India: How Smiley's people fish in democratic electoral politics - Needed oversight of Indian intelligence agencies

From Kashmir Times, November 01, 2013

The Implications for Democratic polity

by Ravi Nair

It is a measure of the political naivety of Rahul Gandhi that he is willing to publically and unquestioningly parrot dubious information allegedly given to him by an intelligence official. Any seasoned politician would have made discreet enquiries from local party activists before making broad allegations. Evidently, the Congress has no reliable party activists in Muzaffarnagar and has to depend on the cloak and dagger crowd whose specialisation is disinformation. The spook's sense of power and influence emanates from peddling dubious information to the overwhelming majority of the gullible political class. What is also within the realm of possibility is that the recipient uses information planted in good faith. In one fell swoop through an imprudent statement, the goodwill generated by the earlier visit of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the UPA Chairperson, the Prime Minister and Rahul Gandhi himself to the displaced in Muzaffarnagar was obliterated.

The issues raised are extensive and there have been no substantive reflections on the revelations concerning how Smiley's people fish in democratic electoral politics.

It started at a rally in Indore on 24 October 2013. Mr Rahul Gandhi alleged Pakistani intelligence agencies were recruiting victims of the Muzaffarnagar riots into joining terror outfits. He said that the Inter Services Intelligence Agency of Pakistan (ISI) allegedly established contact with a group of ten to fifteen Muslim youngsters, whose kin were killed in the riots. The Congress Vice President claimed an intelligence official gave the information to him.

The Prime Ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party Mr Narendra Modi asked Mr Gandhi to publicly reveal the names of the youths or apologise for the "Muslim terror slur." Mr Modi stated that according to his sources, a Rajasthan police official who had electoral ambitions provided Mr Rahul Gandhi with the information. Unsurprisingly, the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) on 26 October 2013 differed with Narendra Modi over Rahul Gandhi's statement,

"Rahul Gandhi's claim at a poll rally in Indore is right to an extent. The UPA government needs to take firm action against such tendencies," RSS Joint General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale told reporters… "Being an MP, Rahul may have got the information. Nothing wrong in Rahul getting the information. We also get information from various sources. Those in public life will have such connections. The information given by him should be pursued."

Former Home Secretary R K Singh on 26 October 2013 denied that any intelligence officer might brief a person not in an official position.

Anyone reading Moloy Krishna Dhar's book, "Open Secrets" would be aware of the connections between the RSS and the spooky intelligence crowd. It should be noted that a former Director of the Intelligence Bureau is presently the Director of the Vivekanand International Foundation whose umblical cord with Nagpur is well known.

The Hindustan Times provided a further, interesting input. According to the Hindustan Times, dated 27 October 2013, Uttar Pradesh Home Secretary, Kamal Saxena confirmed the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had not shared any report with the state regarding recruitment.

"The Government has not received any input from IB about the ISI being in touch with riot victims in Muzaffarnagar," Saxena specified. Furthermore, an intelligence official stated, "Just two days ago, there was a meeting between the IB and UP Police intelligence officials where generic inputs about Muzaffarnagar emerging as a 'breeding ground' for disaffected youth were shared. HT learnt that an additional director with the IB, Khinya Ram Bagadia, had indeed met Gandhi three days ago. When contacted, Bagadiya, who was heading the IB's unit in Rajasthan till a week ago, confirmed having met Gandhi but denied briefing him about the Muzaffarnagar youth. I worked in Rajasthan Police and served with the IB long ago. I was at Rahul's rallies in Alwar and Churu to manage security on behalf of my private security agency. I do not know anything about the controversial statement on riots," Bagadia told HT. IB officials, however, confirmed Bagadia was still serving with the agency and has recently been posted to Delhi."

The plot gets curiouser and curiouser as Lewis Caroll would say. Either the IB has too many mavericks ploughing their furrows or as is quite common in intelligence work the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In any event, it is essential that the Election Commission investigate this intelligence scaremongering on the eve of key assembly elections and further down the road Parliamentary elections that will define India for many decades to come.

Spook interference in domestic politics across the world is well documented. Many countries have legislated safeguards against a Praetorian guard that lives in the delusion of making and unmaking Caesars.

The feisty Supreme Court of Pakistan in October 2012 ordered intelligence agencies in the country and the presidency to refrain from interfering in politics. The court ordered further criminal investigations into how politicians received government funds from the military officers to manipulate elections in the 1990s.

In South Africa, despite legislation governing intelligence activity much evidence has surfaced in 2012 that "senior intelligence officers were meddling in politics, spying on politicians and hatching or fabricating conspiracies in order to influence the factional battles within the ANC. These subversive activities have bedevilled the political arena for over a decade, doing serious damage to the democratic system and the legitimacy of the intelligence services."

Earlier this year, South Korea was agog with news of how the National Intellegence Service was actively seeking to influence South Korean politics. One official investigation found that, "spy agents systemically intervened in domestic politics by writing around 1, 900 postings on politics in cyberspace through hundreds of different user IDs. Among them were 73 online posts, which directly tampered with last year's presidential election." The list of similar scandals could continue endlessly.

Mr Morarji Desai's downfall as Prime Minister was in no small measure linked to his healthy suspicion of the activities of the spook brigade and the major budgetary cuts he imposed on them. And of course, it was mere happenstance that the VP Singh Government fell very soon after he appointed Mr Jaswant Singh of the BJP to head a committee to look into possible Parliamentary control of the Intelligence agencies.

In a 2010 lecture before the Research & Analysis Wing, Vice President, Hamid Ansari, called for a Parliamentary intelligence committee to establish independent oversight and accountability and to address Executive domination over and "misuse" of the intelligence agencies. While Mr Ansari was speaking about intelligence agencies generally, the implication was the concern in India. Shashi Tharoor, a Member of Parliament and former United Nations Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Affairs, and then Minister of State for the Ministry of External Affairs, similarly called for independent oversight of Indian intelligence agencies in a 2007 speech before the R&AW.

Manish Tewari, a current Minister in his earlier avatar as a Member of Parliament and spokesperson for the Congress Party, the main partner in the ruling United Progressive Alliance in India, advanced a private member's bill seemingly in answer to the Vice-President's call. Unfortunately, The Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, 2011 did little to address intelligence failings and weaknesses. In fact, the statutory framework suggested for the agencies and the mechanisms for achieving independent accountability and oversight are so poor that it appears the Bill was simply purporting to make radical change while in fact maintaining the status quo.

As this commentator wrote earlier in the SAFMA journal, there is an obvious need for the creation and implementation of a statutory framework for intelligence agencies and the development of effective mechanisms for oversight and accountability. While national security is a highly important public interest, it is only one of many competing interests to be balanced for effective governance.

Democratic nations regularly struggle to secure their citizenry and the state against external and internal threats while preserving the fundamental civil rights and liberties guaranteed by their democratic mandate. A delicate balance between security and civil liberties is hard to achieve as protection against terrorism, hostility and physical attacks often demand limiting guarantees of privacy and liberty that are at the heart of democratic rights. Secrecy and operational discretion are necessary for the government to respond to potential security threats while transparency and curbing the abuse of civil liberties are both essential to a thriving democracy.

Complicating the balance between security and civil liberties is that in times of great danger, such as when facing terrorism and insurgency, the public are more willing to accept restrictions on their rights in a theoretical trade for greater safety. However, historical evidence indicates once governments are afforded enhanced security powers, including gathering intelligence against their citizens, these powers are readily abused and exploited for political purposes with no real gain in security.

The author is a Delhi analyst.