India's security overhaul plan: Will it work?
THE Indian new Interior Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram has recently announced a raft of measures to overhaul the security apparatus after the Mumbai attacks. The attacks clearly demonstrated how twenty terrorist-individuals paralysed sixty-two hours of Mumbai life and how Indian security forces were ill-prepared to cope with such an attack, despite the fact that India has been a victim of terrorist attacks for years. To many outsiders, it was incomprehensible how the terrorists came on a boat to Mumbai a few weeks before the attack and no intelligence agency was able to detect them. The relaxed security on the sea front, at the hotels and at the railway station was unbelievable. Many security experts reportedly were stunned at the gross failure of Indian security and intelligence agencies in preventing or coping with such attacks, despite the fact that they had glimpses of a blueprint for the Mumbai attack months ago and even a strong indication of the intended culprits. No wonder Indian people across the country were enraged with the state and the Union governments for their role in not preventing or coping with the attack. As a result the Union's Interior Minister, the National Security Adviser and the State's (Maharashtra) Chief Minister had to resign, keeping in with the spirit of democratic accountable government. The Indian parliament on 17th December agreed on tougher anti-terrorism laws in the wake of the Mumbai attack, including the setting up of an FBI-style agency to plug gaping holes exposed by the atrocity. The changes also allow for the detention of alleged militants for up to 180 days instead of 90, special courts to try suspects, sweeping police powers and the possibility of a financial clampdown on suspects. MPs cut across party lines and voted in favour of major amendments to India's Unlawful Activities (Prevention) law in parliament's elected 543-seat lower house to give sharper teeth to the existing legislation. Furthermore in recent days, Interior Minister P Chidambaram has announced a series of measures to boost security, which are as follows:
(a) setting up a federal investigation agency
(b) strengthening coastal security
(c) training more commandos
(d) anti- terrorism schools
(d) beefing up anti-terror laws
(e) filling vacancies in depleted intelligence agencies These measures are being called a "major overhaul" of India's internal security after the deadly Mumbai attacks. The question is: Will they make any difference? Critics say they will not because of fundamental internal deficiencies together with a serious lack of resources and the lack of commitment to address some regional disputes, creating tension and insecurity in South Asia. Critics say that these measures will confront problems due to near-insurmountable odds, namely the lack of instructors, police officers, infrastructure, laws and money which will definitely hinder the government's well-meaning plans to make India safer. "There is seriousness in the intent of announcing these measures. But the plans don't emphasise the main priority areas," says Delhi-based security analyst Dr Ajai Sahni. For example, the plan to set up an ambitious federal investigation agency has befuddled experts. They say it is too grandiose given India's limited resources and poor track record on managing federal intelligence and investigative agencies. And experts say there is very little clarity on what role the federal investigation agency will play. India already has a federal Intelligence Bureau (IB) which gathers intelligence relating to internal security and is akin to the UK's MI5 or the US's FBI. The Research and Analysis Wing (Raw) is akin to the UK's MI6, responsible for external intelligence. India's top detective agency - the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) - has a charter to investigate certain crimes. Experts are wondering where the new federal investigation agency will fit in. Will it be an upgraded version of the IB or CBI? If it is expected to handle terror attacks, will it be armed with fresh laws in a country where law and order is a state subject? Will it have federal powers to arrest unlike the IB? There are other pressing questions: does this new agency bypass the local police and completely take over the investigation of offences committed in different states? Then there is the question of manpower. Experts wonder where the officers for the new agency are going to come from: the CBI and IB are already operating at 35% below strength. Will the new national investigation agency need a new cadre of officers who will be hired through separate examinations? Security analysts like Dr Sahni say "Here the government cannot run a 50-officer federal detective agency like the CBI and they are talking about an overarching federal investigations agency which will work on all facets of terrorism," he says. But lack of adequate training academies and most important, lack of instructors will almost certainly stand in the way of any quick progress on this front. States like Chattishgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Indian-administered Kashmir have set up their training academies and set up their own commando forces with mixed results. But using those commandos to tackle urban terrorism and hostage rescue operations is not likely to yield results, experts say. Essentially, as security analyst Praveen Swami says, India needs elite crack units like Swat (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams trained in counter-terrorism and hostage rescue, taking on heavily-armed criminals. They need to be equipped with the state-of-the-art weapons, communications and body-armour. The announcement of a new "coastal command" has also left most security experts wondering what it is all about. Currently, the police (patrolling up to five km from shore), coast guard (patrolling between five and 20 km from shore) and the navy (patrolling beyond 20km from shore) are entrusted with securing India's 7,500km coastline. The marine police, the last line of coastal defence, are the weakest link with little training and near non-existent infrastructure. But there is no mention in the government's plan of strengthening the marine police. "What is important is capability building, teaching people skills, providing them infrastructure," says Praveen Swami. Another grey area is beefing up anti-terror laws: experts are not sure whether India needs new laws. They say reforming the existing laws will serve the purpose. Most lawyers say India has a plethora of laws, both local and federal, to tackle crime and terror. These include strong federal preventive detention and anti-money-laundering laws. They say some of the loopholes could be closed - for example, the fact that Indian courts still don't accept confessions by a person in custody. So the need is to reform that and make confessions legally admissible evidence by videotaping them or recording them in front of magistrates. There is also no word on a massive push for local police forces that toil with low wages and antiquated equipment - the so-called quick response team of the Maharashtra police, for example, has not fired a single shot in the past year because of the lack of ammunition. "Let us not fool ourselves. We are looking at least a five-year roadmap for fundamental changes. I am not sure whether the government is talking about that. There can be no quick fix," says Praveen Swami. There is another dimension to India's security, which is political. Some experts say that unless the Indian government leaders take certain concrete actions to root out some causes of terrorism, internal security measures are not enough. The causes might be attributed to (a) rise of Hindu fundamentalism and attack on believers of other faiths in India, (b) Kashmir dispute, (c) close link of Israel with India, (d) India's increasing influence over Afghanistan and (e) close ties with the US. Many are disappointed to note that on 11th December, in a speech to the Parliament, India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee refused to recognize Kashmir dispute as being "not an India-Pakistan issue" and rejected summarily the link between the Kashmir dispute and terrorism by stating that "This is not an issue related to Jammu & Kashmir. This is a part of global terrorism". India's intellectual and cultural leadership has remained silent on the causes of terrorism. One has to realise that internal security is often interconnected with regional issues and disputes.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments