India but must be prepared in the instance

India has
encountered different types of violent conflict due to caste, religion,
ethnicity, language and regional loyalties. The nation’s leaders have been so pre-occupied
ensuring the country’s survival that they have failed to establish a long- term
policy for national security. George Tanham (1992) pronounced that “Indian elites show little evidence of having
thought coherently and
systematically about strategy” and that “no serious strategic planning institutions, if
they ever existed, have survived in independent India, and none exists today”. Instead Indian governments have favored a
peaceful, non-aggressive approach. However, today India is experiencing threats
both externally, from hostile neighbors including Pakistan and China, in
addition to internal menaces from left wings extremists and other terrorist
organizations. In order to combat this, India need to consider expanding
military expenditure. This would include increasing the size of the nuclear
arsenal to deter external threats from Pakistan and China. India does not need
to go to war as this would represent a zero sum game, but must be prepared in the
instance that Pakistan or China decide to take offensive action. Furthermore
the country must invest more heavily in internal security in the form of state
police and security in order to control and prevent terrorist activities as
well as improving the response when such incidences do occur. Greater investment
in human and technological intelligence is also required in order to seek out
potential threats and help prevent future occurrences.


the dissolution of the British Empire after World War II, the Indian
independence act, 1947 led to the creation of India, with a Hindu majority (79.8%)
and Pakistan, with an Islamic majority (96.28%). Internal security concerns in
India have been exacerbated by Pakistan, who have developed a foreign policy promoting
the Islamic religion through aggressive overseas policies.  Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf
admitted that Islamabad supported and trained groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba to carry out terrorist activities
in the Kashmir region of India. “In 1990s the freedom struggle began in
Kashmir… At that time Lashkar-e-Taiba and 11 or 12 other organizations were
formed. We supported them and trained them as they were fighting in Kashmir at
the cost of their lives,”. More recently Pakistan were responsible for the 2008
Mumbai attacks in which they supported Islamic based terrorist organization
Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out 12 shootings over a four-day period leading to 166
deaths. Furthermore, through the Inter-Service Intelligence, Pakistan regularly
inject fake Indian currency, via Nepal, with the goal of unmining the local
economy.  Furthermore they have helped to
smuggle terrorists into the country. The theory of Samuel Huntington states
that people identify themselves based on their faith and beliefs.  People from (minority) t religions are often discriminated
against and do not have recourse to the “rule of law” to resolve political and
economic differences. In the case in which the country is run by a Hindi
majority, the minority (Islamic population) are discriminated against and
policies are directed in favor of the majority.


Additionally, Pakistan boasts a greater nuclear arsenal than
India.  It is estimated to possess
100-120 nuclear weapons, whereas India has a slightly smaller inventory with
90-110 nuclear weapons. In the absence of nuclear supremacy, India will have to
cope with nuclear blackmail from Chinese supported Pakistan due to a larger
militancy capacity giving them greater international influence. Therefore, an
increase in their nuclear arsenal is required to reduce the threat from
Islamabad, reducing their vulnerability. As a consequence Pakistan has a larger
influence over international affairs and is able to impose their own political
agenda to exploit India. However, if India was to develop a larger conventional
capacity, then it would prevent any potential adversary winning any advantage by
going to war. Pakistan would therefore experience a zero sum gain and the costs
would equal the benefit and therefore they would be deterred from any military
action. This can be seen in regard to the Cuban incident of 1962, when Cuba’s
possession of nuclear weapons deterred western countries such as America adopting
a more aggressive stance, since they did not want to experience a backlash in
terms of nuclear warfare. However, India does not possess such military
protection and with Pakistan unlikely to compromise on their policies, if a
situation in which Pakistan was to take offensive action against India then
they would have no option but to rely on assistance from external forces. It
would also mean that India are unable to retaliate against Pakistan if they
were to carry out offensive operations, increasing the likelihood of such events


This coupled with the threat of Pakistan’s collusion with
China poses a threat to the well-being of the nation. The Sino-Pakistan agreement
guarantees Pakistani territorial integrity. India’s military expenditure stood
at $55.9 billion as of 2016, whereas Pakistan’s military expenditure only
stands at $8.78 billion. Therefore, it is believed that Pakistan would not be
able to wage a war against India, unless it obtained financial and military
backing from China, who spent $146 billion in military expenditure in 2016. Together
this would result in devastation for India. As any major changes to Pakistan’s
Political point of view in relation to India is seen as unlikely, India will
have to continue to anticipate security and terror activities undertaken by
Pakistan with the assistance of its benefactor of China. Therefore, India has
to invest in military expenditure in order to deter China from aiding Islamabad
and build up a nuclear arsenal so large that is deemed a significant threat. As
the threat is derived from the nuclear capable nation (China) and in order for
them to be deterred, India need to bridge the gap between their own and China’s
military capacity. As Swaine and Tellis stated that “the continued increase in
China’s relative economic and military capabilities … if sustained over many
years, will certainly produce a redefinition of Beijing’s strategic orientation
… that directly or indirectly challenge many of the existing equities”


The weak political system, coupled with controversial
legislation has led to violence erupting as a result of different
view-points.  This situation has been
further exacerbated by propaganda and ideological support provided to the
minority group from external forces such as Pakistan. In addition, a consortium
of revolutionary groups have formed aiming to depose the government. Violent
conflicts are based upon caste, religion, ethnicity, language and regional loyalties. As a result
of a weak policing system in certain states in India, a sense of lawlessness has
developed. This has led to an increase in support for these groups who offer
protection and order to the supporters, who do not receive this from the state
through appropriate policing. This has led to wide scale crime, which is
prevalent as shown by the Indian Penal code which has seen crime rates increase
by over 250% from 54,287 in 2012 to 191,377 in 2015. Even though there has been
an increase in the number of crimes reported, a report from the National Crime Records Bureau stated that in 2013
the conviction rate in India stood at 40.2% (2013), with areas such as Bihar
with a conviction rate as low as 10%. With the threat of punishment disappearing,
there has been a systemic increase organized crime in these areas. For many of
the revolutionary groups, extortion is the major source of funds.  Former Home secretary G K Pillai stated that
the Left wing extremists funds are believed to be a minimum of 2,000 crores
($20 billion), in which the majority was raised through extortion.