26/11 terror probe report lands in fresh controversy

Raman,who headed the Counter-Terrorism Division of the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) for six years,was quoted as saying that there were many obvious failures on the part of the police,but instead of examining them critically,the committee decided to “whitewash” them.

In his response,Balachandran sought to defend the report saying the inquiry found at least eight serious lapses including leadership failure,some at the highest level,and 16 systemic failures. They have made at least 24 recommendations in the report that was submitted to the government on Wednesday,he adds in his mail which has ended up getting posted on a blog site.

In the blog,Balachandran wonders why Raman and others “who did not have the chance even to see the cover of the report could rush to conclusions based on misleading media headlines.” He adds that their inquiry was strictly focused on the performance of the Mumbai Police and the state government and not any central agencies who were involved in countering the attack by the Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists. “In fact,the NSG had taken total control of the situation from November 27 morning and if as you say the ‘attack lasted three days’,there has to be some responsibility by Central agencies too. But we could not go into that,” he wrote.

Balachandran adds that “on the intelligence side also we had to go by the source reports available with the state police as the IB or RAW did not pass on any intelligence report to us which they might have had with them and had (or not) passed on to state police. It is also relevant to point out that on 26th itself there was an ASL (Advance Security Liaison) meeting in Trident in the afternoon attended by SPG/IB where no intelligence

indications were given on any impending attack that evening.”

The committee found that the Centre had not passed on any specific intelligence to the state and that the police had reacted promptly with the available means (needless to say it fell totally short) and that there were no serious lapses like cowardice etc (although there were procedural & structural lapses).

Balachandran also says that his colleague Pradhan has said that terror attacks were a sort of war waged against India and it was beyond any police force to tackle it better than the Mumbai Police did. Pradhan said there were certain lapses and on those,the committee has commented in the report and due action should be taken by the government.

When contacted,Raman told Newsline that he stood by his earlier comments until the complete report was available. “We have served together and are friends. He was of the opinion that we should have reserved judgment till the report became public. I have told him that I stand by my comments made on the information available now. When the report is made available,we can take a stand on it,” he said.

Balachandran merely said his comments in the blog were “private correspondence with a friend. I do not wish to comment further”.