Perspectives on defence

THE book under review is the result of a project to evolve a new paradigm for national security for South Asia with contributions from researchers. It combines two elements. First, country studies focussing on the national perceptions of threats to their security; and second, an attempt to derive a new paradigm for national security for South Asia.

The first objective is laudable. In India, much of the discussion on national security issues is concerned with Pakistan with not much attention being paid to the concerns of its other smaller neighbours. While their security concerns vis-a-vis India's need not always be valid, nevertheless, these cannot be brushed aside as being of no concern to India. As the largest country in the region, it is in India's national security interests to address its neighbour's concerns to the extent possible. The book will go a long way in sensitising the Indian security analysts to the concerns of their counterparts in the region.

Where the book fails is in its attempts to evolve a common paradigm for South Asia. This is not surprising. The national security concerns of the countries are quite different. By that we mean not only the traditional, military - security concerns but others - economy, energy, environment - as well.

Consider the traditional military aspect of national security. Except for India, none of the other countries studied - Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - shares a common border with any other country in the region. And, once again, with the exception of India, none of the others has a dispute which seeks to alter its territorial boundaries - with any other nation. Thus there is no confrontational relationship between the military units of the countries studied - with the exception of India and Pakistan. This immediately makes the issue of evolving cooperative security - one of the paradigms considered in the study - as a measure which "seeks to devise agreed measures to prevent war and establish collaborative, rather than confrontational, relationships among military establishments" in the region with the exception of that between India and Pakistan.

Other suggestions are equally meaningless. Consider the issue of the revaluation in military affairs. In comparison with the Indian and Pakistani military forces, the others are small both in terms of manpower and armaments. Moreover, since their national security concerns have little to do with high intensity conflicts, the revolution in military affairs poses very little (if any) security threat to these countries. The situation in India and Pakistan is far different. Under the circumstances, there is hardly any scope for any new paradigm in respect of a revaluation of military affairs in the South Asian context. The same applies in respect of nuclear issues.

Here, Prof. Mattoo's suggestions for a cooperative security framework range from well meaning, meaningless to the bizarre. Consider, for example, the suggestion that India and Pakistan make a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. As stated already none of the countries, except India, shares a common border with any other country. Further, the military strengths of the non-nuclear powers in the region are far less than that of the nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. So what use is a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against them? A far meaningful pledge, if one were necessary, would be not to use superior conventional weapons. Or what about the suggestion that India and Pakistan undertake collaborative projects in nuclear energy generation, which may result in support from the international proliferation community?

If at all there is scope for any new paradigm for the region as a whole, it is in the realm of good governance. Almost all threats to national security have their roots in bad administration and universal corruption. Unless this is tackled head-on and solved, incidences of internal disorder and dissatisfaction are likely to increase posing serious national security challenges to the countries in the region. Another major challenge is widespread poverty. Of the seven countries under discussion, four are among the least developed countries, as designated by the United Nations.

If the suggestion of one of the contributors that Afghanistan and Myanmar should be included in South Asia is followed then six of the nine countries would be called least developed countries. Here the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) by itself has only limited scope to better the economic conditions of the region. India, as the dominant economic power, can attempt to improve the trade prospects of the other smaller countries by relaxing its import rules and regulations to encourage their exports. It could also take the initiative in developing the national resources of these countries - hydel power in Nepal and Bhutan, and gas in Bangladesh. But that would require a substantial influx of capital from outside the region as well as a change in the perspectives of these countries. For example, Bangladesh is yet to decide on its energy export policy. All these make it unlikely that a common paradigm for the national security for the region as a whole can be developed in the foreseeable future.

G. BALACHANDRAN

Perspectives On National Security In South Asia, In Search Of A New Paradigm, edited by P. R. Chari, Manohar, Rs. 800.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Kargil: Another 'true' story
Next     : A search, in vain