<\/p>\n
Transparency in Defence and Intelligence Agencies<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This article written by <\/span>Air Marshal PK Dey (Retd) was <\/span>published in ‘The Hindu’, on 31st October 2000.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Excerpts.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY and the right to information have\u00a0<\/span>become prominent buzzwords and phrases in the lexicon of those involved in the struggle to achieve these targets in the functioning of government in all areas of the globe – but most of all in developing countries like India, which have a democratic structure on paper but are still far from providing their peoples with the tools to ensure that the government functions primarily in the interests of those that it represents. Secrecy in government functioning is one of the most significant and potent weapons available to those in power, not merely to cover up corruption and inefficiency but to virtually perpetuate deliberate misdeeds that suit the convenience of all those who profit from them.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Recent years have seen the emergence of several movements both at the Centre and in the States that have sought to introduce legislation enabling the commoner to demand and receive an accounting from the government for its actions. This accounting would satisfy him that scarce resources are being gainfully utilised and that elected representatives and government officials function with the people’s interests at heart. Notably, there has been significant and heartening progress in demanding transparency in national defence and associated fields of intelligence and security. However, there is still a long way to go. The myth that anything related to the “defence of the nation” must be kept under wraps to ensure that the `enemy’ is kept in the dark has taken such deep roots in the mind of the public that the rising clamour for transparency and accountability in government functioning appears to have excluded this vital sector from its purview. Even the press, which plays such a crucial role in educating the public about the deeds and misdeeds of the government, continues to treat `defence’ as a `holy cow’ that it would be unpatriotic to question no matter what it does!<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The people seem to have lost sight that their security and defence are at stake. It goes without any question, therefore, that they must not merely be assured but know enough to be sure and confident that all that can reasonably be done for the safety and security of the nation is being done. They must understand that when a war is fought, it has genuinely been necessary and unavoidable. That lives have not been lost, families destroyed, and the economy put at risk without justification. They must know, and not just be told, that the big chunk of the budget that goes into defence expenditure at the cost of desperately needed resources for education, healthcare, housing, nutrition for children and all other elements of social security that this country lacks, is essential and well spent. This can only be possible if the people become more knowledgeable and involved in issues relating to defence, and there is a constant process of “informed debate” involving not just the uniformed services and government officials but also interested members of the public, academics, and the corporate sector.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Blanket Exemptions.<\/u> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the recently tabled Freedom of Information Bill in Parliament, under Section 8, there are provisions for constitutionally accepted national security and international relations exemptions. The proposed Bill also makes blanket exemptions for specific security and intelligence agencies. No provision of the Act will apply to those Central and State security and intelligence agencies notified in the schedule under Section 16 of the Act. There is a danger to our security if we treat certain agencies as completely taboo and don’t separate those areas and activities that can and should be made transparent from those that require the protection of secrecy.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In discussing transparency in defence, we must first understand which aspects of defence functioning must be secret and for how long. The only critical areas relate to operational plans, strategy and tactics. Numerical strengths, peacetime locations of military formations, peacetime costs of training, attrition and replacement are all typical examples of what is currently treated as secret or confidential or, at the very least, restricted – and God alone can help an erring individual from the clutches of the nearly 70-year-old Official Secrets Act if he or she can take a quick snapshot of an airfield or even, believe it or not, a culvert on a public road! Naturally, in times of conflict or situations of great tension immediately preceding a potential conflict, any information or activity that might affect the outcome would have to be treated as sensitive, so a different set of rules would have to apply. However, in normal peace conditions, there is no requirement for the laws of secrecy and confidentiality to vary from those that would apply in other government departments, barring anything related to operational plans, strategies and tactics.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Brutally Honest Appraisal <\/u><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The second issue of vital importance is that, even when secrets are justified and necessary at a particular point, secrecy cannot apply forever. Every experience teaches us something, and there is no doubt that those who do not learn from past mistakes are bound to repeat them. War is one of the most traumatic experiences, and all those involved in the defence of a nation must study all conflicts, particularly those that one’s own country has been involved in. This appraisal needs to be brutally honest, and if, in the process, failures and shortcomings become apparent at any level, urgent steps have to be taken to ensure they are never repeated. And if it shows the government or any individual in a poor light, so be it – for the likely penalty for a cover-up may prove unacceptably heavy in the future. Unfortunately, so far in modern India, while there has been no shortage of enquiry committees after every war\/conflict with the avowed aim of learning lessons, the governments of the day have been more concerned with protecting the `tails’ of those in authority than pinpointing the real reasons for not just the setbacks encountered but, more important, why the conflict was allowed to develop at all. It, therefore, follows that unless making a `secret’ report public after a reasonable period continues to be a genuine threat to national as different from personal interest, it must be declassified – the sooner, the better, and in any case, not later than 20 years after the event.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Informed Debate<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0What is to be done? The answer is simple – ask questions and start a nationwide informed debate on critical defence-related issues. Make the government participate and respond in a manner that satisfies the public. Many issues fit an informed, constructive discussion to ensure that the money, resources, and lives expended in our nation’s defence are worth the sacrifice.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A few questions need adequate answers, and a critical appraisal and debate by a range of military science experts and students who are not limited to a few select members of the `establishment’ are needed. We talk openly and extensively about our strategic need to have a significant say in controlling and exploiting the Indian Ocean. Do we know the extent of effort and expenditure involved in achieving even a fraction of that dream? Can we do it with two, three, or four carriers? Is this an achievable objective that should be pursued? What progress has been made towards reorganising the Ministry of Defence to create a more cohesive joint service structure with a more excellent and effective representation of serving military officers in the decision-making processes than currently exists?<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Defence Deals<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Controversies about kickbacks and the pursuit of shady defence deals involving large sums of money have, if anything, increased since the government introduced its policy of `no middlemen or agents’ in such contracts. Sales of defence equipment invariably mean massive gains to the suppliers since profit margins in such sales are very high. Manufacturers and suppliers are, therefore, ever ready to offer sweeteners or kickbacks to the buyer (with the bidding on the amounts by competing suppliers rising in direct proportion to the deal’s value). While there is no doubt that the negotiations for any contract, defence or otherwise, have to be confidential, there is an urgent need for ensuring (and satisfying the public) that laid-down procedures for evaluation and selection are strictly adhered to, and records maintained and available for\u00a0<\/span>later scrutiny when the need for confidentiality no longer exists. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India devotes an independent volume in his Annual Audit report to critically analyse and discuss the financial transactions in the defence establishments, pointing to various instances of mismanagement of finances, mainly in defence purchases worth many crores of rupees. Though the amounts shown as ill-spent or wasted are massive, a single example of responsibility has not been fixed for these severe financial aberrations. There is an urgent need for an informed debate on restoring accountability regarding the mismanagement of finances in defence establishments, especially when funds are scarce and budget allotments are meagre regarding modernisation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Section 16 of the draft Freedom of Information Bill, 2000, which excludes several intelligence and security organisations at Central and State levels from the ambit of the Act, also needs to be re-examined and revised. There can be no doubt that these organisations cannot operate effectively without the protection of secrecy. Yet total secrecy in perpetuity is extremely dangerous and will eventually prove counterproductive or harmful to the national interest. The public needs to be satisfied that the government (for whom these agencies work) can monitor their activities in a manner that makes certain that they can never work in a non-accountable manner. \u00a0The procedures to be adopted to ensure this need not be secret. This, again, is a subject fit for a mature, informed debate.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Comments<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n