Everything around seems infected by the corruption curse, so it doesn’t come as too much of a surprise. It almost seems too good to be true—secret service funds (SSF) running into hundreds of crores, cloak-and-dagger operations, no questions asked, no audit reports required. It’s one of the many privileges our intelligence agencies are entitled to. But what happens when funds from the SSF are used for personal, and not national, interest? An ongoing RTI tussle to reveal details about one such instance from the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) has met with stiff resistance—all in the guise of protecting “security interests”. An embarrassed PMO, to which the NTRO reports directly, has washed its hands of the query and passed it on to the organisation, which in turn claimed last month that it was exempt from the RTI.
This isn’t just a stray case involving the misuse of funds. A far more embarrassing one occurred during the NDA’s reign when A.B. Vajpayee was the PM. A former bureaucrat who was tasked with handing over Rs 15 crore of SSF money to a top Bangladeshi leader during elections there allegedly chose to keep some of it for himself. A probe wasn’t carried out because it came from the ‘secret funds’. Later, the same bureaucrat, who was tipped to take over as head of one of the intel agencies, was not promoted.
Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt is another one who has pointed out abuse of the SSF, details of which he passed on to the Nanavati-Mehta commission inquiring into the Gujarat riots. His note reads: “I am privy to details regarding the exact roles of Narendra Modi, Amit Shah as well as advocates attached with certain law offices in Ahmedabad and Delhi regarding the misuse of public funds (from the SSF) amounting to Rs 10 lakh.” He claims to have witnessed money changing hands between Modi and Shah on April 11, 2002, to bribe the lawyers.
Rana Banerji, ex-RAW special secretary and now member of the taskforce on national security, in a report written for the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), had this to say about the SSF: “Several disreputable financial practices have thrived under the grab of operational secrecy, including purchase of capital equipment like cars in violation of standard prescribed norms of the government or the indiscriminate hiring of safehouses which more often than not are properties belonging almost exclusively to in-house employees at different levels of seniority. It has often been revealed that a common misuse of SSF includes renting out of safehouses—that are paid for under SSF—at exorbitant rates.”
Very rarely has the abuse of SSF been scrutinised. One rare instance came from Jharkhand in 2009 where, on the orders of the then governor Syed Sibtey Razi, the state government sought replies from DGP V.D. Ram and additional DGP (Special Branch) Rajiv Kumar about the non-submission of utilisation certificates of SSF. As per the accountant general’s records, no certificates were provided for two withdrawals. Of these, DGP Ram had withdrawn Rs 5.60 crore in cash and ADGP Rajiv Kumar Rs 2.50 crore, both in the same year 2006.
Former RAW man Rana Banerji adds in his report that usage of SSF in the past was “tempered by higher standards of personal probity. But today not all of these hire or purchase powers are exercised with total judiciousness or are even warranted by strict operational needs.... Another recent practice has been to routinely engage retired employees even in non-specialised categories and keep them employed indefinitely on hefty salaries paid from the secret service fund, totally bypassing the laid down government rules and regulations”. Personal probity, that seems to be the key phrase missing in today’s intel services.
Apropos Spooky Money (Nov 26), I have never been a member of any national task force on security. And the IDSA taskforce completed its report on intelligence reform in April 2011. It does not exist now.
Rana Banerjee, Ex-Spl Secy, raw, Delhi
In a land so corrupt and with one of the most compromised bureaucracies of the world, handing out secret funds is just asking for trouble. No wonder our intelligence is in such a shambles.
Navin Malhotra, Delhi
This is why the OSA is better known as the Official’s Secret Act, to claim immunity from unduly nosy citizens.
H.N. Ramakrishna, Bangalore
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
David Petraeus was held to a higher standard.
In a land so highly corrupt and with amongst the most corrupt bureaucracies of the world - can any one expect any better!
These funds are actually a gift to the handler - to use at his discretion!
No wonder our Intel is in such a shambles!
I have never been a Member of any National Task Force on Security. The IDSA task force on Intelligence reform completed its report in April,2011. It does not exist now.
I have never been a member of any National Task Force on Security.
The IDSA task force completed its report on Intelligence refprm in April,2011. it does not exist now.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT