Indian Defence Review

It is true that India is a hugely energy deficient country especially with regard to oil and gas. It is also a reality that import dependence on energy does provide leverage to the exporting countries like OPEC. We cannot afford to forget the OPEC triggered oil crisis in 1973. For importing countries like India, the counter leverage lies in diversifying sources of energy and its pattern of consumption. Every drop in our energy basket, every initiative towards energy addition does matter. Nuclear energy is an important source. France realised it much early. Most of its electricity is derived from nuclear power plants. The rapid depletion of fossil fuel reserves has compelled many nations to emulate the French example. Even an oil and gas rich country like Iran is investing in nuclear energy programmes despite formidable diplomatic hurdles.

The leftists and others, who have been opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal fail to suggest any effective ways to meet our burgeoning energy demands. The states where leftists are in power, are the most energy deficient states in the country. In terms of Gross Annual Per Capita Consumption of Electricity, the national average is 631.41 kWh, while it is 380.61 kWh in West Bengal, 424.13 kWh in Kerala, and 190.62 kWh in Tripura.8 Consequently, these states have lagged in industrialisation and economic development. They overlook the US–China nuclear deal signed in 1984 (operationalised 14 years later), but are hell bent to thwart the Indo–US nuclear deal. It does not matter to them that leading nations of the world including Russia favour the deal. In all probability, they would have altered their stance, if China had unequivocally supported the deal. Those who oppose the deal forget that its not just about the US, but it requires the concurrence of 44 other countries in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). They say that deal will make India mortgage its sovereignty to the US in perpetuity.

No nation, when the security situation so demands will be dissuaded by externally imposed constraints. India did not bother about the world opinion, when it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, and then series of tests in 1998. It is ironical, rather crass hypocrisy that some of those who opposed India’s nuclear tests are objecting to the Indo-US nuclear deal on the grounds that it will compromise our nuclear sovereignty, and foreclose all options of nuclear testing—which is not true. The other argument is that the share of nuclear power as a consequence of the nuclear deal will increase marginally from the present level of three percent. Firstly, this is as per existing parameters and therefore subject to change. Secondly in the Indian context, even a two or three percent increase is substantial in terms of benefits. As regards their objections to the cost factor—all technologies with passage of time become cheaper, and nuclear technology is no exception. The realisation of the thorium route is not definite and still some years away. It is nobody’s case that it should not be pursued simultaneously. Former scientists from India’s nuclear establishment after having minutely perused the provisions of the deal, have supported it. Do we doubt their credibility and patriotism?

Islamic Terrorism

It would be no exaggeration to say that Hindustani Muslims are the best Muslims in the world. This is due to the synthesis forged in the cauldron of Indian culture. For those who repudiated it, and were seduced by the idea of Pakistan—the results are there for everybody to see. It is also true that some Muslims are now falling victim to the wave of Islamic fundamentalism, sweeping the world. Islamic terrorism is a bi-product of Islamic fundamentalism. The frequency of violence by jihadis is increasing. Logistics and base support is being provided by those in India, who are sympathetic to the terrorists and have ideological affinity with them. The Indian security establishment has been battling Islamic terrorism for more than two decades. It continues to exact heavy toll on human lives and has phenomenally raised the cost towards the security of the nation. Its worst manifestation is that it has made the young generation in India suspicious and cynical of a segment of own countrymen, as well as about our national will to tackle it. But our politicians and some intellectuals take umbrage over the term ‘Islamic Terrorism’.

Terrorism cannot be purged from the country unless the policy makers are unanimous in defining its religious, cultural and social import. Otherwise, even if one percent of the nearly 20 crores Muslims in India get radicalised, consequences for the country would be disastrous. We, therefore, in the interest of the country, and also the Muslims of India, must demonstrate our resolve to insulate India ideologically and physically from Islamic fundamentalism. It is a well-known fact that the epicenter of Islamic terrorism is in Pakistan. In the current circumstances, the US and its allies are engaged in busting that epicenter. To that extent, Indian security concerns has coalesced with that of the US. National interest and strategic prudence demands we use  this historical opportunity to lend our might in back–rolling the phenomenon that has hurt us more than any other country in the world.

India and Bangladesh

Historical forces are dynamic. The secession of East Pakistan and emergence of Bangladesh was ascendance of linguistic and cultural nationalism over religious nationalism. A linguistically and culturally homogenous Bangladesh having been achieved, the crisis of identity vis-à-vis India’s West Bengal, has again given rise to religious nationalism. Its manifestations are increase in the influence of Islamic fundamentalist groups and religious political parties. The country has become a matter of international concern as a source and facilitator of Islamic terrorism. Its marginalisation of minorities and anti-India posture over the years has been overlooked by India with which it shares 4100 kilometer boundary.

For too long, we basked under the glory of successfully ensuring the liberation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) from Pakistan, even as the new country embarked on a course inimical to Indian interests. We should have candidly admitted that India’s assistance to Bangladesh freedom struggle was predicated on congruency of India’s strategic interest with that of aspirations of the people in East Pakistan. A message should have been delivered that under no circumstances, was India going to brook a compromise of its strategic interests in its interface with Bangladesh.

We however fail to effectively upbraid Bangladesh when—minorities continue to be purged, Islamic fundamentalism is being exported, demographic assault is still being orchestrated, and Indian insurgents are being provided assistance and safe havens. We now have a situation wherein illegal migrants from Bangladesh have become the deciding factor in many electoral constituencies in the states bordering Bangladesh, especially Assam. Some border districts in India are witnessing unprecedented growth in mosques and madrasas.

The historical forces are bound to reassert themselves at some stage, irrespective of the legitimacy some historians and sociologists may later labour to confer.

India and Nepal

India shares a unique relationship with Nepal due to the sheer strength of historical, cultural, linguistic and religious bonds between the people of the two countries. Of the approximate 23 million population of Nepal, more than nine million Nepalese reside in India. The Indian Army has approximately 35,000 Gorkha personnel serving in 38 Gorkha battalions and one artillery unit. There are also many Gorkha personnel serving in the para-military forces of India. The uniqueness of this relationship was sought to be destroyed by the Maoists. The Maoist insurgency in Nepal compelled India to deploy the ‘Shashtra Suraksha Bal’ (renamed Special Services Bureau) and the Border Security Force (BSF) in sensitive parts along the 1751 Kms long Indo-Nepal border. The increasing deployment of Indian security forces on the Indo-Nepal border is an unfortunate development, as the border between the two countries, despite problems of common nature, has been known for its tranquility and openness, and contributed much to amity, fraternity and shared development. The Maoists in Nepal have dealt a huge blow to this special relationship, which transcends the confines of the nation-state.

Even as we insist on the Indian template of democracy in Nepal, we ignore the fact that Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia practice authoritarianism in varying degrees. Due to historical, sociological, religious and geopolitical reasons, not all states in the world are given to the Westminster template of democracy. In the case of Nepal, if the King stood discredited, so were the politicians. Since 1990, no government in Nepal has lasted for more than two years due to political infighting and internal collapse. If the King or the monarchy is blamed for repression, the Maoists in Nepal used brutal methods to subdue or eliminate those whom they perceived as class enemies. The state security forces were subjected to the worst kind of criminal treatment for carrying out their duties. The Maoists have destroyed much of the infrastructure in the areas under their control. They are now demanding that their militant cadres be absorbed in the security apparatus of the country.

It is attributed that India was one of the parties that brokered the deal between the political parties and the Maoists. As the deal was brokered to accommodate the Maoists, its partake in the future power structure was tacitly and inherently assured. The ushering of the democratic process in Nepal was therefore based on a flawed premise. The deal has not stopped the Maoists from engaging in anti-India tirade and harassing Indian businessmen. In a sovereign country, the country’s army (Royal Nepal Army) is confined to the barracks at the insistence of Maoists, who by no standards are legitimate political entity as yet. The interim legislature was to be only a temporary arrangement for paving the way for elections to the Constituent Assembly, which would then decide the nature of political system to be adopted. The elections are to be held in April 2008. The Maoists however have revealed their real intentions. They appear not too confident about their electoral fate and therefore have made preposterous demands, which were to be decided by the Constituent Assembly, as a precondition for participating in the elections. They have held threats time and again of reverting back to violent ways, if their demands are not met. There is complete disenchantment with the Maoists in the Terai region of Nepal, which accounts for half the country’s population. The Madhesi movement by the people of Terai is increasingly acquiring militant overtones. Some of the activists in the region have been demanding a separate state due to their marginalisation in politics and administration. Under these circumstances, the prospect of a free and fair election to the Constituent Assembly seems an extremely difficult proposition. From all indications, it can be averred that the Maoists under no circumstances will sit in the opposition, thus, belying the very edifice of democracy.

Nepal has been a monarchy since the last 200 years. Its complete obliteration, that the Maoists are demanding, is bound to create a vacuum, which unknown and untried forces will rush in fill in. Given the historic, religious and social links, India had ample leverage over the monarchy. It was very much possible to compel the monarch to effect changes that would have brought peace and stability. Towards that we could have strengthened the dispensation of the day to deal firmly with the Maoists. No doubt, it would have taken some years. Today, we have a situation wherein the monarchy has been rendered defunct, the political conduct of Maoists is uncertain; the political parties are in disarray, and the Madhesis, i.e. half the country’s population, is restive.

There is evidence of a renewed strategic reach by China, including the talk about extending the railway linkage from Tibet into Nepal. Nepal poses the most rudimentary test of our strategic culture and foreign policy, and in that we seem to be badly failing.

India and Sri Lanka

The unity of Sri Lanka is absolutely essential for India’s security. An Eelam (separate Tamil state) in our backyard would translate into two counties, with two sets of external postures, in competition with one another. The two states will attract different sets of international players in the strategically located island country in the Indian Ocean, having one of the most convenient ports and harbours, located on the major Sea Lanes of Communication.

The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was inducted to ensure the unity of Sri Lanka by enforcing the negotiated settlement between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil separatists in 1987. The LTTE reneged on the deal and unleashed violence on the IPKF. The Indian Army suffered more than thousand killed, but had subsequently adjusted to the insurgency environment, and had turned the heat on the LTTE. A disconcerted and cornered Prabhakaran colluded with President Premadasa and ensure the withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri Lanka in 1990. Yet, there are commentators in India, who maintain that the IPKF was a failure. They never appreciate that this was the first occasion when India in its legitimate security interests projected its power outside its boundaries. As to how dangerous was the fallout of the situation in India was vindicated by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by LTTE suicide bombers.

Many types of devolution package offered by Chandrika Kumaratunga, envisaging virtual autonomy for the Tamils in Sri Lanka was rejected by the LTTE. It was very obvious that with Prabhakaran at helm, there was no scope of a negotiated settlement. Any settlement can be suicidal for Prabhakaran, as his followers would question him as to why the same was not accepted earlier, and where was the need to get so many people killed, if there was to be a climb-down from the avowed objective of Eelam. Therefore, since the LTTE is uncompromising, the only solution to the problem is military. Towards that, we have done little to bolster the military capabilities of Sri Lanka barring few token gestures due to our self-inflicted ‘domestic compulsions’. We ignored the reality and kept insisting on negotiated settlement, but allowed extra regional powers like Britain, Norway and Japan to be the arbiter. And by not providing the requisite military support, we compel Sri Lanka to tap other sources like Pakistan and China, to our discomfiture. As someone who has closely watched all operations in Sri Lanka since 1995, I am of the firm opinion that a military solution to the problem, is now achievable, as the LTTE has split and its fighting prowess has attenuated over the years, while the once ceremonial Sri Lankan armed forces have emerged as a battle hardened and effective entity.

Conclusion

Hypocrisy in governance prevents sound and timely decision making; places unnecessary and undesirable hurdles in national development; lowers national prestige; gives rise to cynical and self-serving polity; generates clash amongst state institutions; deepens class, caste and regional divides; perpetuates corruption; negatively impacts on national character; and finally restrains the process of nation building. When popular perception is in confrontation with the stance of the state and aspiration of the masses outstrips the state’s ability to deliver them—the situation becomes volatile.

The manifestations of this in the Indian context can be seen in peoples’ distrust of government machinery; perpetual politics of redistribution leading to caste war like situation; violence over land acquisition for industrial projects; politicisation of the police and undesirable constraints on security forces; the phenomenon of growing insurgencies and Islamic terrorism; export of instability by India’s neighbours; haughty posture of China vis-à-vis India; lack of quality development; and energy crisis etc. The shortage of officers in the army is also partly on account of our hypocrisy towards the country’s security and the armed forces. Even as the governments find it politically correct to praise the armed forces, successive regimes have done nothing to enhance its institutional status and self-esteem. For the elite, a career in the armed forces is good and noble, but not for their own children.

First Published in January 2008