Mumbai terror attack has many lessons for media- part 2December 3rd, 2008 - 9:00 pm ICT by ANI
RECOLLECTIONS OF A COMMUNICATOR:
By I. Ramamohan Rao
New Delhi, Dec 3 (ANI): It is unfortunate that things had to happen that way. Indians have been aware of the use of information in war and crisis situations. The importance of ”information” as an aid to warfare is detailed in Kautilya’’s Arthashastra. India had used ”information warfare” to good effect during the India-Pakistan war in 1971 and the Kargil operations in 1999.
Strangely, we have not learnt from our experience. Home Minister Shivraj Patil has paid the price by resigning. It has been announced that the National Security Guard units will be permanently stationed at six different cities in the country. The Prime Minister has assured the nation that a Federal Intelligence Agency will be created soon. He has been saying this at the conferences of Chief Ministers, the Director Generals of Police and Intelligence Officers repeatedly.
The need has been felt that the legal provisions to combat terrorism have to be strengthened. The Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by Veerappa Moily, submitted a report on the subject recently. But we have been hearing that ”law and order” is a State subject and the States are not willing to change the law.
We have seen how Governments have found ways of enacting measures when there was a will. This happened after the Indo-Pak war in 1965. Late Indira Gandhi, who was the Information Minister during the war entrusted professional organizations to prepare a report as to how information organizations should be streamlined to effectively function during a war.
Based on the studies, ”operation publicity guidelines” were prepared. They broadly laid down how media was to function during wars, including the training of war correspondents and setting up of Press Camps during operations. India fought the war with Pakistan in 1971 under those guidelines.
But the guidelines needed to be updated after our experience in fighting insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and the Kargil War. The comprehensive report submitted by K. Subramanyam was studied by a group of Ministers and the guidelines and technical publicity rules governing publicity have been revised as per the directions of the Group of Ministers and hopefully they would be followed in future.
It is time that the Government prepares a set of rules for the media to follow during crisis situations like the Mumbai terror attacks. And the discretion to impose the guidelines should be given to professionals and not bureaucrats or politicians.
The Central Intelligence Bureau had conveyed information that our adversaries across the border had planned to infiltrate India from the seas. Similar information was made available by the Research and Analysis Wing. Unfortunately, these reports were given to the concerned authorities, but little action was taken. It is sad that the suggestions made by K. Subramanyan have not been followed.
The Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, has pointed out that there was ”extra-heavy reporting” of the attacks by the Television channels. He said: “The terrorists were in live contact with their masters, who were telling them what the channels were reporting.” He called for restraint in reporting ongoing operations.
He has also absolved the Navy and the Coast Guard for their inability to combat the infiltrators who came from the sea. It is no excuse to say that the information provided by the Intelligence agencies about terrorist coming from sea, was not actionable. It was necessary to follow up the information with concerned agencies and also authorities active along the coast.
It is also no excuse for the Government of India to say that the responsibility of maintaining law and order is a State subject. The Agencies concerned with security should not try to shift the blame, but work in a coordinated manner.
We have many lessons to learn from the terror attacks on Mumbai. It is time the changes are made in the laws governing security of the country. And the problems should be studied and proposals submitted - if necessary to the Parliament — without delay.
India cannot afford to be complacent. Is that too much to ask?
I.Ramamohan Rao, former Principal Information Officer, Government of India;
Tags: administrative reforms, arthashastra, chief ministers, crisis situations, director generals, federal intelligence, home minister, india pakistan war, indira gandhi, indo pak war, information minister, information organizations, information warfare, intelligence agency, intelligence officers, kargil operations, legal provisions, mumbai terror attack, state subject, terror attack, war correspondents