UNION Home Minister P Chidambaram said the only thing a democratic government could have said about tapping the phones of fellow politicians— that the records show that no phone tapping of political leaders was " authorised" by the government. For obvious reasons under no circumstances would a government admit that it could actually authorise such an action.
Mr Chidambaram's assertion that intelligence agencies functioned within the law, and were fully accountable to the government would have been easier to accept had he told us precisely what the government did to ensure this was so. Most democratic countries have an inspector- general or ombudsman to ensure that such agencies, which have wide powers of covert surveillance, keep within the bounds of the law. Further, there is almost always a system of political oversight over the departments, a process in which senior figures of the Opposition are also involved.
In the absence of either measure, we can take the government's words only at facevalue.
The record of agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation shows that their default mode is to be the political handmaiden of the government of the day.
The Opposition, too, must ask itself whether it has been as vigilant of people's rights as it claims to be. It has permitted the passage of draconian legislation such as the Information Technology Act of 2008 ( notified last October) which allows government sweeping powers to block internet content and legalises phone tapping, allegedly in a controlled environment.
Whether or not we can get to the bottom of this episode remains to be seen. However, this is a good opportunity for the Opposition to insist that the government put in place some real checks on the powers that they have given to security agencies on the issue.
