Five-Year Tenure for RAW Chief: Brainchild of a Woolly Head

The plan to give the RAW chief a five-year tenure would affect the agency’s professionalism, writes Amar Bhushan.

One hears on the grapevine that the government is considering giving a fixed tenure of five years to the RAW chief so that our long term strategic direction does not get deviated by political instability and bureaucratic meddling. The objective is indeed attractive but hugely flawed.

It may be pertinent to recall here that a two-year tenure was first conceived to benefit an individual and later delivered with justification that the bureaucracy is master at providing. A former NSA, who was perpetually in love with his wisdom, called for cleansing RAW of its rotten working system and if possible, destroy it.

To carry it out, he brought an officer of his choice to head the agency. But this officer had only a couple of months to retire. With the clout that he then wielded, he got the government agree to give two years’ extension to the RAW chief and also to the Director, Intelligence Bureau (DIB).

Bonanza For Bureaucracy

In doing so, he brought the IAS bureaucracy on board by further passing on this bonanza to the cabinet secretary, home secretary, foreign secretary etc. But this dispensation has made no material difference to either our security or the administrative functioning of the national security bureaucracy.

India’s intelligence priorities are already well-defined and need merely course correction with time. You only have to pick the team who will deliver. It is officers around the chief who throw up ideas, define objectives, draw up plans of action and carry out missions. The chief is just an interface between the agency and the government, the latter being substituted in recent times by the NSA.

RAW’s performance will remain on track so long as the chief has a mind of his own, allows officers to operate without fear and prejudice and brooks no interference. It has nothing to do with his tenure but with his character. The impression that a longer tenure will make the chief more independent and fearless in discharging his functions is thus erroneous.

No Need for a Five-Year Tenure

• RAW’s performance will remain on track so long as the chief has a mind of his own; it has nothing to do with his tenure but with his character
  
• The single-most biting drawback of a five-year tenure is that once an officer has been picked as the chief, you are stuck with him despite his failings
  
• Extended tenure also cruel to officers who toil hard over the years, hoping to take over as the chief one day to cap their illustrious career
  

Job Security Breeds Arrogance

Additional security in the job breeds arrogance, complacency and perpetuation of mediocrity. But if you are insecure, you either give up or fight to prove your indispensability.

The single-most biting drawback of a five-year tenure is that once an officer has been picked as the chief, you are stuck with him despite his failings. Two years, in fact, is a long time for a maverick to destroy an organisation. The experience in RAW after the fixed tenure was introduced has not been very pleasant. For example, you had a chief who reduced the agency to becoming the NSA’s outhouse. Next, you had a megalomaniac who reigned supreme with the help of courtiers who implemented his whims and fancies affecting both morale and operations.

Later, you had a babe for whom the agency was a wonderland. Ignorant of the agency’s complex working, he remained aloof, knew hardly anyone and faded out unnoticed without making any contribution. Then you had a person who was vicious, derived sadistic pleasure in punishing the weak, was suspicious of everyone and ruled by terrorising his officers and employees. The list goes on. The agency was fortunate that they only had a tenure of two and not five years.

Others’ Aspirations Get Derailed

The extended tenure is also cruel to officers who toil hard over the years, hoping to take over as the chief one day to cap their illustrious career. Their aspirations to retire with a sense of fulfilment, however short lived that may be, suddenly dissipate as the tenure comes into operation to favour one of them.

Since the difference in quality of officers vying for the top job is marginal, it hardly takes any time for the selected man to slide into the new role, unless you import a chief from outside causing heartburn to aspirants. A fixed five-year tenure actually makes them feel cheated by the system, leaving them with no choice but to mark time till they superannuate.

Whether India can afford to have disgruntled deputies every time a tenure is applied, is something to ponder over. This, however, does not prevent the government from retaining a chief who stands tall over all others as long as it wishes.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat)