Analysis: India intel fails to halt terror

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only

India says its state intelligence departments are not equipped to take on terrorism following failures that have put their efficiency in doubt.

"The repeated intelligence failures of SIDs have put their efficiency in handling terrorism in doubt," said Interior Minister Shivraj Patil.

Patil said officials in the state intelligence departments should be retained for sufficient periods and given incentives to improve the bodies' functioning. SIDs were criticized following the serial bomb blasts at courts in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and others across the nation.

"Intelligence collection of all state agencies is not at fault. But the problem lies with human intelligence gathering, which is believed to be more accurate and requires skill," said Nikhil Kumar, an intelligence expert and former head of the National Security Guard, an elite national security agency.

The state intelligence agencies, however, have argued they don't have a dedicated staff and are running short of funds. They are viewed as places to dump reluctant officials.

According to a federal Interior Ministry official, the government is thinking of formulating a comprehensive action plan to rejuvenate the state intelligence departments to equip them with modern gadgets, adequate funding and a proper and effective staff. The draft action plan is expected to be deliberated upon Dec. 20 when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to chair a meeting of state chief ministers to discuss issues relating to internal security and the functioning of state intelligence departments.

The Interior Ministry set up an inter-ministerial group on security-related issues within the ministry. The group was assigned the task of formulating a plan to tackle terrorism. The group, which held its fifth meeting Tuesday, reportedly drafted a plan that is expected to be presented before the chief minister-level meeting.

Factors affecting the motivation and performance of the state intelligence departments are a lack of continuity in tenures, absence of executive powers and negligible recognition in society. The Interior Ministry has advised state governments to grant longer tenures to officials so they can cultivate informers and sharpen intelligence gathering.

"The officials at the state intelligence departments have not been working effectively. In fact, they are apathetic to their responsibilities and duties. Their source of intelligence-gathering is local police," said Ajai Sahani, executive director of Center for Conflict Management, a non-governmental organization that deals with security and terrorism-related matters.

Sahani said increasing the numbers of officials in state intelligence agencies would not help improve their functioning, as what matters in intelligence is the quality and dedication of the officials, not their numbers. Generally, officials in SIDs are given a term of three years and in many cases they were transferred even before completing their terms due to political pressure. A parliamentary standing committee attached to the Interior Ministry in its report suggested that a term of at least five years should be given to the officials.

"What we need is to develop the concept of double-agents, which is not much in use. We need to expand our telephone and e-mail-interrupt systems and integrate them with the intelligence gathering and the investigating agencies," said Y.P. Singh, a former officer of the Indian Police Service.

There is a lack of trust between the federal and state intelligence agencies and police. This sometime leads to a serious clash among them. In a few cases where central intelligence agencies try to plant a mole in a terrorist outfit or insurgent group, police arrest the mole. The police argued that intelligence agencies do not give them prior information about their plans.

India has a four-tier intelligence setup, which includes special branches with local police, state intelligence departments, the Intelligence Bureau at the national-level and Research and Analysis Wing, responsible for foreign intelligence. All these agencies have a common grievance that their successes are not acknowledged while failures are magnified.