The current controversy over the action of the
US ambassador to India, David Mulford, in allegedly
writing directly to the chief minister of Assam, Tarun
Gogoi, offering the assistance of the US Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the investigation of the recent
bomb blasts in the state reveals the extent of the lack
of knowledge in the public in general, including political
parties, and in the media in particular about matters
connected with the intelligence trade. As a result, many
journalists and political leaders have tended to go off
at a tangent.
Two issues are involved in the
debate: should India accept the assistance of the FBI,
and was the ambassador's action in directly offering
assistance to the Assam government over the head of the
government of India the right way of doing it?
Should India accept the assistance of the FBI?
Why not, if the government of India, after careful
examination, feels it would be beneficial to the
investigation. If they do, this would not be the first
time that India has accepted the assistance of the
intelligence and investigative agencies of foreign
countries in investigating crimes involving
transnational networking and the use of sophisticated
explosive devices and other gadgetry.
It
has done so dozens of times ever since it became
independent in 1947. The more recent and the more important
cases coming to mind are those relating to the origin of
a pistol recovered by the Indian police from
Sikh hijackers in 1983, in which the then West
German forensic experts determined that it came from a
stock sold by a West German company to Pakistan; the
Mumbai blasts of March 1993, in which, with the permission
of Narasimha Rao, then prime minister, Indian agencies
sought the assistance of not only the US Central
Intelligence Agency, the FBI, Britain's MI-5 and MI-6
and Austrian experts, but also of Chinese agencies; and
the Purulia arms drop case of 1995 in which the initial
tip-off came from the British, who cooperated in the
subsequent investigation, without Jyoti Basu, the then
chief minister of West Bengal, uttering a single word of
protest.
It would
be churlish not to acknowledge the assistance
Indian agencies have received from their Western counterparts
in dealing with terrorism in Punjab. Very often, it
was the government of India that sought the assistance. In
some cases, it was Western governments that offered
the assistance, and India accepted after satisfying itself that there
was no catch in it.
However, one has to note at
the same time that Western agencies had in the past
shown a reluctance to assist their Indian counterparts
in the investigation of terrorist acts committed by
Kashmiri and Pakistani jihadi terrorist organizations in
Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and by the terrorist and
insurgent organizations of the northeast. The reasons
were simple: They did not want to embarrass Pakistan in
J&K and they were afraid of protests from their
Christian leaders, particularly Baptist missionaries,
who take a keen interest in the northeast and whose
sympathies have been with the tribals in their
confrontation with the government of India.
The
alacrity with which the US ambassador offered the FBI's
assistance in the investigation of the blasts in northeastern
India should, therefore, be puzzling. There is an
old Tamil saying, "Chozhiyan kudumi summa
aadathu." It means that if you find the tiny tuft at
the back of a Brahmin's head moving, you should not
presume that it must be due to the breeze. You must
examine it further to see whether there could be other
reasons.
There is absolutely no reason at
present to doubt the bona fides of the ambassador in
making the offer. But one has to ask oneself many
questions. Has there been any evidence that the US
agencies continue to maintain contacts with the tribal
insurgents and terrorists, either directly or through
American Baptist missionaries? Have any of the
organizations suspected in connection with the recent
blasts been in touch with the US diplomatic missions in
Bangladesh? Can the Americans be worried that the
investigation by the local police might bring to light
these contacts? Is there an attempt to divert suspicion
away from these organizations and their possible
contacts with the US by misleading the local police
under the pretext of assisting them?
It is only
by posing such questions and seeking answers that one
protects national security. Diversionary tactics to
mislead the police and divert suspicion from them is a
copybook technique followed not only by intelligence
agencies, but also by many criminals. Experienced police
officers will narrate to you innumerable instances in
which a suspect tried to divert suspicion from himself
by volunteering to help the police in the investigation.
The objection to the US ambassador's letter to
the chief minister is not because he offered the FBI's
assistance, but because by writing directly to the chief
minister of a state in a serious matter relating to
national security, he blatantly violated the ground
rules regarding intelligence cooperation followed by
intelligence agencies all over the world, except the US.
In a recent article, I had pointed out that the US and
its agencies do not hesitate to violate these rules if
they consider it to be in their national interest.
These ground rules lay down that each
country entering into intelligence cooperation with
another country would designate nodal agencies through which
all requests for intelligence and all requests/offers
for assistance in investigation would be routed. Before
the formation of the RAW (Research & Analysis
Wing - India's external intelligence agency) in
September 1968, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) of the government
of India was the nodal agency. After the formation of
the RAW, Indira Gandhi, then prime minister,
designated it as the nodal agency. One does not know
what the position is now, but one understands that the
IB and possibly the Central Bureau of Investigation also
act sometimes as the nodal agencies, at least de facto,
if not de jure.
The US offer of assistance
should have been routed through one of these
organizations. The US ambassador has only himself to
blame if he has stirred a hornets' nest by going over
the head of the government of India and offering the
assistance directly to the state government. Delhi
should not hesitate to protest strongly.
B
Raman is additional secretary (retired), Cabinet
Secretariat, government of India. E-mail:corde@vsnl.com.
