INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (I.B)

v/s

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I)

AND A HANDY REFERENCE TO THE REST ….

In 2004, the IB sent a report to the Gujarat Government that a group of (4) L-e-T* terrorists were moving into Gujarat with plans to assassinate Chief Minister Narendra Modi. One of the persons in that terrorists group happened to be Ishrat Jahaan, a girl from Mumbra(Maharashtra). As a result of this IB input, the group was intercepted and allegedly eliminated in an encounter.

*L-e-T = Lashkar-ea-Taiba

The issue got headlined, when the mandatory inquiry into the incident concluded that it was a fake encounter.

Further inquiry into this incident was then entrusted to the CBI - amidst a lot of bickering with the Gujarat Government at odds with the Central Government on most political matters; due to the political enmity of the UPA with Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Mutual suspicion between Modi; who was always considered suspect of wrong doing and the Centre which was suspected of infringement into the State Autonomy, made matters worse.

Nine years after the encounter, the CBI has determined that several state police officers and a senior IB officer, then posted in Gujarat, had conspired to eliminate Ishrat and her colleagues.

The CBI insists that the IB officer ‘generated’ the report against innocent people and then conspired with the state police to eliminate them.

On their part, the counter claim by IB, is that the CBI’s insistence on questioning the IB officer (now a Special Director in Delhi) and treating him as an accused is nothing more than the CBI’s interference in IB’s operational matters, which are almost always confidential.

The IB insists - that Ishrat and her colleagues were indeed terrorists and it was the duty of the IB officer to keep track of the group, since it was not known how the group was planning to operate and , what clear and present danger it posed to officials and the public.

The IB’s complaint to the Prime Minister of the CBIs actions is seen by some; as an interference in the legal process. A question is raised whether IB officials are above the law.

IB’s contention is that no IB officer can ‘generate’ a report to suit his fancy- since such reports are always a product of elaborate, detailed operations, constantly vetted by IB headquarters.

Operational sanctity is the fundamental principle of IB’s functioning; and the mechanics of the operations are not open to any outside scrutiny.

State security has to be guarded by any and all available means-is a fundamental fact; and ‘diplomacy, bribery, force, deception’ are the foundations of intelligence work; in which morality plays no role .

If operational sanctity is not observed, IB’s nationwide and partly international network, would come to a halt and no officer- would undertake any covert operation.

Every operation has its grey side (bending of rules) which would place IB officers at the mercy of raked-up cases; and any IB report which had led to an encounter in the past would be open to wild allegations , most of them politically influenced.

In the present case, the CBI Director could have and maybe should have confided in the IB Director and asked for his advice whether the CBI investigation would jeopardize any IB operation and what should be done with the suspected officer. It would have avoided all recriminations and embarrassment.

The IB is not above the law. There is no doubt about this fact. The bureaucratic mechanism inside the IB does have it’s checks and balances and the senior officers of the IB are competent enough to decide whether a ‘criminal’ act had been undertaken by one of it’s own. The insistence of the CBI to publicly accuse an IB officer and ask for his presence for interrogation is being seen in the IB as a blatant attempt of one-up-man-ship by the CBI.

An intelligence official’s personal integrity is the only dividing line between him and deceit. The IB officer concerned is being accused of complicity, based on the statement of an police officer who was himself an accused and is now supposedly helping the CBI.

The CBI has no clue to the motive of the suspect IB officer for committing murder , as he had no need to please the Gujarat CM unlike the state police officers.

One important point is that IB officers do not have police powers and by themselves cannot arrest or interrogate any suspects without the support of the local police force.

IB officers ‘generating’ intelligence inputs cannot be asked how they got the information, or why they were in touch with the police ‘encounter’ men- as IB officers are duty bound to check with the very same police officers; as to what they did with the intelligence input given to them.

The actions of the police officers cannot be a reflection on the motives or the actions of the IB officials who generate solid intelligence of ‘Acts against the security of our Nation’.

At all cost, IB’s covert action capacity should not be jeopardized, not now, not ever.

Intelligence agencies always operate in a gray area that is mostly outside the ambit of regular law and legal procedures as applied to the uniformed police forces or investigation agencies such as the CBI. Our nation cannot afford to place its intelligence agencies under such constraints- as are being generated by the Ishrat Jehan encounter. Many facts of this case will remain unknown; for the simple reason that intelligence information goes much deeper than what a CBI investigation could uncover.

Any attempt to emasculate IB, SIB or R&AW will be dangerous to the security of our Nation. THE PRIME MINISTER HAS TO DRAW THE LINE ON THIS ISSUE.

ISSUED IN THE INTEREST OF OUR GREAT NATION –THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA

AND

IN SUPPORT OF THE BRAVE MEN & WOMEN OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES;

“THE THIN GRAY LINE OF DEFENSE”.

JAI HIND !

JULY 2013