There has been an avoidable and unfortunate controversy over the establishment of the National Counter-Terror-ism Centre, which, according to the media, is to become operational from March 1.
Going by media reports, the NCTC, which is meant to coordinate intelligence collection, analysis and assessment and follow-up action in matters relating to terrorism, will differ from the NCTC set up in the US after 9/11 in two important respects. In the US, the NCTC is an independent institution functioning under the supervision of the director, National Intelligence. It coordinates the functioning of the counter-terrorism divisions of the various agencies of the intelligence community.
The chiefs of the various intelligence agencies having a role in counter-terrorism do not have the powers of supervision over the organisation. The idea of making it independent was to ensure that it would take an objective view of the functioning of the counter-terrorism divisions of different agencies and ensure proper coordination. The expectation was that being an independent agency, its functioning will not be affected by inter-agency clashes and egos.
According to media reports, the NCTC being set up in India will not be an independent institution. It will be part of the Intelligence Bureau and the bureau’s director will supervise its functioning. This could come in the way of an independent audit and supervision of the functioning of the counter-terrorism division of IB. Whatever deficiencies are there presently in the exercise of the counter-terrorism functions of the bureau will not just be duplicated but also magnified, instead of being identified and rectified.
The post-9/11 creation of the NCTC in the US was meant to strengthen the preventive capability by improving the collection, analysis and assessment of terrorism-related intelligence and effective follow-up action. The 9/11 terrorist strikes were attributed to inadequate intelligence and unsatisfactory follow-up action even on the intelligence that was available. The same was the case in India in respect of 26/11.
The NCTC in the US has no powers of arrest, interrogation, investigation and prosecution. The responsibility in these matters continues to be that of the FBI. In India, if media reports are to be believed, the NCTC has been given the powers to arrest and carry out searches under Section 43 (A) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
There will be an emaciated-at-birth NCTC which will not be independent, but will form part of the IB. Thus, there will be no independent supervision over the performance of the follow-up action role. The NSA will have no responsibility for counter-terrorism. As desired by him, Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram, whose idea the NCTC supposedly is, will be the Czar for counter-terrorism.
Mr Chidambaram’s ideas differed in one other important respect from the counter-terrorism architecture created in the US. There, the newly set up Directorate of National Intelligence oversees the functioning of the NCTC. Mr Chidambaram reportedly wanted that the entire counter-terrorism architecture, including the proposed NCTC, should function under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs till his idea of a Ministry of Internal Security was accepted and implemented.
That is, he wanted the National Security Adviser to be divested of all counter-terrorism responsibilities and the Home Minister to be made the counter-terrorism Czar of the Government of India. In the US, the National Security Adviser too has no responsibility for counter-terrorism. This role is performed by an Adviser on Homeland Security to the President, who is commonly referred to as the Adviser on Counter-Terrorism.
In India, the powers of arrest and search belong to only the National Investigation Agency and the Central Bureau of Investigation at the central level and the police in the States. By giving these powers to the NCTC too, we are going to create confusion in the investigation and prosecution of terrorism-related cases.
Moreover, the IB itself does not have such powers. It is a clandestine organisation for the secret collection of intelligence. In all democratic countries, intelligence agencies are not given powers of arrest, searches and interrogation. Only in authoritarian countries do intelligence agencies have such powers.
In India, the IB informally associates itself with all terrorism-related interrogation, but the arrests and searches are made either by the police, the NIA or the CBI. By creating a multiplicity of organisations having such powers and by giving these powers to the NCTC which will work under the director of Intelligence Bureau, we will be taking an unwise step which could further politicise our handling of counter-terrorism measures.
The writer, an expert on counter-terrorism and strategic affairs, is a former senior officer of Research & Analysis Wing. He is now Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
