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%.
No comments:
Post a Comment