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.
Please wait...
