort or confusion or rivalry. Equally important is that there must be Continuity of flow of information because the situation can be fluid and the info getting dated and hence useless. There has to be integrity in the info and no balderdash or brouhaha and if there is integrity in the reporting of info, then the reasoning that will give pure intelligence will be logical. And most importantly, such info providing and dissemination of intelligence must be timely.

There can be multiple intelligence agencies (ideal to pick up raw info) but there has to be one Coordinating Agency they report to. Independent multiple agencies have been a total failure, always and every time. Mumbai terrorist attack is an example that should be still fresh comes to mind and requires no elaboration.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

Follow up article in Pioneer. Earlier article was titled "Karachi Project"

LINK:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/228702/Join ... -dots.html
OPED | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | Email | Print |


Joining terror’s dots

Shashi Shekhar


The botched Christmas bombing of a Detroit-bound flight clearly indicates that the proposed National Intelligence Grid will suffer the same deficiencies and limitations as in the US. India must sufficiently address the need to correlate structured information available with its agencies

The spectre of jihadi terror against the United States within the homeland returned with the botched Christmas bombing in a Northwest Airways flight bound for Detroit. Much has already been written on the background and circumstances leading up to the radicalisation of Nigerian born Farouk Abdulmutallab and his links with Al Qaeda in Yemen. The incident while bringing to light the continued attempts by Al Qaeda at innovation also exposed the steep challenge in pre-empting and preventing jihadi terror from striking at soft targets.

US President Barack Obama must be complimented for his purposeful and transparent response in not just taking bottomline for the lapses in the system but for also going public with the details of these lapses. We in India have not been as lucky to be blessed with a leader that has the political courage to stand up and say, ‘the buck stops with me!’ However, there has been a sense of purpose with which Home Minister P Chidambaram has been advocating a revamp of our internal security architecture. One such purposeful endeavour is the setting up a National Intelligence Grid combining multiple public databases. With the appointment of former head of Mahindra Special Services Group Raghu Raman as chief executive officer of the Natgrid project, it is expected this key element in our Internal Security Architecture will be put on a fast track.

As the Home Ministry sets about the consultation process on the Natgrid there are many useful lessons to be learnt from the details made public by the Americans on lapses in their ability to connect the dots on information already available across multiple intelligence databases.

The review ordered by the US President of the systemic failures leading up to the botched December 25 attack revealed the following significant lapses. First, it was revealed that there was a failure to identify, correlate and fuse into a coherent story all the pieces of intelligence inputs already available across multiple databases and systems. Second, there was a failure to assign responsibility and accountability for follow-up of high priority threats to track all available leads to completion. Last, there were shortcomings in the process by which Abdulmutallab could have been prevented from boarding the flight bound for the US.

Further expanding on the failure to connect the dots, the review provides a useful insight into the various agencies involved in analysing counter-terrorism intelligence. It describes how the National Counter-Terrorism Centre was tasked as the primary agency for bringing together and assessing all-source intelligence. It also reveals that the NCTC had the bottomline for enabling a full understanding and formulating a proper response to terror threats. The review further goes on to explain the overlapping roles between the NCTC and CIA to make the point that the intentional redundancy in functions between the two agencies ought to have provided an additional layer of security.

Highlighting how this redundancy failed to connect the dots, the review reveals that there were discrete pieces of intelligence on threats from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operating in Yemen which were not correlated with information from Abdulmutallab’s father on his son’s alleged radical activities in Yemen.

The other significant revelation from the review was that no single agency within the counter-terror community assumed responsibility for following up on the terror threat leading all the way to its disruption. In a very poignant remark, the review recommended that a process be put in place to track a terror threat and to ensure accountability across agencies in its follow-up.

The review concludes by observing that there was a failure to aggressively identify and correlate threat indicators using all the analytical tools and expertise at the disposal of the agencies.

Two significant technological deficiencies emerge from this review by the Americans. First has to do with faulty and incomplete databases on account of mispronunciation or multiple-pronunciations names. A more significant technological limitation had to do with the inability of technology to help correlate discrete elements of data already available.

Both of these are of immense of significance to the Natgrid project. As has been observed by this columnist previously, the Pakistan military-jihadi complex has been quite adept at operating beneath multiple layers of deceit using multiple false identities. The growing use of Internet and social networking websites by anti-India jihadis has also been highlighted by this columnist on previous occasions. The proposed Natgrid would suffer the same deficiencies and limitations as has become evident from the American experience, if it does not sufficiently address the need to correlate structured information already available in Government databases. The Natgrid must go a step further to also correlate unstructured information gleaned from the Internet and from conversations in social networking websites.

If one were to list two critical success factors for the Natgrid project. First, it would be the ability to correlate and identify emerging threats from across structured and unstructured sources of information. Second, it would be a process by which responsibility and accountability are established for following up on these emerging threats leading all the way up to their pre-emption and disruption.

India’s best and brightest minds are today servicing the world’s Information Technology needs. It would be a shame if the Natgrid project does not benefit from their intellectual prowess. The Home Ministry would do well to call upon the patriotism of India’s best technology minds by devising innovative ways for public participation in the Natgrid project.

The writer tracks terrorism in South Asia.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Aditya G »

Resurrecting an old thread in light of the recent developments.

ramana wrote:Hindu reports:

NCTC operational from March 1, 2012
Counter-terror body to be operational from March 1
Vinay Kumar
In a step aimed at strengthening various counter-terrorism measures, the government has decided to operationalise the ambitious National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) from March 1.

A pet project of Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, NCTC got the approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) three weeks ago. The operations division of the counter-terrorism body has been given powers to arrest and carry out searches under Section 43 (A) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Initially, the NCTC will be located in the Intelligence Bureau and headed by a director, who will be an officer in the rank of additional director, IB. It will have three units - gathering intelligence, analysis of intelligence and carrying out operations - and each of these divisions would be headed by a joint director of Intelligence Bureau.


The NCTC will have the power to requisition services of the elite National Security Guard (NSG), according to the official order. It will integrate intelligence pertaining to terrorism; analyse the same; pursue or mandate other agencies to pursue the different leads; and coordinate with the existing agencies for an effective response.

It will also maintain a comprehensive data base of terrorists and their associates, friends, families, and supporters; of terrorist modules and gangs; and of all information pertaining to terrorists.


“NCTC will prescribe counter-terrorism priorities for each stakeholder and ensure that all agencies have access to and receive source intelligence support that is necessary to execute counter terrorism plans and accomplish their assigned tasks,’’ the order said. It will also prepare daily threat assessment reviews and disseminate them to the appropriate levels in the Central government and to the State governments.

The GoM that reviewed the internal security system in the aftermath of the Kargil conflict had recommended the establishment of a Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) in the Intelligence Bureau, which was set up in 2001 and its functions, powers and duties were prescribed in 2008. :(

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission had in 2008 recommended that MAC should be converted into NCTC with personnel drawn from different intelligence and security agencies. A review of the current architecture of counter terrorism also revealed several gaps and deficiencies and the need was felt for a single of control and coordination of all counter terrorism measures.

“The NCTC will fulfil this need also ensure that it does not duplicate the roles of other agencies and work through the existing agencies in the country,’’ official sources said.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

So NCTC is two years late(planned for 2010 and delayed till 2102) and is being touted as the latest and greatest!!!!

Earlier MAC was setup in 2001 and in 2008 empowered decided to implement the NCTC!

PC is the greatest onlee!
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:
shyamd wrote:^^ Just thinking about the things Nayar said. He seems like he doesnt like the idea of india getting close with the US. I thought his reasoning for not partnering with the US is pathetic. He lists mistakes committed by the US intel community, ... the reason why P Chidambaram is running to the US because of the huge f ups Indian intel has made(I wouldnt obviously blame it all on intel guys but politicians as well). The rest of his article is okay though.
Before all this we need to focus on what are the roles and functions of intelligence. Or else we will be like GOM reports focusing on fixing things without figuring out how that improves stuff.

The trouble with opening up sensitive American institutions to foreigners like Chidambaram, especially foreigners from developing countries, is that American installations like their Joint Terror Task Force or the NYPD are very impressive establishments on the surface and have a facade of quality and efficiency. The question that Indians must ask loudly before their country is firmly and inextricably linked with America in its counter-terrorism effort is how well have these impressive institutions, including the NYPD, performed during times of crisis.

US has deep knowledge of ISI and all the terrorist support inside Pakistan for the last 50 years. Their agencies have contacts with Khalistani and all the assorted outfits including maoists, leftsts etc.
If they get access to Indian orgniazation they have all the reasons to penetrate and destroy.
Which kind of country allows such access for agancies which already has done so much harm
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

Sunday, February 12, 2012

February 12, 2012

Working in real time

Will the long-awaited National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), which will come into existence on March 1, make a difference? Most commentators feel it won’t. They say it is nothing more than affixing a fanciful American label that had fascinated home minister P Chidambaram on the decade-old Multi-Agency Centre (MAC). They also wonder why it took him three years to set it up.

It is true that the NCTC will not be what the minister declared it would be when he addressed Intelligence Bureau (IB) officers on December 23, 2009. At that meeting, he had described it as an outfit capable of “preventing a terrorist attack, containing a terrorist attack should one take place, and responding to a terrorist attack by inflicting pain upon the perpetrators”. It is also true that in terms of its charter, authority, empowerment and resources, it cannot match its American namesake. However, it is certainly an improvement over what exists now. While the Indian centre has little in common with its US counterpart, their underlying doctrines have much in common. Of course, on matters of detail we have grossly missed out and the devil lies in the detail.

The MAC was created following the recommendations of the Group of Ministers, which was set up by the NDA in 2001 to suggest comprehensive reforms in India’s national security apparatus.

The outfit, headed by a part-time additional director in the IB, maintained a databank of terrorists and their collaborators, terrorist organisations, details of terrorist violence including their modus operandi, tactics, communication links, weapons and equipment used etc. The outfit had representatives from all central intelligence agencies, defence forces and central police organisations who were both contributors and beneficiaries of the all-source databank.

They met regularly to exchange and evaluate intelligence inputs, assess impending threats and worked out possible responses. The sharing of intelligence with MAC was, however, informal and unstructured, often leaving gaping holes. MAC did not collect intelligence or carry out intelligence operations. The NCTC, however, will be an integrated platform that will collect, evaluate and analyse intelligence, maintain a databank and coordinate counter-terrorist operations. Headed by a full time director, the NCTC will make sharing of intelligence and follow up operations efficient, faster and better coordinated.

The IB, despite being the nodal agency for counter terrorism, as a secret organisation was handicapped in several ways and had to play the role of an invisible hand ensuring that it did not cross the red lines. Their support in terms of providing intelligence, working out plans for physical action, covert operational and technical support etc was all informal. Often, operational intelligence and follow up plans, painstakingly developed at grave personal risks, were lost due to lack of professional expertise, sense of urgency, training, equipment, and even motivation of the local police. The IB could not intervene beyond a point. The NCTC, with powers accruing to it under section 43A of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, to arrest anybody having a ‘design to commit’ or ‘having committed’ any act of terror, will be able to take preventive and proactive actions in real time on its own. Importantly, the law makes reliable intelligence “from personal knowledge or information given by any person” as the basis for undertaking such operations. The empowerment under UAPA should enable the NCTC to search and seize any ‘building’, ‘conveyance’ or ‘place’ that is suspected to have terrorist links and this will further enhance its effectiveness.


Further, the NCTC will have the powers to requisition the services of the NSG or any other special force for undertaking counter-terrorist operations. In effect, it means that should the NCTC have reliable intelligence, it can under its own empowerment, co-opt central forces to complement the local police and make up for their deficiencies in trained manpower, equipment, logistics etc.

Taking advantage of its nationwide jurisdiction, the information gathered by the NCTC during search operations or initial questioning of the suspects, can be used to mount supplementary operations in any part of the country taking help of the local police to meet legal requirements. It will set in motion the chain of counter-terrorist actions in real time. This is distinct from situations in the past when many opportunities were lost due to legal-jurisdictional problems, hassles in priming up police forces which were out of the loop, delays in tying up logistics etc. The best operational intelligence is obtained within two to three hours of a successful operation when terrorists are questioned, documents are recovered and mobile phones are seized. However, the shelf-life of all these is just a few hours before the information is flashed by the media. The NCTC will be able to substantially cover this gap.

The fears expressed in some quarters that the head of NCTC, being a relatively junior officer, will be unable to deliver are unfounded. The NCTC will have all the clout that it needs because the IB chief, the senior-most police officer, under whom the NCTC head will work, will be able intervene whenever required. However, in order to maximise the advantages of having a counter-terrorism centre of this kind, the government must opt for a dynamic and relatively young additional director who is poised for higher future responsibilities.

Notwithstanding the gaps, the NCTC has much to offer. Over a period of time, it will be necessary to empower it more. It must acquire statutory status through an act of Parliament. The home ministry should look for officers with professional competence and motivation to man the organisation. The counter-terrorist units of the states should be re-organised on the pattern of the NCTC to bring about uniformity and seamless integration in national counter-terrorism efforts. Needless to say, the Centre must bear the costs. But eventually much will have to be done by the NCTC and this includes enhancing its intelligence capabilities, injecting speed and surprise in its operations and establishing an R&D unit and upgrading the use of technology.

Ajit Doval is director, Vivekananda International Foundation

The views expressed by the author are personal
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... 10451.aspx
© Copyright © 2011 HT Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.
Why was the MAC stunted in its role even when the GOM decided on its mission? So man years were lost in the wilderness. Was it internal sabotage?

The IB is atlast able to arrest atleast the terrorists! It still cant arrest spies unless they are terrorists.

Also how does the arrest powers of IB reconcile with the Center- States police powers in the Constitution?

If all these are not reconciled, it will lead to escapes by most terrorists.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by Aditya G »

Assessment explains CMs opposition to NCTC:

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/killi ... 16854.html
Killing the NCTC: Why India sucks at counter-terrorism
Venky Vembu Feb 17, 2012

US anti-terror model after 9/11 is fallible; it's not for us
UPA in trouble: Mamata, Jaya, Nitish jointly oppose NCTC

Four Chief Ministers – Mamata Banerjee, Jayalalithaa , Naveen Patnaik and Nitish Kumar – have come out against the National Counter Terrorism Centre , which was intended as a nodal counter-terrorism agency and was to be operationalised from 1 March. Gujarat Chief Minister too is believed to have opposed the proposal. Non-Congress opposition parties and leaders have similarly criticised the proposal.

The criticism against the NCTC has been made principally on the ground that it will erode the rights of the States. Banerjee noted in a letter to the Prime Minister that under the terms of the order, the NCTC would have extensive powers, including the power to arrest and the powers to search under various provisions of the law. Additionally, state governments functionaries would be required to provide information/documents to the NCTC..Banerjee said it was difficult for the state government to accept “such arbitrary exercise of power by the central government/central agency, which have a bearing on the rights and privilege of the states as enshrined in the Constitution of India.”

Federalism gone wild

At first glance, this appears to be a case of federalism gone wild. AFP
At first glance, this appears to be a case of federalism gone wild. Just as with the Lokpal Bill, where the bogey of States’ rights was invoked to effectively spike the already weakened anti-corruption Bill that the Congress brought before Parliament, so too now the proposed NCTC faces the high hurdle of opposition from State governments, including at least one headed by a key ally of the ruling Congress.

What is it about the hyperpartisan Indian political system that it cannot even evolve a consensus on so important a matter as the need for a nodal counter-terrorism agency? Why is it that even the matter of national security – and the countless lives we lose every year to terrorist attacks – does not persuade parties to take a larger national perspective? And why does not the proposed agency, the brainchild of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram (who saw it as his “unfinished agenda”), inspire confidence among State Chief Ministers?

Much of the problem arises from the way governments at the Centre and in the States, for all their claims to rising above politics, view terrorism through a partisan prism.

When Chidambaram first unveiled the NCTC idea, in a landmark speech in December 2009, barely a year after the November 2008 Mumbai attack, he had actually visualised it as a much more all-encompassing agency. (Read his speech here.) Strikingly, it appeared then that Chidambaram was unveiling a major policy in a public speech, without so much as securing Cabinet clearance for the proposal.

Chidambaram envisaged the NCTC as a nodal agency to deal with terrorism – that is, prevent a terror attack, contain it (if an attack did take place), and thirdly, “inflict pain upon the perpetrators”. With that mandate, he saw the NCTC performing functions relating to intelligence, investigation and operations.

To that end, he felt that the NCTC would result in the transfer of oversight responsibilities over existing intelligence agencies to the proposed agency. And although he said it was his “fervent plea”” that this “should not result in turf wars”, to observers it reeked of an effort to whittle down the powers of the then National Security Adviser MK Narayanan – who was subsequently eased out of office.

In such inauspicious circumstances was the NCTC conceived.

Even members of the intelligence community cautioned against building up a “super-agency.” Vikram Sood, former head of the Research and Analysis Wing (India’s external intelligence agency), argued that it would be wrong for the NCTC to aspire to become a “super-intelligence organisation and … take over the operational aspects of intelligence organisations.”

Since then, the mandate of the NCTC has been eroded substantially. It was once envisaged as an overarching counter-terrorism agency with various other existing agencies – the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), the Multi Agency Centre of the Intelligence Bureau , the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the National Security Guards – reporting to it. But when the NCTC was eventually cleared by Cabinet, it was placed under the Intelligence Bureau.

Curiously, even the whittling of the NCTC’s authority – thanks to turf battles within the intelligence community – hasn’t convinced its detractors of the merits of the agency. For far too long have ruling parties at the Centre misused and abused intelligence sleuths for partisan political ends. Narendra Modi noted a while ago that the Congress was using all the investigating agencies and intelligence agencies in a vain attempt to ensnare him politically.

“Had the energy used by them against Gujarat … been directed towards Pakistan, half of the problem of terrorism would have been solved,” Modi said.

Heck, it isn’t just Opposition chief ministers; even one of Chidambaram’s senior ministerial colleagues has complained of “snooping devices” in his Ministerial office.

Additionally, the excessive preoccupation of Congress leaders like Digivijaya Singh with “saffron terror”, while willfully ignoring the rather more widespread roots of terror elsewhere, also shows up a mala fide intent to use anti-terrorism provisions to selectively target political opponents. (That’s not to say right-wing groups aren’t guilty of terrorist attacks, but the disproportionate emphasis on so-called “saffron terror” points to a more insidious attempt at playing communal politics even when it comes to terrorism.)

In fact, some State-level leaders have a rather better record when it comes to counter terrorism. Jayalalithaa, for instance, has an exemplary record of tackling terrorist groups who operated in Tamil Nadu: in the wake of the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, she leveraged the widespread disenchantment with Sri Lankan Tamil extremism to uproot the militant groups that had a free run in earlier times.

It is in this context that the opposition from the four State chief ministers begins to make sense. While nobody can argue with the compelling need to counter terrorism, and for better coordination among intelligence agencies, the bona fides of the UPA government in this area aren’t entirely above reproach.

So, while Chidambaram’s vision of the NCTC as a nodal agency has much to commend, in the end the proposal fell flat owing to the UPA government’s – and Chidambaram’s – inability to convince the political spectrum of the earnestness of its efforts to counter terrorism and of its readiness to rise above political pettiness.

It’s also a measure of why India truly sucks at genuine counter-terrorism.
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/03/3488?page=0,0
National counter terrorism centre in the Indian context

The Indian NCTC should not aspire to become a super-intelligence organisation. Rather, it should aim at coordinating with other stake holders to ensure unity of effort.
Vikram Sood Delhi

It took the United States less than three years after the 9/11 attacks to get its National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) up and away. From our first major internationally organised terror attack in Mumbai in March 1993 it took us 17 years to think of setting up a similar centre. During these 17 years we went through a series of internationally organised high profile terror attacks. We did establish another agency as we always did after every crisis. After Kargil we established a Multi Agency Centre as recommended by the GC Saxena intelligence task force. This failed to deliver because the wonderful concept could not be implemented properly. It merely ended up being another office of the Intelligence Bureau.

The urgency to do something was apparent after the Mumbai massacre in November 2008. Like the WTC attack in the US, Mumbai 26/11 was about "us" because there was no such empathy after the several high profile serial attacks in the country. We hurriedly established the NIA in order perhaps to be seen to be doing something although this organisation was in no way going to stop terrorist attacks. Now that there is talk that an Indian version of the NCTC is on the anvil, many wonder what shape it would take.

There are two aspects that it must not attempt. One, aspire to become a super-intelligence organisation and following from this, take over the operational aspects of intelligence organisations. Intelligence agencies have far wider briefs than only ensuring national security arising from terrorist threats. What it must, however, do is to co-ordinate, evaluate and analyse all intelligence reports that relate to terrorism. The NCTC must then decide on a course of action and task the intelligence agency or any special forces that are available for whatever action is necessary to abort the terrorist mission. Intelligence agencies must not become a part or even subordinate to the NCTC. They would function best in their existing role with greater coordination (not the easiest of tasks, admittedly) at the NCTC.

The US NCTC, for instance, integrates all foreign and domestic analysis to produce detailed assessments designed to support senior policymakers and other members of the policy, intelligence, SIGINT, ELINT, TECHINT, law enforcement, defense, homeland security, and foreign affairs communities. These include items for the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the daily National Terrorism Bulletin (NTB). Besides this, the US NCTC is required to conduct strategic operational planning for counter terrorism activities, integrate all instruments of national power, including diplomatic, financial, military, intelligence, and law enforcement to ensure unity of effort. This is a tough ask and sounds difficult even in theory.

Despite the best of regulations, problems of coordination, ego battles and struggles for turf will always remain. It would thus be left to the genius of leadership to handle them. The best of superstructures will be rendered ineffective if the intelligence inputs are below par and the response mechanism from detection, pre-emption, prevention and destruction are flawed. Sound intelligence is a powerful tool in the hands of decision makers but they also must be understood that there are limitations. It cannot predict the future with certainty but can, with experience and understanding of the subject, provide the ability to see behind the wall. In the case of terrorism, where the enemy is invisible and unpredictable, this is the most difficult task

The NCTC should be located institutionally in the system independent of personalities involved. In India we may think of a ministry of internal security with both the Coordinator of Intelligence and intelligence chiefs reporting to the Prime Minister with sections of their organisations co-ordinating with this new ministry.

The author was the head of RAW from 2001 to 2003
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

To me whatever organization is set-up has to be under the IB as its the primary agency tasked with domestic intelligence.

At same time its (IB) functioning under the Home Minister and use to gather domestic political intelligence make it suspect. The powers to launch investigation and arrest are an infringement of States rights which are a Constitutional rights.

At same time terrorism has crossed state and international boundaries and needs a Central organization to combat it. The MAC was organized with Central and State participation to deal with States rights. However PC and the previous joker made sure the MAC is a dud by not funding it and stunting it.

Add to that the penchant for INC to meddle in State politics and tar and feather political opponents makes it an issue of credibility. Since 1956 elections, INC has meddled with State politics and IB officials think they are extended police arm of the INC which is now controlled by the DIEnasty.

Even after NIA was setup PC has shown no results and wants more powers without showing any progress.

I don't favor a ministry of Internal Secuirty for that will become like a Former Soviet Union style ministry to implicate and imprison domestic political opponents.

The Constitution framers divided the police powers to prevent the return of desi English Raj. The INC over the last sixty years has shown it has become desi Raj.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

Meanwhile Hindu reports:
The Union government's ambitious plan to create a National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) appears to have run into rough weather with several non-Congress Chief Ministers attacking the move on the ground that it “infringes upon the powers and rights of State governments.”

Seven Chief Ministers and a former Chief Minister have opposed the NCTC.

It is the criticism of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee that has hurt the UPA government most.

Ms. Banerjee and her Odisha counterpart Naveen Patnaik, in separate letters to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urged him to “review and withdraw” the February 3, 2012 order notifying the NCTC. They say the Centre's counter-terror blueprint violates principles of federalism and encroaches upon the turf of the States.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa also shared the concern of other non-Congress Chief Ministers, saying the proposed anti-terror body suffered from “deficiencies” and includes provisions that tantamount to usurping the legitimate rights of the States.

Expressing concern that the NCTC would infringe on the federal rights of the States, Ms. Banerjee said: “It is difficult for the State government to accept such arbitrary exercise of power by the Central government/Central agencies, which have a bearing on the rights and privileges of the State as enshrined in the Constitution.”

Ms. Banerjee's letter was released by Mr. Patnaik's office in Bhubaneswar.


Mr. Patnaik said the UPA government was issuing “authoritarian orders” without consulting the States.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said that in the name of fighting terrorism and Naxalism, the Centre was out to violate the federal structure of the country.

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan termed the notification a serious setback to the nation's federal structure.

Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal said the move was another attempt to usurp the powers of the States.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar also opposed the Centre's move.

The former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Telugu Desam Party chief, N. Chandrababu Naidu, in a letter to the Prime Minister on Friday, requested him to withdraw the order and initiate debate with political parties and State governments along with a discussion in Parliament on this “vital issue affecting Centre-State relations.”

Amid the developments, Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh defended the government move, saying the counter-terror body was in national interest. It was being established under the existing Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which had been in force for the past many years.

“The NCTC is being formed for better coordination among agencies to fight terror better. We are not passing any new legislation. The Sections which have been quoted have been on the statute for the past six or seven years. It is not any new provisions of law or anything like that. That Act has been on the statute book for many years. There should not be any controversy,” he said. Congress spokesperson Renuka Chowdhary said there could be no compromise in fighting terror.

BJP spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy said the way the NCTC was being set up showed that several States had no confidence in the Centre.

“Unwise-step”

Counter-terror expert B. Raman said the NCTC, set up in the U.S. after 9/11, had no powers to arrest, interrogate, investigate and prosecute. Till now, in India, these powers belonged to only the NIA and the CBI and State police forces.

“By giving these powers to the NCTC, we are going to create confusion in the investigation and prosecution of terror-related cases.”

Mr. Raman termed the move an “unwise step” that could further politicise the handling of counter-terrorism.


The NCTC will become functional from March 1.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

Arun Jaitley writes

Federalism shouldnt be sacrificed in fight against Terror

I think its more deeper. Its giving arrest powers to Intelligence agencies.


This will destroy IB. We cant have that.

Its a crown jewel.

More valuable then RAW.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

B Raman on warpath:

NCTC will create KGB in India
NCTC will create KGB in India

By B Raman

Of all the chief ministers who have protested against the proposed creation of the National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) in the Intelligence Bureau (IB) without consulting the state governments, only Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has got it right.

She has made it clear that her objection is not to the creation of the NCTC to strengthen our counter-terrorism capability. Nor is her objection based on fears of dilution of the principle of federalism.

Her objections are to two features of the proposed NCTC mechanism: the powers of arrests and searches sought to be given to the NCTC, which will be a division of the IB, a clandestine intelligence organisation, and the provision for the setting-up of inter-State intelligence teams by the NCTC.


The practice of giving powers of arrest to the intelligence agencies was started by Lenin and Stalin when they set up the KGB, the all-powerful Soviet intelligence agency.

She has reportedly described these provisions as highly objectionable and said that the powers of arrest and searches given to the IB through the mechanism of the NCTC under Section 2 (e) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967 “can be misused to suit ends that are motivated by reasons other than fighting terrorism. Moreover, setting up of inter-state intelligence teams by the NCTC is tantamount to usurping the legitimate rights of the States.”

I would not agree with her fears regarding the proposed inter-State intelligence teams. Such teams may be necessary to deal with pan-Indian terrorist groups such as the Indian Mujahideen which have their sleeper cells right across India in many States.

But I do share her fears about the possible misuse of the powers of arrest and searches by the NCTC Division of the IB against political opponents by branding them as associated with terrorism. During the Emergency of 1975-77, Indira Gandhi had many of her political opponents arrested by having them branded as threats to national security.

In the future, a government with authoritarian reflexes may be tempted to misuse the powers of arrest given to the IB through the NCTC and have political opponents arrested by having them branded as associated with terrorism.

The IB is a secret intelligence organisation. It has no accountability to Parliament in respect of its work. We do not have a system of parliamentary intelligence oversight committees. We depend on the executive without any checks and balances to ensure that the IB functions according to the law of the land.

The British, during their colonial rule, did not consider it necessary or wise to give the powers of arrest and searches to the IB for any purpose. They observed the sacred principle that a clandestine intelligence collection agency should not have the powers of arrest. None of the governments that had held office in New Delhi since our independence had considered it necessary or wise to give such powers to the IB.

The practice of giving powers of arrest to the intelligence agencies was started by Lenin and Stalin when they set up the KGB, the all-powerful Soviet intelligence agency, in order to enable it to deal with so-called counter-revolutionaries. Many other authoritarian countries have since given these powers to their intelligence agencies.

The IB has till now not had these powers. In spite of that, during the Emergency there were serious allegations of misuse of the IB and the CBI by the Indira Gandhi Government to harass opponents of the Emergency. Instances of such misuse were documented by the Shah Commission and the LP Singh Committee set up by the Morarji Desai Government to enquire into them.

If there could be such gross misdeeds when the IB did not have any powers of arrest, imagine how much more could there be when a clandestine organisation, not accountable to Parliament, is given such powers on the ground that those powers would be required to deal with terrorism.

Congress spokesmen who are defending the NCTC mechanism have sought to ridicule those criticising the objectionable provisions of the NCTC as being opposed to strengthening our counter-terrorism capability. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The opposition is not to the NCTC as such, but to some objectionable features of it.

Instead of standing on false prestige, the central government should have a relook at some of the worrisome features of the NCTC mechanism in consultation with other political parties and State governments. It is not just a question of respecting the principles of federalism. It is a question of adhering to the principles of a genuine democracy.

B Raman is Additional Secretary (Retired) in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. He is currently Director of the Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai; and Associate of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. Republished with permission from the Chennai Centre for China Studies.
and it will ruin the ethos of the IB which is truly a national institution.

PC has no shame and his minions in MHA also have no honor or tradition.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by darshhan »

^^ Ramana ji , Truth is that India is rapidly becoming a big brother state.It is the top priority for this govt.Surveillance and phone tapping powers are being misused like anything.Arbitrary detention of citizens(rather I should use the word"subjects") is only a logical progression, that too in the name of national security.Sooner than later govt will also move to censor internet.Infact the process has already started by forcing Google and others to comply with so called Indian Regulations(feels like PRC.Doesn't it).

Some time back people on this very forum were all for RIM(Blackberry) capitulating to govt wishes and were in celebratory mood when it happened.Well time will tell whether that celebration was premature or not.Hell , five years from now we will lucky if we are still able to log on to BRF without any repercussions in India.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

TOI:

More states oppose NCTC powers


Lost in this rhetoric of States rights is the wisdom/folly of giving arrest powers to Intelligence agency.

IB will become like KGB and Gestapo.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ShauryaT »

We do need an enabling framework for federal crimes and its prosecution thereof, currently it is lacking. Undoubtedly criminal justice is within a state's jurisdiction, however in our day and age and indeed when the republic was formed a large number of crimes do not fit this narrow definition and has tendency to cross boundaries. The CBI, IB, RAW all these agencies do not operate under a legal enabling framework. The NCTC is another attempt to do the same, without a proper legal framework.

Sure the state's rights should be protected through a strong framework of clearly codified rules and laws, on what belongs to the Federal but we desperately need a set of enabling legislations to tackle non local crimes.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

Hindu Editorial
Spies shouldn't police us

In September, 1970, J. Edgar Hoover wrote a secret memo which pithily explained the difference between criminal investigators and spies: the “purpose of counter-intelligence action,” it stated, “is to disrupt, and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge.” Four decades on, as Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram prepares to give teeth to India's new National Counter-Terrorism Centre, the words of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's legendary — and paranoiac — founding director should help Indians understand why the idea is profoundly misguided. For years now, India's intelligence services have complained — sometimes with justification — that State governments have been reluctant to act on credible intelligence of counter-terrorism value. Political motives, they point out, have led governments as disparate as Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar not to arrest figures involved with Hindutva, Islamist or Maoist groups. India's Constitution, Mr. Chidambaram has pointed out, makes it incumbent on the Central government to “maintain internal security.” The Ministry of Home Affairs' proposal to arm the NCTC with the power to conduct searches and make arrests derives, he argues, from this obligation.

Mr. Chidambaram may be right about the Constitution but there are three sound reasons why the mounting concerns over the NCTC must be taken seriously. First, the Intelligence Bureau is not an organisation that is, or ought to be, concerned with criminal justice. Like other intelligence services across the world, its task is to gather information that the police can use to guide and inform the course of a criminal investigation, not to make judgments on whether that intelligence has value as evidence. Blurring the distinction between intelligence-gathering and policing will open up the possibility of abuses — abuses for which Hoover's FBI became notorious. The Union government already has an investigative service with a nationwide mandate, the National Investigation Agency. This makes it even less clear why the NCTC needs the same powers. In India, secondly, the concerns are amplified because the IB has historically taken an expansive view of national security — notably, by devoting extensive resources to political surveillance. Handing it the power to arrest will expand the possibility of political misuse. Thirdly, as experts have pointed out, India's counter-terrorism efforts have floundered because State police forces lack the training, resources and manpower needed to conduct effective investigations. Arming the NCTC with the power to arrest will not solve this core problem. Like other intelligence-related reforms, the NCTC's powers ought to have been subject to an informed and vigorous debate in Parliament. It still isn't too late to conduct one.

I think under the guise of comabating terrorism PC and really MMS are seeking powers to usher in the police state that eluded even Mrs. G during the Emergency.


Its not about combating terror but political control. And they need this before 2014 elections.

Now MMS is writing to the CMs to assure them which is BS for he has no clout or authority.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60291
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by ramana »

PM writes to 7 CMs
PM tells states PC will address NCTC concerns :mrgreen:

{Pontius Pilate act?}

Manoj C G Tue Feb 21 2012, 21:50 hrs

New Delhi : With the proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre kicking up a political storm, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today stepped in to allay the concerns of a host of non-Congress Chief Ministers — including those of his allies — that the anti-terror body infringed on the rights of states.
Singh wrote back to seven chief ministers assuring them that he has asked Home Minister P Chidambaram to address their concerns “suitably.” :mrgreen:

“In forming the NCTC, it is not the Government’s intent in any way to affect the basic features of the Constitutional provisions and allocation of powers between the States and the Union,” the Prime Minister said. He said the primary purpose of the proposed body was to “coordinate counter-terrorism efforts throughout the country” as the Intelligence Bureau (IB) has been doing so far.

{Then why the arrest powers for an Intelligence agency which has so far shown its expertise only in doemstic "political" intelligence and has led to numerous Intel failures in 1962 and 1965?}

“It is for this reason that the NCTC has been located within the IB and not as a separate organization,” he wrote to the chief ministers of Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Gujarat, West Bengal, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Noting their apprehensions about the manner in which the NCTC will function, he said he was “asking the Home Minister to address them suitably, in consultation with you and other Chief Ministers.”

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs headed by BJP’s Venkaiah Naidu decided to ask the Home Ministry to put on hold its decision to set up the NCTC till a consensus is evolved on the contentious issue. This after several members of the committee at its meeting today attacked the Centre for not consulting the states and infringing on their rights and demanded that it its setting up be put in abeyance.

At the standing committee meeting, sources said AIADMK’s V Maitreyan had given a note seeking permission to raise the issue and Naidu allowed him. In the presence of Home Secretary R K Singh, member after member from the Opposition slammed the Government for undermining the rights of the states. Sources said Trinamool Congress’ Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar too sought to know how the Home Ministry could issue such a notification without consulting the state governments. Leading the opposition charge was BJP veteran L K Advani. He is learnt to have pointed out that states will have to be taken on board as they have a key role to play in fighting terror.
Its not only a States rights issue but a move that will destroy the IB's ethos.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: A new plan for securing India?

Post by darshhan »

Ramana ji, You are right in your analysis that MMS and PC both are more interested in ushering a police state rather than preventing terrorism.

Infact there is also a precedent for this.Remember when another federal agency was created ostensibly again to counter terrorism.I am talking about NIA.Look how it has been used to score political points.Similarly just check how NTRO has been misused against political rivals wrt phone tapping and surveillance.No sane Indian who has analysed and followed these events will ever support the current govt in such endeavours.

Nowhere it is required that Patriots become slaves for the benefit of Govt.
Post Reply