The G20 Presidency offers India a rare opportunity of rising as a leading contributor to the global recovery from the Covid pandemic, as an advocate of collective action in tackling environmental challenges and climate change, and as an active participant in the efforts to pull the world out of economic stagnation in general and the food and energy crisis caused by the Ukraine-Russia military conflict in particular.
India’s sane voice on various global issues has been heard and appreciated by the world community and there is little doubt that while steering the G20 Presidency through the year ahead, India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi would further strengthen its position as a major world power and as a trustworthy global counsel.
The country’s handling of economic development has served our national interests well, however, a major challenge is to safeguard our internal security against the threats of terrorism and radicalisation.
Although the democratic world is united against the new faith-based terror, India is left on its own to strategise against the threats posed by the Sino-Pak alliance working specifically against the country. Even the US is not excessively bothered with the added threat of terrorism from the Pak-Afghan belt after the return of Taliban Emirate at Kabul – following the withdrawal of American troops from the war-torn Afghanistan – or with the adverse impact of the consolidation of strategic links between China and Pakistan in a situation where geopolitical hostility between US and China was coming to the fore.
The two adversaries of India are our neighbours as well, and apart from the mischief they can cause on the borders, they have every intention of using an opportunity of disturbing India’s internal peace and cohesion. India has to take preventive measures on multiple fronts to deal with this situation. India is now militarily prepared to respond to any Chinese aggressiveness on LAC particularly in eastern Ladakh and is an active partner in the US-led Quad to work for ‘rules-based order’ in the Indo-Pacific and strategically counter Chinese designs against India on the marine front.
In regard to Pakistan, India wields the deterrent of a ‘surgical strike’ against any Pak mischief on LoC or International Border. Pak ISI is now more determined to encourage ‘radicalisation’ for instigating communal militancy in India and fomenting faith-based terrorism as its upshot. China is extending full support to Pakistan in the latter’s covert operations in Kashmir and Punjab. To deal with the likely accentuation of the threat from Islamic radical outfits of Pak-Afghan belt, India has among other foreign policy initiatives, struck close bonds with Central Asian Republics (CARs) through meetings held by our NSA with his counterparts from these countries, at Delhi. These neighbours of Afghanistan, with predominantly Muslim population are firmly opposed to radicalisation and extremism and want to strengthen India’s hands in countering the spread of terror in the name of Islam.
Apart from the global initiatives, however, India needs to take comprehensive steps to strengthen our internal security. Many of these suggest themselves.
First, mobilisation of leaders and institutions of the Muslim minority is required to get them to expressly declare that in democratic India – run on the triple guarantee of ‘one man one vote’, equal opportunity to everybody for economic development and the same protection of law for all citizens – there was no room for advocacy of Jehad for solving any problem facing the community or looking for support from outside of the nation for that purpose.
India can follow up on the statement of R20- the forum launched by Indonesia at Bali in the run up to G20- that favoured inter-faith dialogue, presented Islam as a religion of peace and sought to promote inter-religious harmony and respect for all faiths. This meet firmly rejected radicalisation.
The timely initiative of India’s NSA to convene the bilateral security dialogue with his Indonesian counterpart at Delhi, to which Ulema and spokespersons of other religions from both sides were also invited, has laid the turf for a concerted effort in India – to get institutions like Darul Uloom Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema Lucknow to call for inter-faith harmony, highlight the commitment of Islam to peace and disapprove of radicalisation and terrorism.
Darul Uloom is a product of the unsuccessful Jehad that the Wahabi Ulema had launched against the British in the mid-Nineteenth century but after Independence this institution recognised India as a land of peace where Hindus and Muslims could live in harmony in a democratic dispensation. It carries an anti-West legacy however, and places emphasis on teaching of pure Islam in its Madrasas without favouring any call for Jehad.
The Hanafi Darul Uloom and the pro-Saudi Nadwatul subscribing to Ahle Hadis should be willing to record their opposition to ‘radicalisation’ in India in the interest of the minority community as also for the sake of Indian nation and say that any problem facing the community could be solved within the democratic framework of India.
Secondly, the state must reach out to families falling victim to adversary’s planned attempt to indoctrinate vulnerable youth for recruiting them to the fold of terrorism and to formulate effective de-radicalisation programmes with the help of official and non-governmental resources. This is particularly important in Kashmir where encouragement to entrepreneurship and start ups will help to insulate the youth from subversive influences beamed at them from outside.
Any new business started with the state’s help should employ both Muslims and non-Muslims to make the point against separatism and demonstrate an assimilative approach – matching the scenario in the rest of the country. Businesses that have a pan-India potential should be supported even more. At the same time there should be stringent action against elements including local leaders who connived with the enemy and furthered the anti-India narrative. For far too long the corrupt politicians of Kashmir had been allowed to promote separatist and pro-Pak trends in the valley.
Policemen of Kashmir should live among the people – in clusters if necessary – so that they look different from the heavily armed contingent of para-military forces deployed in the state specifically for pursuing Intelligence-based counter-terror operations. The Thana Police in J&K must appear to be more on the side of the law abiding Kashmiris. This is necessary for enhancing the outreach of the state to the families. There is no reason why the Deputy Commissioners of districts should not be holding town hall meetings once in a while to assess the development and other needs of the people at the local level. These should provide the inputs for many of the state- level schemes in keeping with the idea that a democratic state connected with the people in service of the citizens. If this is not already being done a beginning should be made in this direction immediately, so that the focus was shifted from security to security-development interface.
Thirdly, the biggest new challenge to internal security is the rise of social media and cyber space as a powerful instrument of combat and as a weapon for ‘information warfare’. India’s Intelligence set up has stepped up social media scan and initiated a slew of measures for cyber security with the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) playing a prime role in studying new threats and researching for cyber security solutions.
Social media is a public platform available also to the enemy not only for running ‘covert’ operations for creating sleeper cells for terrorism but for instigating radicalisation with the aim of recruiting ‘lone wolves’ as well. The medium is also available for terror funding through recourse to Dark Net and use of circutious online fund transfers.
Funding a ‘low cost war’ against India is not difficult for Pakistan. Terrorism has pushed the work of Intelligence gathering and prompt response to information, much closer to the ground. Time has come for the Central Intelligence agencies to have functional oversight on District Intelligence Units(DIUs) for the purposes of both ‘information’ and ‘action’ on threats to internal security. State is the lead player in the management of law & order while the Centre has the overarching role in the maintenance of internal security.
Moreover, organised crime is often an instrument of support for those behind terror offensives and police is directly responsible for unearthing it. The Centre has strengthened inter-state coordination through Police Modernisation schemes including computerisation of police stations.
The role of Dawood gang was clearly in evidence in the serial train blasts that occurred in Mumbai in 1993. Centre’s role in the matters relating to police is all carried out within the Constitutional framework of Centre-State relations. The nation should in fact move towards making police a concurrent subject without diluting the state’s responsibility for law & order.
The fourth task area is the inter-agency coordination that is constantly being improved upon, under the watchful eye of the National Security Advisor.
The NSCS is the organisation at the national apex that not only prepares national security estimates – the function of Chairman, Joint Intelligence Committee has now become a part of it – but also ensures coordinated response to an external or internal threat. The NSA in the fitness of things now chairs the Strategic Policy Group(SPG) that worked under the Cabinet Secretary earlier. While coordination among the Intelligence agencies is a must, the added requirement now is to ensure that information of national security concern emanating from the probes into the Economic offences was promptly shared with the former.
Since national security is now inseparable from economic security, the enemy is focused also on damaging the target country economically – as part of the ‘proxy war’ that had replaced ‘open warfare’ in the post-Cold War era. It is known that Mumbai was the target of 26/11 as it is the financial capital of India. The entire gamut of security of establishments of strategic importance, information systems on which key sectors of the nation are run and cyber security protocols for data protection, has acquired a new found importance and there has to be a centralised oversight on these functions.
And finally, since security of the nation encompasses security of its people, it follows that every citizen ought to be prepared to contribute to it- national security should not be deemed to be the responsibility of the government alone. In a situation where the enemy agents had got into the very fabric of society, it would greatly serve the cause of national security if enlightened citizens were provided with the facility of confidentially passing on information about a suspect activity or individual directly observed by them, to designated authorities.
The concept of Fusion Centre evolved by Homeland Security in US is said to have provided for flow of information from the general public. This will happen if there is an effort to spread awareness of the country’s security situation far and wide and project this as a part of the duty of patriotic citizens indicated by our Constitution itself.
For India, internal security has assumed far greater importance because of the fact that the two adversaries of India on the borders are working in collusion to cause problems on our domestic front by exploiting communal, socio-economic and regional issues and encouraging anti-India narratives built by civil society forces often in conjunction with hostile lobbies outside.