& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

STRAIGHT UNE

Getting hold on intelligence agencies
***Our intelligence organisation needs to work under pragmatic political leadership and if properly and professionally steered, it does not threaten our liberties.***
The Daily Star editorial "Get a hold on the state agencies" published on July 9,2011, tells us in no uncer-
tain terms about the disturbing conditions that occur when state agencies step out of their defined terms of reference. It makes the dismal allegation that the assets of security agencies had been used for partisan purposes and that security providers have themselves become the cause of insecurity. The above caustic comments pertain to the August 21 grenade attack in Dhaka and the 10 truck illegal arms haul in Chittagong. Without doubt, the comments need to be seriously taken note of and, as suggested; the issue of employment, direction and control of intelligence agencies demand a closer examination at the apex level.
In the context of the above scenario, it would be relevant to say that commissions and omissions of intelligence organisations have invariably attracted concerned quarters and generated lively debate amongst a selected segment of the society. The general members of the public have been, at best, marginally curious about intelligence activities although the same in real terms affect them socially and politically.
The considered views of present day security experts are that open discussions by competent and concerned persons may in fact rationalise the operation of intelligence organisation to the benefit of a democratic polity. One may look at recent events in Pakistan where the military had thought it fit to enlighten all law makers about the terror and religious extremism scenario.
Concerned citizens may like to know if, while rendering service in the area of national security, intelligence agencies have allowed themselves to be misused
and abused by the politicians in power for disgraceful purposes. Are they subserving the interests of a political party or an individual or controlling and blackmailing opponents of the political party in power or elements within the party in power that are dissident?
Is there a tendency that equates national interest with the interest of the party in power? What can be done to reduce the likelihood of non-observance of fairness and objectivity in intelligence functions?
Quite undeniably, the intelligence organisation plays a leading role in providing political-analytical inputs to the ruling party and its government. Therefore, its lack of impartiality and objectivity can distort the policy process and thus carries the risk of damaging the credibility and political legitimacy of the state. There exists a reasoned inference that such damage is likely when intelligence organisation lacks a legal framework and a well-honed charter of duties.
The need of political intelligence can never be questioned but the equally important need for safeguards and constant vigilance against possible misuse must not be lost sight of. One needs to know that the intelligence activities carried out in secrecy may infringe individual's rights without the latter being aware.
The mission and strategy of our intelligence organisations had not been stable. It invariably changed with the change of a political government.
Differing political agenda often tended to cloud the pragmatic understanding of our real national interests.
The broad function of maintaining public order to ensure internal security is closely associated with the task of collecting and collating intelligence in the interest of the state. In reality, in our situation, the interests of the state often got diluted and mixed up with the interests of the government of the day. The situation is marked by an
unfortunate lack of understanding and appreciation of the requirements of the state and the government in a democratic and pluralist society like ours.
Under these circumstances, intelligence agencies should not be the judge of its own operations with regard to the necessity and propriety thereof, nor should it be allowed to operate as the agency or instrument of politicians, or degenerate into an institution for controlling the opponents of party in power, or elements within the party in power with which the high command of the party does not see eye to eye. There must be inbuilt constraints.
At the heart of the matter, there should be a prescription for a charter of duties for the intelligence organ, putting responsibilities beyond doubt and to indicate what is permitted and what is prohibited.
The catch-all definition of "national security" should not be used as a cover
to hide a multitude of abuses. It should exclude activities that deny human rights and basic freedoms. The vague and antiquated formulations of colonial days relating to intelligence function should be suitably replaced.
The national security agency is expected to be able to effectively serve national interests if directed appropriately by the political authority. If they (agency) have to remain preoccupied with largely inconsequential matters to the detriment of national interest, then
we are unable able to manage a crisis at hand.
We have been criticising the agencies very loudly without, however, appreciating the impediments to the growth of an apolitical professional organisation. The time has come to call a spade a spade and realise that the government will change hands but not the state.
Our intelligence organisation needs to work under pragmatic political leadership and if properly and professionally steered, it does not threaten our liberties. If we operate by the book, we will be adequately informed of the perils which face us. The last thing we can afford to do now is to put our intelligence in chains. Its protective and informative role is indispensable in times of unique and continuing violence.
The writer is a former IGP and a columnist for The Daily Star.