Structured security

The task force headed by K.C. Pant has submitted its recommendations on the structure and functions of a new body to plan and oversee national security policy. The chief virtue of the proposals is their simplicity. In the essentials, they are similar to those made to V.P. Singh in 1991 and Narasimha Rao in 1994 which in turn extended and formalised practices going back to the 1950s. 8220;National Security Council8221;, connoting a distinct and autonomous organisation, is something of a misnomer for the apex policy-making body in a parliamentary system such as India has where such authority must reside with the cabinet or a committee of the cabinet. The arrangement recommended by the task force therefore consists at the top of a cabinet committee on national security chaired by the prime minister. At the next level is a cabinet-rank national security adviser NSA attached to the prime minister8217;s office. Next is the NSA8217;s secretariat with planning, coordination and intelligence assessment functions. Six keyministries defence, foreign affairs, finance, internal security, commerce and trade, and science and technology will be monitored on behalf of the cabinet committee by the NSA.

Two ideas underlie the proposals. One, national security is a broad concept encompassing not merely defence preparedness but also economic security, external political and economic relations, technological options, the impact of all these on internal security and vice versa etc. In short, the cabinet committee on national security will be an upgraded version of the old cabinet defence committee of Pandit Nehru8217;s days. Two, long-range, all-inclusive planning within a formal, organised structure has become essential to cope with the complexities and interdependencies of the world today. In the aftermath of Pokharan-II, no one can dispute the logic of all this. So far so good.

Two problem areas remain. The new security structure does not by itself address the issues of continuity and consensus which are the bedrock of an effectivenational security policy. Rigorous thought needs to be given to how existing parliamentary procedures for consultation can be strengthened. Drawing up a comprehensive security policy document for discussion will be a start. Secondly, how does the government intend to implement proposals which are bound to involve all kinds of turf battles? It is well known that earlier plans fell through on these grounds. While everyone recognises the need for close coordination on national security issues, it is no use pretending it does not call for major adjustments in the six key ministries.

With the responsibility of seeing that critical decisions are carried out, the national security adviser8217;s functions will tend to conflict with those of department secretaries and in some circumstances ministers as well. A technocrat appointed to the position of NSA would be preferable to a politician since the job calls for a high degree of analytical skills and management experience. But that too invites difficulties whichcabinet ranking will be insufficient to overcome. It must be hoped sufficient attention will be given to the details of the new arrangement.