HEADLEY'S CASE: INDIA AS A SOFT STATE

In protecting its national interests and national security, India is perceived as a soft state not only by large sections of its population, but also by intelligence and security professionals in many countries of the world. Many Governmental and non-Governmental professionals in different countries of the world strongly believe that India has not been able to deal effectively with the problem of terrorism of foreign origin because of the lack of security consciousness in large sections of our administration and political class and the permissive nature of our administration. Terrorists such as David Coleman Headley, mafia leaders such as Dawood Ibrahim and intelligence agencies such as Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are aware of this and take full advantage of it.

Terrorist activities of any kind cannot be successfully carried out without sufficient collusion & support from persons within the establishment. Enquiries into previous terror attacks on Indian soil have all pointed out to an active role played by Indian citizens in abetting foreign nationals to commit terrorist activities( 26/11coastal guard was bribed to allow an unmarked boat to dock at Mumbai ; 1993 blasts PA to senior member helped an associate of Dawood stay in the New Delhi guest house of a public sector corporation. etc)until & unless these “moles” are not identified & monitered effectively terrorist operations would continue to be successful.

Foreign intelligence agenecies such as FBI and mossad have used their cutting edge technological competence to track & monitor not only the movement of terror suspects .but have also successfully developed effective counter-intelligence mechanisms to monitor their own staff & activities of American citizens too.this must be done at a war footing in India.
another glaring problem is the inability of our intelligence agencies to diffrentite between “genuine/authentic threats” and “bogus threats”. this inability leads to complacency on the part of the agencies to detect threats and act on them .an extension of this problem is the inability of the agencies to carry out operations effectively after being tipped off(this is due to poor coordination between the police & the intelligence agencies). This was seen in 1995 when the Indian intelligence agencies botched up an air drop of arms to extremists after being tipped off well in advance by their British counterparts. The extremists managed to collect the air-dropped arms and ammunition and disappear.

Where coordination is a major problem between multitude of law enforcement agencies in the country, the model adopted by FBI (SWAT) could serve as an able guide. the FBI has its own strike force which are authorized to take control whenever matters affecting national security come into play.the strike team is known for its sophisticated methods of operation & precision.a similar force doesn’t exist in India.we still rely on the chain of command to authorize strikes or conduct operations. The authorization to conduct operations is wrought with red tapism.its imperative to adopt the SWAT model in India as a separate force to counter terrorism.

The Headley case is yet another glaring example of the permissive nature of our Administration. Headley,is an American citizen of Pakistani origin, who used to live and work in Philadelphia as a Muslim under his original name of Daood Gilani and shifted to Chicago and started living there under the changed Christian-sounding name of David Coleman Headley. He applied in the Indian Consulate in Chicago for a visa on June 30, 2006. normally ,When a person changes his name and applies for a new passport, his new passport is supposed to carry an endorsement to the effect that "this person previously travelled under the name with the passport No ". If the Indian Consulate-General in Chicago had carefully scrutinised his passport and his visa application as they were supposed to under the rules, they might have noticed the following things: Firstly, he had changed his residence from Philadelphia to Chicago just before applying for an Indian visa. Secondly, he had changed his name and obtained a new passport just before applying for an Indian visa. Thirdly, his father was a Muslim with a Muslim-sounding name even though the visa applicant himself had a Christian-sounding name. This should have immediately resulted in a personal interview with the applicant in order to question him on these points. However, the very fact that this was not done is an indication of the lax attitude of the Indian authorities. Anyone who changes his name in order to obtain a new passport is immediately marked a suspect by the consular and immigration authorities of all countries of the world which have taken up a tough stance against terrorism.it high time India adopts similar practices.

The moment the FBI informed the Government of India about the arrest of Headley and his travels in October the MEA should have asked the Consulate-General to put all his papers in a sealed cover and send them to Delhi for scrutiny by the investigating agency. as all the papers relating to his visa become important material evidence to reconstruct this conspiracy. It is surprising this was not done for nearly two months.

[backgrounder: All applicants for visas---tourist or business--- are required to submit certain documentation along with their passport. These include a to and fro air ticket, particulars of the cities he intended visiting and the places where he will be staying and a letter of sponsorship from someone in India knowing him---whether he be a friend or a relative or a corporate house. Without this documentation, no visa can be given. The scrutiny of the additional documentation is more strict when the applicant applies for a business visa.]


Laxity on part of the government agencies is an expression of attitude of the “Aam junta” towards terrorism. unlike European countries where citizens actively demonstrate their displeasure & seek to bring about accountability of the administration & the government agencies for their failures , Indian citizens often resort to “passive reconciliation” & don’t actively demand to bring the authorities to book. People tend to forget incidents & so the government goes Scot free. it is high time that “victim activism” evolves among Indian citizens. Families & relatives of the terror victims should actively press for justice by showing intolerance towards the lax attitude shown by the government. this could go a long way in keeping the authorities in vigil so that another incident like 26/11 can be prevented.