Search This Blog

Friday 15 July 2011

if us after 9/11 than why india after 9/27

SARATOGA (US): India is not protected from terrorist attacks as our internal security is dysfunctional. The Centre has no statutory role in internal security, except providing additional forces, while the ill-equipped and overburdened state police has to manage all aspects of internal security, including terrorism. This is because we copied the colonial Government of India Act, 1935 , on Centre and state "lists" placing "public order" and "police" under the states.

In 2001, the NDA government's group of ministers (GOM) recommended a change by placing direct responsibility for inter-state crime and terrorism on the ministry of home affairs (MHA). But nothing was done by the NDA and UPA governments till 26/11 hit us, when the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was created. However, three years since then, we are yet to see NIA making proactive, all-India efforts on terrorism.

In countries like the US and UK, internal security is managed jointly by the Centre and states. In the US, federal agencies such as FBI had lead roles in inter-state crime and terrorism even before 9/11. After 9/11, the US realized that coordination was lacking due to parallel intelligence collection and investigation. So, it copied the
Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) system already in existence with the New York police for adoption all over the country. At present, there are 100 JTTFs manned by FBI, local police and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers to jointly investigate all intelligence leads into terrorism.

Another reform was the setting up of 24-hour state fusion centres that keep the state police updated with inputs from the National Counterterrorist Centre, which integrates intelligence from a 16-member Intelligence Community.

Currently, 68 fusion centres are operating in which federal agencies, state police and even municipal bodies are represented. If we have such a participatory system, the Centre-state spat that we see after every terrorist strike on prior intelligence can be avoided. A recent 'Heritage Foundation' publication on how the US was able to prevent 39 terror plots, including 11 against New York City, should be studied by our MHA and state police leadership.

After 9/11, the US totally re-oriented its earlier internal security doctrine of placing responsibility only on government agencies such as FBI and state police. It found out that 100 different departments, including private infrastructure, communications and transport bodies, had a vital role to play in internal security. So, the DHS set up joint management centres across the country, enlisting all these agencies in deciding strategy and implementation of all aspects of internal security, especially terrorism. Regular training exercises are held by them.

I witnessed one such training session in October 2009 when I went to Honolulu to deliver a keynote address at the Asia-Pacific Homeland Security Summit. Surprisingly, the exercise was modelled on the 26/11 attack. But we have never thought of setting up such a system. Consequently, when a terrorist strike takes place, we find ambulances, medical services and transport bodies not working in unison with the police. During our 26/11 inquiry, we found that the police had to transport even the injured to the hospital or provide water to fire engines.

No comments:

Post a Comment