What on earth has a specialised terror investigation agency got to do with the case of the two Italians marines who shot Indian fishermen off the coast of KeralaIJ Good question, since the killing was by no stretch of imagination a terrorist attack.
And, why on earth is the same specialised terror probe agency involved in settling a dispute between two State police forces over the arrest of a militantIJ Again, a good question, because the agency is not an adjudicatory body. The answers lie with the UPA Government, which has, for mysterious reasons, asked the National Investigation Agency to probe the two cases. It would appear that the NIA is an under-worked organisation which needs to be kept busy, even if with matters that can be effectively handled by other arms of the Government.
The fact is that the terror investigation agency is one of the country's busiest outfits — and why shouldn't it be, given that militants strike the nation at will at regular intervals and leave behind enough work for the NIA to peruse for months, while the politicians shed crocodile tears over the mayhem. The other fact is that, since the success rate of the agency is far from scintillating, the NIA should be allowed to concentrate on its core duties. There have been many terrorist strikes in the country since the NIA was formed in the wake of the 26/11 carnage, and the agency has been largely unsuccessful in cracking most of the cases it has handled. Take the latest February 21 Hyderabad blasts. The agency has failed to make any real headway, and so far there has been no official statement from the NIA holding a particular group responsible for the heinous act. Now, it has announced a hefty reward for information on the attack.
According to its own website, the NIA had at one stage failed to even file charge-sheets in as many as 23 of the 48 terror-related cases it was investigating. In a majority of the cases where the charge-sheets were filed and the cases proceeded in the courts, the NIA failed to secure convictions, primarily due to shoddy investigation.
The record, therefore, speaks volumes about the NIA's efficiency. To top that, many statistics that the NIA has displayed in recent times are misleading and meant to window-dress its performance. For instance, it talked of 150 plus suspected terrorists that it had nabbed. The fact is many of these arrests had been made by State police forces before the cases were transferred to the NIA. The arrested persons have automatically figured in the list of the NIA's ‘achievements'.
Even if for one moment we assume that the NIA is doing an excellent job, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that still does not justify the transfer of the two cases in question. let us begin with the arrest of Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Syed liaquat Ali Shah. He entered India from Pakistan via Nepal. Based on a tip-off that he had come to execute some terror strikes, Delhi Police arrested the militant in Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. Jammu & Kashmir Police (and the State's regime) then claimed that Shah had come to actually surrender and avail the benefits of rehabilitation that a policy of the Jammu & Kashmir Government provided for. The Union Government thereafter handed over the dispute to the NIA.
A few issues arise: If Shah was on his way to surrender, Jammu & Kashmir Police should have been in the know of the date, time and place of his arrival. Its personnel should have coordinated with their counterparts in Uttar Pradesh, and indeed been on the spot, to escort him to their State. Nothing of the sort had happened. Delhi Police have said that the militant was alone when he was nabbed; the J&K authorities claim he was accompanied by his family. These are matters that can be easily cross-checked, and do not require the expertise of the NIA.
The Government's decision reeks of politics because now it has been able to wash its hands of a matter that has ruffled many legislators of the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly — some of whom have a record of siding with the separatists. One National Conference member demanded that the matter be handled with “sensitivity”. Even the Delhi Assembly witnessed uproar over the incident, with some members taking the J&K line.
The two Italian marines' issue is even more bizarre. The marines shot dead two Indian fishermen on February 15, 2012. More than a year later, the Government asks the NIA to investigate the incident. Why did the Centre not hand over the case to the agency soon after the killing happened, if it truly believes that the issue needs the NIA's attentionIJ Why do it now when the legal process is well underway and adequate investigations have been carried out by the relevant authoritiesIJ The Government's decision is to serve two purposes: The first is to delay and complicate the trial (the NIA will be walking on uncharted legal territory); and the second is to undo the damage the Centre's image suffered after the Italians produced a letter of lofty assurances New Delhi gave them, based on which the accused marines returned to India from Italy.
Ironically, Rome is far from pleased by the development. The NIA has booked the marines under stringent provisions that provide for the death sentence, and this goes contrary to the promise that the Government of India made to Italy. But legalities apart, the NIA has no business to probe an incident that has no terror ramification, more so at a time when it has still to crack many cases of terrorist attacks across the country.
A quick look at the website of the NIA informs us of the aims and functions of the agency — and they do not square up with the two cases under discussion. The NIA's general vision is to create “deterrence for existing and potential terrorist groups/individuals.”
The fact that the NIA has been mandated “to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign states and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations”, cannot be used as a pretext to justify the agency's role in the case of the marines, because the bottom line is: There is no terrorist angle to the unfortunate killing. After all, one of the mandates of the NIA is also to centrally coordinate terror-related (emphasis added) “investigations and prosecutions”.
The NIA has yet another mandate, which is especially relevant to the Syed liaquat Ali Shah case. It's that of “tracking of terrorists and fugitives from across the country”. How is it then that the agency was not in the picture about the Hizbul terrorist's return to India and his supposed plan to surrender to the authorities in Jammu & KashmirIJ