Skip to main content

Federated Security: The Issue of Intelligence Non-Cooperation in India

The Rameshwaram Café blast in Bengaluru on March 1, 2024, has stirred open fears of Indian cities becoming terror targets once again. The preliminary investigations by the Central Crime Bureau (CCB), a special unit of Karnataka Police, suggest that there could be a usage of timers and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). A local unit of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) inspected the blast site, and the NIA took over the case a few days after the attack. Similar events in the past have seen the local police call NIA for investigation immediately after the incident. However, in the current disposition, the centre and the state are at logger’s head for various reasons, which have probably been reflected in centre-state coordination in this investigation, delaying the process of handover to NIA. This is evidenced by the fact that there are narratives and counter-narratives across the ruling and opposition parties of the state.

Amidst the allegations and counter-allegations between the political parties in the state, the statement made by the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Shri Siddaramaiah, responding to the allegations of the state government’s failure to avert the blast, has stirred controversies. The CM stated that politicising such incidents is unwarranted and questioned whether the central agencies at the helm of handling intelligence have failed. This has brought to light the perennial issue of centre-state relations, as a result of which national security is often exposed to compromises concerning preparedness and action. The Mumbai Attacks of 2008 serve as a hurtful reminder of such a lack of coordination.

Who is responsible for what? The Constitutional Mandate & Legal Underpinnings

The Constitution of India, in its 7th Schedule, lists defence and control of arms, ammunition and firearms under the central jurisdiction. The police, however, are under the jurisdiction of the states. Police in India are governed under the Model Police Act of 2015. The roots of this act are traced to the Indian Police Act of 1861 and the Model Police Act of 2006. There are state legislations based on either of these acts. While states are free to legislate this matter as per their requirement, some provisions of the state acts and the central acts are standard, the responsibilities of the police being one such.  

Where does intelligence fit in this jigsaw?

 Venturing back to the issue of intelligence, the Indian Police Act of 1861 states that one of the responsibilities of police is to collect and communicate intelligence that affects public peace. The subsequent acts- Model Police Act 2006 has special sections on police intelligence and the role of police in counter-terrorism. Considering the police as a state subject, the Karnataka Police Act of 1963 mentions “…obtain intelligence concerning the commission of cognisable offences or designs to commit such offences…”

Specialised central agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency (NIA), and Intelligence Bureau (IB) were established to deal with matters related to security. These agencies deal with intelligence gathering and dissemination and post-attack investigations. These are the agencies, besides the military, that gather and deal with intelligence for security.

The Issue

The issue is that operations of intelligence and attack prevention strategies face lapses even after clearly mentioning responsibilities. At the core of these lapses is intelligence dissemination. The potential shortcoming in the real-time operation of this intelligence system is the absence of significant coordination between agencies. These agencies are heavily siloed and operate in airtight verticals. There is less to no effort in having a formal framework to facilitate intelligence sharing and coordinated action. These cavities have created enough vacuum for incidents such as the Rameshwaram Café blast, Mangaluru Cooker Blast, 26/11 attacks, and others.

While intelligence is being discussed, it is essential to know that the tri-forces have their intelligence network for military purposes. There have been many initiatives, such as the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), to integrate the military intelligence wings. Nevertheless, there are claims that these initiatives are not very robust. Multiple committees on security since the Kargil War in 1999 have recommended strengthening the collection and dissemination of actionable intelligence. One of the central initiatives in this regard is the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), which is aimed at integrating intelligence networks and removing data barriers of various legal and security agencies working on collecting and disseminating reliable and actionable intelligence. The CEO of NATGRID states that the data and services are available to 11 central agencies and police of all states and union territories.  However, the extent of its operationalisation at the state police level is unknown. It is also essential to note that there is a need to build the capacities of the state police in terms of operating the NATGRID system and also in terms of actions to be taken after a piece of information is received.

As a nation, we now need to have pre-emptive strategies to avoid such incidents further. The Rameshwaram café blast, and many of its kind, are nudging us to explore the possible and much-needed coordination between central and state agencies in matters of national importance such as security. While interfaces and collective efforts are issues at an organisational level, more profound questions exist, like whether police and related affairs should be concurrent subjects. Is the primary role of the police securing law and order? Who then will be at the helm of intelligence gathering and sharing at the grassroots level? Do we need another special agency for coordination? These questions continue to persist, and so do threats. The incident is a stark reminder of the urgent imperative to bridge the existing gaps and fortify our collective intelligence apparatus to safeguard our nation’s security.

 

 

 

Comments