Internal Security
About Centre
Members:
The Centre focuses on issues that challenge India’s internal security. Secessionist movements based on ethnic identities in the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir have been contesting the Indian state through violent means for decades. The Left Wing Extremism movement based on Marxist-Leninist ideology is engaged in a struggle to overthrow the democratic structure of the Indian state. Intermittent terrorist attacks perpetrated by foreign and home grown terrorist groups have been disrupting peace and political order in the country. Infiltration, illegal migration, and trafficking of arms and narcotics are not only breaching the country’s international borders but are also aggravating its security situation. The research efforts of the Centre are focused on analysing the trends, patterns, causes, and implications of these threats and challenges, and suggesting policy alternatives. The Centre’s research agenda includes: left wing extremism, insurgencies in the Northeast India, cross border terrorism and militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, global and national trends in terrorism, management of India’s international borders and security of its coasts.
The Centre also undertakes various projects entrusted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Security Council Secretariat on matters internal security. The Centre has a mix of civilian scholars and officers deputed from the armed forces and central armed police forces.
The Centre has a bilateral agreement to collaborate with the Border Security Forces’ Institute for Border Management and Strategic Studies.
No posts of Books and Monograph.
Maritime violence off the Horn of Africa has generated immense global attention. Ships carrying cargo that included oil, military weapons, and chemicals have been attacked. More than 20,000 vessels ply this strategically important area that includes the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, and the western Indian Ocean every year.
The two global trends of multipolarity (rising powers) and non-polarity (failing states) are strongly present in the South Asian geopolitical context. India's competitive-cooperative relationship with China is clearly part of the multipolar trend of rising powers throughout the world, while India's long, antagonistic history with Pakistan is increasingly witness to a weakening and radicalized Pakistani state. In this mixed strategic environment, Indian nuclear weapons are neither a global bane nor a coercive form of power for compelling a lopsided agreement with Pakistan on Kashmir.
A decade after the Kargil conflict and over seven years after the major Indian military mobilization along the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan, both countries were yet again on the verge of a military confrontation following the revelation of Pakistan's complicity in the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008. Islamabad's recalcitrance in taking action against groups responsible for this attack forced New Delhi to plan punitive responses against terror camps within Pakistan, prompting the latter to mobilize troops and project a capability to repulse an Indian attack.
Despite the instant denial issued by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) of its involvement in the November 26 Mumbai terrorist attacks, it is clear that the attacks were the latest manifestation of the terrorist grouping's engorged war – the extension of Jihad much beyond its traditional hunting ground of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to the Indian heartland. Abdullah Ghaznavi, speaking on behalf of the Lashkar, told TV channels in the early hours of November 27: ‘LeT condemns such acts and we have no link with those responsible for such acts’.
Why are the two largest democracies – India and the United States – starkly different when it comes to tackling terrorism? The answer to this perplexing question could lie in the two countries' divergent approach to security and management of national security resources. Equally relevant is the variance in their political resoluteness in exercising suitable responses to emergent threats.
Linked to the terrorist goal of intimidation of a targeted population, there is an inherent objective to spread fear and undermine the declared values of the targeted political system by pushing a frightened society and government into overreaction. On the other hand, the counter-insurgent state wishes to downplay the impact of the terrorist attack and works towards keeping the morale of the population as well as the security forces intact. In this battle, the media plays an important and influential role.
The Union Government took notice of the current phase of the Naxalite challenge with concern, for the first time, in 1998. Since then, it has been playing a coordinating role among the various affected states to address the challenge. It has also been advising the affected states on ways to deal with the challenge. By 2003, the Union Government had put in place a two-pronged approach to address the Maoist challenge - that of a development response and a security response. However, all along, the Union Government's response has largely been security-centric.
It is neither the Wuhan spirit nor India’s zero tolerance on terrorism but China’s own vulnerability to terror that caused Beijing to ultimately take on board New Delhi’s concerns on terrorism.
What pales the counter-terrorism regime is not that its procedures are cumbersome or that its working is not transparent, but that it only selectively raises the cost for those who inflict terror.
To force all Rohingyas to return on the grounds of “threat to security” is against India’s humanitarian heritage. The government and its agencies are capable of sifting out Rohingya elements who might actually have links to terror organisations from the rest of the group.
The best way forward for India is to initiate talks with Bangladesh and seek a mutually acceptable political solution for the issue of illegal immigrants.
While the intended targets of the Maoists are security forces personnel, often civilians and animals become casualties in blasts triggered by pressure mines.
The declaration of the Disturbed Area provision is fundamentally at odds with the mutually accommodative integration endeavour of the Nagas with the Indian Union as envisioned in the 2015 framework agreement.
Since the deportation of illegal migrants is not feasible, the only option before the government is to let them reside in the country on humanitarian grounds but after stripping them of all citizenship rights.
A long coastline, ports, and availability of airfields all make Odisha a strategic asset that provides considerable leverage for securing India’s national interests and enhancing influence in South East Asia.
China and to a lesser extent Pakistan have helped North Korea with its nuclear and missile development programmes.
Implementation of high-tech solutions without adequately trained personnel is unlikely to help the Border Security Force achieve the goal of foolproof border surveillance.
