All posts by admin

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

India’s Policies are Mired in Systemic Weaknesses

Leave a comment

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had given its approval to the establishment of the National Counter-terrorism Centre (NCTC) in mid-January, two years after it was first conceived following the Mumbai terror strike on November 26, 2008. A month later, almost ten chief ministers have expressed strong opposition to the NCTC on the grounds that the states were not consulted and that the functioning of the proposed NCTC will undermine the federal structure of India’s Constitution.

This opposition comes despite the fact that the structure of the NCTC approved by the CCS is a watered down version of the form in which the NCTC had been originally conceived by the Home Minister, Mr. P Chidambaram following the Mumbai terror strikes. In an address to officers of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) on December 23, 2009, the Home Minister had envisioned the NCTC as an organisation capable of “preventing a terrorist attack, containing a terrorist attack should one take place, and responding to a terrorist attack by inflicting pain upon the perpetrators.”

The NCTC had been envisaged as an umbrella organisation, which would exercise control over agencies like the NIA, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the National Security Guard (NSG). It will now be placed under the Intelligence Bureau and the existing Multi-Agency centre (MAC) will be subsumed in it.

The NCTC will draw up and coordinate counter-terrorism plans, integrate intelligence gathering and coordinate with all existing investigating and intelligence agencies. The NATGRID (National Intelligence Grid), which was approved by the CCS in June 2011, will provide a data bank of 20 database like travel records, immigration details and income tax records as inputs to the NCTC.
Unless the NCTC is empowered to conduct counter-terrorism operations like its U.S. counterpart, on which the Indian version was expected to be based, urban terrorism will continue to remain a cause for concern and much will remain to be done in the planning and execution of India’s counter-terrorism policies, the execution of which is mired in systemic weaknesses.

Even though recent terrorist strikes have been sporadic and have been spaced out in time, the overall impression that prevails is that of an unstable internal security environment in which the initiative lies with the terrorist organisations and they are able to strike at will. The government needs to review its largely reactive policies and adopt pro-active measures to fight terrorism, particularly the variety that emanates from the soil of inimical neighbouring countries.

India’s response to the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008 was slow and laborious and poorly coordinated among the Central and the State governments and their various agencies. Coastal security was virtually non-existent; the Marine Police were too few in number to effectively patrol the vast area entrusted to them; they were ill-equipped and inadequately trained; and, there was poor coordination between the Coast Guard and the Marine Police. It took far too long to begin flushing out operations and then to eliminate the nine terrorists who were holed up at three separate locations.

The government must formulate a comprehensive approach, with all organs of the state coming together to implement a national-level counter-terrorism strategy to fight terrorism. The government must draw up a national-level strategy that is inter-ministerial, inter-agency and inter-departmental in character. Such a strategy must also balance the interests of the Central and the State governments.

It must be ensured that the counter-terrorism policy is based on strong but egalitarian laws. India’s experiments with POTA, TADA and UAPA have failed to deliver the desired results. Laws must be just and humane and must not be designed to either be vindictive towards or shield any particular community or religious denomination. The experience of many other countries has proved that it is possible to formulate strong yet egalitarian counter-terrorism laws. The U.S. established a powerful Department of Homeland Security following the 9/11 strikes and there has not been a major terrorist attack since then.

One major source of the lack of a coordinated approach is the gross disconnect between how the Central and the State governments view counter-terrorism; there are glaring disparities in the views held in Delhi and the State capitals. The Constitution must be amended to move “law and order” from the State List to the Concurrent List so that the Central Government can act on its own initiative when necessary, particularly in the case of externally-sponsored terrorism. And, it is time the government bifurcated the internal security function of the Ministry of Home Affairs into a separate ministry headed by a cabinet minister.

Besides prevention through accurate ‘humint’ and ‘techint’ intelligence gathering, successful counter-terrorism requires the effective intelligence penetration of terrorist groups so that their leadership can be systematically neutralised by an empowered anti-terrorism agency. Comprehensive planning and better stage management are necessary for the quick elimination of a group of terrorists during a strike while the terrorists are on a killing spree.

Post-incident investigation is aimed at unraveling the identities of the planners and the plotters and bringing to justice the perpetrators of the incident of terrorism. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) must be reconstituted as it lacks teeth in its present form. It should be re-modeled on the U.S. FBI to give it both preventive and investigative powers. While there is no need to blindly ape any country, there is no harm in learning from the best practices abroad and incorporating them into Indian policies.

India’s intelligence coordination and assessment apparatus at the national level and counter-terrorism policies remain mired in the days of innocence. We are now living in the age of ‘new terrorism’ that is far more violent and virulent than before and policies must keep pace with the emerging developments. Also, the government must enlarge the scope of its counter-terrorism policy to covertly eliminate the leaders of terrorist organisations abroad who are actively engaged in sponsoring terrorism in India so as to eliminate the problem at its roots.

India Business

Be a Good Boy, Study Hard, and Start a Business

Leave a comment

“My son got an A-minus in mathematics! He has brought shame on the family!”

Parody it may be, but sentiments such as this strike so close to the Indian bone that countless comedy programs have at some point featured a cartoonish parent scolding their child for delivering even a modicum less than perfection.  Indians in India, for all their other virtues and talents, have historically not been highly forgiving of failure.  While this attitude can be a fantastic foundation for a disciplined work ethic, it is not necessarily the optimal trait for building a robust technology startup ecosystem in India.  That requires a certain fearlessness and assiduousness in equal measure.  However, instilling the entrepreneurial ‘can-do’ attitude is one of America’s great virtues and gifts to the world.

Sadly, Administration rhetoric regarding India’s IT services industry has been unfriendly and contrarian to this spirit to say the least.  Yet it is not for nothing that most of America’s technology conglomerates— Intel, Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Motorola, and others—not only have a presence in India but conduct high-tech R&D there as well.  Given the size of India’s aggregate population and its pool of engineering talent, developing a startup biome as a next step would represent a major opportunity for both for Indian business and American venture capital and high-technology firms.

Successful and highly lucrative technologies such as cloud computing were developed by startups who often served as flexible technology incubators by larger more established companies.  These firms depended on networks of business accelerators and venture capital firms to support their technological development and business growth.  As we have witnessed in Silicon Valley, those initial investments of a few hundred thousand dollars often have come to be worth hundreds of millions and translated into high-paying jobs for college educated professionals.

Historically it has been difficult for Indian startups to get their ideas funded domestically, and even far more difficult to bootstrap companies through family and friends.  Capital flows from both financial and strategic American investors could well fill the void and be the impetus to encourage startups in India.  To be successful, this requires greater recognition by public policy makers of the mutual benefits of increasing trade and cross-border investment.  The Tata Group alone has over $3 billion in FDI in the United States and employs more than 19,000 workers in this country. That is as much a face of India’s IT services industry as BPO centers in Bangalore.

If the point was unclear, I’m sure someone is developing an app for this.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Cyber-Security Requires Urgent Upgrades

Leave a comment

In the past three years, critical infrastructure the world over—from transportation systems,  power production facilities, communications equipment, along with commercial and military assets have come under unprecedented cyber-attacks from increasingly sophisticated elements.  In 2010 satellites controlled by India’s Space Research Organization (ISRO), large scale power projects in Gujarat, offshore oil platforms, and an Army command operations center in Assam were all taken offline as a direct result of cyber-attacks.

Given increasing evidence that many hacks against India are emanating from units within the Chinese MSS, who have been known to target American defense and IP assets, these revelations should be of equal concern to the United States.  India has attempted to create a nodal agency to set up an IT defense infrastructure similar to the US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team, but lacks expertise in implementing a management ecosystem to deal with modern cyber-warfare, as well as suitable manpower possessing the specific skillsets and experience to deal with military grade cyber-attacks.

The United States and its strategic defense partners including Great Britain and Israel however have much greater depth in implementing  critical control protocols, crisis management infrastructure, and proactive monitoring systems at civilian and military levels.  The Department of Homeland Security signed a memorandum of understanding with India last year to promote closer cooperation and timely exchange of information regarding cyber-warfare threats, however there has been little by way of follow up.

India has been on an acquisition spree of late to improve its strategic defense assets, and there is tremendous opportunity at the government-to-government level and for foreign civilian suppliers of military and IT security technology.  Both strategic and financial incentives indicate that the United States and its partners should urgently initiate a meeting between USCYBERCOM and the Indian National Security Council to facilitate a credible cyber-warfare deterrent and address mutual electronic security threats in the region.

US Elections 2012

Santorum’s Rise: the Republicans’ Fall

Leave a comment

Statistics from the recent Iowa GOP caucus revealed Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum to be in the lead, with a disparity of a mere eight votes separating the first and second place candidates. But statistics are but numbers and do not reveal the true victor of the GOP contenders’ cage-fight debates. The true GOP victor is not the newly ‘reborn’ Rick Santorum; it is not former President Bill Clinton’s congressional adversary, Newt Gingrich; it is not the neo-John Winthrop of contemporary Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, either.

The true victor? Obama. Indeed, the view from the White House looks electorally fortuitous. Despite a low approval rating surfing around 42% (Gallup.com), Obama may have the upper-hand in the 2012 presidential elections as the beneficiary of a split right-wing vote. Two decades ago, when the senior George W. Bush attempted his reelection as president, Ross Perot’s conservative independent candidacy divided the right-wing vote, subsequently allowing Democratic Bill Clinton to break the successful conservative legacy created by Ronald Reagan. Even with talks of the hitherto declining and ‘forgetful’ Rick Perry running as an independent candidate, proclaiming a literally divided vote as in 1992 seems far-stretched. More likely, however, may be an out-of-touch, overly radical Republican candidate as a whole.

But how? For one, many analysts and individuals like to focus in on the main ‘anchors’ of the GOP presidential contenders, namely Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich – the already well established and usually well (poll-wise) performing candidates. But the Iowa caucus has proven one significant plus for Obama: the GOP’s nomination is still up for grabs, an impetus for further competition. Rick Santorum was relatively a nobody, trailing behind the main anchors of the GOP with poll ratings not even in the double digits. For him to come second, and by a paltry eight votes too, shows that even for the underdogs, the coveted Republican nomination is up for grabs; the ‘anchors’ of the GOP may not individually hold the political muscle they are thought to have.

Thus far, the competition has unleashed devastating effects for many of the candidates, and as one candidate after another gets slammed, the others recoup to reclaim their shot. Newt Gingrich’s brief rise was followed by negative ad campaigns and questioning over past consulting work. Herman Cain’s lead over even Romney was followed by a crippling affair scandal (although Cain has since then suspended his bid). With each case, former supporters of one candidate swing over with little hesitation, rousing up competitors’ optimism. This newfound determination and hope adds fire to an already hot GOP contest. Santorum’s near-victory in Iowa surged nearly two million dollars in fundraising in two days (CNN.com), indicating that there is newfound trust and belief behind the neophyte senator.
Ultimately, no matter how much rhetoric comes to pass in support of Santorum, his bid is still up in the air; the Republican Party has tended to favor its more experienced comrades in the past, and Santorum’s two million dollars is petty-change compared to Romney’s $32.2 million (ABCnews.go). But Santorum’s new stardom will bring about even more negative inter-GOP rhetoric for the nomination, it will bring out or create more scandals, and, more importantly on the long run, it will push the candidates further right to woo their party for the nomination.

On the faithful day when the smoke clears for a clear GOP presidential candidate, it may be too late to for the Republicans to center up and get the American people’s moderate vote.
Indeed, score one, Obama.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Pakistan’s internal turmoil

Leave a comment

Despairing at the role played by the Pakistan army in meddling in the country’s politics and governance in the context of the ‘memogate’ scandal, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani called the army a ‘state within a state’. A few days later he termed the army Chief and DG ISI’s replies sent to the Supreme Court unconstitutional and dismissed Lt Gen Khalid Naeem Lodhi (Retd), the Defence Secretary. The army retaliated and Pakistan is again in full blown political and constitutional crisis – even as the internal security situation continues to deteriorate.

The history of civil-military relations in Pakistan is not very encouraging. The military jackboot has ridden roughshod over Pakistan’s polity for most of the country’s history since its independence. While Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Haq and Musharraf ruled directly as Presidents or Chief Martial Law Administrators, the other army chiefs achieved perfection in the fine art of backseat driving. The army repeatedly took over the reins of administration under the guise of the ‘doctrine of necessity’ and, in complete disregard of international norms of jurisprudence, Pakistan’s Supreme Court merrily played along.

The army ensured that Pakistan’s fledgling democracy was never allowed to flourish. The roots of authoritarianism in Pakistan can be traced back to Ayub Khan who promoted the idea of ‘guided’ or ‘controlled’ democracy. The concept of the ‘Troika’ soon emerged as a power sharing arrangement between the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). The ‘political militarism’ of the Pakistan army imposed structural constraints on the institutionalisation of democratic norms in the civil society.

Some key national policies have always been dictated by the army. Only the army can determine Pakistan’s national security threats and challenges and decide how to deal with them. Pakistan’s policy on Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir is guided by the army and the rapprochement process with India cannot proceed without its concurrence. The army controls Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. The civilian government has no role to play in deciding the doctrine, force structures, targeting policies and command and control. The army Chief controls the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) and decides the annual defence expenditure.

The politico-military standoff within Pakistan following the ‘memogate’ scandal threatens the continuation in office of the weak civilian government. To cap it all, the economy is in a serious mess – the funds are low, the debts are high, exports have dwindled to a trickle and the rupee has fallen to all time low of 90 rupees to a dollar. Pakistan has become a rentier state that is dependent on U.S. largesse to meet its obligations for the repayment of its burgeoning debt.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Pakistan is headed towards a dangerous denouement.  The likelihood of a military coup is being openly discussed again despite Kayani’s unequivocal denial of any such plans. Pakistan cannot survive as a coherent nation state unless the army gives up its agenda of seeking strategic depth in Afghanistan, attempting to destabilise India through its nefarious proxy war and stopping its meddling in politics. The army must pull itself up by the bootstraps and substantively enhance its capacity to conduct effective counter-insurgency operations.

The Pakistan army has let down Pakistan and must make amends. In the national interest, the army must give up being a state within a state and accept civilian control, even if it does so with bad grace.