This article is written by Jisha Garg, from the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. This is an exhaustive article dealing with the National Security Council, its historical background, structure and functions. Further, the article highlights the loopholes in its functioning and the need for alternative reforms.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The National Security Council (NSC) in India is the executive agency responsible for advising the Prime Minister’s Office on issues of national security and strategic interest. The National Security Council is an essential body in India with great responsibility. The NSC is the apex agency in the country handling internal and external security, conventional and non-conventional defence, military affairs, counter-insurgency, space and high technology, economy, counter-terrorism and environment. With India being engaged in four aggressive wars with Pakistan and China in the past, India’s unique national security needs have been neglected for forty years now owing to a lack of adequate institutional mechanisms or structures. There are various political and bureaucratic reasons for neglect in the significant area of national security. The article discusses the circumstances that led to the formation of the National Security Council. It is an attempt to highlight the various structural and functional flaws in the Council. The article briefly discusses the loopholes in each organ of the National Security Council. It finally underlines the need for alternative reforms in the Council.
Historical background
Although the evolution of the National Security Council would have been natural in the first few years of Independence, the idea failed to materialise due to partition and other simultaneous conflicts. Even the political leadership at the time of independence was deeply sceptical about the idea due to the civil bureaucracy’s diverging interests with political leadership, which would have resulted in the establishment of military dictatorships. Due to similar reasons, the policy was followed by subsequent political leaderships. Even the subsequent debacles in 1962, 1965 and 1972 could not force the government to have a National Security Council and the little success achieved in 1965 and 1972 wars was despite the absence of an effective national security decision making. There were undoubtedly failed attempts by the V.P. Singh, Narasimha Rao governments for the establishment of National Security Council. The efforts were finally successful after the BJP government announced the formation of India’s First National Security Council as a part of their electoral manifesto agenda on 19 November 1998. However, the recent internal and external security threats have forced us to dwell on the expectations with which the council was formed and analyse whether it has achieved its purpose or it has proven to be an exercise in futility. For this reason, it is crucial to locate the various loopholes and discrepancies within the council and ponder upon its utility as a national security decision making organ. Also, if the council has failed to achieve its given purpose, should the National Security Council be overhauled?
Structure of the Council
The National Security Council consists of six apex members and is headed by the Prime Minister of the country. It also comprises a Strategic Policy Group (SGP), a National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) and a Secretariat whose nucleus is provided by the Joint Intelligence Committee. Also, there is a National Security Advisor, along with the National Security Council. The SPG is a bureaucratic body responsible for inter-ministerial coordination. The body comprises the Cabinet Secretary, three Service Chiefs and secretaries of core ministries like interior, foreign affairs, finance, defence, atomic and space energy besides the Governor of Reserve Bank and heads of the Intelligence Agencies. The NSAB comprises retired officials- one retired major general, three Service Chiefs, four foreign secretaries, former heads of Atomic and Space agency, besides three heads of central police organisations. NSAB consists of 32 members, including two economic analysts and four strategic analysts. The National Security Advisor acts as the principal Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Structural flaws
- Through the formation of the National Security Council, the armed forces have been refused participation in the decision-making process of NSC. Also, to formulate effective policies related to national security, the Armed forces must be provided access to political leadership. However, no such provision has been provided for the Council.
- Another significant discrepancy is that the NSAB has been deprived of people from outside of the orbit. Out of a total strength of 32 members, the majority of them are retired government officials with only six members from outside of the realm. It is due to the dominance of internal members that the NSAB has been deprived of independent strategic thinking.
Functions of the Council
- The National Security Council was primarily constituted to act as a facilitator to advise and assist the Prime Minister in addressing issues of national security. The NSC has also been designated with the function of formulating National security strategies, which in turn becomes a basis for formulating national military strategy.
- The National Security Council has another function to perform- integrate, evaluate and coordinate strategic information, suggestions, advice and expertise from government agencies, armed forces and think tanks/institutions.
Functional flaws
- The political leadership has failed to realise the importance of including the Chief of Defence Staff in the National Security Council structure. This highlights a lack of strategic culture in the country, where civil bureaucrats are provided supremacy over the members of armed forces in matters of national decision making.
- Due to significant structural laws in the National Security Council, it functions ineffectively. The NSC has not been adequately structured to carry out functions of formulating national security strategies. It is also inadequate to evaluate strategic information and suggest government agencies and armed forces.
Loopholes in the organs of National Security Council
The new National Security Council formed in the year 1999 was almost identical to the NSC established in the year 1990 with the only difference being the addition of the deputy chairman of the planning commission to the Council. The new NSC also removed the provision for the representation of Chief Ministers in the body which was earlier incorporated in 1990. The then Prime Minister of India in 1995, Narsimha Rao also pointed out that a National Security Council is redundant because similar functions were performed by the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA). After a few years of the formation of NSC, such claims have started becoming a reality.
The Strategic Policy Group
One of the primary functions of the Strategic Policy Group includes “ensuring inter-ministerial coordination and integrating relevant outputs” and “undertaking long-term strategic defence review”. The discrepancy in the Strategic Policy Group lies in the appointment of the 17 senior officials which are mostly the top bureaucrats of the country. These are usually serving officials who are not appointed based on their expertise in strategic issues but based on their appointments as bureaucrats. The appointments raise serious questions on the nature of the contribution made by these members. Since the members are serving bureaucrats, their capability to spend time strategising on national security issues is sceptical. They have also been alleged for lack of inclination to delve into intricate security issues.
The Secretariat
The formation of the NSC secretariat is a perfect illustration of the failure of the governments to develop an appropriate staff for the effective functioning of the NSC. This is because the new Council merely converted the Joint Intelligence Committee into the NSC secretariat. However, the chairman of the JIC was already allotted for functioning as the secretary of the NSC. The discrepancy lies in the fact that although JIC has been converted into NSC secretariat, it continues to perform its earlier functions along with discharging other functions allotted to it. It was due to these merging roles that the NSC was later integrated into the Prime Minister’s Office in 2002, which further eroded the purpose for which it was set up.
The National Security Advisory Board
The discrepancy related to NSAB is that it lacks a clearly defined purpose evident from its ever-changing size and shape. It has been reconstituted thrice within three years of its existence. Also, the composition of the board is too large and has often proved unwieldy. Although the formation of the board was expected to gather inputs from the best minds of the country, it has slowly led to ego clashes failing to achieve its intended purpose. Due to lack of access to classified information, the inputs of the board members are highly sceptical. The board comprises ex-bureaucrats which are themselves responsible for most of the mess created. It is due to all these factors that the effectiveness of such a non-official board is questioned.
The National Security Advisor
The post of the National Security Advisor is based on the misperception of the US Model of security decision making. The US Model initially did not have any such post, but it was only later in 1953 that a post for an assistant to the President for national security issues was created. Although the person heading the post should have been called an assistant but the person informally came to be known as an Advisor. It was under this flawed perception that India introduced such a post in 1999. In India, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister acts as the National Security Advisor. The Kargil Review committee created in 2000 criticised this overlapping in roles and suggested a full-time National Security Advisor since both the positions require full-time incumbents.
Need for alternative reforms
The utility and effectiveness of the National Security Council have been questioned since its inception given its failure in materialising the purpose for which it was formed. After so many years of the formation of NSC, it has merely turned into a new organisation of ex-officio staff members failing to add anything substantive to the already existing organisations addressing National Security issues. Therefore, it is realised that national security concerns can adequately be addressed by strengthening the already existing institutions instead of the formation of such fashionable institutions which serve no real purpose. There is a need for coordination between the finance and defence ministries because a country’s security policies are highly dependent on its economic conditions. Although the defence ministry is consulted before the formation of five-year plans for defence, the budget is later reduced without consulting the defence ministry. This is owing to the secrecy maintained in formulating defence policies that it becomes difficult for the finance ministry to determine the budget that would be ‘reasonable’ for meeting the desired demands. For this, it is needed that the defence and finance ministries work in close coordination to determine the sufficient amount of money required to address national security issues.
Conclusion
A significant loophole in the working of the National Security Council is that it has been overburdened with the responsibility of all issues relating to “security”. The government has failed to realise that the existing institutions can address other kinds of security issues, but the Council should deal exclusively with matters of national security. The demand of the strategic community of an ‘integrated’ organisation for an all-encompassing national security council has proved to be destructive. In the way of establishing an integrated organisation dealing with several critical aspects of governance, the entire system is running the risk of getting overhauled. Moreover, the task of coordination designated to the Council seems to be performed by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat. The PMO has performed even other significant functions over time. The other above mentioned loopholes and discrepancies are unlikely to be solved by the National Security Council. Also attempts to strengthen the council are bound to create conflicts due to conflict of interests with other organisations especially with the bureaucratic branch. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the country that the National Security Council be overhauled since the attempts at strengthening the organisation is going to cost the nation heavily. In turn, sincere efforts towards improving other organisations are desirable and the need of the hour.
References
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
