Living in volatility zone

The recent developments at home and in our immediate vicinity raise serious security and foreign policy concerns. The string of violent incidents having nation-wide concerns started with the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. These were followed by the attacks on the Sri Lankan cricketers in Lahore last month. The developments on India’s eastern borders, where the Bangladesh Government is still coming to terms with the mutiny by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) troopers last month, is worrisome. And due to its possible spillover effect in Tamil Nadu, India is watching with interest the situation in Sri Lanka where the Government and the LTTE are engaged in a do and die battle. What has further added to the alarm in our security establishment is the worsening political situation in different parts of Pakistan. India is keeping its fingers crossed on the likely fallout of the long march slated for March 16 in Pakistan. All these developments, which political commentators are calling a “ring of fire” around India, could not have come at a more inopportune time. The country is in the process of getting into the election mode, which would engage all political parties for the next two and a half months. One hopes the volatile situation around us does not have a direct bearing on the poll process. The Government is of course alive to the highly unsettled conditions all around it and on Thursday, the prime Minister chaired a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security. There is also no doubt that systems are in place to ward off eventualities that may arise during the interregnum period of government change. But a new security doctrine would have to wait. What is evident on each of the frontiers may be only the tip of the iceberg. For example, in Bangladesh, there is increasing evidence of the mutiny by the BDR troopers to have been politically driven. Since the troopers were supported by fundamentalist elements, they could be trying to destabilize the newly elected Prime Minister, with implications across the border. Down south in Sri Lanka, the LTTE, who were talking from a position of strength in negotiations with the Government till recently, are all but cornered. In case the LTTE elements are forced to disperse and wage guerrilla warfare, India will have to step up its vigil in the sea adjoining Tamil Nadu to keep them at bay. Up in the North, the political situation in Nepal continues to be uncertain. This is bound to have an impact on India with which it has an open border, especially in the terai areas. In the wake of differences between the Army and the Maoists on integrating Maoist cadres in its rank and file, there is a danger of some of these elements trying to infiltrate across to foment trouble in India. Of course the most worrisome is not just the worsening situation in Pakistan but the gradual inching forward of the Taliban elements in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The decision of the Pakistan Government to strike a deal with the Taliban in the restive Swat Valley of NWFP is rife with long-term security implications. Not only is Swat just 160 km from Pak capital of Islamabad but it is adjoining the Northern Areas of Pakistan, which link up Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and J&K. At this point, Kashmir Valley may be quiet but it continues to fester. And the security implications of the situation in each of these places – Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal – should be seen in the light of our ongoing border dispute with China. Unfortunately despite the country facing an unprecedented security crisis on its borders, none of political parties have so far factored any of these concerns in their election manifesto. Though comparisons are not accurate but during the recent election of the US President, foreign policy issues like Iraq and Afghanistan were among the main talking points. India may not have any global ambitions but its immediate vicinity remains its primary concern. One hopes that in the televised and media debates, political leaders are forced to spell out their party policies on the border dispute (and solution) with China and the possible resolution to Kashmir imbroglio, which, like other issues have a direct bearing on national security and politics of states which border them. Such debates will eventually help frame a viable national security doctrine, which now is not only hazy but devoid of the basic structure. In the aftermath of 26/11, the process of setting up a national security agency has been speeded up. Similarly, the process of creating NSG hubs in different parts of the country is underway. But these measures are but half way houses in putting together a national security infrastructure, which would pre-empt and effectively deal with security threats. A slew of measures are necessary. For example, there is need to seal not just the coastal areas but also the land borders, which are still porous, especially with Nepal. Similarly, the long-standing demand of the armed forces to have a coordinated agency in the form of a Chief of Defence Staff for proper and timely response to border hostilities ought to be expedited. Although nuclear weapons as means of resolving issues are unimaginable, with two of our immediate neighbours being nuclear weapon states, a viable command and control structure is imperative to have a credible nuclear and security doctrine.

Discord in uniform

An unfortunate fallout of the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack has been that various points of friction between different government agencies, including security forces, that have been festering for long have come into the open. These range from functional issues of command and control to after-effects of the sordid incident in form of awards and rewards. At the same time, old issues of turf, pay and allowances have also come to the fore. A number of retired Army officers have openly aired their views on these issues in the media and also taken to holding protests and rallies. The civilian officers too are angry at efforts to belittle their contribution. All this points to increasing differences between the Army and civilians. Since both sides accuse the other of seeking their own advantage, the issues ought to be discussed threadbare at the highest forums of the government. The alarming security environment around us underlines the need to act quickly. These ought to be the top priority of the incoming government at the Centre. Every career has its peculiarities and is as important as another. But the very fact that the family tradition of a military career is all but withering away and the youth no longer prefer a military career only underlines the fact that neither the peculiarities of the job nor its importance is recognized any more. The very fact that defence personnel, irrespective of the rank, invariably seek second or third jobs after retirement, points to their pecuniary condition. The inequalities in emoluments and status lead to squabbles between the soldiers and civilians also because with the nation in turmoil due to disturbed internal security environment, they are often called upon to rub shoulders with one another. The lowering of protocol equations of the Army officers via-a-vis the civil servants is a cause of friction, especially when the Army takes control of a situation in aid of civil power. In many cases, the government’s lack of foresight has added to this friction. For the prestigious National Defence College (NDC), or example, while usually defence officers with at least 25 to 30 years service are selected, the civilian officers selected for the same course have less than half the service. In the past, this often created a piquant situation when some of the civilian officers sent for the course were ex-short service Army officers! Although defence services too have unfortunately got into the rat race of ranks but their efforts pale before their civilian counterparts. Today, in the order of precedence, not only is a Corps Commander (an officer in the rank of Lt General) and in command of more than 50,000 troops, placed below the state Director General of Police but to all those holding that rank – some states have as many as one dozen DGPs! So also in awards and decorations. Even in the defence services, the VSM series have been devalued and many senior officers have been given these for doing their basic job. Even in the awards for gallantry, Siachen and Kargil came in for special dispensation, despite limited opposition from the enemy. Against three Param Vir Chakra (PVC) in the 1962 war with China, two against Pakistan in 1975 and four during the 1971 war, as many as six PVCs were awarded during the clashes in Siachen and intrusions in Kargil. But this is even more glaring when one looks at the 11 Ashok Chakras (peacetime equivalent of PVC) awarded in the last one year for Mumbai and other incidents. Both these awards – PVC and AC - are not for “putting oneself in the harm’s way”, but for “most conspicuous bravery or an act of daring or pre-eminent valour or self-sacrifice….”. Unfortunately, when governments try to make up for their own failures in preventing such attacks or intrusions with liberal dispensation of awards, they undermine the very act of valour - and the awards. The grudge of the armed forces for having been downgraded in emoluments and status is not without reason. Had successive governments set up separate Pay Commissions for the armed forces or at least ensured their fair representation in the combined Pay Commissions, as demanded, this grudge may have been redressed. Unfortunately, in denying this, the governments failed to recognize the unique place that the Constitution provides to the armed forces. Unlike any other service in the country, the basic fundamental right of speech and expression of a man in olive green is abridged. For example, while a serving IPS officer could air his views in the media on the issues under discussion by calling them his personal views, no defence personnel can do so. This “denial” of rights to the man in olive green, which distinguishes him from other uniforms, is not without reason. Being the nation's last resort, the armed forces have to be "empowered" to deal with any eventuality. To do so, the old thumb rule as penned down by Lord Tennyson in "The Charge of the Light Brigade" still hold good ("Their's not to reason why; Their's but to do and die"). Of course, this "empowerment" ought to be subject to certain foolproof in-built checks, lest some overzealous elements in uniform resort of adventurism. But, this abundant caution should not result in their neglect. Since the Army rank and file is feeling belittled, this is rife with serious implications. It could invite an angry and violent reaction from within its rank and file. Fortunately, the apolitical nature of the Army and the service ethos is holding up. But, at the same time, it could result in demoralization. Either way, the nation would be the loser. If egalitarian values and civilian functioning have to take precedence over somewhat archaic and chivalric values of the military, the military usage has to be minimized not only in dealing with neighbours but also internal disturbances. The only way to "cut the military to size" is to strengthen the democratic value system of equality and social justice. Till such time the armed forces remain fundamental to the nation's entity, they have to be cared for.