Even as Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj was complaining about Pakistani intelligence agencies’ high-handedness and outrageous conduct toward serving Indian diplomats in Pakistan recently; back home India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) spooks got a dressing-down from the judiciary for “muzzling voices of dissent.”
Indeed, governments in India have generally been paranoid about any individual or organizations voicing concerns about policies and programs of the state that may undermine broader interests shared by ordinary citizens. That the normal IB modus operandi of impugning individual loyalty has degenerated into unprincipled witch-hunt can be ascertained from the illegal detention of a female Greenpeace activist at New Delhi’s international airport last January. She was headed to London to speak about the violation of forest right of tribal people in India before a United Kingdom all-party parliamentary group.
While the IB justified its preposterous action by asserting that the activists’ presentation before British members of parliament, regarding exploitation of subaltern class for coal exploration, would have created a “negative image” of India abroad and “whittle down foreign direct investments,” Modi’s government and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) went a step further by stamping the detained activist as anti-national.
“America, UK and European Parliament bring out heavily biased annual reports on rights violations, which could leave India open to a potential sanction regime,” says the government in its justification for undemocratic abuse of power to smother domestic dissent. Interestingly, a very senior government source has candidly acknowledged that in his obsession for foreign investment, Modi would not hesitate to provide IB with “informal permission” to initiate a scathing propaganda exercise — about the so-called “subversive links” of foreign-funded NGOs — based on wild and flimsy speculations.
After all, “Modi intends to fast-track industrial projects to placate big businesses even if it means subverting environmental regulations or trampling the rights of the masses” admitted the same source. Indeed, the IB in India has been a great fan of Modi institutionally. During a book release function way back in 2006, Modi, as chief minister of the western Indian province of Gujarat had severely criticized the “wealthy and influential” class of NGOs — accusing them of “hiring public relations companies to polish their image with money coming from abroad.”
IB borrowed the very words and sentiments of Modi while presenting a secret dossier to the prime minister’s office about the possible implications of giving those apolitical activists — who exposes the administration’s surreptitious anti-people plan — enough free space to nail the government. The 21-page classified IB report titled “NGO activism against development projects in India,” clearly stated “in some cases it is observed that in a cyclical process, an NGO is set up, funds are obtained from abroad, a few articles are commissioned, a PR firm is recruited and, slowly, with the help of the media an image is created. And then awards are procured from foreign countries to enhance the image, after which government machinery finds it more difficult to act against the awardee.”
Many believe the IB is acting as an appendage to the BJP’s politico-economic ideals by articulating the party’s economic vision blatantly. “Yes, the IB has promoted a rigid development model that is in harmony with the agenda of the current political dispensation,” conceded a source in Indian intelligence who went on to add “they even managed to convince the former Premier Manmohan Singh with their cock-and-bull story about NGOs harming India’s energy interest by agitating against the controversial nuclear power plant in Kudankulam.” An intelligence source having years of working experience in IB at a senior level alleges that “this premier internal intelligence organization has abandoned professional ethics long ago because people heading the institution succumbed to political pressures easily and acted like lackeys of the ruling class.”
“IB will never ever file a report on the millions of dollars that are shadily pouring into Sangh Parivar — BJP’s ideological brethren — coffers from myriad overseas donors,” the gentleman declared with strong conviction. Given the fact that IB’s status has been seriously degraded by the penchant for extra-constitutional activities, it is no wonder that this outfit will be repeatedly used to malign and discredit opponents of the ruling leadership. Is this the democracy that Indians take pride in? Is it not rank hypocrisy to celebrate the “power of people” in a democratic India on one hand and simultaneously gobble-up their right to life and property without consent in the name of development after coming to power with the same people’s vote? But then, this is India where the law is twisted in favor of the rich and mighty and the law enforcers are easily turned into tools of “democratic oppression.” This author understands that the IB is not vested with the constitutional or legal power to take recourse to a lookout circular (like the one issued against the Greenpeace activist) or offload somebody from an aircraft.
Indian judiciary has consistently held that only duly constituted law enforcement or investigating agencies can issue lookout notices against any individual and the IB cannot claim to be such an authority empowered by law to exercise such option because it has no constitutional or statutory sanction. In fact the IB is that “frequently misused arm” of the state, which has operated without a statute throughout its existence. As rightly pointed out by the judiciary, conferring “un-canalized and arbitrary power in the executive” is best avoided in a country like India, apparently governed by rule of law.
