Its been a while. The political climate in India is charged to say the least. Those on ruling benches accuse the opposition of toying with National security on number of issues such as the CAA, the border disputes between states, case of illegal migrants, and handling of the farmers agitation and now Khalistan protests. The opposition parties say that they are mandated by the constitution of the country to raise relevant issues which concern our own people. Its hard to determine whose case is stronger. The Armed and para military forces bear the brunt of these transgressions which are means of legal politicking. The article below tries to capture nuances of this sensitive debate. Hope you will benefit by reading it.
 |
 |
Does A Nation’s Politics Impinge on Its National Security
The above is a rhetorical question. No one wants to answer it. But Many people have started to feel that political activism indulges in activities detrimental to national security. To undermine the ruling party, the rival political parties cosy up with elements or issues laden with controversy and harmful to national interests. Is this assessment accurate and rhymes with popular sentiment, or is it felt only by a few? This piece dwells on the issue and grapples with what is the truth.
The subject chosen for debate is true to every nation, yet it is truer in democracies. Some countries have a single party that rules yet claim to have a robust inner parties democracy like China and Russia. Such a conundrum may not be a matter of concern in these nations. Yet actions of specific individuals in the party could spark a debate, as sometimes it happens in China. In robust democracies, it is malice in being. The Russian meddling in the US presidential elections in 2016 is an example that fits the bill of concern stated. Closer home opposition to CAA in the state of Assam and Manipur by some political parties is seen by few as compromising national interests, especially as it involves foreign nationals. It is a matter of perspective, and depending upon which side of the divide one stands, it could be argued either way.
What is National Security?
What constitutes national security? Understanding the subject requires defining the scope and definition of national security and national politics. The one given in Wikipedia looks pretty appropriate:
‘National security, or national defence, is the security and defence of a sovereign state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which is regarded as a duty of government. Originally conceived as protection against military attack, national security is widely understood to include non-military dimensions, including security from terrorism, minimisation of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, and cyber-security. Similarly, national security risks include, in addition to the actions of other nation states, action by violent non-state actors, narcotic cartels, multinational corporations, and the effects of natural disasters.’
There is no one definition, and there is no consensus on the concept. Yet, the above definition covers most aspects contributing to modern-day National Security. As the definition is broad, governments also use varying instruments to enforce national security. Chief among them is military, economic and diplomatic. It is interesting to note that political means are also instruments of national security, and governments tend to use them to further national interests.
What is Politics?
Politics is a derivative of the Greek word ‘Politik’, which originates from Aristotle’s seminal work ‘Politika’. The word means a set of activities associated with making decisions in a group, of power relations amongst individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. In modern times, people often form political parties to represent their ideas. Members of a party often agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to support the same changes to law and the same leaders. An election is usually a competition between different parties. In the book, ‘Essence of Politics by Cees Van Der Ejik,2018, he says: Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.
Why does Politics lead to Conflicting Interests?
Prima facie definitions of politics involve conflict as more than one entity is involved. Whenever two entities seek a common goal, there is a clash of interests. It is inherent in the definition. Yet the conflict in politics leads to conflict in the national interests is not a recent phenomenon. Time a memorial, this conflict has existed throughout history. The difference is that the concept of national security emerged only after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, when the definition of a nation-state was coined and gave birth to nationalism and modern nations. Before that, the concept of ‘National Security’ was restricted to protecting its kingdom and its subjects from the outside and prolonging the Sovereign’s reign.
The assassination of Ceaser in 44 BC is the earliest well-known example of this conflict. In Rome, where the senate sought equal say in running the affairs of the state, Ceaser introduced measures to curb the power of the Republic. Marcus Brutus, who assassinated Ceaser, was a political ally and friend, turned against Ceaser to save the Republic. The political fallout between them led to the sovereign's death and, thus, a blow to Rome’s security. In 1938 Hitler annexed Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Instead of condemnation, England and France followed a policy of appeasement (also called the ‘Politics of Appeasement’) towards Germany in the hope of avoiding a war. This emboldened Hitler. Within an year, i.e, March of 1939, he launched a full-fledged invasion of Czechoslovakia. The invasion led to World War II. The Watergate scandal in 1970 in the US was an illegal political ploy for President Nixon to get the better of political opponents. It led to his impeachment and loss of faith in the US political system. It left severe doubts about the safety of sensitive data relating to national security in the US. The Russian involvement in the US presidential elections in 2016 is another example already quoted earlier. Thus, it is not a new phenomenon nor restricted to a single country.
Domestic Politics and Its Repercussions
This debate is incomplete without understanding what it means for India and whether India is any better or worse. ‘Politics is the last refuge of the scoundrels’, this quote by George Bernard Shaw, was in disgust for the political class in that era. People wonder if much has changed. One thing shared across our nation is an obsession with politics and politicians. The public either hates them or loves them. In the debates across many TV channels, it is routine to see the discussion ending in verbal abuse, if not physical. What it tells is politics has polarised society beyond the scope of reconciliation. The George Bush Jr famous quote: ‘You are with us, or you are with the enemy’, has become the dictum. Such deep polarisation intended for political gains translates to the votes for the political parties. The battle for power through politics has come to define the reality of modern-day India. And every political party is guilty or accomplice to this thought process.
Given this reality, political parties leave no stone unturned to ride a bandwagon that provides a political advantage. In doing so, very little thought is given to its repercussions other than garnering votes. Emotive issues such as religion, caste, borders, and livelihood are raked up to create a political advantage. All of this and more have direct or indirect repercussions on national security. Any issue which creates doubt in the mind of the polity about the sanctity of a nation-state is a threat to national security. It lowers morale and weakens the will to fight the internal enemy. It also drains the society’s fabric, essential to improve the business sentiment. Any internal conflict creates friction and slows growth. India is fraught with a troubled neighbourhoods. Either there are collapsing states, or belligerent states. Both are bad for our country. Any political disagreements in border states work to their advantage. It allows them to sway away a section of the population and sow seeds of inimical thoughts or deeds in them. Many times, local politicians are in connivance to coerce a quarter of people to do what may be detrimental to their interests. Most of these are illiterate villagers who are swayed by whatever rhetoric is served to them by their local representatives. Such a situation is not restricted to border districts but also the hinterland. Acting against local interests to serve a few is also a blow to national security as it ultimately creates disenchantment and leads to secessionist tendencies. This phenomenon can be noticed in naxal-prone areas. Many in Assam and other parts of India see legitimising the Bangladesh illegal immigrants in Assam, as claimed by certain political parties and subsequent protests against the CAA, as an attempt to weaken the nation. Yet when a debate ensues on the TV, or the print media, there are enough arguments for both sides, which leaves ordinary citizens wondering if anyone is telling the truth.
It thus can be inferred that the nature of politics, which has come to stay in any democracy like India, would be ridden with issues that would impinge on national interests and security. Does it mean there is no hope to change the status quo? No, this presumption would be wrong. The author believes that political parties and politicians understand the concept of national security and also know the boundaries they can push. Their belief lies in the presumption that local actions would only impinge marginally on the national security calculus, and they feel the repercussions can be controlled by their local political organisation. If push comes to shove, they would withdraw, draw a line, and not cross it. The arithmetic of national security is like a balance sheet, where the assets and liabilities must match at the end of the month. A month for a bank may be a year for a political party or even more. But at the decision point, the assets must outweigh the liabilities, or they would lose elections.
Conclusion
In the olden days, kings always fought to save their kingdoms from threats. Taking the example of the Mughal era. Akbar to Aurungzeb fought campaigns across the length and breadth of the country from north to south and from west to east. Not all were from foreign armies. Most were internal rebellions. The Mughals fought hard and succeeded in keeping their seat of power for over three centuries. They became one of the most successful dynasties recorded in Indian history. The concept of national security was not so evolved; hence, the turmoil was of a high order. Today the boundaries of a nation are the four walls of the state, and they are subjected to threats, external and internal. The hostile neighbours are the external threats, and the politics of a nation is the internal threat. India has borne invasions and dynasties and survived as a nation. It can do so even today. Politics will only get murkier, and the threats and the instruments to fight them will get more serious. This tussle is inherent in the life of every nation. The better ones would make light of it and live more happily. India is sure to be on that lis
Great article sir
ReplyDelete