Military & Aerospace

Does India have National Security
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Vol 24.2 Apr-Jun 2009 | Date : 05 Nov , 2010

Pakistan has been a volatile and turbulent neighbor to India. Since partition, India has had to resort to war on three occasions – 1947, 1965, 1971 plus two sizeable conflicts in Rann of Katchh in 1965 and Kargil in 1999, apart from series of skirmishes in Siachen Glacier area in 1985, 1987 and 1995. In between it has been bedeviled by unremitting depredation of various kinds, ranging from infiltrations to hijacking to instigating of insurgencies in Kashmir and Punjab, attacks on Indian parliament and Indian embassy in Kabul.

In addition, there has been a spate of bomb blasts in Indian cities. The latest horror has been an audacious commando type raid on Mumbai on Nov 26, 2008 which has lead to public outcry against failure of the government to protect its people and property. There is widespread doubt as to whether India has national security.

With respect to defense of borders, except for loss of chunks of territory in Kashmir and against China, Indian Armed Forces have performed exceedingly well for integrity of the “core issues”. India has successfully beaten off numerous Pak offensives in Kashmir, Siachen Glacier, and Kargil and helped Bangladesh gain its independence ““ a good report card by all standards.

How do we define national security? One formulation is that “A country can be said to have security if it does not have to avoid war when its national interests are threatened or violated”. In other words, a country should have the option (capacity and will) to retaliate when provoked or hurt. Option of armed retaliation or resort to war is bound by restrictions or ground rules. First: It is a mistake to start something that you cannot finish. Examples: Indian mobilization (operation Prakaram) consequent to Pak inspired attack on Indian parliament which resulted in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation lasting nine months with India looking for a face saver to disengage.

Similarly, Pak abortive misadventure in Kargil in 1999, which only earned it international ignominy, embarrassment and unnecessary casualties. This dictum assumes overriding imperative if both countries have nuclear weapons. It is perhaps this reason which has forced India to shy-off war or war-like options after the Mumbai carnage. Second: Do not act tougher than you are. India suffered a humiliating defeat in 1962 because it miscalculated its strength vis-à-vis China. Third: In modern times, it is not possible to take significantly decisive action unless the attacking country has firm support of a veto wielding super power. India could not have undertaken operations in Bangladesh in 1971 if it did not have support of the USSR. However, these are but examples of limitations to national security, i.e., when lack of capacity inhibits a country from exercise of its sovereignty to fully safeguard or further its interests.

The operative concept then is “national interests”. Of course, there is no such thing as absolute security or unfettered freedom – even a sole super power in a unipolar world has limitations as was brought home to President Bush. So, while setting its goals, a nation has to sift through its many interests so as to narrow them down to basic interests or goals which will then be held sacrosanct and to protect which the country will be prepared to go to war. The goals should be achievable, reasonable, and in consonance with norms of international morality and norms of civilized behavior. The goals of the Indian Republic are manifestly just and unexceptionable, and the national ethos is peaceful, almost bordering on pacifism. Contrary to propaganda of its detractors, India has no hegemonistic or imperialistic designs.

After defeating the Pak Army in East Pakistan, India withdrew unconditionally after Bangladesh gained its independence. It maintains open borders with Nepal and soft borders with Bangladesh. It has not arrogated to itself a moral right to foist democracy and secularism or social philosophy on its neighbouring countries. It is a true example of a pluralistic, multi-ethnic and secular society. So much so that it is often perceived as a soft state with porous borders though history has shown that though slow to anger, it has shown the capacity to take resolute action when attacked.

Pakistan, on the contrary, has been the initiator, taking the first step in all the wars on the sub-continent. The Indo-Pak war of 1947 commenced as an Indian reaction to Pak Tribal raiders supported by elements of regular army in Kashmir. The 1965 war was started by the launch of Pak infiltrators into Kashmir (operation Gibraltar). 1971 war was started by Pak preemptive air strikes in Punjab as well as its crack-down on civil population in East Bengal which resulted in mass exodus of Hindus into India. The Kargil operations were triggered by Pak aggression in Kashmir across the “Line of Actual Control” in violation of the Simla Agreement of 1972.

Pakistan will undoubtedly intensify efforts to subvert the Indian Muslim community and foment religious unrest in India. By all accounts, this is the crucial frontier, indeed the soft “under-belly “of the Indian security system.

In practical terms, national security means territorial integrity, freedom for economic development, protection against demographic aggression and freedom to pursue its chosen social and political philosophy. These goals have to be adjudged in the context of likely threats. Territorial integrity or defense of the borders is the ‘sine qua non’ of national security. India has not fared badly in this respect barring loss of parts of Kashmir to Pakistan and areas in North and North East to China.

However, future portents are worrisome since along all its land borders, India is surrounded by countries inimical or unfriendly. There is 3310 km of ‘live’ border with Pakistan extending from Rann of Kachh to Rajasthan to West Punjab and then along the entire LoC in Kashmir. The hostility and capacity of Pakistan has vastly enhanced. India’s common border with China runs to 3440 Km from Ladakh to Arunachal is fully aligned with Pakistan and has never disguised its unfriendliness to India.

True, it has not actively intervened in any Indo-Pak conflict so far, but its menacing military power has to be taken into account. In between, there is a stretch of 1751 km of border with Nepal which has assumed critical proportions after the Maoist victory and burgeoning influence of China. There is Bangladesh to the east with which India shares 4096 km of an uneasy border. Recent electoral success of Sheikh Hasina notwithstanding, Pak influence and its export of Jihadist Islam to Bangladesh have taken firm root. In sum, the perils of a multi-front war combined with a festering Kashmir and an unstable Bangladesh, add up to a strategic nightmare.

Seaward, the Indian Navy has to guard more than 7000 kms of coastline which again has become potentially troublesome with the recent foray of the Chinese Navy into the Indian Ocean and availability of Gwadar naval port in Baluchistan which was developed by help from China. Protection of ports of Mumbai and Kolkata, important hubs of commerce, along with another 20 major ports and 200 minor ports, constitute areas of vulnerability.

The recent raid on Mumbai used the sea route which may well be replicated increasingly in the future. India’s expanding maritime trade hence security of sea lanes becomes important. Security of air envelope above both land frontiers and maritime borders is a major responsibility of Indian Air Force, all the more critical in the age of high performance aircraft, deadly munitions and nuclear-tipped long range missiles. Indeed, the old concepts of geographical borders have changed. Now the borders are everywhere, even thousands of miles in the hinterland. Hence, there is need for round-the-clock radar coverage.

Hopefully, Pak society itself will find this harsh division of Islam unacceptable. And hopefully it will remain a largely domestic religious reformation movement and will not become a “second-coming” of the whirlwind of militant Islam which arose out of the sands of Arabia in 7th century and flattened empires and kingdoms and cast its shadow over half the globe.

Indian defense forces have also to ensure safety of vulnerable points of high value deep inside the country such as civil airports, oil installations, nuclear power plants, centers of critical research and above all, the seat of central government and parliament buildings in Delhi. As seen in the last few decades, external threat has morphed into a new face of war such as, infiltration, instigation of insurgency, terrorist attacks as also deep raids and bomb blasts in cities inside the country. Besides, the nuclear dimension has all but rendered full scale conventional war unlikely. Whatever be the case, a country has to maintain an elaborate security apparatus comprising requisite force levels of army, navy and air force forces supported by an integrated support structure of paramilitary forces, armed police, et al.

No wonder, outlay on defense accounts for a sizeable chunk of the national budget. Force levels needs must be commensurate with the enhanced capacity of Pakistan and China. The specifics of augmentation of Pak and Chinese defense forces is a function of professional assessment and intelligence but it will be prudent to assume that in the next encounter, India will find itself confronted with a vastly enhanced Pak military machine and a powerful Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

With respect to defense of borders, except for loss of chunks of territory in Kashmir and against China, Indian Armed Forces have performed exceedingly well for integrity of the “core issues”. India has successfully beaten off numerous Pak offensives in Kashmir, Siachen Glacier, and Kargil and helped Bangladesh gain its independence – a good report card by all standards. In comparison, the Pak Army for all its braggadocio and vaunted prowess, has never won a war. However, they have shown awesome expertise for instigating insurgencies in Afghanistan, India and Kashmir. Lately their chief “export” has been terrorism and message of radical Islam – Pakistan is the acknowledged epicenter of global terrorism. Against this threat, the Indian defense apparatus has been found wanting and Indian record for combating external as well as internal threat of this kind has been dismal.

India has been at the receiving end of unending terrorist attacks and bomb blasts showing little capacity for prevention, adequate response or retaliation except for issuing demarches, scoring doubtful scoring points and appeals to world community. To make matters worse, Pakistan has perhaps been successful, albeit to a limited extent, in infecting Indian Muslims as seen in suspected hand of home-grown jihadis in bomb blasts in Mumbai. Insurgency in Kashmir is raging undiminished, the main reason being Pak aid and abetment and infusion of terrorists. India has unwisely left the situation to fester without taking timely action against terrorist training camps in Pak held Kashmir.

It is no doubt also true that power resides in the hearts of men and in the wisdom and courage of its leaders, and that it also lies in its factories, universities and engines of economic growth. However, all these need protection by military power.

Now the situation has vastly deteriorated by Taliban successes in Pakistan which has brought them practically to India’s doorstep. India has to address this problem with courage and determination, lest it has to pay a heavy price later. India has to be prepared to face terrorist attacks of greater sophistication and ferocity everywhere in the country. Indeed, one cannot rule out a nuclear blackmail by a Taliban/Al Qaida smuggled bomb overland or through an Indian port. The picture is also unsatisfactory regarding internal threats by Naxals, Maoists and such like fringe elements.

Traditionally, countries are concerned with developments in their neighbouring states for reading portents of threats arising thereof. USA formulated the “Monroe Doctrine” concerning hostile regimes or developments in Southern Americas. President Bush went further and promulgated a policy of “Preemptive Action”. India is not a super power yet so it may not make such grandiose pronouncements, but it will do well to maintain a discreet watch on happenings around its periphery.

It is quite unexceptionable for a country to perceive its security borders as beyond its geographical borders. There are many non-military means to influence events and policies in neighbouring countries such as economic pacts, treaties of friendship and a whole gamut of mutual cooperation. For example, India has vital interests in happenings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, South Eastern China adjoining its Arunachal region, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, islands in the Indian Ocean. Such interest would inform focus of foreign policy. A case in point is the loss of Indian influence in Nepal despite centuries old history of ethnic and cultural bonds and despite the strong military links of having thousands of Gurkha soldiers in the Indian Army.

The creeping shadow of China could be discerned since construction of a link road over Kodari Pass, but through neglect or misreading of situation, India lost its priceless advantage in Nepal. Similarly, India wielded significant influence in Afghanistan for ages, so but for India’s inflexible tilt to Russia, USA would have seen it as a more logical ally instead of or along with Pakistan. India also surrendered its influence in Tibet by accepting Chinese suzerainty. In times of rapid developments, there is need for nimble, vigilant and creative foreign policies. In fact this has been the Pak expertise for decades and which has paid her handsome dividends. At the present juncture, the geopolitical situation in the Indian neighbourhood is extremely fluid and evolving, so India has to think “out of the box” and not be afraid to take bold decisions.

Demographic or ideological threat is perhaps the most critical to pluralistic Indian polity. India is home to 150 million Muslims. Its Hindu population, though an 82 percent majority is riven into ethnic and regional diversities. There are many faiths and many tongues. In other words, an ideal breeding ground for mischief and trouble making. To make matters worse, Pakistan is pedaling a particularly virulent and fundamentalist brand of Islam. Human infiltrators and raiders are bad enough but a war of ideas or ideology is a horrendous prospect to an open society like India.

The creeping shadow of China could be discerned since construction of a link road over Kodari Pass, but through neglect or misreading of situation, India lost its priceless advantage in Nepal.

Add to that, the endemic Pak hostility and resolve to “make India bleed from a thousand cuts”, and it means that India is faced with prospects of increased incidence of infiltration into India and Kashmir. Pakistan will undoubtedly intensify efforts to subvert the Indian Muslim community and foment religious unrest in India. By all accounts, this is the crucial frontier, indeed the soft “under-belly “of the Indian security system.

Pakistan’s ISI has shown uncanny ability for instigating insurgencies and sedition. The shadow of the Taliban is lengthening over Pakistan as borne out by recent news about capitulation by the Zardari government to the Taliban demand for imposition of Sharia over Malakand Division and Swat. This has brought the Taliban’s threat closer to India thereby posing enhanced threat of cross border infiltrations and worse, attempts to subvert our Muslim minority. Pakistan is fast becoming a Taliban state.

It is perhaps too early to discern the full dimensions of this phenomenon or the direction it will ultimately take. Hopefully, Pak society itself will find this harsh division of Islam unacceptable. And hopefully it will remain a largely domestic religious reformation movement and will not become a “second-coming” of the whirlwind of militant Islam which arose out of the sands of Arabia in 7th century and flattened empires and kingdoms and cast its shadow over half the globe.

India is also extremely vulnerable with respect to its economy which is growing extremely well in marked contrast to the ‘near collapse’ of Pak economy. Recent terrorist raid on Mumbai, commercial capital of India, was clearly aimed at causing damage to Indian economy and India’s image as a safe place for international business. Terrorist attacks of this kind are likely to intensify unless India takes strong preventive action. Pakistan lacks economic clout to compete against India in the international market but it will exploit all avenues including the system of preferential import quotas which are often determined by political considerations. Pakistan also pursues pernicious fake currency smuggling rackets through Nepal.

India does not have an overall “Chief of Defense Staff” who can render single point-integrated professional advice to government at critical policy deliberations.

In short India has to be vigilant with regard to Pak capacity for mischief and inimical activity. India needs a period of quiet and peace so as to be able to grow and realize the full potential of its natural resources, whereas Pak aim will be to cause disruption by warlike activity or threats thereof. Further, India would need to address issues of cyber security and defense against “hacking” for economic and industrial secrets.

The nuclear capability of India and Pakistan has introduced a new dimension into an already volatile situation. It has made Pakistan more bellicose and bold. This is a complex subject and needs detailed professional analyses. In principle, this “weapon in being” should work as a constraint to war or put a lid on size and scale of conventional war, but it also gives leeway for raids and limited military adventures, although this cuts both ways. So there is no cause for alarm or undue caution for India which can be equally bold.

In the ultimate analysis, if there is a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, geographically smaller Pakistan has much more to lose than India with its large land mass. There is great deal of confused thinking in Indian on the nuclear issue – some thinkers are still of the view that the nuclear option by India has been a mistake. Fact of the matter is that nuclear weapon is a weapon of great power and it makes the country stronger, not weaker. Even so, Pakistan has a track record of irrational adventurism which India dare not ignore. A case in point is that the Indian declaration of “no first use” and “no use against a non-nuclear state” versus Pak assertion that if attacked by a nuclear weapon, Pakistan will immediately unleash a nuclear barrage “against India” and ask questions later! Be that as it may, it is incumbent upon India to build a credible nuclear deterrent which requires adequate number of weapons together with delivery systems of requisite ranges.

In addition, an essential concomitant is an assured “second strike” capability which requires mobile launchers, hard sites or naval deployability. There is need for continuing production and design development. India also needs to build or urgently obtain AB missile capability. Alternately, at least in the initial stage, India should attempt to negotiate an assured “missile shield cover” with the USA.

Does India have national security? The answer is “yes”, though like the proverbial vicars quilt, it is only good in patches. Also, it has had its ups and down. India has fought off all Pak Army attempts to capture Kashmir, it has soundly defeated the Pak Army in East Pakistan and has held on to the Siachen Glacier.

In international relations, traditional view is that power flows out of the barrel of a gun. This age old truism still holds true. It is no doubt also true that power resides in the hearts of men and in the wisdom and courage of its leaders, and that it also lies in its factories, universities and engines of economic growth. However, all these need protection by military power. Actually, both are complementary. Hence, strength of a nation depends as much upon its populations or “human capital” and politico-economic systems as upon its military. A happy and secure citizenry is an important part of “natural resources” of a country.

Similarly it is necessary to have a well equipped, satisfied soldiery with high morale and confidence regarding its due recognition, a fair system of pay and emoluments and “equilance” of status vis-à-vis other segments of government. In this context, recent controversies concerning the perceived denigration and erosion of status of the military (and sad spectacle of ex-servicemen observing fasts and returning their war medals to the President of India) are extremely unfortunate and must be addressed on highest priority. The defense forces have critical shortages of equipments and of officers. It must be understood that the “Jawan” is the bedrock of national strength, so anything which weakens the military will weaken the country.

India has long cherished traditions of sound statecraft based on morality or “dharma”, therefore people of all faiths and followings have lived in this country in harmony and prospered for centuries. Hence, it is all the more important for India to continue to project an image of a healthy polity and good governance and not present a picture of scams, wrangling politicians and divisive politics. The political system should ensure stability of government whose tenure should not be subject to vagaries of coalition politics which often mean policy decisions by compromise. Perhaps, India needs to seriously examine the presidential form of government and desirability of reducing number of national political parties.

A structured system of command and decision-making in high echelons of government is an essential requirement of statecraft in modern times when crises tend to occur very rapidly, requiring equally rapid decisions, which also need to be well-considered and made with highly professional advice. India is one the few countries which does not have a structured mechanism for including the military in the policy planning process at the highest level.

 the fast changing security scenario in “Af-Pak” region is posing newer and ever greater challenges to India. Taliban is on the march. It seems fully established in Swat and Malakand, and has secured an agreement with the Zardari government.

There is no mechanism or a standing committee where the PM meets the service chiefs on a regular basis There is a lot of turbulence in India’s neighbourhood and frequent crises situations within the country, so there is need for on-going (weekly or even daily) review at the highest level with heads of intelligence, homeland security, police as also service chiefs. Further, India does not have an overall “Chief of Defense Staff” who can render single point-integrated professional advice to government at critical policy deliberations.

This is a lacuna in the military system which has been allowed to exist through prejudice or misguided thinking. In the present system, this integrated tri-service advice is the province of a politician (Defense Minister) or a bureaucrat (Cabinet Secretary). Equally, there is need to streamline decision making procedures in all ministries to avoid surrender of unexpended allocations. India has in place a fine web of institutions ensuring checks and balances, but there should be a mechanism for updating and pruning old procedures to keep abreast of times.

To conclude, does India have national security? The answer is “yes”, though like the proverbial vicar’s quilt, it is only good in patches. Also, it has had its ups and down. India has fought off all Pak Army attempts to capture Kashmir, it has soundly defeated the Pak Army in East Pakistan and has held on to the Siachen Glacier. It has overcome the insurgency is Punjab. However, It has failed in Arunachal, ceding territory to China and it has not been able to resolve insurgency in Kashmir. Also, at present, India is being subjected to a spate of terrorist attacks, which the country seems to be unable to prevent or punish.

The vicious raid on Mumbai in Nov 2008 has brought to light serious gaps in the security, and worse, seeming inability of the country to retaliate. However, the government is vigorously reviewing the entire security structure and inter alia, has made enhanced allocations to defense in the recent “vote on account”. However, the fast changing security scenario in “Af-Pak” region is posing newer and ever greater challenges to India. Taliban is on the march. It seems fully established in Swat and Malakand, and has secured an agreement with the Zardari government. The fear is that it may be the beginning of Talibanization of the entire Pakistan, which will be bad for India and will adversely affect the situation in Kashmir. Indeed, there are troubled times ahead.

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left