Dynamics of Threats to India’s Internal Security

The concept of political sovereignty has considerably been diluted after the Cold War in general and since the terrorist attack on the American symbols of sovereignty on September 11, 2001 (known as 9/11) in particular. Accordingly, trans-national approaches, which argue that the ‘State’ is no longer the central actor in international relations, has wider acceptability. The agency for change in international relations is not the ‘State’ exclusively; it is only one of the actors on the international scene. Further, there are ambiguities about State power, especially in the context of overlapping jurisdictions. The sources of erosions of jurisdictional authority of sovereign State may be unearthed in both, supra-national integration and sub-national disintegration. The former refers to the growth of international law, regional economic organisations, globalisation of markets, growing environmental and human concerns, etc. The latter refers to the decline of national consensus and the growth of ethnic nationalism.1 The decline in sovereignty of State has contributed to reconceptualisation of the concept of national security to which we now propose to turn our attention.

National Security
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In its widest sense, security for any nation-state is multifaceted and is concerned with protecting our way of life, our social and economic well-being and preserving internal harmony, while in military terms national security implies defence against territorial aggression from whichever sphere it may be—land, sea, air or space. Security relates to all aspects of nationalism, regionalism and internationalism.2

National security thus encompasses many facets of national endeavour and aspirations. It is the complex interplay of the internal political situation, the international posture of a particular regime, the economic situation and the degree and nature of dependence on foreign assistance.3 Among other things, the question of national security involves the role of diplomacy, economic development and a stable world order. A national security policy must ensure security from all threats not only to a nation’s survival, but also to pursuit of policies both nationally and internationally. Quite obviously, a developing country like India has only limited resources and defence can get only a limited share. Threats, which are beyond the country’s military capacity, must be neutralized through diplomacy and internal policies. In the march of a nation, national security issues emerge in the forefront and the Government has to evolve policy options to respond to them in totality. Governments can find most of their energies consumed by the international environment that is complex and unpredictable.4 As Stanley Hoffman puts it, “Each State is adrift on a sea of guesses and each is engaged in a game of mutual and constant interference” in the affairs of the others.5

Security is often clubbed with the establishment and maintenance of peace. Kautilya describes peace as “the period during which the vanquished is preparing for war and the victor is exploiting for an imminent next round”. 6 It is thus axiomatic that changes in the strategic environment, threat perception, internal security and fiscal conditions must be followed by a review of our strategy, management of threat by diplomatic and policy means, where possible and necessary, and changes wherever, if warranted.

A meaningful definition of security, which encompasses the economic, social, political, environmental and military factors, would lead to the enunciation of a credible politico-socio-economic option in pursuing policy objectives rather than preferring purely military means. However, even ‘military security’ of a State depends upon its defence preparedness, which in turn is determined by three major variables: adequate force levels at a given time, autonomy of defence procurement and a balance between defence and development.7 Our concept of security thus involves both internal and external dimensions of security including the preservation and perpetuation of the core values fundamental to the Indian Nation State - democratic norms, secular society, a federal polity, moral and ethical values, fundamental rights and national strength and power.


Human Security
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As indicated earlier, the concept of national security has undergone considerable changes since the end of the Cold War. Now national security includes not only the security of the State and its territorial integrity, but also the security of people living within the State boundaries as well. To the millions in the developing countries like India, efforts at ensuring State security make little meaning as long as they are steeped in hunger, malnutrition and illiteracy. When their very survival is at stake and their economic base is severely threatened, their social and political lives are affected almost on a day-to-day basis by strife and unorganized violence and by ethnic, sectarian and domestic conflicts. Hence, national security as traditionally understood losses its importance and salience and the emphasis shifts to human dimensions of security or human security. Since the end of the Cold War, the phrase human security has increasingly surfaced as a very attracting as well as a very debatable issue. The term human security itself suggests a departure from the complicated organ of the Cold War, mostly dominated with State centric issues of thermonuclear holocaust, strategic alliances, compliance and deterrence. With the end of five decades of superpower competition, the world seemed ready for a new security concept, which stresses security from threats other than aggression and alliances.

Human security thus requires that both the basic material needs such as food, shelter, education, health care, etc. as well as conditions of human dignity that incorporates personal autonomy, control over one’s life and freedom of participation in the life of the community are fulfilled. As Amitav Acharaya notes: “We have three different conceptions of human security today: one focusing on human costs of violent conflicts, another stressing human needs in the path to sustainable development. A third conception, approximating the first rights that are Human Rights dimensions of human security without necessarily linking it to the costs of violent conflicts.” 8

After considering a wide range of definitions of human security, one can thus easily be convinced that human security is an elastic and contested notion. However, at its core, human security is security for people, rather than security exclusively for states and/or governments. It might be argued that the distinction is meaningless, what challenges the survival of states also threatens the survival of its people. In this argument also the survivability and well-being of the population of any state is important, as without any population, the notion of state is false. The rights of human beings have a central place in the efforts to build a polity sustained by law. However, with the passage of time, we need to make an assessment as to how far the lofty ideals have been put to practice.

The Indian Case
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The nature of threat to India’s security, stability and progress is multi-polar, i.e., non-military, internal and external. Our security management would require being dynamic and taking into account this multi-polar nature of threat. This phase of extreme volatility can have serious repercussions for us; unless we have a well formulated ‘national security strategy,’ which is dynamic and resilient to be capable of absorbing midcourse corrections. Therefore, there is a necessity to carry out a reassessment of our national security perspective.

In the context of a developing country like India, the core values include social, political, economic, democratic set-up, secularism and federalism. The erosion of any one of these is bound to erode the legitimacy of the State and hence constitutes a threat to its security. An effort must be made to emphasize the causes of conflict in specific regions of India and then provide analytical tools that could point towards a solution. An attempt has seldom been made to establish a link between general theory of social change and specific policies meant for the orderly resolution of conflict. The objectives could be specified in terms of the following questions:

1. What are the cultural meanings and legal/institutional attributes of legitimate demands of particular States in India?
2. Why has the record of ‘high governance’ registered a sharp decline in some parts of India during the last few decades?
3. How does the organization of the civil service affect the maintenance of law and order and implementing respective policies?
4. How have the policies of ‘economic reforms’ affected the ‘law and order’?
5. How does social mobilization and political organization based on caste, language religions, tribe and region affect political order?
6. How does domestic politics affect the political order in India?

The overall objective should be to examine the problem of social disorder and political conflict in India not as a ‘symptomatic’ problem, but as a ‘systemic’ one brought about by forces of social and economic transition and political conjecture, responding to a specific set of objective conditions in different parts of the country. Only then, we can hope to contribute to rational policies and action and the minimization of the problem, if not complete eradication.

On the other hand, if people in India will continue to suffer under conditions of uneven development, increasing dependence on the Centre, and acute scarcity of resources, security of the Indian State will be in danger. Therefore, reduction of the disparities in income and a balanced regional industrial development must be accomplished to minimize our vulnerability.

Security and development have thus a symbiotic relationship. Without security, there can be no development and without development, security has no meaning. Development is an overarching term encompassing economic growth through agricultural improvement and Industrialization, modernization, democratization, secularization, national integration and nation-building process. Anything that comes in the way is a threat to national security, which in turn has to contend with law and order problems, proxy war and low intensity conflict and evolve adequate responses to deal with militancy, insurgency, terrorist violence and irregular warfare. All these maladies are eating into the vitals of the Indian nation-state. These evils rather than being causes are actually effects of various psychological, political and social anomalies. The frequent use of the Army to fight internal disturbances is not a healthy trend and increase in judicial activism instead of demonstrating vibrancy of the Indian democracy is, in fact indicating the ailment of our participative democracy. Corruption in society and particularly in high offices, including the judiciary, is another factor eroding the credibility of the State. Unless these are dealt with, security will remain elusive.

Challenges of Consumerism and Globalization
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The issue of development apart, challenges to India’s security is emanating also from the rapidly widening gap between expectations and achievements or satisfaction, especially when society has been rapidly losing its historical roots of family life, spiritual solace and traditional, cultural, moral/ethical values. Technology has created a revolution of rising expectations. Satellite based audio-visual communication systems bring to remotest part of the country images that enhance awareness but they can also be very destabilizing culturally and psychologically. They are expediting the process of value erosion and value transition.

This vulgar consumerism has an impetus from the most pervasive force in our world that is globalization. Although globalization is inexorable, its benefits are not. It can expand access to technology that enriches life and technology, but at the same time, it is uprooting our traditional values that sustained our society. It can equalize economic opportunity, yet at the same time accentuate economic disparity. It can make dictatorships more vulnerable to the spread of liberating ideas, yet democracies like India has been exposed to spread of terrorism, disease and financial turmoil.

An area that has gained prominence in the era of globalization is that of human rights. There is a need to make a distinction between approaches to human rights of the developed world and the developing world. The Third World holds that economic development has to precede the full flowering of civil and political rights and that a greater value needs to be placed on community and family than on individual rights. Countries should have the right to interpret human rights in accordance to their history, culture, polity, and economy. Thus, the broad application of Amnesty approach to human rights in India would have to be tempered with the ground realities mentioned above.

The threat posed by the convergence of organized crime, drug trafficking and terrorist acts is no longer insular distinct activities that can be contained and eradicated through traditional enforcement. Instead, they are integrated activities, which through their very commission, have a reverberating impact on our vital national interests. We are now threatened by self-inflicted, swiftly moving environmental alterations about whose long-term biological and ecological consequences we are painfully ignorant. Dwindling reserves of strategic grade resources like oil and ecological imbalances now threaten the security of nations. National security cannot be maintained unless national economies can be sustained.9

Some of the short-term mitigations of these dangers, such as greater energy efficiency, rapid banning of chlorofluorocarbons or modest reductions in nuclear arsenals are comparatively easy and at some level are already underway. But other far-reaching approaches will encounter widespread inertia, denial and resistance. In this category are conversion from fossil fuels to a non-polluting energy economy, a continuing swift reversal of the nuclear arms race and a voluntary halt to population growth without which several other approaches to preserve the environment will be nullified. The liberal agenda of globalization has also raised the specter of cultural threats of convergence.

Today it is politically incorrect to argue in favour of any system that is at variance with the Anglo-Saxon representative model called democracy. It needs to be pointed out that the post-colonial world has been experimenting with several versions of legitimacy. Legitimacy though a representative mandate would have to search for roots in the political culture of the State concerned. The Third World reaction to this comes as a cultural resurgence to the convergence cosmopolitan culture.10 These Third World civilizations like India grew in the belief that such values like modernization, westernization, secularization, all adopted at the expense of traditional values, would lead to power and prosperity. In reality, these societies suffered problems of poverty and deprivation through rapid and unplanned urbanization and an imbalance in the distribution of wealth. The re-assertion of traditional values is visible in the use of religion for social justice and identity. Such a re-assertion is not ‘fundamentalism’ as is popularly perceived, as fundamentalism can only be an aberration of this trend.

India has come to recognize non-military pressures like trade, intellectual property rights, environment and technology control as a threat to national security. Trade embargoes, technology control regimes and diplomatic pressures to sign various treaties are growing in recent times. Some of the key threats, which can be included in the area of internal security, are fundamentalism, communalism, migration and narco-terrorism. In the area of economic liberalization, the adverse impact of globalization and trans-nationalism are obvious on the social order.11 Accordingly, new security policy would have to involve the non- military sectors and evolve a coordinated national response to such threats.

Although, India in the last ten years or so has adopted its global strategy to meet new challenges and build a reasonably open and a dynamic economy, it has not yielded the desired developmental results and the reasons are obvious. It can be well appreciated that India is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual developing country, which since independence has been striving to evolve into a composite culture on the one hand and scrambling for modernization and rapid industrialization on the other. It is to be noted that India had been completely de-industrialized in the two hundred years before independence. During the last sixty-one years after independence, the country has undertaken the most ambitious and gigantic task of transforming an orthodox society of an ancient civilization into a modern state, from an agrarian economy to an industrialized system through a democratic process. The process is bound to be slower than most of its people wanted and a degree of turbulence was inevitable in such a colossal change.

Besides the turbulence and tension that is incidental to the process of development, our country has been constantly contending with the problem of ‘regime interest’ versus ‘national interest.’12 The dichotomy of ‘regime interest’ and ‘national interest’ is manifested variously and hinders the acculturation process by giving rise to minorityism, casteism and communalism on micro-level as well as undermines the federal structure of our polity on macro-level. This is possible because while the form of Indian politics is secular, its style is essentially casteist and communal. This discrepancy in form and style of politics is a major source of instability in our political system.

In order to cope with the present and future challenges to the internal and external security, India needs a dedicated, enlightened and decisive leadership and an efficient agency to look into the security matters and arrange a time bound redressal of the issues. India does not have a tradition of institutionalized planning of strategic policy. Traditionally, India has always made a distinction between home, foreign and defence policies and has sought to keep Science and Technology along with other sectors in watertight compartments. It is only in recent times that these traditional barriers are collapsing. There have been partial efforts made to create a centralized National Security Council that would look at security from a total perspective. Such an institution may be able to provide a holistic perception of security and evolve a strategic doctrine to suit India’s needs in the future.

In addition, a gearing up of the economy is the need of the hour requiring a grand national strategy, which is “the part of the decision-making process that conceptualizes and establishes goals and objectives designed to protect and enhance national interests in the international environment.” This national strategy is urgently needed to set the house in order, preserve internal harmony, providing for basic human needs and rights without which security is illusory.


Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The political approach to internal security and in turn national security is vital for formulating a total security policy, which will optimize the gains for India. Our perception of national security must go beyond safeguarding the borders and maintaining law and order. It must embrace such issues as pointed out above besides ensuring the physical security of our citizens.

It is a settled fact that the best source of security is a general dynamic, equitable and balanced development. When development is not even, it inevitably creates turbulence inside the State and endangers security from external sources as well which has been the case in India. Therefore, reduction in the disparities in income and a balanced regional industrial development must be effected.

The major conflicts that have occurred since the 1990s have mostly been within countries rather than between them. The picture is going to be grimmer and challenging in the coming decades, if we do not bring about the dawn of “real freedom” we have clamoured for, and that real freedom in turn will bring food to our starving people, clothing for them, housing for them and all manners of opportunities of progress and only then their human security will have any meaning.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
End Notes and References
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


1A. P. Rana, “Reconstructing International Relations as a Field of Study in India,” Studying International Relations: A Broader Perspective, vol.1, no.1, March 1998, pp. 24 -25.

2B.M. Jain, South Asian Security: Problems and Prospects (New Delhi: New Radiant Publishers, 1985), p. 2.

3M. Shankar, “Strategic Environment,” Strategic Analysis (New Delhi), August 1981, p. 22.

4Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations (Wheat Sheaf Books Ltd., 1983), p. 143.

5V.T. Thanilumaran, Human Rights in the Third World Perspective (New Delhi: Har Anand Publication, 1992), p. 26.

6R. Rama Shastry, “Kautilya’s Arthshastra” (Mysore Wesleyan Mission Press, 1923), p. 10. Also, Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among the Nations (New York: Albert A Knof. Inc., 1972), pp. 16-24.

7U.S. Bajpai, India’s Security (New Delhi: Lancer Publishers, 1983), p. 132. See also, Nalini Kant Jha, “India’s Security Concerns in a Turbulent World,” in V.T.Patil and Nalini Kant Jha, eds. India in a Turbulent World: Perspectives in Foreign and Security Policies (New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 2003), pp. 18-47.

8Amitav Acharya, “Fight Terrorism—But Carefully,” Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), September 9, 2004.

9For a brief but well-informed note on Islamic Resurgence, see Background Brief, (Prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, October 1994).

10V.P. Malik, “New Challenges to National Security,” Savarkar Memorial Lecture, 1996 (Pune: DDSS, 1996).

11For details see Lester Brown, “Redefining National Security,” World Watch Paper, no.14, Washington, 1977, pp. 37-38. The purpose of national security deliberations, says the author, should not be to maximise ‘military strength,’ but to maximise ‘national security’.

12 For a discussion on “national interest” vs. “regime interest,” in the context of India’s foreign policy making, see Nalini Kant Jha, Domestic Imperatives in India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 2002), pp.10-11.




thank you for reading...
Don't Forget to comment!

\Sb/