PM's panel's inane national security tips
31 May 2012 1:29 AM GMT
There is a kind of poetic licence that the country's national security managers seem to enjoy. One can speculate how the late K Subramanyam would have reacted to the Naresh Chandra committee recommendations had he been alive. But surely, it would not be wrong to say that the recommendations of the committee is a theatre of the absurd.
The Task Force on National Security, headed by the former cabinet secretary Naresh Chandra, had submitted its final report on national security to the prime minister last week.
Take the case of the ideas of new job creation the committee has spawned. Its edict: create an intelligence adviser to assist the National Security Adviser. Was the NSA functioning without intelligence input all this while? Or, was his secretariat being flooded with multi-source intelligence with his staff not being able to create a holistic picture for his consumption? Where is the failure? What will be the role of the National Intelligence Board that will be different from that of the old Joint Intelligence Committee that was later transformed into the National Security Council Secretariat?
What is interesting is that this committee wants amendment in the Prevention of Corruption Act to protect officers involved in defence purchases, in case they make 'an error of judgement'. Instead of nailing the officers who are accused of corruption, this committee is suggesting ways for the officers to escape scrutiny.
The committee has recommended expediting the creation of new instruments for counter-terrorism, such as the National Intelligence Grid and National Counter Terrorism Centre; improving forensics and investigation capacity in the NIA; strengthening mega-city policing and strengthening rapid response systems through a more distributed deployment of the NSG.
It says that huge resources are necessary for the modernisation of police and other departments and agencies dealing with national security.
The real fact remains that most of the successive National Police Commissions have remained untranslated into action.
It has recommended for promotion of synergy in civil-military functioning to ensure
integration. To begin with, the deputation of armed services officers up to director level in the Ministry of Defence should be considered, it has said.
A recommendation of this nature has been made ad infinitum over decades. The government always remained unmoved. This time it is expected not to be different.
The Naresh Chandra committee has also talked about the early establishment of a National Defence University (NDU) and the creation of a separate think-tank on internal security.
Is the committee of the opinion that NDU, which is already in the making, is needed to bolster the sense of security of the country? Also, have think tanks like the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses failed to cater to the needs of internal security? The committee would have done great service to the country had it responded to these questions.
How is the creation of a permanent post of Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee to deal with specified subjects without affecting the autonomy of the three service Chiefs allay the fears of the three service headquarters or even of the political class, who are afraid of dominance of the military.
The committee has said that greater priority needs to be given to strengthening our capabilities relating to China without impairing our capabilities relating to Pakistan and terrorism, formulation of a a national security doctrine, which would include internal security, and link it to broader national political and economic goals.
The quality of the recommendations of the committee remains much to be desired.
THE PANEL SUGGESTS
The Task Force on National Security, headed by the former cabinet secretary Naresh Chandra, had submitted its final report on national security to the prime minister last week.
Take the case of the ideas of new job creation the committee has spawned. Its edict: create an intelligence adviser to assist the National Security Adviser. Was the NSA functioning without intelligence input all this while? Or, was his secretariat being flooded with multi-source intelligence with his staff not being able to create a holistic picture for his consumption? Where is the failure? What will be the role of the National Intelligence Board that will be different from that of the old Joint Intelligence Committee that was later transformed into the National Security Council Secretariat?
What is interesting is that this committee wants amendment in the Prevention of Corruption Act to protect officers involved in defence purchases, in case they make 'an error of judgement'. Instead of nailing the officers who are accused of corruption, this committee is suggesting ways for the officers to escape scrutiny.
The committee has recommended expediting the creation of new instruments for counter-terrorism, such as the National Intelligence Grid and National Counter Terrorism Centre; improving forensics and investigation capacity in the NIA; strengthening mega-city policing and strengthening rapid response systems through a more distributed deployment of the NSG.
It says that huge resources are necessary for the modernisation of police and other departments and agencies dealing with national security.
The real fact remains that most of the successive National Police Commissions have remained untranslated into action.
It has recommended for promotion of synergy in civil-military functioning to ensure
integration. To begin with, the deputation of armed services officers up to director level in the Ministry of Defence should be considered, it has said.
A recommendation of this nature has been made ad infinitum over decades. The government always remained unmoved. This time it is expected not to be different.
The Naresh Chandra committee has also talked about the early establishment of a National Defence University (NDU) and the creation of a separate think-tank on internal security.
Is the committee of the opinion that NDU, which is already in the making, is needed to bolster the sense of security of the country? Also, have think tanks like the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses failed to cater to the needs of internal security? The committee would have done great service to the country had it responded to these questions.
How is the creation of a permanent post of Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee to deal with specified subjects without affecting the autonomy of the three service Chiefs allay the fears of the three service headquarters or even of the political class, who are afraid of dominance of the military.
The committee has said that greater priority needs to be given to strengthening our capabilities relating to China without impairing our capabilities relating to Pakistan and terrorism, formulation of a a national security doctrine, which would include internal security, and link it to broader national political and economic goals.
The quality of the recommendations of the committee remains much to be desired.
THE PANEL SUGGESTS
- Creation of a new post of Intelligence Advisor to assist the NSA and the National Intelligence Board on matters relating to coordination in the functioning of intelligence committee
- Amendment to Prevention of Corruption Act to reassure honest officers, who take important decisions about defence equipment acquisition, so that they are not harassed for errors of judgement or decision taken in good faith
- Expediting the creation of new instruments for counter-terrorism
- Deputation of officers from services up to director’s level in MoD
- Measures to augment the flow of foreign language experts into the intelligence and security agencies, which face a severe shortage of trained linguists
Next Story
