Centre issued advisory after Paris attacks: But seven years after 26/11, states are yet to take security seriously

By Sunil Raman

Speaking after last week’s Paris attacks, the Union Home ministry announced that states had been directed to stay alert to security threats from terror groups and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis expressed confidence in the state police’s ability to keep peace in a state where memories of the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 are still alive.

Confidence of political leaders does help in reinforcing a sense of comfort among people. But mere statements before TV cameras do not essentially reflect the reality of the existing security infrastructure, intelligence gathering and sharing, manpower and most importantly commitment of state governments to growing threat to national security from groups within and outside India.

Most TV channels pegged their discussions post-Paris attacks on similarities that the pattern of attacks had with Mumbai in 2008. A few others used the news development to yet again focus on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India and the failure of US and Western powers to “rein in” Pakistani military establishment. Little has been said or discussed about the preparedness of states to pre-empt or tackle any kind of security threat. Have we learnt anything from 2008? Are we better prepared today?

After all it is the state governments that are eventually responsible for ensuring that their local security agencies are alert; there is effective inter-agency information sharing and co-ordination besides getting physical infrastructure and human resources in place.

Maritime security: A look at what has happened since 2008 Mumbai attacks reveals a sense of complacency both at Central, but largely at state levels. A draft Piracy Bill placed by the UPA government in 2012 lapsed as the Parliament did not take it up for discussion and passage; an essential piece of legislation that would demarcate legal territory for Navy and Coast Guard in the Coastal Security Bill that was drafted in 2013 has still not been tabled in either House of Parliament.

In response to a question on funds spent on coastal security since 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Rajya Sabha was informed in December last year that Rs 570 crore have been spent on coastal security in six years. While the Coast Guard secures waters off coastlines up to 200 nautical miles, beyond that is the responsibility of the Navy. The idea behind raising a maritime police force was to keep track of communities, people and any activity taking place along the coastline.

But states like Maharashtra with a 720 km-long-coastline over five districts continue to show a lethargic response to secure the area inspite of huge central funding. The Congress-NCP government and now BJP government seem preoccupied with politics to give such an important issue adequate attention. There are marine patrol boats which are rusting, there are inadequate number of marine police stations, inadequately trained staff, huge number of vacant posts and frankly, lack of government determination to safeguard coastline, according to a CAG Report released a few months ago.

In 2008, armed terrorists from Pakistan after hitting the coastline had unhindered access to hotels, train station and cafes in Mumbai. Later the central government took a number of decisions and initiated setting up of Coastal Command, funded 13 coastal states and union territories and set up radars to get real time intelligence on movement of ships.

Tamil Nadu, in turn, has done well but experts say everyday, thousands of small boats leave Rameswaram and it is near impossible to monitor them in the waters between Tamil Nadu coast and Sri Lankan waters.

There are around 75 small ports in different states with no basic security infrastructure yet. Small boats land there but no one is scanned. No one knows who comes and who goes.

Seven years later we still do not have an up-to-date databank of names of residents in coastal areas; the national register of citizens is far from complete.

If marine security initiatives have been slow to take root because state governments fail to appreciate and understand larger security issues, some other significant areas have also not got enough attention. Most of them treat security issues as ordinary policing activity and address individual incidents from narrow political interests. Every security incident has a larger impact and wider connection that needs to be addressed not by making political points though. At the end of the day, state governments have an important role in the implementation of national security strategy.

Policing: It remains bogged down in most states by local politics, staff shortage, diversion of cops for VIP duty and failure to use new technological solutions. For every one lakh people, India, on an average, has 106 policemen. If there are fewer men on ground then the failure to upskill them and use new technology has added to the challenge for tackling any kind of terrorist activity.

CCTV coverage: Most state governments including Delhi have invested little resources to provide CCTV coverage alongwith the ability to interpret real time data. Most cities faced with a terror threat have a robust CCTV coverage that helps police keep an eye on vulnerable areas. The extensive CCTV surveillance system in London has been operational for years with real-time interpretation of footage underway at a state of the art control room in Soho district. Facial recognition technology has also been put into use in several European cities now. In the seven years since the Mumbai attacks, state governments have not invested in technology or empowered counter-terrorism forces.

Evacuation procedure: In cities like Delhi, Gurgaon or Bangalore there are no evacuation procedures in place. In Gurgaon’s Cyber City, where many leading international companies have offices, there is little evidence of public-private partnership on sensitisation and education of procedures to evacuate buildings during a security threat.

Security in non-metros and state capitals: Barring areas where VIPs live, most other residential areas are left to the mercy of vigilant residents. Basic security infrastructure is absent and local police rely on informers and traditional methods for surveillance. Awareness of security challenges and mitigation are poor.

These glaring gaps need to be looked into and bridged by state governments who believe that the Central government is responsible for security issues. Over the years, the Central government held meetings with states to sensitise them about changing security environment and challenges posed by new terror groups, but a large number of states have not much to show even after seven years. While central agencies can share intelligence and provide financial assistance, states cannot shirk their responsibility. The Paris attacks should not just remain a topic of discussion on TV channels; they should galvanise state governments to review security preparedness and tighten loose ends.

The writer is a former BBC journalist