CONTENTS
- Revamping India’s Intelligence Network
- The Raisina Dialogue
Revamping India’s Intelligence Network
Context:
The need for a thorough revamp of India’s intelligence framework becomes evident when considering the presence of 14 intelligence agencies, each with diverse and sometimes overlapping responsibilities.
Relevance:
GS3- Internal Security
- Challenges to Internal Security through Communication Networks
- Cyber Security
- Security Challenges and their Management in Border Areas
- Various Security Forces and Agencies and their Mandate
Mains Question:
Reforms are urgently required in India’s intelligence structure to tackle issues related to coordination deficiencies and lapses in accountability. Analyse. (10 Marks, 150 Words).
Intelligence Agencies of India:
- These agencies were established in response to strategic shifts and past shortcomings. Following the 1962 conflict with China, the Directorate General of Security (DGS) was formed within the Intelligence Bureau (IB).
- Subsequently, after the 1965 war with Pakistan, external intelligence was separated into a distinct entity, the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), which also gave rise to the Special Bureau to enhance organizational effectiveness.
- Post the 1999 Kargil conflict, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) were established.
- In India, the integral intelligence structure plays a pivotal role in upholding national security and interests, comprising several key components:
Research and Analysis Wing (RAW):
India’s primary foreign intelligence agency, RAW specializes in gathering intelligence concerning external threats and activities impacting the nation’s security. It engages in covert operations, including espionage, counter-terrorism, and counter-proliferation efforts.
Intelligence Bureau (IB):
As the internal intelligence agency of India, the IB concentrates on domestic intelligence and counter-intelligence. Its primary function is to collect information related to internal security threats, such as terrorism, communal violence, and subversive activities.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
While primarily an investigative agency, the CBI also encompasses an intelligence division. This division aids in gathering intelligence pertinent to high-profile cases, corruption, and economic offenses.
Defence Intelligence Agencies:
India possesses various military intelligence agencies, including the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) and the Directorate of Naval Intelligence (DNI), tasked with collecting and analyzing intelligence related to national defense and military operations.
National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO):
NTRO specializes in technical intelligence and electronic surveillance, overseeing the monitoring of communication and electronic signals crucial for national security.
State Intelligence Agencies:
Each Indian state maintains its intelligence agency responsible for gathering information on local matters and potential threats within the state’s jurisdiction.
Other Agencies:
India also hosts specialized agencies dedicated to areas such as economic intelligence (Income Tax Department), cyber intelligence (National Cyber Coordination Centre), and nuclear intelligence (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre).
The collaborative functioning of India’s intelligence institutional network ensures the provision of actionable intelligence to the government and civil services. This network is instrumental in countering terrorism, protecting national interests, and upholding the security and sovereignty of the nation.
Other of Intelligence and Investigation Agencies in India:
- Aviation Research Centre
- Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)
- Joint Cipher Bureau
- Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation
- Signals Intelligence Directorate
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
- Directorate of Navy Intelligence
- National Investigation Agency
- Directorate of Air Intelligence
- Directorate of Income Tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation)
- All India Radio Monitoring Service
Challenges in the Working of Intelligence Agencies:
- Persistent issues arise from the lack of coordination among these agencies. The absence of a Director of National Intelligence or a Coordinating Minister exacerbates this problem, and accountability remains a concern.
- The intelligence apparatus, rooted in the colonial-era police structure, faces challenges in adapting to contemporary issues.
- The Intelligence Bureau (IB), primarily focused on domestic and political affairs, encounters limitations in counterintelligence efforts. Despite initiatives like the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), cooperation deficiencies persist.
- The R&AW, responsible for external intelligence gathering, faces challenges such as excessive reliance on TECHINT and insufficient development of human intelligence (HUMINT).
- The creation of the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) aimed at addressing technological aspects, but issues such as overlapping mandates and coordination gaps have emerged.
- It is crucial to initiate reforms by identifying contemporary challenges, specializations, and implementing oversight mechanisms.
- In 2001, a Group of Ministers suggested elevating the IB to the status of the premier Counter-Terrorism agency, leading to the establishment of MAC and Subsidiary MACs for intelligence amalgamation.
- In terms of oversight, India lacks effective mechanisms for its intelligence agencies. Suggestions include appointing individuals with a deep understanding of operational modalities at a macro level or establishing a National Intelligence Board for monitoring.
- While drawing inspiration from the principles of the 5 Eyes ideology, I4C, overseen by the Ministry of Home Affairs, has not been efficiently implemented in the domain of digital warfare.
- The effectiveness in addressing counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency issues remains a significant worry.
- The inability to establish the National Counter-terrorism Centre (NCTC) and ongoing conflicts between different agencies emphasize the necessity for a robust system
Way Forward:
- Apex-level management needs improvement, potentially through the appointment of a full-time intelligence adviser or a Director of National Intelligence under the NSA or MHA.
- Personnel issues, including challenges with Human Intelligence (HUMINT) and Technical Intelligence (TECHINT), need to be addressed.
- While big data analysis is in its early stages, considerations about privacy and legislative authorization for extensive data scrutiny are crucial.
- The shortage of skilled manpower for HUMINT is a significant concern, and enhancing military expertise within intelligence agencies is essential.
Conclusion:
Coordination and tasking, especially between the Centre and states, are deficient and require legislative attention. The Intelligence Cycle needs refinement, emphasizing a clear demarcation between collection and analysis. It is crucial to ensure successful prosecutions following counter-terrorism arrests. Hence, reforms are urgently required in India’s intelligence structure to tackle issues related to coordination deficiencies and lapses in accountability.
The Raisina Dialogue
Context:
At the ninth edition of the annual Raisina Dialogue, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar characterized India as a “bridging power,” emphasizing its commitment to finding common ground through a nuanced “multi-vector” policy. He portrayed India as a global friend, adopting the role of a “Vishwamitra” or a friend of the world, reflecting the nation’s lofty ambitions.
Relevance:
GS-2
- Groupings & Agreements Involving India and/or Affecting India’s Interests
- Global Groupings
- Effect of Policies and Politics of Countries on India’s Interests
Mains Question:
Whether the ninth edition of the Raisina Dialogue lacked diversity in conversations on foreign policy is a question that needs to be asked. Comment. (15 Marks, 250 Words).
The Raisina Dialogue:
About the Raisina Dialogue:
- Raisina Dialogue stands as India’s foremost conference dedicated to the exploration of geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges confronting the global community.
- Modelled after the Munich Security Conference and Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, this annual event has been held in New Delhi since 2016.
- The structure of the Dialogue emphasizes a multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral approach, bringing together heads of state, cabinet ministers, local government officials, and thought leaders from the private sector, media, and academia.
- The conference, initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs, serves as a platform to engage with global leaders on significant issues and challenges in the contemporary world.
- The Observer Research Foundation (ORF) organizes the event in collaboration with the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
Key Facts about Observer Research Foundation (ORF):
- Established in 1990, ORF operates as an independent, nonpartisan think tank, conducting policy research in areas such as good governance, foreign policy, and sustainable economic development in India.
- The organization’s research covers a broad spectrum of topics, including climate, energy, cyber issues, media, economic development, and national security. ORF provides non-partisan, independent, and well-researched analyses to various decision-makers in governments, business communities, academia, and civil society worldwide.
- Its mandate is to guide policy thinking towards the creation of a robust and prosperous India in an equitable global setting.
Shangri-La Dialogue:
- The Shangri-La Dialogue serves as Asia’s premier defense and security summit, drawing attendance from Defence Ministers, permanent heads of ministries, and military chiefs representing 28 Asia-Pacific countries.
- Organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), an independent think tank, the summit takes its name from the Shangri-La hotel in Singapore, where it has been hosted since 2002.
Ninth edition of the annual Raisina Dialogue:
- During the event’s inauguration, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis highlighted the importance of connectivity projects, particularly emphasizing the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor.
- Discussions at the conference delved into topics such as global governance, addressing inequality within the UN Security Council, and the imperative need for reform.
- Repeated references were made to India’s rightful place at the high table of global decision-making, echoing Minister Jaishankar’s aspiration for India “to be a player, rather than a playing field.”
- The conference also acknowledged India’s success in hosting the G-20 the previous year.
- Despite the absence of senior ministerial representation from the P-5 or major G-7 or BRICS-10 countries due to the G-20 Foreign Ministers Meeting in Brazil, the substantial ministerial presence from Central and Eastern Europe, including all Ministers of the Baltic-Nordic forum, provided a new avenue for diplomatic outreach.
- This outreach is particularly significant as the government seeks to establish trade agreements and investment ties with this often-overlooked but economically competitive region of Europe.
- The event thus served as a vital platform for India to assert its global standing, discuss pivotal issues, and forge diplomatic ties with regions that hold economic potential.
Shortcomings in the Discussions in Raisina Dialogue:
- The majority of the discussions centered around global conflicts, with the significant presence of European dignitaries bringing attention to the Russian war in Ukraine.
- Panels on military and naval strategy also focused on the imperative to address an assertive China. Unfortunately, these discussions lacked balance as neither Russia nor China were extended invitations.
- The representation from South East Asia, Latin America, and even South Asia (excluding Nepal and Bhutan) was minimal, and a more diverse presence could have offered varied perspectives, shedding light on the challenges these regions face from ongoing conflicts.
- Conversations on democracy understandably avoided delving into the vibrant debates within India on the erosion of freedoms.
- However, the absence of non-governmental civil society organizations in the discourse resulted in a narrow view of the challenges that democracy confronts globally.
- Notably, there were no discussions focusing on the Israeli war in Gaza.
Conclusion:
These omissions not only contribute to a lack of diversity in conversations at India’s premier forum for foreign policy discussions but also detract from External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s otherwise valid observation that the Raisina Dialogue has evolved into the “Made in India” version of the “Global Public Square.” Whether the Raisina Dialogue lacked diversity in conversations on foreign policy is a question that needs to be asked.
