Intelligence & National Security Discussion

[ramana]

Meanwhile Expressbuzz's V Sudarshan buzzes MKN.


SOURCE

Do we need another NSA?

V Sudarshan


Do we really need a national security adviser? Will we be any worse off without another one? Over the past week there has been a spate of analyses, most of it overblown, reverential, wide-eyed, accolade-laden, sycophantic accounts of what a great job the NSA had done in the years he had occupied that position. This is patently illogical. Consider for an intelligence person who occupied that position for so long he could not even fix the intelligence and now P Chidambaram has to do it all over again. If the NSA was doing such a great job then why did he have to leave so seemingly suddenly? The Union home minister P Chidambaram is on record (Hindustan Times, January 21) saying that the Kolkata retirement plan for M K Narayanan was presented to him in December, almost a month before it was formally announced. And Chidambaram, who reveals his wife shares a birthday with M K Narayanan, says that at that time he (Chidambaram) was in the dark about the prime minister’s retirement offer to NSA. Which probably explains some of the analyses that sought to put the spin that the governorship of West Bengal was somehow more important a job and more crucial a task than continuing as the NSA. If you analysed their subtext, it went as follows: Some people are born to become governors; some people achieve governorship; some people have governorships thrust upon them; but M K Narayanan, he is special — he had all three working for him. (I find that a little difficult to believe, frankly, considering the inordinate amount of time the NSA spent on doing political intelligence while being the NSA; political skullduggery was inbuilt in terms of the job skills Narayanan brought with him, a spillover from his hey days in the Intelligence Bureau which for most part is focused on political intelligence.) But newspapers reported that at the Army Day function at General Deepak Kapoor’s house NSA “looked directly” at Chidambaram and quipped: “Am I being sacked?” He was not sacked, really; he was just given a VRS that he couldn’t refuse, which (some argue) could be a reflection of character.


Between the offer and the acceptance and the ultimate announcement there elapsed a considerable period of time, considering that Gopal Gandhi hosted his farewell tea on December 13, 2009 and by then the Congress political managers would have zeroed in on the governor’s successor. Ideally Narayanan’s successor ought to have been announced the same day but it wasn’t. This is pure guesswork: consider the fact that the prime minister has made up his mind that Narayanan should exit the PMO and for some reason the UPA chairperson is also on the same page on this, a strange and inexplicable confluence of stars, considering especially what a brilliant job he had been doing. Why then did it take such a long time to announce the successor? Is it because they cannot find someone big enough to fill Narayanan’s shoes? Or is it because Narayanan’s shoe size had increased because of on the job training to such an extent that it distorted the nature of his job? We have had three NSAs so far. The first one (Brajesh Mishra) lost the job not because he refused a governorship but because his party lost the election; the next didn’t live long enough to accept a governorship — J N Dixit died in harness; the third one got promoted as governor. If the governor’s job is bigger than the NSA’s and governors are dime a dozen and there is only one NSA then ipso facto, we don’t really need an NSA. Might as well scrap the post.

When a prime minister like Manmohan Singh looks for an NSA he doesn’t really look for someone who can call a spade a spade and make his decision making generally more nuanced and difficult; he looks for someone who whines to a foreign publication that the Chinese are hacking into his computer; he looks for someone who does not raise the bar high enough when you negotiate the 123 agreement with the US, which is why you have a civil nuclear agreement where we have full civil nuclear co-operation with the US minus the reprocessing technology and heavy water component; the prime minister looks for science advisers who can make him say completely unrealistically, that we can achieve 40,000 MW of nuclear power in 20 years, that we can achieve 20,000 MW of solar power in 10 years and other similar things that you will not find even in fairy tales; he is looking for a national security adviser who understands his mind and his style of functioning. If we are to go by what Chidambaram is telling us, then you are looking at a prime minister and a party chairperson who do not tell their home minister that they are offering the job of governorship to the national security adviser. Which probably explains why it took a long time to find the next national security advisor.

Now that they have zeroed in on Shiv Shankar Menon, till very recently our foreign secretary, what we will see in the coming days is the emergence of a super foreign secretary, just like the way Narayanan was a super DIB and RAW chief rolled into one (with one crucial difference — he was accountable to no one). Menon was the one who initially postulated that India and Pakistan are both equal victims of terrorism in a diplomatic stratagem to revive the Indo-Pak process after the Havana non aligned summit soon after the Mumbai train blasts; he was the one credited off the record with coming up with that delightful joint terror mechanism that blew up in our face; he was the one who fell on the sword by taking the blame for incorporating the word Balochistan in the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement (while Narayanan mysteriously escaped the media opprobrium — was he on another planet when the joint statement was being drafted or is it that large sections of our media become automatically blind when it comes to our NSAs?); so the prime minister had good reasons to give him the job. Menon has to finish the job he left halfway. But it will have the effect of forcing the Ministry of External Affairs further into the role of a protocol division whereas it is supposed to be the repository of expertise on a range of subjects. It would have been better, however, for the prime minister, not to get bogged down by nomenclature and appoint instead a pool of experts in relevant subjects to advise him and take particular plans forward to fruition. That way it will meet some NREG (national retired officers employment guarantee scheme) targets as well. If you can have more than one deputy NSA there is no reason why you cannot have more one national adviser for each of the highly nuanced segments of the security spectrum.

Very saracstic op-ed. Seems to be quite frustrated with the management of security.

[Sriman]

One more article on MKN:

Newsmaker: M K Narayanan

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... an/383265/

Narayanan was known to have differed on many policy issues with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, including initially the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. He vehemently opposed the Manmohan-Musharraf joint statement issued in Havana, Cuba, in September 2006. A statement that was drafted by his current successor, Shivshankar Menon!

[Jarita]

http://www.dailypioneer.com/230965/Spie ... y-law.html

Spies are not bound by law

Kanchan Gupta

Mohammed Hamid Ansari, unlike most of his predecessors, is not a politician elevated to the post of Vice-President of India for services rendered to his party. He was a member of the Indian Foreign Service, Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities and headed the working group set up by the Prime Minister to propose ‘confidence-building measures’ for civil society in Jammu & Kashmir, apart from undertaking various other assignments, including promoting the concept of ‘oil diplomacy’, given to him by the Government of India. In between fulfilling his various onerous responsibilities, he has also spent time at the Observer Research Foundation. Although a favourite of the New Delhi establishment, he is known to have taken a contrarian position on several occasions — for instance, he has unambiguouly criticised India’s vote against Iran’s bomb-in-the-basement nuclear programme, bitterly lashed out at the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and ruthlessly berated Israel for not silently suffering Islamist excesses. Hence, it would be unwise to brush aside the suggestion of such a distinguished person that intelligence agencies in India should be made accountable to Parliament.

More importantly, it is amazing that a former officer of the IFS, whose members are not known to be particularly deferential to politicians (except those who can swing plum postings for them) or respectful about Parliament’s privileges — recall Mr Ronen Sen’s mocking description of MPs critical of the India-US civilian nuclear agreement as “headless chicken” — should demand accountability from intelligence agencies through parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. Mr Ansari could argue that the Ministry of External Affairs does come under Parliament’s scrutiny. But the Standing Committee on External Affairs scrutinising budgetary allocations for the Ministry or producing anodyne reports on specific policies does not really amount to ‘oversight’. Neither are its reports taken seriously by policy-makers nor are its views considered to be of any consequence insofar as the functioning of the Ministry is concerned.

This is not to suggest that intelligence agencies should be accountable to none or that obsessive secrecy should exclude keeping the legislature from being informed; that would be a ridiculous assertion. After all, if intelligence and counter-terrorism officials associated with the FBI and other agencies can be summoned for congressional hearings in the US, there is no reason why R&AW and IB officials cannot be asked to brief our parliamentarians. Similarly, if details of US Congress hearings can be placed in the public domain (unless they are classified as strictly off-the-record), there is no reason why details of similar briefings to our Parliament cannot be made public. But such briefings, we must bear in mind, are never ever about ‘operational details’. To accept Mr Ansari’s proposal would amount to severely compromising our national interest.

[abhishek_sharma]

One more article on MKN:

Newsmaker: M K Narayanan

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... an/383265/

Narayanan was known to have differed on many policy issues with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, including initially the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. He vehemently opposed the Manmohan-Musharraf joint statement issued in Havana, Cuba, in September 2006. A statement that was drafted by his current successor, Shivshankar Menon!

So Menon has drafted both Havana and S-e-S statements? Good!!

[ramana]

Siddharth Vardarajan in Hindu:

Its strategic culture that counts

It’s strategic culture that counts

Siddharth Varadarajan

Revamping the National Security Council structure to remedy the lack of long-term planning must be a top priority for the new NSA.


On October 16, 2002, the National Security Advisory Board – whose members had never officially been consulted on any major decision — was called to Hyderabad House for a highly unusual meeting with the National Security Council chaired by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. On the agenda was the question of what to do with Operation Parakaram — the deployment of the Indian Army at the Pakistan border — which was then in its 10th month.

“It was clear from the presentations made,” one of the NSAB members present told The Hindu recently, “that the government was keen to call off the operation and was looking for a rubber stamp.” Unfortunately, board members, mostly retired officials with a sprinkling of outside experts, came out against the redeployment of troops. As the meeting progressed, however, one of them got a text message. TV channels were reporting breaking news: ‘Government calls off Parakram on recommendation of NSAB’.

As loyal team players, board members went along with the charade. But this episode underlines a fundamental problem with the wider National Security Council architecture: structures like the NSAB and the NSC Secretariat (NSCS) have been created but their role and function, 11 years on, remain undefined and vague. Not surprisingly, the systemic weakness they were meant to deal with — the absence of long-term, strategic planning and analysis — remains unaddressed.

As the only part of the NSC apparatus directly empowered by the Prime Minister to act on his behalf, the National Security Adviser has been able to act effectively on the diplomatic and strategic front by making existing official machinery function in a more coordinated fashion. On the long-term planning front, however, the NSA has been hampered by the absence of a proper support structure and requisite talent. The NSCS was created by folding the Joint Intelligence Committee into it as its core and then pulling in additional staff. But opinions are mixed about the extent to which it has been able to function as the executive “office of the NSA” in its interaction with different branches of government. And the fact that the JIC has been revived as a separate part of the NSCS suggests intelligence assessment and tasking is still very much a work in progress.

Satish Chandra, who served as Deputy to the NSA from 1999 to 2005 blames M.K. Narayanan for the problem. “The NSCS was a coordinator of intelligence and trends which individual ministries could not take up. It was conceived as a think-tank anticipating threats,” he said in an interview. “Intelligence coordination was also key. We created the Intelligence Coordination Group, bringing the producers and consumers of intelligence together so that the agencies knew what to collect. We came up with detailed annual tasking, with annual assessment. Unfortunately, Narayanan did not use this.”

Serving NSCS staffers strongly dispute this assessment, noting that the ICG concept continues, albeit under a different name. And the fact remains that prior to Mr. Narayanan’s tenure, the NSCS, for all its “coordination,” produced some great bloomers, one of which was a report recommending that India send troops to Iraq.

As far as the handling of intelligence was concerned, Mr. Narayanan made two changes. As NSA till 2004, Brajesh Mishra took little interest in intelligence matters and was quite happy to let the Director, Intelligence Bureau (DIB) and Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) chief meet the Prime Minister directly (though he would invariably be present in those meetings).

As an ex-DIB, however, Mr. Narayanan saw himself as integral to the process of intelligence fusion, much of which was tactical. He held regular meetings with the intelligence chiefs and did not encourage them to meet Manmohan Singh directly. C.D. Sahay, who served as head of RAW from 2003-2005, recalled the almost continuous direct access he and the DIB had with Mr. Vajpayee. “My understanding is that with Mr. Narayanan, the intelligence chiefs lost that direct access to the PM. If they needed to convey something important, they got to do it only to the NSA”.

By assuming responsibility for intelligence fusion at the tactical level, Mr. Narayanan exposed himself to attack. The terrorist strike on Parliament in 2001 did not see the Opposition demanding Mr. Mishra’s head. But, said Mr. Sahay, Mr. Narayanan came under sustained fire for failing to prevent the November 2008 Mumbai incident.

The second change Mr. Narayanan introduced in intelligence management was to revive the JIC under a standalone chairman, essentially separating it from the NSCS. The move puzzled a number of former intelligence chiefs, who spoke to The Hindu on background, since the Group of Ministers report on intelligence reform had recommended winding up the JIC. However, according to a former NSCS staffer, Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, now Senior Fellow for South Asia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, this separation was “absolutely the right decision”. He said it was quite impractical for the NSCS staff to do both the tasks of long-term strategic policy and planning as well as intelligence coordination and assessment. If anything, said Mr. Roy-Chaudhury, a separate but related group, possibly within the JIC, is also needed to perform strategic tasking functions.

The only problem with Mr. Narayanan’s decision was that it was not accompanied by a commensurate increase in the total staff strength for the NSCS and JIC. Most strategic planning is done by ex-IB officials, who prevent talent from coming in or ensure whatever talent emerges is not retained. The NSA tried to increase the numbers but tough security requirements, exacerbated by the Rabindar Singh scandal in RAW and the cyber-security scandal in the NSCS, meant staff strength in both organisations remained in short supply.

The Indian Foreign Service, which might otherwise have been an ideal reservoir for the NSCS, is itself short-staffed and has been able to send only one officer, China expert Sujan Chinoy, on deputation to the Secretariat in addition to the current DNSA, Alok Prasad. As for Indian academia, another potential catchment area, the NSC has done little to encourage foreign language and area studies.

With the exception of the draft nuclear doctrine, produced in 1999 during K. Subrahmanyam’s chairmanship and adopted by the government in 2003, NSAB reports appear to have had little impact on government policy. Some NSAB members said this is because they only have access to open-source material despite taking the oath of official secrecy. Others familiar with the NSC system dispute this assessment. “The problem with the research produced by the NSAB or NSCS is not lack of access to classified material but actual lack of expertise on the full range of issues that concern national security”, an official told The Hindu. {So its blinkered look.}

At a more practical level, the lack of continuous connectivity between the NSA and the NSCS hampers the effectiveness of both. With the Secretariat officially tasked to serve the NSC, which rarely meets, the NSA is left to perform his diplomatic and nuclear functions with just one joint secretary and two director-level officers in the PMO. The NSCS has a staff but has never really functioned as the “Office of the NSA.” Under Mr. Mishra, the late J.N. Dixit and Mr. Narayanan, the National Security Adviser’s work has gradually expanded in line with the complexity of India’s interaction with the rest of the world. Even if the work of counter-terrorism intelligence is handled by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the proposed National Counter-Terrorism Centre, there is much more to intelligence than that. There is some thought being given to appointing a standalone ‘intelligence czar’ to deal with fusion and tasking. Even if that portfolio is taken away from Shiv Shankar Menon, named on Wednesday as the next NSA, the three core functions of diplomacy, nuclear command and control, and long-term security planning and assessment will need a tighter relationship between the NSA and the NSCS, with the Deputy NSA being tasked to a much greater extent on key diplomatic and security issues.

The only caveat, of course, is that the problem of long-term assessment will not be resolved through bureaucratic adjustment. Because the NSC has never delivered on that part of its mandate, some observers believe a fresh look is needed at the very concept. “I will go further and question the existence of the National Security Council,” Brajesh Mishra, NSA from 1999 to 2004, said in an interview. “I don’t think we need it because the Cabinet Committee on Security really does everything. And consequent to abolishing the NSC, the NSCS should be trimmed to give the NSA advice on his duties relating to international affairs. The JIC could then be made to report to the Prime Minister through the Cabinet Secretariat.”

The problem with Mr. Mishra’s suggestion, of course, is that the CCS deliberates on current policy and not on matters of long-term planning. And the latter area is where urgent action is needed as the country’s global clout increases. India’s problems here are systemic and chronic: it is simply not prepared in terms of talent and systems for medium and long term planning. Indian universities do not produce talent in the quantity and quality required and there is no part of the bureaucratic system which encourages the nurturing of talent .

Given this deficiency, the NSA tends to be burdened with everyday demands and little time is devoted to effecting systemic structural improvements in how decisions get taken when multiple government agencies are involved. If India wants to be in a position to exercise power internationally, it requires both diplomatic instruments and internal structures.

Ensuring the NSCS is restructured to serve both as the ‘Office of the NSA’ and as the catalyst for system-wide talent generation and strategic planning will be the biggest challenge the new NSA will have to deal with.

The matter of area studies at the Utys should be pursued thru the UGC and tasking the MEA to give some work and share its experts as visiting professors might be one way.

Another is periodic all points analyses of vexing issues where in govt an doutside experts are brough tin to look at the issues is another.

[putnanja]

The untold walkout - K.P. NAYAR

M.K. Narayanan’s fate as national security adviser (NSA) was sealed two days before Christmas last year when he walked out of a meeting addressed by Union home minister P. Chidambaram.

Chidambaram, by temperament, is not one to take slights in his stride. But for him, Narayanan’s intemperate walkout from the December 23 meeting represented more than just a slight.

It meant an undisguised revolt by the NSA against the home minister, the culmination of months-long sparring between two of the most powerful men on Raisina Hill, the nerve centre of the central government.
...
...
On December 23, he did not tell either Chidambaram or the director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Rajiv Mathur, that he had to leave early, according to people who would have known if Narayanan had done so.

Narayanan’s walkout was, therefore, intended to send a message.

...
...
Besides, it has been many years since the task of reforming India’s intelligence agencies had been entrusted to Narayanan with a clear mandate.

He had not only fallen short, but morale and operational efficiency at the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s external spy agency, had touched their nadir during Narayanan’s tenure as NSA.

It also did not help Narayanan during his turf wars with Chidambaram in recent months that it was well known that RAW had reached its lowest point ever through acts of commission rather than omission.

...
...
Sonia got to the bottom of the junior home minister’s grievance, summoned Chidambaram and instructed that not only should Ramachandran be given work commensurate with his political standing, but that his work should also not be interfered with, according to Congress sources in Kerala.

This was all the more reason why Narayanan’s revolt had to be nipped in the bud. Besides, owing to shared ethnicity, there was always a possibility that Narayanan could strike up an alliance with the junior home minister.

There was also G.K. Pillai, the Union home secretary, an upright officer, but one who has deep roots in Kerala and has worked with senior Kerala politicians who would be a factor in the battles if Narayanan remained in the PMO. His exit, therefore, became inevitable for the health of the cabinet system of governance.

[ramana]

Shades of Cardinal Wolsey.

[abhishek_sharma]

PC's huge ego is a problem.

[Paul]

Nothing wrong with that...What India needs this hour is a McCarthy, or even a J Edgar Hoover. A federal power structure should not impede decision making at the center. The 10 years of colation politics have scattered the decision making apparatus in GOI. The bureaucracy can hold the fort for only so long. Time for decisive politicians to take the charge.

If PC can fill this mandate, his other indiscretions can be overlooked. He needs to be given a clear opportunity to prove himself.

[putnanja]

If PC can fill this mandate, his other indiscretions can be overlooked.

Totally agree. There has been multiple terrorist attacks all across India, especially during UPA-I reign. MKN has been pretty ineffective at controlling the threat. And many of those attacks haven't been solved satisfactorily. And MKN had his hands full with various duties, like the nuclear deal, saving the govt, indo-pak talks, indo-china border taks etc.

PC seems to be a more hands on minister and is doing the right things. Let us hope he uses the opportunity fully and revamps India's security and intelligence setup

[Paul]

FOr thousands of years Indian has functioned as a state when a strong monarch ruled at the center. FOr now the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is filling this role. Until the Hindu psyche is fully healed, this is the best possible alternative.

[ramana]

KPN's version of the ouster doesn't make sense. Why bring in Kerala politics into the decision? Its already complicated with allusions to Telangana and what not.

[somnath]

^^^
Somnath, when Dulat mentions that they are accountable to the executive, he means the political, elected executive (ministers). The civil service are emphatically NOT the executive. They are government employees, there to aid the political executive by doing what they are told.

That is true for all bureaucracies around the world - they are responsible to the political executive (though in definitional terms, the bureaucracy is also part fo the executive, but thats a minor quibble). So Dullat is stating the obvious, and then stretches the comparison to Pakistan! Absolute balderdash - CIA, MI6/5, Mossad, SDECE - which intel agency is not accountable to the political masters of the country? It does not preclude oversight..

Is oversight error free? Of course not..But its certainly a great deal better than having a bunch of permanent govt employees and a few ministers handling policies and huge budgets without accountability.

The larger point of course is of a strategic culture, which has not taken (yet) deep roots..There are today a lot more retired services/IFS/intel officers commenting in the media, but our ecosystem for strategic studies remains very very weak...Only one uni, JNU, has a meaningfully good department in strategic studies..The quality of output of our think tanks fall waaay short of the stuff done by the likes of Brookings, Heritage or the likes...Importantly, the political class has not grasped the idiom of a new strategic culture yet..

V Sudarshan makes some valid points. But most fo them is a reflection of individuals who have occupied the post, people who wanted to be "hands on" rather than being policy wonks..Thats why perhaps it is better to have an academic on the job..But the quibble of the foreign ministry losing relevance is misplaced - barring a brief spell during IK Gujral's time (and thats because Deve Gowda undersstood nothing of foreign policy), foreign ministers have largely been peripheral to policy - from Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi (who sacked his foreign secretary in a press conference!) to PVNR to even ABV (where Jaswant Singh was a strong personality in the foreign ministry) - PMs have driven foreign policy..Foreign ministers have been largely left to execute policy, or undertake "diplomacy"...

Kanchan Gupta is at his usual fourth class drivel - has zero understanding of what he is talking about. Parliamentary oversight is not about making everything "public", its about the Parliament enforcing accountability on governance.

[somnath]

FOr thousands of years Indian has functioned as a state when a strong monarch ruled at the center. FOr now the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is filling this role. Until the Hindu psyche is fully healed, this is the best possible alternative.

???For most of our history, India was not a nation state in the sense we know today..The "centre", even at its zenith (of the Mughal reign) was a loose amalgam of tributaries to the emperor..the "hindu psyche", whatever that means is actually quite amenable to a decentralised functioning..

The US has a far more federal structure than us (we are a federal state with a "unitary" bias, as old civics textbooks tell us)..The point is not of state structures and pseudo-sociological explanations of them, it is of adopting best practices to a situation..

[sum]

^^^ That is precisely why every system, democratic or otherwise have checks and balances. And democratcio systems make these overly elaborate, causing "bureaucracies" to develop, sometime to the detriment of efficiency - as they say, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty..At the same time, democratic systems also presuppose a degree of "trust" in its key interlocutors, starting from the citizen right on (not up) to the head of state..

Somnath-ji,
Have a question on this point.

Is the PM always in loop of ALL the current actions of the agencies or are few "ultra top secrte" ops kept away from him till the agency has decided that it can be let out?

Also, does the level of info divulged to the PM depend on some sort of assesment of the PM by RAW counter intel team? For Eg: In 96, if Jyoti Basu had become PM, would RAW ensure that all anti-China ops were kept away from him since they were sure to be leaked to the Chinese by the CPI(M) of which Basu was a member? Does a team conduct a assesment of a incoming PM and then decide as to how to go about divulging info or is all info bared to any incoming PM without exception?

[ramana]

I am not somnath but let me try. Indian agencies report to the political executive who is elected by the Parliament.Its whoever has been sworn in as the PM by the President.There are no other alternatives.

[RayC]

Xposting from PRC thread.

Bypass

Four years before the 1962 war, Jawaharlal Nehru considered China “arrogant, devious, hypocritical and thoroughly unreliable” and advised his envoy to the country to bypass the then defence minister Krishna Menon in all communications from Beijing as his thinking on China was “clouded” due to his Communist background.
...
...
Notes made by Parthasarathi reveal that Nehru did not trust the country despite the Panchsheel agreement. The notes were made after the late diplomat met Nehru for a briefing prior to his assignment in China in 1958. “So, GP, when has the foreign office told you Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai? Don’t you believe it. I don’t trust the Chinese one bit, despite Panchsheel and all that. The Chinese are arrogant, devious, hypocritical and thoroughly unreliable,” the diary entry says, quoting Nehru during the meeting on March 18, 1958.
...
...
The diary also brings out the rift between Nehru and his defence minister on how to handle China that had embarked on a major defence modernisation drive. Exposing the mistrust, the entry quotes Nehru as saying that Menon should be bypassed in all communication regarding China. “All your telegrams should be marked ‘Top Secret’ and sent to me alone. You should be especially careful to see that Krishna does not see your telegrams. You should be very careful in your meetings and discussions with Krishna,” Nehru is quoted as saying. Nehru said while he and Menon shared a common world view, the latter allowed his “thinking and assessments to be clouded on the matter of our relations with China merely because China is Communist country”.
...

[somnath]

Somnath-ji,
Have a question on this point.

Is the PM always in loop of ALL the current actions of the agencies or are few "ultra top secrte" ops kept away from him till the agency has decided that it can be let out?

Also, does the level of info divulged to the PM depend on some sort of assesment of the PM by RAW counter intel team? For Eg: In 96, if Jyoti Basu had become PM, would RAW ensure that all anti-China ops were kept away from him since they were sure to be leaked to the Chinese by the CPI(M) of which Basu was a member? Does a team conduct a assesment of a incoming PM and then decide as to how to go about divulging info or is all info bared to any incoming PM without exception?

Its an interesting question. Obviously, the PM, or any minister cannot be practically able to oversee every single detail/operation of what is going on under his charge..And permanent bureaucracies have a way of preserving status quos that (they think) are in line with national (or personal) interests..That is why I am sceptic of assertions of neutering of covert anti-Pak capabilities during Inder Gujral's time..there have been many instances over time, Edgar Hoover obviously wasnt keeping JFK in the loop all the time ..For that matter, a lot of ministers in MMS's first term wasnt exactly keeping him fully informed on all policy decisions - it was a raging issue in the media for sometime..

Having said that, the political executive lays down the broad policy focus in a democracy - and India is no different..I wouldnt buy your insinuation that Jyoti Basu was a "China agent" - there has been no evidence to that effect...But all departments, intel included do sometimes keep "inconveneint" things away from the political boss (but why is it so typical of the govt, even we do it in the pvt sector all the time?)..Typially however, the really "big" deals wont be a secret to the political head..

Part of the usefulness of the Parliamentary committee is to scrutinise workings of departments, especially in terms of policy acctions and budget utilisation - creates one more layer of oversight..

[somnath]

^^^ The number of irregularities in intel agencies, both operational as well as financial is actually crying out for some oversight..Today, thanks to the complete lack of it, media rumours, insinuations rule the roost..So we hear lurid details on Chaturvedi's tenure as RAW chief from a media source, or (seemingly half baked) horror stories about its functioning from Gen VK Singh (who by his own admission had a rather limited view of the organisation)..Thanks to OSA and other antiquated laws, our papers are almost neve declassified for studies by scholars...Our only info about intel comes from speculative media stories and extrapolations from there!Heck our intel agencies dont even have a website of their own!

In such a scenario, sovereign oversight is such a crying need, and most people (incl ex intel agents) seem to agree that its necessary..Wonder why its not happening?

[abhishek_sharma]

It is unlikely that Jyoti Basu (or any other Indian Communist) would have given away our secrets to China. However, I am worried about people (politician or otherwise) like Rabinder Singh.

[ASPuar]

It is unlikely that Jyoti Basu (or any other Indian Communist) would have given away our secrets to China.

Er... are you sure?

[RayC]

Where was JB and pals during 1962?

What was their stand?

[RayC]

Simultaneously, the relations between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China soured. In the early 1960s the Communist Party of China began criticising the CPSU of turning revisionist and of deviating from the path of Marxism-Leninism. Sino-Indian relations also deteriorated, as border disputes between the two countries erupted into the Indo-China war of 1962. During the war, a fraction of the Indian Communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. There were three factions in the party - ""internationalists"", ""centrists"", and ""nationalists"". Internationalists supported the Chinese stand whereas the nationalists backed India; centrists took a neutral view. Prominent leaders including S.A. Dange were in the nationalist faction. B. T. Ranadive, P. Sundarayya, P. C. Joshi, Basavapunnaiah, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet were among those supported China.

JB was a real patriot who should have been trusted, right?

Of course, such a person should deserve State Funeral and now the Commies are fishing for a Bharat Ratna!!

[Dmurphy]

AI planes put on high alert after hijack threat

The Centre has put all Air India planes operating in the country's neighbourhood on high security alert and directed the airlines to deploy sky marshals following intelligence inputs that Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-tayiba and other terror groups were planning to hijack a flight.

A directive has been issued to all Indian missions abroad to sensitise the staff of the airlines, official sources said. According to intelligence inputs, terrorist groups with links to the Al Qaeda, LeT and Jamat-ul-Dawa were planning to hijack an Air India plane. The plane, according to these inputs, would be operating in or from India's neighbours -- Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka , Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The hijacking could be attempted by the terrorists from airports located at Yangon, Dhaka and Colombo.

....

Mofos getting desperate to free Kasab?

[vasu_ray]

kasab is only the cover story, if they hijack it would be more sinister, they are willing to die rather than negotiate, don't even waste time negotiating

the 6 month to 1 year break is the time period TSPA/ISI has given to its 'non-state actors' to get going on the India front after 2009 turned out be incident free for India while heavy backlash is witnessed in TSP

on the tactical side they could be unarmed hijackers who claim to have a put a bomb on the airplane and then force land the plane at a remote airfield, load up more terrorists and real arms and again take off, all the while asking GOI to release kasab and scum, only to divert the plane at the last minute once in a metropolitan airspace, diving into any vital installation most likely nuclear hoping to trigger a radiation leak

[ASPuar]

It is unlikely that Jyoti Basu (or any other Indian Communist) would have given away our secrets to China. However, I am worried about people (politician or otherwise) like Rabinder Singh.

A statement steeped in naivete. The record of the communist party in India has been dubious, to say the least. Why, for example, do communist party officials/govt of bengal civil servants not require a visa to visit china? And while a government servant can be bought, a politician can easily be bought too!

[somnath]

A statement steeped in naivete. The record of the communist party in India has been dubious, to say the least. Why, for example, do communist party officials/govt of bengal civil servants not require a visa to visit china? And while a government servant can be bought, a politician can easily be bought too!

Anyone can be bought, but any evidence to back this claim? Does the immigration official ask for info on "party membership/govt of WB service" on arrival in Shanghai instead of flicking through the passport? Not in my experience....

[sum]

Simultaneously, the relations between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China soured. In the early 1960s the Communist Party of China began criticising the CPSU of turning revisionist and of deviating from the path of Marxism-Leninism. Sino-Indian relations also deteriorated, as border disputes between the two countries erupted into the Indo-China war of 1962. During the war, a fraction of the Indian Communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. There were three factions in the party - ""internationalists"", ""centrists"", and ""nationalists"". Internationalists supported the Chinese stand whereas the nationalists backed India; centrists took a neutral view. Prominent leaders including S.A. Dange were in the nationalist faction. B. T. Ranadive, P. Sundarayya, P. C. Joshi, Basavapunnaiah, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet were among those supported China.

JB was a real patriot who should have been trusted, right?

Of course, such a person should deserve State Funeral and now the Commies are fishing for a Bharat Ratna!!

That was the entire intention of my original question. Surely, Our agencies will know the background of a incoming PM and if JB was to become one, would our agencies have ensured that areas where his decisions might be dubious be kept away from him? Similar might be case if Abu Azmi is set to become PM. Would all ongoing ops against Dawood be kept away from him?

[Sachin]

Similar might be case if Abu Azmi is set to become PM. Would all ongoing ops against Dawood be kept away from him?

I have heard (so take FWIW) that Army used to either hide info, or use too complex jargons when giving briefings to Mullah Mulayam Singh Yadav, when he was the Def.Min. There was some rumours during those days that Mullah was on the CIA pay roll.

[ASPuar]

A statement steeped in naivete. The record of the communist party in India has been dubious, to say the least. Why, for example, do communist party officials/govt of bengal civil servants not require a visa to visit china? And while a government servant can be bought, a politician can easily be bought too!

Anyone can be bought, but any evidence to back this claim? Does the immigration official ask for info on "party membership/govt of WB service" on arrival in Shanghai instead of flicking through the passport? Not in my experience....

When next in Delhi, if you were to experience a quick visit to the Embassy of the PRC in Delhi, and inspection of the notice in BIG RED LETTERS , that should satisfy this request for evidence .

[sugriva]

Why, for example, do communist party officials/govt of bengal civil servants not require a visa to visit china?

Stop posting nonsense please. There is also something called Indian immigration at the airports. So when you leave India, Indian immigration officials check that you have a visa for the place that your ticket claims to take you to. I am pretty sure Indian immigration turns back anybody without a valid visa.

[ASPuar]

Ah, the return of Sugriva. Thank you for your concise (though incomplete) introduction to emigration procedures.

Forgive me, but perhaps you would like to moderate your comments to be somewhat less offensive? What, if I may ask, is so nonsensical about stating a fact? Perhaps it is a fact that you do not agree with the veracity of. If so, say so. If you have specific knowledge which negates it, place it before us.

I went (albeit in 2007) to the PRC embassy, and there was a large sign outside, stating precisely this. If the policy has changed now, I am unaware of it.

Besides, If the Chinese dont want to require someone to have a visa to visit their country, what business is it of the "Indian Immigration"?

Bhutan doesnt require Indians to have a visa to visit.
Nepal doesnt.
Thailand doesnt.
Till a short while ago, Singapore didnt.
Certain categories (Diplomatic) are exempt in various countries, by arrangement.
Indian olympic atheletes and their families didnt require visas to go to Beijing.

Does "something called Indian Immigration" stop them all?

As opposed to your "pretty sure", I know, that certain countries do not require visas in toto, or for particular categories of Indian citizens. I have never heard of "Indian Immigration" stopping anyone from going to those places. Of late, the PRC has been extending this dubious privilege to persons Arunachal Pradesh also. And Yes, in these cases "something called Indian Immigration" has been asked to intervene.

But it is certainly not nonsense that the Chinese are using their visa regime for various reasons of their own.

[ASPuar]

Meanwhile, this.

http://kolkata.china-consulate.org/eng/ ... 652467.htm

Chinese diplomat describes Jyoti Basu as 'China's great friend'
2010-01-18

(Kolkata) A top Chinese diplomat today described Jyoti Basu as "China's great friend" and India's "greatest communist" while pay floral respect to the departed leader.

"Deepest condolence for the passing away of India's greatest communist and China's great friend, comrade Jyoti Basu," the Consul General of China in Kolkata Mao Siwei wrote in the condolence book at the CPI(M) headquarters here at Alimuddin Street.

Siwei laid a floral wreath before the former West Bengal chief minister's photograph.

Mao Siwei, Consul General of China paid courtesy call on Jyoti Basu at his residence in Salt Lake, Kolkata on May 4, 2009.

[sugriva]

Of late, the PRC has been extending this dubious privilege to persons Arunachal Pradesh also. And Yes, in these cases "something called Indian Immigration" has been asked to intervene.

Ah, the pleasures of debating with ASPuar. Wonderful, so now because the Chinese govt issues
"paper visas" to people whose domicile is Arunachal Pradesh "something called Indian Immigration" is called to intervene and stop that. Good to have acknowledgment from you, albeit indirectly, that something called "Indian immigration" exists and is tasked with the business of regulating visits to China by Indian citizens.

At this point one must also ask why the Indian govt is so worked up about China allowing domiciles of Arunachal Pradesh(AP) to visit it with paper visas. It is because India believes that China does not acknowledge that AP is part of India. Therefore if your logic about civil servants and party members from WB being allowed to travel to China without visas is any good , then it must also be true that India has all along acquiesced to the Chinese point of view that WB is not a part of India. Wonderful logic indeed !!!!!!

[Patni]

Lashkar readies para-gliders to launch suicide attack on India: Intel

PTI, 22 January 2010, 05:09pm IST
NEW DELHI: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba has acquired more than 50 para-gliding equipment from Europe, setting off alarm bells in the government that these could be used to carry out air-borne suicide attacks in the country.

The intelligence input which came barely days ahead of Republic Day celebrations has prompted authorities to ensure a tight air security around all vital installations, official sources said here on Friday.

The input about movement of overground workers, owing allegiance to LeT, in Europe led the sleuths to find out that they were on a shopping spree for para-gliding equipment, the sources said.

Security agencies have carried out mock drills in different areas in the country as part of the exercise to prevent any air-borne suicide attack by LeT terrorists.

The input bears significance in view of the fact that government has already put all Air India planes operating in the country's neighbourhood on high security alert following intelligence reports from Western agencies that the LeT and other terror groups were planning to hijack a flight.

Radars located at strategic locations have been tuned to intercept all low flying objects and authorities are not taking any chances, sources said.

A no-flying zone is already in place in capital's Luytens zone which houses the Rashtrapati Bhavan, Prime Minister's Office and key ministries like home, defence, finance, external affairs, among others.

Ahead of the Republic Day, elaborate air defence measures, including deployment of anti-aircraft guns, have also been taken to check possible intrusion of air space.

Besides, helicopters of the Indian Air Force will hover over the areas around Rajpath and all along the route of the Republic Day parade.

Earlier, intelligence reports suggested that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence had directed the militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir to use explosive-laden 'Toy Planes' to hit VIPs in the state and the national capital.

All the airports already have a very strict checking since yesterday itself causing long hours to get through security checks at all major airports. I suppose pakis badly wants to start using home made drones against India!!

[RayC]

The untold walkout
K.P. NAYAR
Narayanan, Intelligence Bureau chief Rajiv Mathur and P Chidambaram at the fateful meeting in New Delhi on December 23.

Washington, Jan. 21: M.K. Narayanan’s fate as national security adviser (NSA) was sealed two days before Christmas last year when he walked out of a meeting addressed by Union home minister P. Chidambaram.

Chidambaram, by temperament, is not one to take slights in his stride. But for him, Narayanan’s intemperate walkout from the December 23 meeting represented more than just a slight.......

That's it

[somnath]

When next in Delhi, if you were to experience a quick visit to the Embassy of the PRC in Delhi, and inspection of the notice in BIG RED LETTERS , that should satisfy this request for evidence .

ASPuar, its problematic..You would remember the ruckus created last year when PRC gave separate paper visas to some Kashmiris - Indian immigration refused to waive the visa-holders ahead..Some years back, again PRC refused to give a visa to some civil servants from AP, saying that they can visit without it(!), the govt didnt take it kindly and cancelled the trip..Something akin to what you are suggesting would be very difficult..

But on the larger point, bureaucracies often obfuscate "inconvenient" issues to the political bosses..But hiding big policy matters would be difficult, though it can often stymie implementation of policy changes..

About Mulayam Yadav's relations with the services - I have nothing but admiration for his stint at RM for the deftness with which he dealt with the Su30 issue..It was a deal concluded by the previous Congress govt, and he could have easily gained brownie (and electorally some real) points by creating an issue out of what was a big controversy..Instead he defused the issue and facilitated what has turned out to be one of the more successful defence projects..

therefore to start doubting people's integrity based on their ideological predilections is a very bad ideea, especially in a democracy..

[ASPuar]

-

[sugriva]

...

I sir, am not making any claims. Rather it is you who is making the claim that some ministers and bureaucrats of WB are allowed to travel to China without visas. The onus of proving the claim, with evidence, photographic or videographic is on you, not me. I am merely pointing out the ludicrousness of your claim and as to why such a thing is simply not possible by what enqyoob would term as second standard logic. You have very well realized that you have been caught a bind with your words and are now trying to change topics.

[ASPuar]

ASPuar, its problematic..You would remember the ruckus created last year when PRC gave separate paper visas to some Kashmiris - Indian immigration refused to waive the visa-holders ahead..Some years back, again PRC refused to give a visa to some civil servants from AP, saying that they can visit without it(!), the govt didnt take it kindly and cancelled the trip..Something akin to what you are suggesting would be very difficult..

Yup, I agree. Its possible that theyd put the sign up, but WB govt ministers etc perhaps generally obtain a visa anyway, to ensure that they arent stopped by emigration counter staff.