Mumbai, December 22
Just how reliable are leads provided by central intelligence agencies? A day after the Ram Pradhan committee report tabled in the Maharashtra assembly indicted top police and government officials for poor coordination in sharing intelligence before the 26/11 attacks last year, the spotlight is turning to the quality of intelligence.

According to the report, alerts from central intelligence agencies were “mechanically forwarded” to operational units like the anti-terror squad and other departments. The committee goes on to recommend that the Principal Secretary (Home) be designated as nodal officer to receive and act on alerts. The committee also notes that the ultimate responsibility relating to the police department rests with the Principal Secretary (Home).

The committee found fault in the functioning of offices of the DGP and Commissioner of the State Intelligence Department. However, police officials and bureaucrats say that ultimately preventive action on terror incidents like these boils down to the quality of intelligence. “It is common for central intelligence agencies to put out reports saying a terror attack is imminent,” says a police official. Such an alert is vague and does not amount to actionable intelligence.

For example, earlier this month the central intelligence agencies warned that some fair-looking Pathans had entered the country to carry out terror attacks in major cities. Police officials dismissed the alert as yet another vague attempt by officials in Delhi to cover their own backs.

Regarding 26/11, both the Chief Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Home) deposed before the committee that they had not received any specific inputs.