New Delhi:By definition, intelligence is reliable information that anticipates what lies ahead—it flags risks facing a nation or an organization and highlights potential opportunities. In doing so, it supports policy-making and informed decision-making.
Intelligence does not dictate policy, but any responsible government should treat it seriously. Its foremost requirement is the unquestionable accuracy of the information provided.
Curiously, declassified files from the 2016 U.S. presidential election described intelligence about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged preference for Donald Trump as “substandard”—a label that doesn’t exist in professional intelligence vocabulary, which typically considers intelligence either reliable or dismissible.
In India, intelligence agencies have long maintained a tradition of independently verifying sensitive information before forwarding it as credible intelligence. If the information was too critical to withhold, it would still be passed along—with the disclaimer “reliable but unconfirmed”—only if the agency was reasonably confident in its validity.
Failure to pass intelligence to the right authorities is seen as a grave lapse, potentially leading to catastrophic national security consequences. Conversely, failure may also arise if the government fails to act on the intelligence provided.
Intelligence is “information for action”—and both the intelligence agencies and the government’s executive machinery share accountability if things go wrong.
There can be no compromise in the principles that govern the collection and sharing of intelligence. Intelligence must be provided swiftly to those in power, especially when it concerns the security, unity, or sovereignty of the nation, as judged by the agency.
In democracies, especially those influenced by electoral politics, governments may be sensitive to intelligence that could reflect poorly on their performance. Some leaders may prefer intelligence that enhances their image and avoid reports that highlight problems. The worst-case scenario is when intelligence agencies start reporting only what leaders want to hear—something more common in autocratic regimes.
But intelligence is a vital tool that tells rulers what is happening within their borders and abroad. It reveals friends and foes. Why should leaders fear uncomfortable truths shared confidentially? In fact, they should welcome intelligence that enables timely policy corrections.
Consider Russian President Putin, whose belief that Ukraine would surrender quickly—allegedly based on faulty intelligence—resulted in a major intelligence failure. It’s unclear whether the assessments were based on facts or shaped by Putin’s personal expectations.
In the U.S., former President Donald Trump’s populist and autocratic approach led him to dismiss intelligence reports he didn’t agree with. When Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon, Trump disregarded it. He ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, later claiming they were “completely destroyed” even though the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported only significant, not total, damage.
While Trump’s claims may seem exaggerated, they reflected the aggressive posture of U.S. policy towards Iran. Later, both Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe supported Trump’s stance after re-evaluating the situation.
Intelligence is no longer just about issuing warnings—it is an integral part of governance. It shapes policies, monitors their implementation, and works to protect national interests.
That said, intelligence agencies must not become overly influenced by political leadership or lose sight of their independent responsibilities. Appointments within these agencies must be based on merit, experience, and seniority—not favoritism.
Post-independence, India has had only two lateral appointments to the top intelligence post. One succeeded on merit; the other, tainted by political favoritism, delivered mediocre results.
Intelligence work is unlike any other government function. It demands specialized training, discipline, a commitment to anonymity, and a strong work ethic—without fear of failure.
Fortunately, India’s intelligence agencies have evolved well and continue to protect national security and sovereignty with competence.
To sustain this, the core values of intelligence—discipline, national interest, and responsibility—must always be upheld. Intelligence agencies must act swiftly when they perceive a threat, without waiting for political approval.
A seasoned intelligence officer knows that “all intelligence is information, but not all information is intelligence.” With internal, external, and technical wings working together, inter-agency coordination is crucial. All pieces of intelligence must come together at a national level to form a complete picture and avoid critical information being lost in transit.
This is why the roles of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and National Security Advisor (NSA) are vital.
Intelligence assessments must be objective, free from personal bias, and focused solely on safeguarding national unity and sovereignty. They must also be open to revision as new information comes in, since security situations constantly evolve.
Finally, it is the responsibility of the intelligence chief to preserve the legacy and integrity of the agency—ensuring continuity in the principles that have guided intelligence operations over time.
With inputs from IANS