The document discusses the dispute between the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the 2004 encounter of Ishrat Jahan and three others in Gujarat. It summarizes that the IB had reported that the four, including Ishrat Jahan, were Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists planning to assassinate the Gujarat Chief Minister, which led to their encounter by state police. However, the CBI's investigation later concluded it was a "fake encounter" and is treating an IB officer as an accused. The IB argues that revealing intelligence operations and sources would damage national security. It also denies the CBI's authority over IB operations.

1. INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (I.B)
v/s
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (C.B.I)

2. AND A HANDY REFERENCE TO THE REST ….

3.  In 2004, the IB sent a report to the Gujarat
Government that a group of (4) L-e-T* terrorists
were moving into Gujarat with plans to
assassinate Chief Minister Narendra Modi. One of
the persons in that terrorists group happened to
be Ishrat Jahaan, a girl from Mumbra
(Maharashtra). As a result of this IB input, the
group was intercepted and allegedly eliminated in
an encounter.
*L-e-T = Lashkar-ea-Taiba

4. The issue got headlined, when the mandatory inquiry
into the incident concluded that it was a fake encounter.
Further inquiry into this incident was then entrusted to
the CBI - amidst a lot of bickering with the Gujarat
Government at odds with the Central Government on
most political matters; due to the political enmity of the
UPA with Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
Mutual suspicion between Modi; who was always
considered suspect of wrong doing and the Centre which
was suspected of infringement into the State Autonomy,
made matters worse.

5. Nine years after the encounter, the CBI has
determined that several state police officers and a
senior IB officer, then posted in Gujarat, had
conspired to eliminate Ishrat and her colleagues.
The CBI insists that the IB officer ‘generated’ the
report against innocent people and then conspired
with the state police to eliminate them.

6. On their part, the counter claim by IB, is that the CBI’s
insistence on questioning the IB officer (now a Special
Director in Delhi) and treating him as an accused is nothing
more than the CBI’s interference in IB’s operational matters,
which are almost always confidential.
The IB insists - that Ishrat and her colleagues were indeed
terrorists and it was the duty of the IB officer to keep track of
the group, since it was not known how the group was
planning to operate and , what clear and present danger it
posed to officials and the public.

7. The IB’s complaint to the Prime Minister of the CBIs actions is
seen by some; as an interference in the legal process. A question
is raised whether IB officials are above the law.
IB’s contention is that no IB officer can ‘generate’ a report to suit
his fancy- since such reports are always a product of elaborate,
detailed operations, constantly vetted by IB headquarters.
Operational sanctity is the fundamental principle of IB’s
functioning; and the mechanics of the operations are not open to
any outside scrutiny.

8. State security has to be guarded by any and all available means-
is a fundamental fact; and ‘diplomacy, bribery, force, deception’
are the foundations of intelligence work; in which morality
plays no role .
If operational sanctity is not observed, IB’s nationwide and
partly international network, would come to a halt and no
officer- would undertake any covert operation.
Every operation has its grey side (bending of rules) which would
place IB officers at the mercy of raked-up cases; and any IB
report which had led to an encounter in the past would be open
to wild allegations , most of them politically influenced.

9. In the present case, the CBI Director could have and maybe
should have confided in the IB Director and asked for his advice
whether the CBI investigation would jeopardize any IB operation
and what should be done with the suspected officer. It would
have avoided all recriminations and embarrassment.
The IB is not above the law. There is no doubt about this fact. The
bureaucratic mechanism inside the IB does have it’s checks and
balances and the senior officers of the IB are competent enough
to decide whether a ‘criminal’ act had been undertaken by one of
it’s own. The insistence of the CBI to publicly accuse an IB officer
and ask for his presence for interrogation is being seen in the IB
as a blatant attempt of one-up-man-ship by the CBI.

10. An intelligence official’s personal integrity is the only dividing
line between him and deceit. The IB officer concerned is being
accused of complicity, based on the statement of an police officer
who was himself an accused and is now supposedly helping the
CBI.
The CBI has no clue to the motive of the suspect IB officer for
committing murder , as he had no need to please the Gujarat CM
unlike the state police officers.
One important point is that IB officers do not have police powers
and by themselves cannot arrest or interrogate any suspects
without the support of the local police force.

11. IB officers ‘generating’ intelligence inputs cannot be asked how
they got the information, or why they were in touch with the
police ‘encounter’ men- as IB officers are duty bound to check
with the very same police officers; as to what they did with the
intelligence input given to them.
The actions of the police officers cannot be a reflection on the
motives or the actions of the IB officials who generate solid
intelligence of ‘Acts against the security of our Nation’.
At all cost, IB’s covert action capacity should not be jeopardized,
not now, not ever.

12. Intelligence agencies always operate in a gray area that is mostly
outside the ambit of regular law and legal procedures as applied
to the uniformed police forces or investigation agencies such as
the CBI. Our nation cannot afford to place its intelligence
agencies under such constraints- as are being generated by the
Ishrat Jehan encounter. Many facts of this case will remain
unknown; for the simple reason that intelligence information
goes much deeper than what a CBI investigation could uncover.
Any attempt to emasculate IB, SIB or R&AW will be dangerous to
the security of our Nation. THE PRIME MINISTER HAS TO
DRAW THE LINE ON THIS ISSUE.

13. ISSUED IN THE INTEREST OF OUR GREAT NATION –
THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
AND
IN SUPPORT OF THE BRAVE MEN & WOMEN OF
OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES;
“THE THIN GRAY LINE OF DEFENSE”.
JAI HIND !
JULY 2013