The Hindu Business Line : Make officials too accountable?

By securing the resignation of the erstwhile Home Minister, Mr Shivraj Patil, the UPA Coalition at the Centre went some distance to assuage the intense and widespread people's anger against India continuing to be a sitting duck for terrorists without visible sign of serious effort on the part of the ruling class and the political establishment to follow up on the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh's repeated assurance of zero tolerance for terror.

First lessons

Characteristically, what little effect Mr Patil's ouster might have had was spoilt by the political class going back to its time-dishonoured habit of dragging its feet in the case of the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Maharshtra.

At long last, after a lot of wobbling and waffling, they also are being shown the door. So far so good. The political class is learning its first lesson on what it is like to face the decrepitating wrath of the public.

The people at large will shed no tears for the departures of Tweedledums and Tweedledees in the political domain, none of whom will in any case be missed, and all of whom will perhaps worm their way back into favour and be accommodated in some slot or the other when the tempers have cooled down.

Functionaries let off

But they are bound to ask why the same principle should not apply to officials in pivotal and sensitive positions who, for aught anyone knows, failed to show the needed alertness and effectiveness in taking preventive action and advising their political bosses in time.

And not just people alone: Reportedly there are mutterings in the dovecotes of the Government itself about letting off the hook functionaries such as the Home Secretary, Special Secretary, the Directors of the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing and the National Security Adviser on whom is cast the clear and incontestable responsibility of guarding against threats to national security from terrorists.

The kind of unprecedentedly savage terrorist onslaught at Mumbai would not have occurred without omissions and failures at the functional or official levels.

For instance, that Mumbai was vulnerable to attack from the sea had been known for a long time. It has also been mentioned in several official reports and communications. That such a danger was allowed to materialise is an indication that adequate steps were not taken to press into service maximum possible resources towards exercising vigilance on this front.

Also, it means that there was no constant and focused application of mind to whatever intelligence was being received, in order to arrive at an assessment of their significance and implications in a timely and proper fashion and give specific directions to lower formations to be on the look out for contingencies carefully spelt out in those directions.

Onus on NSA

While all the officials earlier mentioned should share the blame for taking things easy, the National Security Adviser is particularly liable to be faulted because he is expected to brief himself continuously on all the intelligence and inputs pertaining to national security emanating from whatever quarter, and be proactive in remedying gaps and deficiencies.

On him falls the duty of apprising the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Defence Minister, and the External Affairs Minister, as also the Cabinet Committee on Security with his assessment of the emerging threats and initiating preventive action.

As a former Intelligence Bureau chief and enjoying the trust of both Dr Manmohan Singh and Ms Sonia Gandhi, he was in a uniquely advantageous position of being able to call the shots on this vital matter. A good part of the onus for the Mumbai horror certainly attaches to him.

In this light, accountability should be extended to lackadaisical officials as well, especially when national security is concerned.

B. S. RAGHAVAN