Editorial Board Contents - Bureau of Police Research and ...

Indian Intelligence — Imperativesfor ChangeShri Ajit Doval, IPS (Retd.)In a constant race against time and ever searchingfor new ideas to defeat the ingenuity of theiradversaries, for intelligence agencies to changeis not an option, but a compulsive necessity.Regrettably, those who change only when theyhave to, pay an un-affordably high price. Worse,it is often preceded by a nation bruised, if notbled. Imaginative changes, innovation in toolsof intelligence generation and analysis, andconstant up-gradation of capacities can only keepthem a step ahead of their adversaries. This paperanalyses the dynamics of change in the Indiancontext, and some of the new realities that Indianintelligence needs to factor in for designing itsstrategy for change.Intelligence agencies, consciously or otherwise,pursue three discernable patterns of change.First is the evolutionary pattern. Accounting formost of the changes, these are slow, routine andcontinuous in nature. They are mostly triggeredby contemporaneous developments, leadingto resetting of priorities, leadership changes inorganizational hierarchies and evolving pressureswithin the organizations to address professional,structural or administrative problems. Thoughun-noticed, these changes are vital as they keepintelligence agencies progressive, time consistentand forward looking, through constant coursecorrection and problem solving. Most of thesechanges are effected within the organizationand do not impact on the working arrangementswith other organs of the Government, or involvechanges in law or Government’s Rules ofBusiness. Though known to few, the score boardof Indian Intelligence, particularly the IntelligenceBureau, on this count, has been outstanding.Even in the absence of additional resources,new empowerments and living with securityinsensitive, if not illiterate, culture of governance,it has been able to bring about changes inreal time to face new problems of insurgency,terrorism, espionage, border intrusions, sociopoliticalconflicts, etc., even in the remotest partsof the country. Decisional autonomy enjoyed bythe Director, Intelligence Bureau, his proximity topolitical leadership, a strong culture of loyalty andesprit de corps within the organization, besidesquality leadership at various levels, have madethis possible. However, the great contribution ofevolutionary changes notwithstanding, it needsto be underlined that the phenomenon operateswithin a limited band-width and cannot addressfundamental infirmities. It is unfit to bring aboutchanges that have a long gestation period, involvehigh expenditure, require major technologicalor structural changes or have legal implications.It also cannot alter basic approaches towardssecurity management, of which intelligence isonly one component, particularly in a ruckusdemocracy like India. One down side of such inhouseinnovations and improvisations is that itmakes the Governments complacent, mistakingthe success of fire fighting efforts as a solution tothe cause of fire. Quite often, the forewarningsand ignored pleas for action to offset theimpending threats in India, go unaccounted andunpunished, making systemic failures revisit withvengeance.The second set of changes may be called‘reformist’. They are triggered by some majorreverses or failures forcing the Governments,either on their own volition or under pressureof public opinion, to bring about fundamentalchanges. Changes following the attack on PearlHarbour and post war emergence of Communistthreat to the US, India’s 1962 Chinese debacle,post 9/11 threat of jehadi terrorism etc. fall in thiscategory. Often Governments appoint enquirycommissions or experts committees to studythe failures, analyze the causes and recommend32The Indian Police Journal, October - December, 2012, Special Issue