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 coordination
By Col R Hariharan | Courtesy: India Legal | 5 February 2018
American
poet John Godfrey Saxe 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 up the chaotic state of internal security
management. The 1991 Kargil war showed the aberrations in our handling of
hybrid threat. Both the 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 Pathankot Air Force station
in January 2016 and on an army camp in Uri in September 2016 exposed the fact that
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 and K governor
NN Vohra recently. He is perhaps the best qualified to analyse the issue, not
only because of his 13-year long stint in Jammu and Kashmir both as an interlocutor and as governor years,
but because has been involved in the security management arena for over three
decades.. His rich experience in the highest echelons of decision making in New
Delhi, including as principal secretary to the PM as well as secretary in home
and defence ministries, added value to his address.
The advent of terrorism in India has made the
effective management of national security as “the most crucial challenge faced
by the Union” Vohra said. Unless, there is a 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 require 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 nearly
three decades, issues relating to the management of internal and external
security have got “deeply and inextricably intertwined.”
According
to Vohra, after Pakistan’s proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir 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, Middle East and the western hemisphere and relate
to innumerable targets and activities within our country.
Vohra
bemoans the failure of the 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 restoration of
normalcy in the disturbed areas. He also takes states to task for failing to
set up 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 equally 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 disturbance. This has probably resulted
in the centre refraining from deploying central armed police forces unless the
state requests it. He cites the case of
demolition of 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 continues to be grey areas. This
is one area requiring urgent action as their role in areas that impinge upon
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 dividing lines 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 (NCTC) in the wake of 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 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 Mumbai serial blats, which revealed the
unwholesome nexus between corrupt politicians, dishonest public servants and
organized crime and criminal mafia of the Dawood Ibrahim gang. This enabled
several tons of RDX to be brought for the blasts. Obviously, unless states
implement police reforms, not only will 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 the
judicial reforms are essential as well. The moot point is how the states can be
compelled to carry out police reforms? Will the political parties set aside
their differences and come as one in the interest of national security?
What
should be the elements of national security for India? Professor
Prabhkaran Paleri in the book National Security: Imperatives and challenges
(2008) lists as many as fifteen elements of national security, ranging from
the military security and energy security to 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, NN Vohra has suggested three viable actions:
- · The centre in close consultation with states should evolve and promulgate the National Security Policy and draw up a time bound action plan and establish a national frame work.
- · The centre should establish the National Security Administrative Service to run security related organisations and “progressively” the security management apparatus of the states.
- · As Union Home Ministry is burdened with the management of disparate subjects and overburdened, 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 them to join
hands to craft a national security policy, the nation will be thankful to him.
-The
writer is a former military intelligence specialist in South Asia, associated with the
Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic
Studies Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment