By: D.C. Pathak
The call for strategic autonomy of a democratic nation like India goes beyond safeguarding national security and demands high resilience built on multi-prong capabilities in areas of defense, independent foreign policy, economic strength, and internal cohesion as well as a capacity to influence world opinion.
All this would not be possible to achieve unless the country is governed by a leadership that has complete dedication to the nation, total personal integrity, and a strong political will. Unlike his predecessors, Prime Minister Narendra Modi combines these distinct traits of a national leader and it is not a surprise therefore that the rise of India as a world power, as a fast developing economy, and as a global counsel has attracted attention at home and abroad only in his time.
The speed with which the Modi regime carried out Army build up in Ladakh in response to Chinese aggressiveness there, the alacrity with which India embraced Quad, and the impartial but positive stand PM Modi stuck to on Ukraine-Russia military confrontation show a successful tackling of the external threats and a constructive approach to international relations that kept India's national interests on top.
The safeguarding of internal security and national cohesion has become a new challenge because of the concerted attempts of our adversaries to destabilize India by various means. While the world is in the midst of new conflicts geopolitically and is still to recover from the devastation caused to the economy everywhere by the Covid pandemic, it is also witnessing the rise of 'covert' offensives in the form of terrorism, the spread of radicalization and a spurt in narcotics trade - affecting the democratic world in particular.
India as the world's largest democracy has under Modi's leadership taken bold initiatives to deal with these dangers and has justifiably earned recognition at various international fora as a major voice in favor of world peace and international cooperation against global threats.
The key components of the national strategy put in motion by Prime Minister Modi are not difficult to mark out. Their pursuit has been active and steady and that is why India has made distinct progress in playing its role as a major world power.
The framework of the strategy can be gleaned from the policies of the Modi regime that include the development of bilateral relations promoting mutual security and economic interests, stepping up of military, diplomatic and financial measures to counter the moves of the identified enemy, constant effort to make India economically strong by placing new emphasis on self-dependence in the sphere of defense, close monitoring of attempts made by forces - internal and external - to destabilize the nation and a firm commitment to world peace.
It cannot be said that India does not have a national strategy since the policies of the Modi government do not leave any strategic domain uncovered.
What certainly has to be kept from becoming public knowledge is the specificity of steps that the nation would take to deal with a particular threat or a hostile country.
Warnings to the adversary through diplomatic and other means are in order for conveying intent and creating a possible deterrent but what the actual response for countering a hostile neighbor would be, can not be detailed in public. 'Experts' outside the domain of governance who pressed for disclosure of national strategy and all aspects of security policy were in a way barking up the wrong tree.
More than the external threats to national security, the problem of lack of internal cohesion that is exploited by hostile forces to destabilize India is a particular cause for concern. Unfortunately, this was aggravated by domestic politics. We are still debating the idea of India, 75 years after Independence, primarily because of the use of advocacy of secularism as a vote-catching instrument - the first ruling party of India chose to demonstrate its secularism by disowning any cultural Hindu legacy.
The framers of the Constitution had built secularism into the Indian democracy by prescribing 'one man one vote', discarding any distinctions of caste, creed, and gender, providing for equal opportunities and protection of law to all, and prohibiting the political executive from ruling with a denominational stamp.
The Constitution, however, was still amended to inject the adjective 'secular' for the state - apparently to attract the support of the Muslim minority. Now in opposition, the Congress has questioned India being a nation on the plea that it was described by the Constitution as a Union of States and ignored the fact that the Preamble - carrying the very ethos of the Constitution - describes the maintenance of unity and integrity of the 'nation' as a prime objective of the people of India.
The opposition, clearly driven by realpolitik, is stepping up on minority politics to counter the BJP's special appeal to Hindus and in the process even projecting 'nationalism' as an unwanted concept.
There is also a new trend of civil society groups demanding that even on 'strategic' matters decision-making of the government - which is an exercise of the sovereign function of the state - must be 'institutionalized' by way of participation of non-governmental and private sectors.
In matters strategic, their inputs can be taken but decisions have to be in the exclusive domain of the state. The general approach to national security will be spelled out without announcing the sensitive details and there can be a critique of the stated policies.
But in an age of lobbying and outside influences working through social media and motivated NGOs, the sovereign right of the state to take strategic decisions totally on its own can not be questioned. Also, the question of law and order, particularly in the context of communal issues, demands that the focus should be on the performance of the states and not on making it an issue between the Centre and the opposition.
