By Saswati Sarkar on
On June 18, 2013, CBI, the numero uno investigating agency of the country is all set to question Rajinder Kumar, a senior officer, no less than a special director, of IB, the premier intelligence agency. This hitherto unprecedented move has been opposed by the IB chief Asif Ibrahim; his intervention has however failed to deter the CBI. It is therefore clear that the premier agencies of our Government are not functioning in tandem, which is troubling to say the least.
Let us then examine the sequence of events that has lead to this public spectacle. I shall rely on a comprehensive article authored by reputed journalist, Praveen Swamy, in Firstpost. On June 15, 2004, Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old resident of Pune was shot dead along with Javed Sheikh, Zeeshan Johar and Amjad Ali Rana on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. The last two being Pakistani citizens in all likelihood. A specific intelligence alert was generated by the Gujarat station of IB headed by Rajinder Kumar that a team of two Pakistani terrorists and a Pune resident would attempt to assassinate top politicians like Narendra Modi and Lal Krishna Advani. It is now alleged that senior Gujarat IPS officers staged this encounter in cahoots with IB officer Kumar subsequent to kidnapping the above-mentioned individuals. The Gujarat High Court has constituted a special investigation team to investigate the encounter. The team includes a CBI officer nominated by the mother of the deceased, Ishrat Jahan. The CBI has been seeking to establish that the intelligence input has been falsified and would presumably interrogate Rajinder Kumar towards that end.
Evidences corroborating the veracity of the IB input have
periodically emerged throughout this entire saga. The terrorist outfit,
Lashkar-e-Tayyeba had celebrated the ‘martyrdom’ of Ishrat Jahan shortly
after her death and a terrorist captured in USA, David Headley, had
confessed to the federal bureau of inves- tigation, his knowledge of her
recruitment as a suicide bomber. Finally, tapes aired by a Headlines
Today confirm that a Pakistan-based handler has been closely
collaborating with an assassin commissioned to eliminate target number
5, Narendra Modi. Let us therefore assume henceforth that the late
Ishrat Jahan has indeed been a terrorist and examine a substantially
more controversial issue.
The Gujarat High Court has recently instructed the SIT to focus on establishing whether the encounter has been fake rather than on the veracity of the intelligence input; on the ground that even a terrorist ought not be liqui- dated without due judicial sanction. This seems consistent with the norms of a civilised society, but only from the safety of the glittering, air-conditioned TV studios. It is about time we pose the politically inconvenient query of whether the same norms ought to apply when we fight our war on terror, seeking to prevent surgical operations meticulously planned by the dreaded terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or massacres executed by Maoists in the killing fields of Andhra or Chattisgarh.
Tainted cop probing Ishrat Jahan encounter
Playing the devil’s advocate let us assume that the terrorists were indeed eliminated in cold blood in a staged encounter. Even in such an eventuality, before condemning the law-enforcers from our luxurious high-rises in Delhi, let us examine the possibilities that would arise if they did not. The police could surely have arrested the terrorists and produced them in court. In due course, they would be sentenced to jail terms and our consciences satisfied. Not quite, since before the act is perpetrated, the law enforcers rarely have evidences that would stand legal scrutiny. Corroboration of the intelligence input in a court of law would violate the anonymity the sources deserve. Good offices of competent lawyers could have been utilised to have the assassins released on bail perhaps to provide them another shot at their target. Would that have been acceptable if only to abide by the letter of civilisation?
Without beating around the bush, I am arguing for creating a framework for evaluating and addressing such exigencies. History affirms that India has lost two Prime Ministers and a Chief Minister to assassins, and geography ordains our existence in one of the most volatile neighborhoods of the world. Going by the age-old adage that prevention is better than cure, we may consider legitimising covert intelligence operations in extreme circumstances. Intelligence agencies around the world are empowered for the same. Checks and balances should most certainly apply, for instance requiring advance consent of superior officers and periodic parliamentary supervision of the officers authorised to issue such consent.
The above proposition may well be ridiculed by groups who are primarily concerned with human rights of the terrorists. Outraged, they would point out that India has not denied due process of law to even an Ajmal Kasab or an Afzal Guru. Just that neither of the ghastly attacks they perpetrated, which claimed multiple law-abiding citizens, could be prevented. Has it been any consolation to the dear ones the dead have left behind that our means have been kosher? Let the morality of not being able to prevent the deaths of the innocents also count while we ponder over that of the encounters. I would also like to hazard a guess that there is already an implicit framework in place for facilitating such operations. How else does one explain the large number of encounters in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and West Bengal that have never been probed? It is almost an open secret that the militancy in Punjab and naxal extremism in West Bengal were largely curbed through such methods. Creating a legal framework would allow regulation of the same and also prevent selective utilization of specific incidents for fixing political opponents.
The sudden emphasis on the Ishrat Jahan case is intricately related to the rapidly evolving political realities of our times. It may indeed serve as a convenient political tool to thwart the Prime Ministerial run of the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. And, the new nadir in the relationship between the two premier investigative agencies that the witch-hunt has lead to will naturally constitute a mere collateral damage. The case is not about one IB officer, as some political crusaders who perceive the investigation as a choice between democracy and fascism, would like us to believe. It is about undermining the morale of an entire agency entrusted with containing terror. To avoid prolonged legal persecution, the officers may no longer be willing to submit all the information they gather and assess as reliable, but restrict to only those that stand judicial scrutiny. Above and beyond, a bleak future in which the political colour of the ruling dispensation influences the level of caution the officers adopt as to ensuring the security of specific leaders in question may well be beckoning us. Our entire intelligence apparatus would thereby unravel unless we spare our officers the ignominy of petty politics.
In conclusion, the Americans celebrated as Osama Bin Laden was taken down in a surgical operation by a group of navy seals — an operation authorised by their President and the secretary of state. The navy seals were hailed as heroes and not prosecuted as criminals. Neither were Obama and Clinton severely castigated for not ensuring that Bin Laden was granted due process of law. I shudder to think how they would have fared in an Indian ecosystem dominated by a vociferous human rights group and a complicit media. Perhaps that explains why US has been winning the war on terror — major incidents have largely been averted on its soil since the ghastly attack on the World Trade Centre — and India isn’t.
On June 18, 2013, CBI, the numero uno investigating agency of the country is all set to question Rajinder Kumar, a senior officer, no less than a special director, of IB, the premier intelligence agency. This hitherto unprecedented move has been opposed by the IB chief Asif Ibrahim; his intervention has however failed to deter the CBI. It is therefore clear that the premier agencies of our Government are not functioning in tandem, which is troubling to say the least.
Let us then examine the sequence of events that has lead to this public spectacle. I shall rely on a comprehensive article authored by reputed journalist, Praveen Swamy, in Firstpost. On June 15, 2004, Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old resident of Pune was shot dead along with Javed Sheikh, Zeeshan Johar and Amjad Ali Rana on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. The last two being Pakistani citizens in all likelihood. A specific intelligence alert was generated by the Gujarat station of IB headed by Rajinder Kumar that a team of two Pakistani terrorists and a Pune resident would attempt to assassinate top politicians like Narendra Modi and Lal Krishna Advani. It is now alleged that senior Gujarat IPS officers staged this encounter in cahoots with IB officer Kumar subsequent to kidnapping the above-mentioned individuals. The Gujarat High Court has constituted a special investigation team to investigate the encounter. The team includes a CBI officer nominated by the mother of the deceased, Ishrat Jahan. The CBI has been seeking to establish that the intelligence input has been falsified and would presumably interrogate Rajinder Kumar towards that end.
BJP Press on misusing the IB for political gains : Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman
The letter of the law does indeed allow an
investigating officer to summon and question any individual including an
IB officer on duty. Regardless, the prospect is troubling as it is far
from clear how an IB officer is expected to prove the veracity of his
information without revealing his sources. The latter would in turn
seriously undermine the acquisition of intelligence information, not
merely by the officer in question, but by the entire agency. Yet,
prevention of terror attacks critically rely on the timely processing of
intelligence information. I am not arguing that we should go by the
word of any one officer, but rather on the verification of the input
from the agency. A professional intelligence agency will have a command
and control structure that documents such input and superior officers
will be in the knowhow of the same. Thus, certification from the IB
director ought to suffce in instances where such inputs are questioned.
In fact, the IB director Ibrahim has owned up the input in writing, as
one of his letters leaked to a media group, Headlines Today, reveals.
The Gujarat High Court has recently instructed the SIT to focus on establishing whether the encounter has been fake rather than on the veracity of the intelligence input; on the ground that even a terrorist ought not be liqui- dated without due judicial sanction. This seems consistent with the norms of a civilised society, but only from the safety of the glittering, air-conditioned TV studios. It is about time we pose the politically inconvenient query of whether the same norms ought to apply when we fight our war on terror, seeking to prevent surgical operations meticulously planned by the dreaded terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or massacres executed by Maoists in the killing fields of Andhra or Chattisgarh.
Tainted cop probing Ishrat Jahan encounter
Playing the devil’s advocate let us assume that the terrorists were indeed eliminated in cold blood in a staged encounter. Even in such an eventuality, before condemning the law-enforcers from our luxurious high-rises in Delhi, let us examine the possibilities that would arise if they did not. The police could surely have arrested the terrorists and produced them in court. In due course, they would be sentenced to jail terms and our consciences satisfied. Not quite, since before the act is perpetrated, the law enforcers rarely have evidences that would stand legal scrutiny. Corroboration of the intelligence input in a court of law would violate the anonymity the sources deserve. Good offices of competent lawyers could have been utilised to have the assassins released on bail perhaps to provide them another shot at their target. Would that have been acceptable if only to abide by the letter of civilisation?
Without beating around the bush, I am arguing for creating a framework for evaluating and addressing such exigencies. History affirms that India has lost two Prime Ministers and a Chief Minister to assassins, and geography ordains our existence in one of the most volatile neighborhoods of the world. Going by the age-old adage that prevention is better than cure, we may consider legitimising covert intelligence operations in extreme circumstances. Intelligence agencies around the world are empowered for the same. Checks and balances should most certainly apply, for instance requiring advance consent of superior officers and periodic parliamentary supervision of the officers authorised to issue such consent.
The above proposition may well be ridiculed by groups who are primarily concerned with human rights of the terrorists. Outraged, they would point out that India has not denied due process of law to even an Ajmal Kasab or an Afzal Guru. Just that neither of the ghastly attacks they perpetrated, which claimed multiple law-abiding citizens, could be prevented. Has it been any consolation to the dear ones the dead have left behind that our means have been kosher? Let the morality of not being able to prevent the deaths of the innocents also count while we ponder over that of the encounters. I would also like to hazard a guess that there is already an implicit framework in place for facilitating such operations. How else does one explain the large number of encounters in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and West Bengal that have never been probed? It is almost an open secret that the militancy in Punjab and naxal extremism in West Bengal were largely curbed through such methods. Creating a legal framework would allow regulation of the same and also prevent selective utilization of specific incidents for fixing political opponents.
The sudden emphasis on the Ishrat Jahan case is intricately related to the rapidly evolving political realities of our times. It may indeed serve as a convenient political tool to thwart the Prime Ministerial run of the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. And, the new nadir in the relationship between the two premier investigative agencies that the witch-hunt has lead to will naturally constitute a mere collateral damage. The case is not about one IB officer, as some political crusaders who perceive the investigation as a choice between democracy and fascism, would like us to believe. It is about undermining the morale of an entire agency entrusted with containing terror. To avoid prolonged legal persecution, the officers may no longer be willing to submit all the information they gather and assess as reliable, but restrict to only those that stand judicial scrutiny. Above and beyond, a bleak future in which the political colour of the ruling dispensation influences the level of caution the officers adopt as to ensuring the security of specific leaders in question may well be beckoning us. Our entire intelligence apparatus would thereby unravel unless we spare our officers the ignominy of petty politics.
In conclusion, the Americans celebrated as Osama Bin Laden was taken down in a surgical operation by a group of navy seals — an operation authorised by their President and the secretary of state. The navy seals were hailed as heroes and not prosecuted as criminals. Neither were Obama and Clinton severely castigated for not ensuring that Bin Laden was granted due process of law. I shudder to think how they would have fared in an Indian ecosystem dominated by a vociferous human rights group and a complicit media. Perhaps that explains why US has been winning the war on terror — major incidents have largely been averted on its soil since the ghastly attack on the World Trade Centre — and India isn’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment