India needs long-term strategic assessments

However, governments thus far have chosen not to articulate such a strategy in the public domain. It is assumed that whatever actions are taken to meet certain challenges, are done in the national interest and, therefore, need not follow any written or publicly articulated strategy. National security, undoubtedly, derives from national interests, and some of the latter stem from protecting constitutional values and preserving India’s civilisational ethos. The present-day challenges to India have become much more diverse than these were at an earlier time and demand a review of the manner in which the nation responds to security challenges, both internal and external.

Looking at the major vectors of national security in India today, the need for institutions and individuals to think beyond the tactical is an imperative. This vector is a function of the ability to take risks at the tactical level, but whether these translate into strategic benefits is yet to be seen. For instance, in 2017, just prior to the stand-off at Doklam, India chose to obstruct the Chinese with bulldozers at Batang La. The objective was to prevent the People’s Liberation Army from moving forward with its road construction. India gained a tactical victory. Subsequently, China simply bypassed India and constructed another road along the Amo Chu river, going further south towards Jampheri. Therefore, the need for long-term strategic thinking becomes obvious. Of course, the recent resolution of issues on Depsang and Demchok is to be welcomed, but it does not answer the question of whether there is a long-term strategy towards China with respect to the resolution of the border issue.

The second vector of this game plan is intelligence. In the past two decades, there have been tremendous advances made in the use of technology for intelligence gathering as well as offensive intelligence operations. The deep penetration of Iran by Israel’s Mossad and the use of pagers to target the top Hezbollah leadership in September this year provided much food for thought. National security depends a great deal on intelligence, in terms of both offensive and defensive capability.

The recent leaks by Canada of alleged intelligence activities by Indian agents and the common employment of criminal networks, a practice well known to intelligence operatives worldwide, indicate a lack of operational security during such activities. It could be argued that the Five Eyes deduced the so-called evidence from technical intelligence, but this still leaves unanswered the question of how things went out of hand in the first place. A deliberate leak to place India in an awkward position is the most obvious answer.

The third vector is intelligence assessment by institutions dealing with national security. The interplay of politics, defence, and economics makes a heady mix for national security analysts today. The role played by such analysts is crucial in evolving a better understanding of the world we live in. One writer, a former foreign service officer, raised the question of whether “turf wars” were behind India’s failings to see the happenings in the Maldives, Nepal and Bangladesh. Turf has always been an issue amongst agencies responsible for collecting and analysing intelligence. However, the more serious challenge lies in dealing with the issue at both the institutional and individual levels.

The lack of high-quality apex-level intelligence assessment remains a challenge. This straddles several domains and requires clarity of thought. Contours of strategic assessments are being drawn — for instance, in the domain of technology — and this has led India to move forward in signing pacts on critical and emerging technologies with the United States and the United Kingdom. This is undoubtedly an important domain, but the traditional areas still require more intense work. Technologies needed to fight future wars is another area for national security development. This is because the lead time needed to develop technologies to be a step ahead of the adversary is significant. However, the design and development of weapon systems and technology have to translate to manufacturing. That this is happening slowly but surely is a positive. But the scale and speed of this work will determine India’s defence preparedness in the future.

The national security sphere needs to be clearly divided between the tactical and strategic, but beneath these must lie a foundation for strategic long-term assessments. One without the other is of no value. Successive governments have moved forward aggressively on several fronts without any strategic backup. This has entailed, in recent times, diplomatic aggression by India, even as the institutional wherewithal to help the cause in the long-term is lacking. This is where apex decision-making bodies like the National Security Council come in. Long-term assessments with step-by-step policy recommendations are urgently required today. Of far greater import is the question of implementing such decisions. The question of putting in place mechanisms for the smooth implementation of decisions taken at the highest level of government remains open, and the recognition of this lacunae is perhaps the most important aspect of national security decision-making today. This will go a long way in making the tactical and strategic domains clear and will provide the means to bridge the gap. That is the way forward for India’s national security apparatus.

Bhashyam Kasturi is a former director,National Security Council Secretariat.The views expressed are personal

Get Current Updates on…

See more