Most people who read the first instalment of this series (https://nenow.in/article/national-security-should-be-made-of-sterner-stuff.html) either called me up or message me with a great disquiet. “What is the matter with you?” most queried, “Have you gone out of your mind taking on the establishment in the manner that you are doing”? Some among many—friends of several years, but who have had held very senior positions in the “avatar” services, and in whose direction I had to turn my hose onto said in their usual candour—probably because they sensed a deep-seated “gripe” in me—“headed towards thin ice, again: combative, aggressive, pugnacious”!

Others, more discerning in their verdicts—who also belonged to the “avatar” services—approved of my outburst, “You are scathing against the establishment and I feel rightly so. I fully agree with your views on J.N. Dixit, a person who had a very clear perspective on national security and international affairs. I am disappointed with my batch-mate…..He seems to be working with some fixed template.” I was, therefore, overwhelmed with a curious mix of endorsement, unease and caution. However, the most important question that was asked was “why now” and “what is the sterner stuff that one is referring to”?

For me “Bharatavarsha” is as old as Indic civilisation and it did not have to wait for either the arrival of the hordes of invaders that crossed either the Indus or the Irrawaddy on either end of the subcontinent or for the matter the seven seas to become India. To that end, the “Idea of India” had already established itself in the land of my forefathers when seers of yore went into the “depths of their silence” or figuratively the Brhadaranyaka (great forest) in order to contemplate reality.

The Vedic corpus or cogitation that came together collectively understood “existence” and saluted “fire” (Agni) for the first time as the primordial source of life and also felt that the implicit truth is “existence”, “consciousness” and “blissful” or sat-chit-ananda. That is precisely why one has phat (the fire in the commencement of the time) in every ritual although it is now attributed to a mystical syllable that “annihilates” everything that is bestowed onto Agni. After all, fire is the essence which preserves, sustains and destroys!

This was sometime between 1500 and 1200 BC and although the wisdom that spewed forth was a shared affair and the focus was never on an individual, there was—if one explored well enough—always a mantra drasta (seer of the mantra) for each of the sukta (hymn) or collection of mantras. For instance, the Agni Suktam is attributed to the son of Sage Vishwamitra, the composer of the famous Gayatri Mantra, Madhuchanda.In any event, knowledge of the infinite can never ever be conceived of infinite space and time.

Therefore, humankind contented itself in its wonderment of some of the exquisite marks of that infinite such as fire which is a representation of that infinity. Prometheus stole fire in Greek lore and Rudyard Kipling gave voice to his wolves in Jungle Book by calling it the Red Flower which “Mowgli’s people” could tame. Incidentally, the fire that is worshipped is not just any fire. It is the sacrificial fire that had to be “brought” forth from one of the three realms that it exists in, sky, earth and water!

The fire simile is, therefore, fascinating and if it were to be superimposed in the manner in which national security in present day India has to be conceived, calibrated and harnessed then there has to also be a drasta who understands not only what national security is, but one who can actually strap together with the ingredients that are necessary to harness it meaningfully so that the nation can not only be preserved and sustained but can actually realise its full potential. It must be understood that the fire has in its innards the strength to destroy the conceiver if proper heed is not paid.

It is with an eye to the triadic schema of the fire metaphor that I have tried to carefully liken the national security of India. It has been chosen because it provides a good analogy by which to comprehend the manner in which comprehensive national security can be correctly yoked and utilised for a nation’s security, ensuring at the same time that it does not destroy the delicate fabric that India is made up of. Unfortunately—as was highlighted in the last episode—the accent of the day has been on parts that are expected to make up the whole when components do not actually make up the total. The whole is actually greater than the sum of the parts. One doesn’t have to read Aristotle’s Metaphysics to ferret out a plausible definition of what constitutes comprehensive “national security” in the Indian context.  

National security did not—quite like the Vedas—come to be all of a sudden. As aforesaid, it is a corpus that has to be integrated with a particular waypoint in the nation’s security at a particular point in time in mind. In other words, it is ever-changing despite the fact that the spirit would always remain the same, ie. The Fire!

Therefore, what was prudent in 1971 when India decided to break up Pakistan into two is not necessarily the case when it embarked upon Operation Brasstacks (1986-87) when at least Pakistan felt that the event was an Indian exhibition of India’s overwhelming conventional might. But the fact of the matter is that Operation Brasstacks was merely a validation exercise of an “integrated deep offensive strategy” and not meant for an actual invasion!

Gratefully it ended with a smug Gen Sundarji who wanted to gauge Pakistan’s response to a full-scale armed mobilisation and a “cricket diplomacy” by Zia-ul-Haq, the happy consequence of the latter was an absorbing visit by me—along with another fellow Stephenian—to Islamabad as State Guests in June-July 1988. Operation Brasstacks tested and led hopefully to the evolution of India’s “unwritten” security doctrine, and if there were enough neuronal wires even in India’s incapacitating memory certain lessons would have been learnt about the adversary and the manner it reacted.

The issue pertaining to the boundary with China is one of the most important challenges that India is faced. The problem has a legacy of its own that can be traced back to at least (for ease of comprehension!) 1914 and the Simla Conference. Much water has passed down both the Indus and the Brahmaputra ever since and indeed the history was punctuated with the unfortunate border war of 1962 and not too long ago l’affaire Galwan. Eastern Ladakh, incidentally, does not have any easy answers and while it is clear that it was the PLA which intruded and fired the “first shot”, the fact of the matter is that—at least to me—the entire episode was for the consumption of the United States.

China was attempting to message its number one opponent that India could not be used as a countervail against it as also trying to “inform” India’s neighbours that the latter could not be relied upon for their security. Beijing was also guided by its maritime ambitions and was consequently striving to contain India to its land commitment and away from its overtures in the Indian Ocean region and beyond. Now, if the above makes sense then the endeavour on the Indian side should be on trying to solve the boundary issue.

If pragmatism permitted India to “take the side” of Russia in its “operations” against Ukraine, then it is not understood why New Delhi cannot read the entrails and reach out to Beijing and solve the boundary issue on an “as-is-where-is” basis, especially as most observers of the India-China boundary problem are of the opinion that it would be to India’s gain. While it is understood that China is no longer offering the “East-West Swap’ proposal and probably would not do so anytime soon (unless India fortifies itself with the sort of regional and extra-regional arsenal that can press China to renew its 1959 and later 1980 offer!), the fact of the matter is that there should have been sufficient action in the non-traditional realm to ascertain that China is also similarly messaged.

“Integrated Battle Groups” and such other aspects that are being readied to mirror deterrence are all very well, but there should be simultaneous move on a front that is patent visible and unambiguous, and one which prepares the ground for the possibility that could well have a boundary settlement as one of the many options. National security, it must be understood, is not confined to sabre-rattles, production of films that showcase “surgical strikes” that didn’t quite happen in the manner in which the celluloid sought to portray it or for the matter engendering of psychological operations that tom-tom “undercover” embodiments of a “rickshaw-puller” that never existed in reality.

The reality is to take stock of India’s place in the changing world order, its flagging identity as a regional power, its “Act East” policy that refuses to “Go East” and the manner in which Northeast insurgent groups are readying themselves in a fully equipped “Joint Fighting Force” in a “Southern Cluster” in Myanmar for the next strike on the Indian security forces. The reality is also that organisation such as the “China Study Group” doesn’t visit places such as Kibitu and Chaklohagam and ordains the Indian army’s “limits of patrolling” in the vicinity of Madan Ridge in the Walong Sector from Raisina Hill. The reality is also that New Delhi is attempting to replace the Indian army officers in the Assam Rifles with the IPS sounding thereby the death knell of a fine force whose border management posture and counter-insurgency record have been better than all the other para-military forces in the country.

Let’s take another case. This time about the way the Indian state is attempting to solve the Naga issue which in the last quarter of a century has witnessed only belligerence, an “enigma shrouded in secrecy” by way of a historic “Framework Agreement”, application of an inane stratagem that sought to “divide” the Nagas and humiliation by way of the ouster of an interlocutor whose ascendance to governorship went to his head! New Delhi and its mandarins know that if the restive Northeast has to be properly integrated with the rest of India, one of the ways is to solve the Naga problem and clear the “traffic jam” for the other insurgencies to return to the mainstream.

But what it seems to be doing at present is just the opposite: it is creating fissures when it should have learnt from past mistakes. Just what is New Delhi trying to do by alienating the NSCN (IM) and propping up S.C. Jamir who reportedly stated on 20 May 2022 in a meeting in Mokokchung that “neither the Framework Agreement nor the Agreed Position signed with the working committee of the seven Naga National political Groups had any mention of Naga sovereignty, integration, flag and constitution”?

The NSCN (IM) which was one hoped had been appeased to an extent by R.N. Ravi’s removal is now asking New Delhi to “avoid hobnobbing with Jamir stating that he no longer represents the Naga people”. I am not saying that I have any readymade answer to the Naga problem but a few of us (G.K. Pillai, Lt Gen K. Himalay Singh and I. It was anchored by one Alex Waterman, United Kingdom) had erected a webinar on 14 March 2022 where we discussed the Naga issue and the need to “rebuild trust” for fresh talks to take place. I even recommended that an Autonomy Plus could be discussed with the NSCN (IM) leadership whereby autonomy with more powers (instead of a separate state) may be provided to the Nagas of Manipur by passing a reworked Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Bill 2021 which would be acceptable to Valley Manipur.

A policy brief which was culled out of the almost 60 minute+ discussions was even submitted to the powers that be in New Delhi by way of recommendation. But the effort in the direction of aiding the Indian state—and one which was undertaken out of concern for the enchanted frontiers—has not only been ignored but was in all probability taken as self-seeking and perhaps even suspicion. Why should Jaideep Saikia bother what happens to Nagaland, Manipur and the rest of the North East? Why is he so bent on—despite his myriad ailments and a leg with multiple metallic implants and nails—bother about visiting Somdal, the birthplace of Muivah? He must surely be the agent of the Chinese. Yes, that would explain his die-hard stance for a boundary rapprochement by way of an absurd “Line of Amity” with China.

To read the POLICY BRIEF click

(Jaideep Saikia is an internationally acclaimed conflict analyst and celebrated author of several bestselling books on security and strategy. He is also the sole Asian Fellow of the Irregular Warfare Initiative, West Point, USA)

Jaideep Saikia

Jaideep Saikia is a well-known terrorism and conflict analyst. He can be reached at jdpsaikia@gmail.com.