July 22, 2024
📰 FEATURE STORY
Has the Doval Doctrine worked for India?
.jpg){kind=link}
Ever since Ajit Doval assumed the role of India’s National Security Advisor (NSA), the country’s image has changed from one afraid to act on the international stage to a ‘hard state’. That Doval Doctrine was best exemplified in his warning to Pakistan – “You do one more Mumbai, you lose Balochistan.”
But India and the world’s national security challenges have become more complicated. India’s stance, under Doval, has been more “defensive offence.” Has Doval’s blueprint worked out well, given aggression from Pakistan on one side and China on the other?
Context
In early 2001, Indian newspapers carried a photo of an Indian soldier’s body tied to a bamboo pole carried by Bangladeshi villagers. He was one of the 16 Border Security Force soldiers allegedly tortured and killed by the Bangladeshi Rifles in a border skirmish. What followed was just condemnation.
Then came the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai as India’s political and national security apparatus were caught asleep at the wheel. The response was condemnation again, just stronger this time. India also sent dossiers of Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, and Pakistan didn’t do anything with it. The writing seemed to be on the wall – India was a ‘soft state.’
Before he became India’s NSA, Ajit Doval had the reputation of being a hawk. A graduate of the Indian Police Service in 1968, he went on to significant exploits – infiltrating the underground Mizo National Front to win over its top commanders and a seven-year tour of duty in Pakistan, to name a few. He retired as Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) in 2005.
Doval isn’t the type of person who sits behind a desk. He’s a man of action and isn’t afraid to mince words. At a 2014 Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, he warned that India has to be prepared for a two-front war and has two nuclear-powered neighbours who share a relationship and an adversarial view of the country.
For Doval, the frustration was that India had the reputation of repeatedly punching below its weight. He wanted India to punch back proportionately.
Take Kashmir, for example. Doval’s view, outlined in a 2010 lecture, outlined the problem as the result of a dysfunctional mindset of three parties – India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri separatists. He said India made the mistake of following a policy of appeasement since 1947. To him, Article 370 was a product of that policy.
Kashmir today has seen a rise in terror attacks. Manipur has seen horrific incidents of violence this year. The Doval doctrine has placed limited reliance on diplomacy only to the extent that the country’s territorial interests aren’t compromised.
VIEW: A new approach was needed
Many experts argued that India needed to change its approach to national security. They were somewhat relieved when Doval came into the picture as NSA. What helps is that Doval’s boss, the Prime Minister, likes his style. From Doval’s point of view, India’s weak mindset invited trouble since there was no immediate threat of retaliation. 26/11 was perhaps the best example of this. The defensive strategy reflected a passive attitude and exposed India’s perceived weakness due to its soft stance.
Doval made an important distinction between individual morality and state actions. The former can adopt non-violence and non-retaliation as a virtue and principle, but a state can’t. The state has to act for the greater good, and a country must take all precautions and use all the tools at its disposal to ensure its safety. The West saw power and its nature and realised the need to make it last long. They developed laws and institutions for it.
India’s excessive strategic restraint in national security proved to be a mistake. It allowed hostile foreign neighbours to take advantage. What Doval instigated was a more offensive approach. The surgical strikes in 2016 are a prime example. That was an “offensive-defensive” move. The other component, defensive-offensive, was best exemplified by the 2019 Balakot strikes. For the first time in a long time, India’s foreign policy posture somewhat aligned with the NSA’s strategic vision.
COUNTERVIEW: Not worked out
While the Doval doctrine has been in place since 2014, India still doesn’t have a comprehensive national security strategy. The doctrine isn’t the way to go since the focus on military, paramilitary, and intelligence is scattered. A national security document will offer clarity and strategic foresight, crucial for national security. The doctrine can’t be a long-term substitute.
Doval’s past observations on China and Pakistan were seen by some as ignorant. His poor understanding of the boundary dispute with China was evident when he expressed concern over it in 2015, even though China has concentrated on Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh for the past 30 years. One of the main follies of the Doval doctrine is that diplomacy is merely a periphery to coercion. This indicates a false depiction of the Nehru era as ideal.
The Doval doctrine isn’t written in text in an official document or book. While it indicates a posture of action, questions remain on present-day Kashmir and Manipur. We don’t know if he has been to Manipur yet like he did in Kashmir, where he was photographed eating biryani on the streets to symbolise everything was back to normal. It wasn’t. A decade since Doval has been NSA, the doctrine’s limits are all too evident. Putting aside the traditional tools of diplomacy and instruments of statecraft for a closed-fist approach isn’t going to hold India in good stead in the future.
Reference Links:
- Is R&AW the new Mossad? India’s image turns from ‘soft State’ to hard under Modi and Doval – Firstpost
- What’s our actual national security doctrine? Can Doval spell it out? – Deccan Chronicle
- India’s national security doctrine is finally in the works. It must be debated in public – The Print
- The Doval Doctrine, from High Definition to Low Yield – The Wire
- The Doval Doctrine and the floating goalpost of ‘national security’ – National Herald
- India’s National Security Evolution: Urgent Need for Comprehensive Strategy – Fair Observer
What is your opinion on this?
(Only subscribers can participate in polls)
a) The Doval Doctrine has worked for India.
b) The Doval Doctrine hasn’t worked for India.
🕵️ BEYOND ECHO CHAMBERS
For the Right:
Windfall Profit Tax: Digging for elusive data
For the Left:
Decolonising Morality: ‘Hindu Thought’ Challenges Western Intellectual Hegemony