DEMYSTIFYING NATIONAL
SECURITY, SOVEREIGNTY AND INTELLIGENCE
By
Maj. Gen. V.K. Singh
The term ‘national security’ is
frequently used by the media, security forces and intelligence agencies whenever
a so called mole, terrorist or spy is caught. Sometimes, for good measure, they
even add the weightier ‘sovereignty’. Sadly, very few people – and that
includes the judiciary, the bureaucracy and the political establishment –
understands the meaning of these terms. It does not help that their definition
and meaning has not been explained in any of our statutes. In 1967, the Lok
Sabha was debating amendments to the Official Secrets Act of 1923. Shri V.C. Shukla, who moved the Bill, did not
even comprehend the implication of the cleverly worded amendment, which would
make it more draconian than it was under British rule. One member who did was Shri
Nambiar, who had been convicted under the Official Secrets Act in 1948. He felt
that the new wording of section 3: ‘which is likely to affect the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with
foreign States’, was very loosely worded. “Who will decide whether a particular disclosure affects the sovereignty
and integrity of India”, he asked? The question remains unanswered even
today. Of course, the Bill was passed,
and the infamous provision became law.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty
and national security are closely related. Before discussing their meaning and
implications, let us consider some of the prevalent definitions of these terms.
The current notion of state sovereignty can be traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which codified
the basic principles of territorial integrity, border
inviolability, and supremacy of the state. In international law, sovereignty implies
that a government possesses full control over its own affairs within a
territorial or geographical area. Some
of the basic ingredients of sovereignty are territory, the power to make and
enforce laws, currency (money) and recognition by other states. Foreign
governments recognize the
sovereignty of a state by exchanging diplomats and concluding treaties.
Often,
a country may have de jure but not de facto sovereignty, or even vice
versa. For instance, in theory, both the People's Republic of China (mainland
China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) consider themselves
sovereign governments. Initially, some foreign governments recognized the
Republic of China as the valid state, while others recognized the People's
Republic of China. In some cases sovereignty may be recognized even when the
sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or
total occupation by another power. For many years, the Pope in Rome was
recognised as sovereign by many Roman
Catholic states despite possessing no territory. The situation was resolved
only after the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City.
Sometimes,
governments-in-exile are regarded as sovereign
despite their territories being under foreign occupation, as happened in the
case of Norway, Netherlands
and Czechoslovakia
during World War II. During the same
period, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose established the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind
(Provisional Government of Free India)
in Singapore
In 1943.
To give it legitimacy, it had its own currency, court and civil code. However,
it lacked an essential element of sovereignty – territory. The problem was
solved when it was given control of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands by Japan in
1943. Though it was recognised by the Axis powers, the Allied powers regarded the
Government as a puppet state.
National
Security
Unlike
sovereignty, whose basis ingredients are generally agreed upon by most people,
the concept of national security remains vague and there is wide divergence of
views on the exact meaning of the term. The concept developed mostly in the USA after World War II.
The earliest definitions emphasised freedom from military
threat and political coercion. With time, these were expanded to include a broad range of ingredients which affect the military or
economic security of the nation and the values adopted by the national society.
In addition to military security, a nation also needs to possess economic
security, energy security, environmental security, etc. Threats to
national security emanate not only from conventional enemies such as other nations but
also from non-state actors such as terrorist organisations, drug cartels and multi-national organisations. According to some authorities, even natural disasters
and events causing severe environmental damage can be considered threats to
national security.
Walter
Lippmann gave one of the early definitions in 1943 in terms of a
nation and war:
"A nation has security when it does not have to
sacrifice its legitimate ínterests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to
maintain them by war."
A
few years later, a similar definition was given by Harold
Lasswell, a political scientist, who wrote:-
"The
distinctive meaning of national security means freedom from foreign
dictation."
The United States Armed Forces defines national security
of the USA in the following manner:-
A collective term encompassing both
national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the
condition provided by: (a) a military or defense advantage over any foreign
nation or group of nations; (b) a favorable foreign relations position; or (c)
a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive
action from within or without, overt or covert.
In India, the concept of national security has been
articulated by several establishments dealing with security issues. The 1996 definition propagated by the National Defence College includes
most of the basic ingredients. Interestingly, factors such as ‘political
resilience and maturity’ also find mention in the definition:-
"National security is an appropriate and aggressive
blend of political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure
and capacity, technological competence, industrial base and availability of
natural resources and finally the military
The Ministry of Defence Annual Report of 2001-02
defines national security in typical bureaucratese, including clichés such as ‘co-operation’,
‘disarmament’ and ‘Non Aligned Movement
(NAM)’. According to the report, India’s national security objectives are
served by:
•
Defending the country’s borders and
protecting the lives and property of its citizens against terrorism and insurgencies.
•
Maintaining a credible minimum deterrent
against the use or the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction against
India.
•
Securing the country against restrictions on
the transfer of material equipment and technologies that have a bearing on India’s security.
•
Promoting co-operation and understanding with
neighbouring countries.
•
Working with countries of the Non Aligned
Movement (NAM) to address key
challenges before the international community
•
Pursuing security and strategic dialogue
with major powers and key partners;
•
Following a consistent and principled
policy on disarmament and international security issues.
Another
nebulous definition was given by the
Report of the Group of Ministers on National Security, 2001:-
National security is a function of a country’s external
environment and the internal situation, as well as their interplay with each
other. The former is influenced by the major features of the prevailing
international order, the disposition of its immediate and extended neighbours
and the major powers. The internal situation encompasses many aspects of
national life, ranging from law and order to economic fundamentals and from the
quality of governance to national cohesiveness.
Considering
the differences in the definitions given by various authorities, one can hardly
blame the common citizen if he unable to comprehend the meaning of national
security. This is because most of the important constituents such as military
strength, diplomacy, political and economic power are outside the gamut of the
understanding of a layman. Perhaps a simple example, which uses elements that
everyone understands, can help. Let us consider the example of a man who lives
in the wilderness or inherits a piece of land where he sets up a homestead. The
first thing he does is to build a fence around his property, to keep out wild
animals. If that is not enough, he keeps a dog and also buys a gun. To ensure
that others living nearby come to his aid when needed, he makes friends with
his neighbours. To feed his family, he grows crops on his farm, or keeps a
flock of sheep or goats. If he is skilled with his hands, he becomes a potter,
carpenter, or blacksmith. Let us replace the man by a community or a nation.
The fence, dog and gun become the armed forces, para military and police which
provide physical security from enemies outside and within. The good relations
with neighbours are nothing but treaties and agreements with other countries,
which is a part of a nation’s foreign policy. The crops, animals and produce
that sustain his family are the same as the country’s agricultural production,
industrial base and a sound economy. These factors not only provide security
but also sovereignty, which means the freedom to take independent decisions and
do what one wants without seeking help or approval from others.
Intelligence
& Security
One may
ask, where does intelligence come in the national security paradigm? Though it
does not contribute directly to national security, intelligence is important in
that it assists in timely assessment of threats to the nation’s security, both
external and internal. Unless we have good intelligence, we cannot protect our
borders and our people, except at great cost. Intelligence failures almost
always translate into loss of life, as happened in 1962 with China, in 1999 at
Kargil and on 26/11 at Mumbai. However, the role of intelligence in national
security is minor, compared to that of military strength, foreign relations, industrial
capacity and economic well being. Then why are intelligence agencies sometimes
referred to as secret agencies? I think it has more to do with the secretive
manner in which they function, rather than secrets.
Take the example of an agency like the NTRO or RAW, which deal with external
intelligence. Whatever secrets they have concerns foreign countries, whose
disclosure can harm them, not India. Unlike the defence forces, ISRO or the
DRDO, they have little that can be of interest to a foreign country. The only
reason for keeping such information under wraps is to protect the source. In
case such information is made public, accidentally or otherwise, it is only the
source which is compromised, with little effect on national security. An
example was the tape of the famous Musharraf – Aziz conversation during the
Kargil war, which was made public to show Pakistan's complicity. It did result
in the drying up of the source of the intercept, but there was certainly no
effect on our national security.
In
India, the term ‘security forces’ is used indiscriminately, not only by the
media and the general public but also by politicians and bureaucrats. During a
recent hearing before the Chief Information Commissioner, an official of the
Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the Government takes cognizance of
offences only when it is brought to its notice by security agencies like the
IB, CBI, etc. I was constrained to point out to the official that none of these
agencies were security forces, which includes, apart from the armed forces of
the Union, the para military forces and the police. The CBI and police (the
latter has a dual role) are investigation agencies, while the IB and RAW are
intelligence agencies. A very simple rule is to remember that security forces
are always uniformed and armed i.e. they carry weapons openly, while the others
do not.
That
the confusion about security and intelligence prevails even at the highest
level is apparent from the fact that for several years we had an ex-intelligence
man as the National Security Advisor. Officers in the armed forces, foreign service
and police spend a life time learning the finer points of external and internal
security. It is unrealistic to expect a person who has dealt with intelligence
all his life to become an expert on national security overnight. Intelligence
officers rarely attend the National Defence College, where selected officers
from the armed forces, IAS, IPS, IFS and other central services are trained.
Significantly, the NSA in the USA is a four star general from the Marine Corps.
Mercifully, the situation has recently been corrected and we now have a skilled
professional in Shiv Shankar Menon looking after national security.
Today,
most of the ‘security experts’ who write in journals dealing with such issues,
speak in seminars or take part in debates on TV are those who have served in
intelligence agencies such as RAW or IB. Needless to say, these arm chair
specialists have little or no practical experience of the subject, having spent
most of their professional careers in intelligence. With the increase in
terrorist activities in recent years, anti-terrorist operations are now an
integral component of internal security. This has given birth to a new breed of
experts in this field, whose number is increasing by the day. Surprisingly,
most of them are from the intelligence community, instead of the security
forces who actually conduct anti-terrorist operations. The subject of the recent
Colonel Pyara Lal Memorial Lecture at the USI was New Face of Terrorism: Analysis of Asymmetric Threat form Land, Sea and
Air. The speaker was an ex chief of RAW, while the man who had spent a life
time dealing with subject – an ex Army Chief – was in the chair. Should not
their roles have been reversed?
Conclusion
National
security is too vital an issue to be left to non-professionals. Sadly, the
military, which bears the heaviest responsibility in ensuring the security of
nations and its citizens, has been left out of the decision making apparatus,
which is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats. The absolute lack of
understanding of issues concerning sovereignty and national security bode ill
for the country. There is an urgent need for country’s citizens and those who
represent them in Parliament to give serious thought to this very important
subject. One immediate measure that comes to mind is the nomination of few
young MPs - especially those who are likely to play an important role in
governing the nation in the near future - to undergo the course at the National
Defence College, along with senior armed forces officers and bureaucrats. Apart from giving them grounding in issues
concerning national security, the presence of a large number of foreign
officers will also enlarge their horizons and give them a glimpse of how other
nations deal with this subject.
21 Nov 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment