NEW DELHI - The Indian government - criticized for its lackadaisical approach
to handling terror and internal security - finally seems to be getting its act
together to overhaul the crumbling and creaking security system.
President Pratibha Patil, in her inaugural address to the joint session of
parliament on June 4, emphasized that internal security would be one of the
"top priorities" for the new government and an urgent plan to address
national-security challenges would be executed in a phased manner.
"A policy of zero-tolerance towards terrorism, from whichever source it
originates, will be pursued," asserted Patil in a subtle hint to Pakistan,
adding that a National Investigation Agency
would now be empowered to tackle terror-related offences.
The presidential address - which underscores the freshly-minted Congress-led
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's much-vaunted resolve to tackle
terror - comes in the wake of a slew of already proposed reforms that may well
transform the visage of India's security and intelligence apparatus.
The proposed measures - currently being scrutinized by the Cabinet Committee on
Security (CCS) - include the creation of a national database, beefing up
intelligence-gathering networks, ramping up staff at intelligence agencies,
absorbing meritorious and retired intelligence officials in the system and
tightening border and maritime security, among others.
Based on the CCS's recommendations - with the input of an intelligence task
force set up in 2007 to revamp the security system - the UPA government will
flesh out a comprehensive blueprint for an overhaul.
The task force's recommendations include a road map to revamp the
intelligence-sharing network, establishment of three new niche
intelligence-gathering agencies, concrete steps to improve technical
intelligence and the establishment of a training institute for intelligence
personnel, among others.
To fortify the intelligence network, the task force has recommended the
government strengthen organizations like the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the
Research and Analysis Wing, while increasing the strength of informers
currently recruited by intelligence networks along with an improvement in their
pay scales.
While skeptics say the freshly proposed reforms may yet again become mired in
the infamously labyrinthine bureaucracy, many experts are hopeful that they
will likely see the light of day.
"Considering the Mumbai terror attacks nearly cost the UPA this election, it is
keen to prove that it means business on the security front this time," said
security analyst Dipak Bhanocha. "So in the first flush of its current
electoral win, it is trying hard to push the proposed reforms with vigor."
Indeed, there's no denying that a new and tighter security apparatus is in
India's interest, given the heightened environment of terror on all its
borders. With unrest in the immediate neighborhood - including Pakistan, Sri
Lanka and Nepal - a better security infrastructure will enable India to handle
the tectonic shift in South Asia's geopolitical dynamics.
There's no denying that India's vulnerability to terror has increased manifold
because of external factors. The rise in jihadi terrorism in its immediate
neighborhood presents India with a complex challenge, which has become all the
more disquieting as the hub of religious fundamentalism - indeed global
terrorism - is now located right next door (between Pakistan and Afghanistan).
Then there's India's unique geographical orientation. With a landmass of
sub-continental proportions, India occupies a vital strategic position in South
Asia with a gargantuan 7,683 kilometer-long coastline and an exclusive economic
zone that is over two million square kilometers in size. The country also
shares its 15,000-kilometer border with seven countries.
Such sensitive geographical contouring endows India with daunting security
challenges. This was demonstrated amply last year during the November Mumbai
terror attacks when just a handful of terrorists were able to penetrate the
borders with impunity to hold the financial capital ransom for over 60 hours.
The Mumbai incident held the deficient security apparatus up to world scrutiny.
Intelligence networks failed to follow up on leads to prevent the attack,
ill-equipped police were rudderless to take on the well-armed terrorists and
anti-terrorist squads failed miserably to respond to the city's cry for help.
The justified outpouring of anger across the country in the wake of the attacks
led to several heads rolling in the government, including that of Home Minister
Shivraj Patil. Though Patil's dismissal may well be a token, the government was
forced to do a rethink on security measures across the country.
A similar scenario unfolded following the Kargil war in 1999, when Pakistani
terrorists exploited the lacunae in the country's Intelligence to their
advantage. Even at that time, the N N Vohra Committee report on internal
security had painted a disturbing picture of the intelligence apparatus and
called for a radical revamp. It also called for restoring the primacy of the
Home secretary and IB, a review mechanism within the IB and an end to political
interference. But not much was achieved on any of these fronts.
Unfortunately, despite the experience of several border conflicts and wars,
even today India's borders continue to be guarded by military, paramilitary and
police forces which fail to function cohesively. Each force reports to a
different ministry in New Delhi, as a result of which there's an utter lack of
co-ordination in managing the borders.
Post Kargil, the government identified the poor coastal security infrastructure
as part of the overlap between internal security and border management and the
utility of a unified maritime agency was mooted. But like many other specific
policy recommendations, this idea fell through due to political and
bureaucratic indifference.
"The rot in the Indian intelligence system runs so deep that cosmetic changes
will simply not work. It needs a complete overhaul," said a retired Indian
intelligence officer. The official added that intelligence officers were
deficient in training, even as inter-agency feuds have resulted in far too much
politics.
"Plus, there's a dearth of intelligence operatives and intelligence agencies
are woefully understaffed," he said.
To be take more seriously in the international arena, India could leverage
technology, for one thing. Britain's effective embrace of video surveillance in
the 1990s, in response to Irish Republican Army attacks, proved just how
successful this can be. Today, London has over 10,000 cameras, and Britain over
four million (one for every 14 people), the highest in the world.
India's defense budget - that old bugbear - also needs to be reconsidered. New
Delhi's annual budget on policing a country of over a billion people is US$3
billion. Compared to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, which alone has an
annual budget of $7.1 billion for 300 million people, it is a pittance.
The US is the largest military spender in the world and puts 4.1% of its gross
domestic product (GDP) towards defense, while India spends less than 2% of its
GDP on defense. Even China spends an estimated 4.3% of GDP on defense and
Pakistan 3.5%.
Neeta Lal is a widely published writer/commentator who contributes to
many reputed national and international print and Internet publications.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
