Thursday, March 30, 2023
Home Commercial News Defence A Policy to Secure India

A Policy to Secure India

A Policy to Secure India
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Above: Photo Courtesy UNI

With increasing threats to the country, the need of the hour is a national security policy document, establishment of a separate ministry and greater centre-state co-ordination

~By Col R Hariharan

American poet John Godfrey Saxe’s poem, “The Blind Men and the Elephant”, in the 19th century aptly depicts India’s approach to national security. The opening verse, “It was six men of Indostan/To learning much inclined,/Who went to see the Elephant/(Though all of them were blind),/That each by observation/Might satisfy his mind”, may well be a description of our lack of holistic understanding of the issue of national security.

Though a national security council was constituted as early as 1998, we still lack a national security policy document. Sadly, this is the state of affairs in a country that faces a wide range of conventional and non-conventional threats from external and internal sources. The 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai that paralysed the nation for three days showed the chaotic state of internal security management. The 1991 Kargil war showed the aberrations in our handling of hybrid threat. Both incidents triggered a series of actions after some conventional knee-jerk responses to revamp the national security structure. In typical Indian style, there were many thoughts and ideas on various issues, but their laid-back implementation shows a lack of urgency.

Our halting response to Pakistani terrorist attacks on the Pathankot Air Force station in January 2016 and on an army camp in Uri in September 2016 exposed the fact that our national security is still a work in progress, perhaps forever, because we do not have a policy in this regard.

This formed the theme of a speech by J&K Governor NN Vohra recently. He is perhaps best qualified to analyse the issue, not only because of his 13-year-long stint in J&K both as an interlocutor and as governor, but because he has been involved in the security management arena for over three decades. His rich experience in the highest echelons of decision-making in Delhi, including as principal secretary to the PM and secretary in the home and defence ministries, added value to his address.

The advent of terrorism in India has made the effective management of national security “the most crucial challenge faced by the Union” as Vohra said. Unless there is peace and normalcy, it would not be possible to achieve meaningful growth and development for promoting the welfare of our people.

Has our country been able to evolve a comprehensive national policy and the required infrastructure to safeguard it on all fronts? Vohra’s answer—“So far, we have neither secured the required Union-State understandings, nor developed a pan-India approach which would meet the requirements of a National Security Policy”—is a damning indictment of the present state of affairs.

Constitutionally, states are “vested with powers to make all required laws to take all necessary executive decisions for ensuring internal security within their jurisdictions”, while the centre has “the much larger responsibility of protecting against war and external aggression and internal disturbances”. However, in the last three decades, issues relating to internal and external security have got “deeply and inextricably intertwined”.

According to Vohra, Pakistan’s proxy war in J&K obliterated “the scope for segregating the management of issues relating to internal and external security”. According to him, it would no longer do to merely focus on defending our frontiers. This is because sources of security threats have extended far beyond our immediate neighbourhood to countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and the western hemisphere and relate to innumerable targets and activities within our country.

Vohra bemoans the failure of states to become self-reliant in effectively managing internal security. They need to take urgent steps to carry out long-pending police reforms. As a consequence, states have been relying on the centre for deploying central armed police forces and even the army for restoring normalcy in disturbed areas. He also takes states to task for failing to set up a Police Complaints Authority and State Security Commission, segregate law and order from investigative functions and to set up separate intelligence and anti-terrorist units.

He is also hard on them for not providing unstinted support to the centre’s efforts to safeguard national security, particularly in taking pre-emptive action to deal with emerging internal disturbances. This has probably resulted in the centre refraining from deploying central armed police forces unless the state requests it. He cites the demolition of the Babri Masjid as a case in point.

He finds the UK Intelligence Services Act (1994) providing for a parliamentary intelligence and security committee to examine the administration and policies of intelligence agencies worthy of emulation. Intelligence agencies are holy cows and their functioning and accountability continue to be grey areas. This is one area requiring urgent action as their role in areas that impinge on national security has increased. But the moot point is, will they be amenable when parliament has members with questionable security baggage in the house?

When the lines dividing external and internal security are increasingly blurred, an understanding between the centre and states is essential for successful security management. Vohra points to the tortuous course taken to establish the National Counter Terrorism Centre in the wake of the 26/11 attack as an example of the lack of understanding between the centre and states on the imperatives of national security. Unfortunately, with different political parties in power at the centre and in states, such a suggestion is usually viewed with distrust and suspicion.

It is well known that political parties in power, particularly in states, use the police for their own political advantage, rather than to aid good governance. Vohra points to the findings of the inter-ministerial committee on the Mumbai serial blasts which revealed the unwholesome nexus between corrupt politicians, dishonest public servants and organised crime and the criminal mafia of the Dawood gang. This enabled several tons of RDX to be brought for the blasts. Obviously, unless states implement police reforms, not only will the rule of law be vitiated, national security will also be threatened.

Vohra emphasises that to “move towards assured national security management”, it is essential to implement reforms and improvements in the entire criminal justice system. Speedy delivery of justice plays an important role in this and judicial reforms are essential as well. The moot point is, how can states be compelled to carry out police reforms? Will political parties set aside their differences and come together in the interests of national security?

What should be the elements of national security for India? Professor Prabhakaran Paleri in National Security: Imperatives and Challenges lists as many as 15 elements of national security, ranging from military security and energy security to the more obscure ethnic security and genome security.

In fact, Vohra is in sync with Paleri when he says: “It has ….become extremely essential to safeguard almost every arena and to particularly secure arrangements relating to food, water, energy, nuclear power, science and technology, environment, ecology, finance, business, commerce, banking, cyber space and other important quarters.”

In conclusion, Vohra suggested three viable actions:

  • The centre in close consultation with the states should evolve and promulgate a national security policy and draw up a time-bound action plan and establish a national framework.
  • The centre should establish a National Security Administrative Service to run security-related organisations and “progressively”, the security management apparatus of states.
  • As the Union home ministry is burdened with the management of disparate subjects, a national security affairs ministry should be set up.

In a nutshell, it is Prime Minister Narendra Modi who should get his act together. But despite enjoying a comfortable majority, his government is facing flak from a desperate Opposition on every initiative. If he can convince it to join hands to craft a national security policy, the nation will be thankful to him.

—The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Studies Institute

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.