Gen Bipin Rawat’s recent observation of influx of illegal immigrants is a concern that emerges out of the new idiom of internal security that the Army has to confront in the garb of proxy war
GB Reddy
Quite disturbing it has been to note the media cacophony over Chief of the Army General Bipin Rawat’s speech in Delhi at a Seminar (on North East Region of India—Bridging Gaps and Securing Borders) hosted by the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies (Think Tank) and Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence.
The criticism levelled against General Bipin Rawat for his speech and advising him to exercise restraint and keep away from making political statements simply exposes intellectual bankruptcy in the media. Today, political leaders, bureaucrats, drawing room academics and the media, per se think that they are fountainheads of wisdom concerning national security issues.
Political leaders themselves must express concerns on various developments and their long-term national security concerns to pre-empt professionals airing concerns. Unfortunate, but true, political leaders remain quiet due to fear of losing “vote banks”. Their self-interests override national security interests and concerns.
In fact, national security is a specialised subject covering political, social, economic, technology and defence dimensions. In a war, the inherited classical ethos of civil-military affairs is based on a strict dividing line between political and military establishments. In such situations, the Army generals followed political directions of the high-ups.
No national security strategy paper has been published during the past 70 years. Despite the appointment of “National Security Advisor” for the first time in 1998, no strategy paper has been published but for elitist names like Brijesh Mishra (IFS), J N Dikshit (IFS), M K Narayanan (IPS), Shiv Shankar Menon (IFS) and Ajit Doval (IPS).
Meanwhile, many significant shifts in the nature of warfare and violence under the rubric of “Hybrid Warfare”, have taken place with political warfare emerging in the forefront in the post-Cold War scenario. Those who cling monotonously to archaic classical national security theories and policies, therefore, fail to keep abreast with the shifts vital in “Civil-Military Affairs.”
India confronts multiple state adversaries and is situated in an extraordinarily complex and volatile security environment. India’s adversaries are already engaged in political warfare—employment of military, intelligence, diplomatic, financial, and other means—short of conventional war—to achieve their respective national objectives.
Over the past three decades, more disturbingly, armed forces have been inextricably entangled in J&K in a conflict dominated by non-state actors shaped by radical religious ideological extremism abetted by non-state and state actors (Pakistan and China) and other adversaries in order to carry out a new and different kind of warfare—proxy or hybrid war.
Pakistan, for instance, utilises a range of means to pursue its interests, such as proxy war (increasingly active in supporting state and sub-state actors), covert and overt actions like cross-border/LoC raids and psychological warfare. In the North East region, every political leader was aware of insidious infiltration from neighbouring Bangladesh since 1971 War, particularly supported by Islamist radicals and the ISI.
Political Warfare
Surely, all politicians alike failed dismally to stop the nefarious activities aimed at changing dramatically the demographics in Assam and even in West Bengal. And, the so-called liberal ideologues lent their support to contra national security interests by such political parties.
Why is the media not blaming silence of the successive regimes over such national security threat concerns, instead of decrying General Bipin Rawat’s strategic assessment? Are the media houses not expected to be “watchdogs” to provide a balanced coverage of such key developments?
Insurgency Lessons
People also must accept the reality that fighting insurgencies/
transnational terrorism is most vexatious, where population pressures and unemployment, ethnic and sectarian differences, critical problems in politics and governance, and failures to meet basic economic needs are key reasons of the conflict.
None can deny that the Indian Armed Forces have learnt many lessons in countering/marginalising insurgents, left extremism, terrorism and other forms of violence—low-intensity conflicts/situations short of war—in the internal context and content.
Surely, there is a need to build on the military lessons learned from their “long internal conflict situational awareness” based on ground realities. Never too late to integrate military efforts with new civilian efforts that address the rise of extremist ideologies and demographic transitions that are the primers of internal civil conflicts/wars. It involves revolution to wage different kinds of wars particularly in the “information warfare domain”.
In 1994, late General Bipin Joshi, while addressing the IPS probationers at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad, invoked the phrase “Islamic Crescent Envelopment of India” clearly highlighting the dramatic demographic transitions in the North East and the SIMI/ISI sleeper cells in Hyderabad and Kerala. Of course, there were no media representative and TV to cover the event.
No point in drawing late Field Marshal Maneckshaw’s advise to Indira Gandhi to keep off his professional domain in external threat scenario. Had he been alive today and entrusted with internal security threat management, he would have been more candid and forthright in highlighting political and bureaucratic incompetence.
Insisting on strictly maintaining “apolitical nature of armed forces”, whilst continuously employed in “hybrid warfare”, is the most heinous fraud committed on “We the People of India”. Also, the concern of India’s delicately balanced diplomatic relations with neighbours cannot be viewed as detrimental to national security interests.
Viewed in the framework of holistic national security interests and in the face of vicious political blame-games indulged be decrepit leadership hell-bent on perpetuating their rule, Army chief General Bipin Rawat’s plain speaking about an “inversion in demographics” and a “planned migration” from Bangladesh into the North East must be warmly appreciated; and not decried as unusual.
In retrospect, General Bipin Rawat’s suggestion to amalgamate the illegal migrants into the mainstream instead of isolating and pushing them back to their own lands may also be faulted. Amalgamation would ultimately result in demand for merger of Muslim majority districts with Bangladesh—“Greater Bangladesh”.
In my book “In Search of National Values—Withering Secularism, Democracy and Socialism” published in 1994 and “Nation in Crisis— Dimensions of National Security and Terrorism” in 2001, I had forewarned about the demographic transitions leading identity crises in the North East region thereby resulting in grave long-term national security concerns.
The average annual population growth rates in Assam since 1971 has been 35 per cent in 1971: and 22 per cent as per reports in 2000 AD. Indigenous groups have been facing an identity crisis. The population trends in sensitive strategic states along our borders, particularly in the North East, are a major cause for strategic concern.
Islamic Crescent
Also, there is a growing apprehension that it has already paved the way for peaceful “Islamic Crescent’s conquest” of Assam and West Bengal. There are a large number of anti-social elements and potential fifth columnists, who are infiltrating in the garb of immigrants. Until illegal migrations are halted, identity crisis, communal violence, eradication of poverty and illiteracy may keep the situation tense. And, the strategic significance of Siliguri Corridor is well known.
The time is ripe to recognise the need for “Revolutionary Transformations in Civil-Military Affairs” consequent to revolutionary transformations in the nature of warfare and violence.
Indian politicians excel in creating a crisis and employing the armed forces to save them. If political leaders cutting across party lines and media fail to highlight the developing national threat concerns, someone else must “bell the cat”. Armed forces that are today largely doing fire-fighting of internal security threat cannot but help voicing their concerns in public.
In retrospect, the Chief of Army Staff”s, in future, must transparently tell or predict about the nature of internal security threats being faced and are in the making. Enough is enough of delicate Civil-Military relations, which is a self-inflicted imposition—intellectually absurd and fraud.
No point crying foul over General Bipin Rawat’s views to introspect and recover “watchdog journalism” ethos and provide a ‘balanced coverage’ of demographic transitions in the North East region and explain the reasons thereof and their fallout for national security interests.
The media must take into consideration the “dramatic and revolutionary” changes in the geo-strategic environment and the onslaught of political warfare. Also, they must review the relevance of the much-touted delicate civil-military relations in a democracy in such an environment.
“Generals win battles; political leaders lose wars” is a euphemism, which is quite relevant in India’s context and content. And, it goes back to Indo-Pak war 1947-48 followed by 1965, 1971 and Kargil wars/conflict. Its reason is simple. Political leadership thought of no end of themselves and failed to call upon the national security wisdom that is available to military professionals—past and present. Unfortunately, military professionals, in pursuance of their apolitical status, kept silent to expose decrepit politicians publicly airing strategic assessments.
Factually, civil-military relations are an interdisciplinary area of research, reflecting the work of political scientists, military experts, sociologists, and historians. History and culture, the constitution of the state and the statutes and practices arising therefrom, changes in the international security environment.
To sum up, for stable and efficient civil-military relationships to cope with the extraordinarily complex and dynamic “New strategic and operational environment”, the need for a new paradigm—Revolution in Civil-Military Affairs—is imperative. What should be the new paradigm must be reformulated by extensive deliberations by calling upon the national security strategic wisdom available with past and current professional in all fields.
(The writer is a Hyderabad-based strategic expert)
Comments