THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN NATIONAL SECURITY

THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY IN NATIONAL SECURITY

By

Maj Gen V.K. Singh

After the terrorist attacks on Parliament House in December 2001, everyone agreed that it was a breach of India’s national security. Similar views were expressed after the terror attacks in Mumbai in November 2008. Earlier, intrusions by Pakistani troops in Kargil in May 1999 were treated as threats to national security, as was the hijacking of IAC Flight IC-814 in December of the same year. Ironically, 1999 also saw the birth of the National Security Council. Of course, we also have a National Security Advisory Board and a National Security Advisor. But what exactly is national security?

There are many definitions of National Security. One of the simplest and most easily understood is given by Encarta 2007, which says: ‘National Security is the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by maintaining adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets’. Another definition is given in 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’.  There are many other definitions of national security, each more confusing than the other.

To understand the meaning of national security, one can start with the example of a common peasant or a home owner. What is his concept of security, for himself and his family? If he has some land which is fertile it provides him financial security. To improve it still further and reduce his dependence on the rains he digs his own well or a big pond, as they do in Assam and Bengal. He is still worried about attacks from wild animals and robbers, so he builds a fence around his farm or keeps some dogs, which give him physical security. If he is still not satisfied he can keep a shotgun or a rifle. Having catered for physical and financial security, he turns to other needs, such as social and emotional security.  He makes friends with his neighbours, so that they can help him if he is in trouble and take him to the hospital when he falls sick. He raises a family and as the children grow up he takes pains to ensure that they stay together, so that they get emotional support from each other.

            On a higher plane, exactly the same thing is done by a country to become secure. Physical security is provided by adequate military strength, secure borders and a strong industrial base. For a small nation that cannot afford to maintain large armed forces, the options are alliances with friendly countries or joining a pact eg. NATO. Financial security is provided by self reliance in food; energy resources such as oil, coal, hydroelectric or nuclear power; communications in the form of good air, rail and road networks and secure telecommunications. In fact, all these factors are important ingredients, in varying degree, for all components of national security, which themselves often overlap. 

The traditional concept of national security has undergone fundamental changes over the years. It is no longer synonymous with sufficient military strength to defend the nation and its interests. In today's world, military might alone does not guarantee either sovereignty or security. The more realistic and comprehensive approach to national security also includes economic strength, internal cohesion and technological prowess. The fundamental security of the individual citizen includes security of life and property, food security, energy security, clean environment, education and health. A strong sense of nationalism and good governance also form an integral part of national security; as does the ability to retain political and economic sovereignty and autonomy of decision making, in an era of globalisation and increasing economic interdependence.

However, while one may keep on adding or subtracting from the list of ingredients that together constitute national security, the first and most important item will never change – military strength. Yet, in India, the military seems to have been totally sidelined from this vital function in recent years. The national security board is packed with politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, intelligence agents, newspaper editors and ‘security experts’, most of whom have never worn a military uniform. The national security advisor is usually a bureaucrat or an intelligence operative, never a soldier, sailor or airman. For some reason, the political leadership and even the public believes that those who have handled intelligence are best suited to handle security. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

If the most important component of national security is military strength, who is best suited to be entrusted with the job of looking after national security? Obviously, someone who has a military background. Appointing a former  head of RAW or IB does not make any sense at all, for the simple reason that all his life he has been probing gaps in the national security of other countries, such as China, Pakistan or Bangla Desh – he has absolutely no knowledge or exposure to the national security of India.  How can he become skilled in a few months in a discipline which has taken the others almost forty years to learn? One can as well appoint an Army officer to head the Navy or a fighter pilot to head the Army. In fact, that would not be so ludicrous because officers from the three services have a fairly good understanding of each other’s professions. They train together, not only at the NDA but also at the Staff College, the War College and the National Defence College. On the other hand, whatever military knowledge or expertise the man from RAW or IB has acquired relates to foreign countries and certainly not to India. Then how does he fit the bill of looking after our national security?

The situation today is similar to what prevailed in 1962, when B.N. Mullik, the Director IB presided over India’s national security. Anyone who has studied the reasons for the 1962 debacle will know that one of the main reasons for the disaster was that the military was kept out of the decision making apparatus in matters concerning national security. In fact, Mullik even ‘advised’ the Army on the best locations for platoon and company posts on the border! His advice was never disregarded, and the military had little choice except to concur. However, the books written by the major players in the drama – Kaul, Palit, Dalvi and Mullik himself – provide an insight into the state of affairs that existed at that time. The Director of Military Operations, Brigadier DK Palit, often took the help of Mullik when he found that his advice was not being taken seriously by the Chief of General Staff, Lt Gen BM Kaul or the Army Chief, General PN Thapar! Mullik had the ear of Nehru as well as Krishna Menon and his assessment that the Chinese would never opt for open confrontation was accepted as gospel truth. It is believed that the Henderson Brookes Enquiry severely indicted the role of the intelligence agencies and the politicians in deciding matters which should have been the sole prerogative of the military. Unfortunately, the report was never made public, but as result of its recommendations, political and bureaucratic interference in military affairs was curtailed. With time, these lessons have been forgotten, and we are back where we started from.

After the creation of RAW in 1968, the situation has only exacerbated, with intelligence agencies literally slowly but surely taking over the business of security, convincing politicians that the two are synonymous. In an article in the Mail Today on 28 November 2008 an ex Chief of RAW pontificated: “intelligence agencies are the best instruments with a nation (not the government) in the furtherance of its foreign security interests and the protection of the country”. One would think that with these super spies to protect us, we might as well disband the armed forces! Such drivel is systematically fed to the political leadership and the public, who start believing what would be considered bizarre anywhere else in the World.

It is time to have a serious look at the business of national security. As a first step, there is need to distinguish between security of the country and that of the so called secret services. It must be understood that there is really nothing secret about them, much as they would like others to believe. The information held by them, if divulged, cannot hurt India’s national security, though it might hurt that of Pakistan. In 1999, the conversation between Musharraf and his Chief of Staff was intercepted by Indian intelligence agencies. It was later made public and tapes given to several other countries and to the media. After the recent terror attacks in Mumbai transcripts of conversations between the perpetrators were published in the newspapers and aired on television. Did it hurt our national security? Perhaps not, though they did have other repercussions. For one, the particular link would certainly have dried up, and this can be termed a temporary setback to our own intelligence operations. It would also reveal to the adversary our capability in intercepting satellite phone networks. However, these are not serious threats to national security, on the same plane as the loss of our war plans, nuclear arsenal or missile capability.  

There are a large number of retired senior officers from the defence services who are heading think tanks, commissions and professional institutions. Many have been appointed Governors of States. A few have joined politics and one is today the Chief Minister of a State. But the job for which they are best suited – national security adviser – has never been given to them. One can understand the reluctance of the bureaucracy to create the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff, who will become a part of the government and the source of one-point advice on military affairs, severely eroding the clout enjoyed by the bureaucrats in the present Ministry of Defence. But why should anyone object to the appointment of a professional soldier to do a job that he has done all his life? If nothing else, let us follow the example of the USA. One of the first appointments made by President Barack Obama was that of the National Security Advisor - General James Jones, a four star general from the Marine Corps. 

14 Jun 2009