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.