The surprise electoral outcome provides the new regime an opportunity to implement its pledge of a 'zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism' and to 'guarantee the maximum possible security to each and every citizen'.
Abruptly, however, public anxieties appear to have crystallized into what onecommentator described as a "flight to stability". The fictional ThirdFront has been decimated, with its principal advocate, the Communist Party ofIndia--Marxist (CPI-M) suffering the most humiliating reverses just five yearsafter its supreme triumph, shrinking from a strength of 43 seats to a poor 16.Significantly, however, 76.79 per cent of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha are nowoccupied by the national alliances, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA, 258)and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA, 159). Crucially, the two principalnational parties, the Congress (206) and the BJP (116) together account for 59.3per cent of the House (322 seats), suggesting that the era of ‘spoilers’ maywell be at an end, at least for the time being. Some of the most disruptivepolitical formations have, moreover, been cut to size and will have littlecoercive influence over the new dispensation at Raisina Hill.
From a purely non-partisan perspective, there is an encouraging stability inthis outcome, and this will impact crucially on national security policy. Forone thing, the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai had made terrorism and internal securitycentral electoral issues--and both the leading national parties, the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP) and the Congress had made elaborate and detailed commitmentson these issues in their manifestos and pre-election declarations. Clearly, thedivisive cacophony that has long impeded and undermined the evolution ofeffective counter-terrorism (CT), counter-insurgency (CI) and internal securitypolicy will now abate, at least to some extent, creating the mandate and thespace that the new government--hopefully--will better use.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has, of course, long offered some of the morecoherent assessments of India’s many internal security crises--though, in thepast, he apparently failed to carry many of his own Cabinet colleagues alongwith him. The Prime Minister had noted, moreover, "South Asia is inturmoil. And therefore in planning for our own development, we have to bemindful of the environment within which we have to operate." Union HomeMinisiter P. Chidambaram, in late March 2009, at the height of the run-up to theelections, had noted, further, that "India finds itself in a ring of fire.Our neighbours are countries in difficulty. Some of them even qualify to becalled failed states." It is evident that a UPA government led by ManmohanSingh is now irrevocably committed to placing India’s security among itshighest priorities.
In Bangladesh, while the February revoltin the paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) triggered grave concerns, the AwamiLeague’s sweep in the elections of December 2008 has opened up new vistas. Itis evident that the Sheikh Hasina government has committed itself to reversingthe trends towards Islamist radicalization and quasi-governmental andestablishment support to Islamist extremism and terrorism--including their‘export’ to India. There is also a clear effort and intent to delinkBangladesh from the pernicious Pakistani gameplan in this region. WhileDhaka’s initial postures have been encouraging, it remains to be seen howsustained the government’s efforts will be, and whether they will besuccessful in containing and neutralizing what may be an inevitableextremist-terrorist backlash. In any event, there appears to be a greateropportunity for peace in Bangladesh than has been the case for some years now,and the new dispensation at South Block would certainly have something to buildon to consolidate these gains.
Nepal, of course, continues to stare into the abyss, though from a positionof ‘ugly stability’. Despite abrasive confrontations with the variouspolitical parties, the Maoists have remained within the ‘peace process’, andviolence--beyond levels that have become ‘acceptable’ within this troubledcountry--is not an immediate risk.
It is Pakistan alone that remains a rising inferno, and will be the mosturgent security challenge--both from an internal and external perspective--forthe new regime. Regrettably, there is little evidence of any emerging coherencein India’s foreign or defence policy postures towards Pakistan, though"The Congress Party’s Pledge: Protecting India From Terror" document(Pledge Document),released during the election campaign, does, in passing, state that"Counter-intelligence measures must be designed to foil activities offoreign intelligence agencies. Counter-terrorism measures must be crafted in amanner that they act as warning and strong deterrent to potentialterrorists."
Thereality is, neither India nor the paltry billions in aid that are flowing fromthe ‘great powers’ and international community, have any significant impacton Pakistan disastrous trajectory. It is critical, now, to recognize thedistinction between wishful and strategic thinking, and to accommodatePakistan’s accelerating descent within India’s national policy projections.It is imperative, consequently, that India reviews its ‘end state’objectives with regard to Pakistan, to accommodate emerging realities. Thisincludes the growing possibility of a ‘regime change’ that transforms--ordestroys--the existing state structure in Pakistan, and the consequent risks ofrising instability, export of terrorism, and the transfer of Pakistan’snuclear arsenal to extremist and non-state elements.
A strategy to tacklePakistan’s implosion and possible collapse is now necessary, even if analternative track of negotiations is kept alive. There will, moreover, be aprogressive urgency to addressing the evolving disaster of President BarackObama’s AfPak policy.
Surprisingly, however, the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) website claims that"Sanction has been issued for site preparation at 30 locations in India toestablish connectivity between the Multi Agency Centre (MAC), SMAC and theSpecial Branch of the State Police concerned". There is obviously someroutine fudging here, and what is ‘sanctioned’ is evidently projected ashaving been achieved. The reality, of course, is that the MAC-SMAC structureremains in its infancy, as does the national intelligence database it isintended to create--but the impediments that had long obstructed theseinitiatives are now quickly being removed. The sheer burden of cumulativecapacity constraints will, however, continue to dog these projects for some timeto come.
Among other post-26/11 initiatives, whatever their actual implementation orutility, that the MHA lists, are:
Significantly, the Pledge Document also makes a number of quantified andtime-bound commitments. Recognizing terrorism as "the single most importantissue", the Document asserts that this is "a challenge that anyresponsible government must address on a war footing" (emphasisadded). To this end, the most significant objective commitments include:
These and other measure are proposed under a five pronged strategy with twooverarching objectives, comprising:
Highest Possible Level of Preparedness
Rapid and Decisive Response and Follow-up
‘Intra-agency collaboration’ is to be a ‘cardinal principal ofgovernance’, and ‘greater powers and funds’ are to be provided to ‘ourfrontal security agencies’. There is a promise to "deal with the scourgeof terrorism squarely and decisively, but without weakening the delicate strandsthat have, together, bound our society for centuries."
In broad terms, these proposals appear to address the issues relating tomajor capacity deficits that have crippled India’s CT-CI responses in thepast, and made the country a soft target for terrorism and proxy war.Regrettably, there are, within the Indian constitutional scheme, acute limits tocentral power, and the fragmentation of state responses, or the unenthusiasticimplementation of central schemes, has long undermined capacity building whereit is most needed, despite increasing central support for the augmentation ofnecessary state capacities.
Securing effective centre-state collaboration willhave to be another ‘cardinal principal of governance’ if the central schemesare to secure desired impact, and this has been enormously difficult in thepast. Fortunately, a measure of consensual clarity has appeared across partylines regarding the need for sustained and coherent effort to address deficitswithin the security apparatus and confront the threats of terrorism, insurgencyand the covert wars that are being directed against the unity and integrity ofthe state and nation in India, and this may provide the context of somewhatgreater efficiency of operation.
The surprise electoral outcome will provide the new regime unprecedentedstability. It has also ensured continuity, and will give greater authority tothe Prime Minister to translate his understanding and assessment of India’sinternal security threats into an effective framework of response. A range offirm commitments have already been made to implement a ‘zero-tolerance policytowards terrorism’ and to "guarantee the maximum possible security toeach and every citizen". The clear electoral mandate ensures that, to theextent that the new regime succeeds in fulfilling its pledge, this achievementwill be entirely its own; to the extent it fails, there will be no one else toblame.
Ajai Sahni isEditor, SAIR; Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management. Courtesy,the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal