Behind the intelligence deficits
THE prime minister has impressed upon the very urgent necessity of reorganising and revamping the intelligence organisations that have come under sharp attack from different quarters for the alleged failures in properly forewarning about the potential and actual threats to national security. The accusing fingers point to the BDR carnage which, according to the critics, could have been averted if intelligence operations were on the right track.
The time is perhaps still not appropriate to credibly pronounce on the under performance of different organs, including the intelligence bodies, that had a bearing on the ghastly tragedy at BDR headquarters. Once the criminal investigation is over and the trial of the guilty concludes, one may be able to apportion the blame to intelligence organs.
If lack of proper intelligence is considered to be a deficit area then we ought to know why this has happened. We also have to know if intelligence agencies have operated without adequate accountability and political oversight, and if their personnel have allowed themselves to be misused and abused by the politicians in power for disgraceful and even degrading purposes. The allegation that the shroud of total secrecy is always used to cover up all deeds and misdeeds cannot be summarily dismissed.
It is also important for the citizens to know if the alleged politicisation or lack of impartiality and objectivity in the reports of intelligence organisations have distorted the policy process and damaged the credibility and political legitimacy of the state. It is also pertinent to ascertain whether our intelligence apparatuses lack a legal framework and a well-honed charter of duties. The feeling is that when an intelligence agency functions in a thoroughly political manner, the reports are often fabricated and give rise to misleading political assessments.
The considered views of present day security experts are to the effect that open discussion by competent and concerned persons may in fact rationalise the operations of intelligence organisation to the benefit of a democratic polity. One may look at recent events in Pakistan, where the military has thought it fit to enlighten all lawmakers about the terror and religious extremism scenario.
One has to remember that intelligence bosses enjoy privileged access to the top political executive, the prime minister and the home minister. The agencies provide direction to police organisations in addition to providing political-analytical inputs to the ruling regimes. The agencies undertake strategic exercises during elections, and conduct election forecasts and analysis to oblige the party in power.
It has been our unfortunate experience to witness that, far from being confined to the proper intelligence role, over-zealous bosses almost became confidants of the chief executive, adept at every task entrusted to them.
We had the unfortunate experience of witnessing a very sensitive intelligence organisation working principally for the whims and caprices of a virtual dictator, and using public funds for creating and destabilising political parties, political horse-trading and shadowing people on personal and flimsy grounds. No wonder that in such a scenario professional efficiency was sacrificed and public servants turned into personal servants, with the attendant ignominy.
The mission and strategy of our intelligence organisations had not been stable, at least insofar as the domestic threat perception is concerned. It invariably changes with the change of a political government. Differing political agenda often tend to cloud the pragmatic understanding of our real national interests.
The unpleasant truth is that intelligence agencies maintain files on and shadow the leaders and workers of pronouncedly constitutional politics-oriented parties belonging to the opposition who are recognised partners in the business of politics. At some point of time when such opposition party comes to power, there is an uneasy relationship between the political masters and the agencies.
In such a scenario, professionalism becomes the worst casualty, sense of direction is lost and the organisation dips into a lackadaisical environment and interests of the state take a back seat, giving greater space to partisan considerations. It needs to be kept in mind that the values of a democratic polity are universal and as such demand unconditional adherence to them.
A national agency is expected to be able to effectively serve national interests if directed appropriately by the political authority. If they (agencies) have to remain preoccupied with largely inconsequential partisan matters to the detriment of national interest, then we will not be able to manage a crisis situation, not to speak of forestalling tragedies.
We have been criticising the agencies very loudly without, however, appreciating the impediments to the growth of an apolitical professional organisation. Time has come when we must have the honesty to call a spade a spade and realise that governments will change hands but not the state.
In Bangladesh today, we are passing through a sad time when doubts are being expressed publicly about the efficacy and honesty of some vital organs of the state, whose functions can neither be arrogated to others nor be privatised. The compounding tragedy is that such criticisms by leaders of our society cannot be summarily dismissed.
It would not be prudent to treat a disease by denying its very existence. At the same time we cannot give in to the cynics by agreeing to endure what apparently cannot be cured. We can definitely overcome the impasse by dint of political goodwill and foresight if we admit that the damage caused during the yesteryears has to be repaired and the safety and security of the people will receive unbiased attention.
Let us be forewarned that progress in damage repairing will be slow but if we can muster enough courage to initiate the process and avoid being myopic, our future generations would be the proud citizens in a healthy polity. Our politicians have to take the lead. They have to rise to the occasion.
At the heart of the matter, there should be a charter of duties for the intelligence organs, putting responsibilities beyond doubt and indicating what is permitted and what is prohibited.
The purpose for which intelligence has to be collected has to be clearly spelt. The same should not be to sub-serve the interests of a political party or an individual, or to blackmail or control the opponents of the political party in power or hostile elements within the establishment.
The legitimate purpose of intelligence should be to anticipate developments that may imperil national interests so as to enable appropriate action, with the imperative that any effort to equate national interest with party interest should be guarded against. Once the purpose is known, the chances of non-observance of fairness and objectivity in intelligence collection will be reduced. Constant vigilance against misuse will be needed as intelligence activities are carried on in secrecy.
Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist for The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments