The defence services have to be geared to face both internal and external threat
One hopes that this government, even though it is the same government, will be more seriously committed to national security this time around and seek at the outset a national consensus or at least a common minimum programme on defence and security. It is no exaggeration to say that vital issues of national security are plagued by political and bureaucratic inefficiency and growing politicization especially in the realm of internal security. The Samajwadi Party’s Amar Singh had said last year that his party supported the beleaguered Congress-led UPA government over the India-US nuclear deal not for any political motives but in the interest of national security. The people’s representatives in the new house need to remember that national security and national interest are coterminous.
The foremost task for the new government is to protect its citizens from terrorism both externally sponsored and internally driven. The previous government was lucky that there were no terror attacks since Mumbai last year. Many US think tanks, notably Rand, have said India continues to be vulnerable to Mumbai-like attacks and should expect one soon. The US Annual Country Report on Terrorism 2008 is a sobering reminder of the challenges to India’s internal security. It ranks India among the world’s most terrorism-afflicted countries but our efforts to counter the menace remain hampered, it says, by outdated and overburdened law enforcement and legal systems. What it does not say is that a weak coalition government lacks the political will to act to maintain the highest levels of internal security.
In this regard, it would be useful to take a tip from Sri Lanka on the use of force as well as from Bangladesh which has recently constituted a National High Powered Committee to combat militancy and terrorism. Some post-Mumbai proposals like restructuring anti-terrorism laws and the creation of a National Investigation Agency are a drop in the ocean for India – surrounded by a most turbulent and tortured neighbourhood. What India needs is a Department of Homeland Security, the equivalent of a separate ministry of internal security like the Ministry of Defence for external security to deal with crossborder terrorism and a long inventory that constitutes internal insecurity.
Settling the Kashmir dispute and resolving the political insurgencies in the Northeast – in Assam, Manipur and Nagaland – must take priority. The illegal immigration from Bangladesh must be stamped out and Nagaland not allowed to fester. These disputes have to be settled politically at the earliest.
The Naxalite problem has been described as the single biggest challenge to internal security but little serious work done on it – as the daring Naxal attacks during the elections demonstrated. The Indian habit of dealing with the problem only when it turns into a crisis has to be replaced with preemptive and proactive action. The Naxal menace is not a law and order problem, internal to individual states. It is an internal security problem and has to be recognized so, constitutionally removing the ambiguities between state and Central responsibilities.
The external fences against China and Pakistan have to be strengthened further. The government has been in gross neglect of infrastructural development in the north when China has changed the operational landscape in its favour. The country is being revisited by the political lethargy of 1962 just as China is multiplying outputs militarily and economically. Its newfound assertion on our periphery, especially in Sri Lanka and Nepal, is worrying as we factor “intention” more regularly than “capability”of a rival. Our obsession with Pakistan has let the guard drop against China as these two countries are bound in a strategic nexus against us. Military capabilities including covert force multipliers have to be developed against both adversaries and with Pakistan a sharper deterrent is needed in the mountains of Kashmir.
In the maritime domain, our domination of sea lines of communication in the Indian Ocean region, control of choke points, wherewithal to combat piracy and capacity to reach out to friendly countries adds a new dimension to sea power. Similarly, as the regional power, the country’s air assets must extend into space for the security of strategic devices deployed up there. Some of our strategic weapons programmes like the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV, India’s nuclear-powered submarine) require revitalization to achieve the triad of the nuclear deterrent.
Defence spending fell to a low of below 2 per cent this year, the first time since 1962 though the availability of funds remained constant because of the increased size of the GDP. The setback is invariably to the capital fund for modernization which suffers from a multiplicity of drawbacks. The most prominent hole in the wall is the absence of long-term modernization plans backed by committed funds. What is worse is the failure to utilize funds in time due to Tehelka-like incidents and fear of the three Cs: CBI, CAG and CVC. Many defence projects fail to take off due to this mindset.
Consequently, conspicuous deficiencies have arisen in the operational readiness and combat edge of the three services. In 2001, for example, the services enjoyed a favourable military balance vis-a-vis Pakistan – Air Force 3.8 to 1; Army 1.7 to 1 and Navy 2.8 to 1. The IAF has dropped in combat squadrons from 39 to 32 with the indigenous LCA already a decade behind schedule. There are similar deficiencies in the Army and Navy which have robbed the military of its conventional advantage over Pakistan. Special Forces, now the cutting edge to decisive outcomes in limited war and LIC, are a fraction of what they ought to be. There has been over-reliance on conventional warfare with little appetite for undercover operations. The Indian military is geared for a war it is unlikely to fight in the future and unprepared to face a Taliban. The right balance between conventional deterrence and LIC ranging from countering insurgency, naxalism and terrorism is the need of the hour. The correct mix of forces has to be invented through an Army Defence Review, provoked by the political establishment.
The new Defence Minister must establish a task force to streamline defence planning and spending, removing bottlenecks imposed by hugely complicated weapons acquisitions procedures. Without prevaricating any further, the government must appoint a Chief of Defence Staff, vital for jointness in planning and conduct of operations, pending since 2003 for imagined reasons of loss of civilian control over the military and spurious objections by the IAF. The Kargil Review Committee report had made nearly 100 recommendations for defence reforms and the majority of these have been lost in interdepartmental coordination and others simply not implemented.
In Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, the military has played a key role in the management of security and governance, frequently challenging civilian authority. The Indian military, on the other hand, has not crossed the red line of civilian control though the political class has delegated its authority to the civilian bureaucracy. Being kept out of decision-making and not being appropriately recognized in the warrant of precedence irks the military. Denial of a Bharat Ratna for Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw who gave this country the first military victory in 1000 years was the greatest national disservice to the country and the military. The shoddy treatment of the services in the 6th Pay Commission, later corrected to some extent, has left a bad taste in the mouth.
Similarly, the one-rank-one-pension issue has divided the ex-servicemen’s community which is integrally linked to serving soldiers. The advisory given to ex-servicemen to vote for the BJP which is seen as much more robust on defence and security is another step towards politicization of the armed forces. That can only dilute professionalism and their apolitical disposition.
Of course, soldiers want their due share of perks and money for service to the nation. Also, for laying their lives on the line, they deserve and demand dignity and respect. It is time the political class and its esteemed bureaucracy stopped fooling around with the military or testing its tolerance threshold. This is not the military of the 1960s and 1970s. It is different and has thinking officers and men.
What India needs is a Department of Homeland Security, the equivalent of a separate ministry of internal security like the Ministry of Defence for external security
There has been over-reliance on conventional warfare with little appetite for undercover operations. The Indian military is geared for a war it is unlikely to fight in the future and unprepared to face a Taliban
Our obsession with Pakistan has let the guard drop against China as these two countries are bound in a strategic nexus against us. Military capabilities including covert force multipliers have to be developed against both
