02 August 2025
(Mains: Editorials Simplified)

FROM RETALIATION TO PREVENTION:

RETHINKING INDIA'S NATIONAL SECURITY DOCTRINE

Terrorist attacks like the one in Pahalgam are not just operational failures but symptomatic of deeper institutional and strategic deficiencies. While swift military responses demonstrate capability, true national security lies in anticipatory governance, strategic clarity, and institutional accountability.

Key Concepts and Terms

• Deterrence Posture: A nation’s overall stance to dissuade adversaries from initiating hostile acts through the threat of credible retaliation or denial strategies.

• Strategic Autonomy: The ability of a country to make its own national security and foreign policy decisions without external influence.

• Hybrid Threats: Security challenges that blend conventional warfare, irregular tactics, cyber threats, and disinformation campaigns.

• Institutional Accountability: Mechanisms that ensure public institutions take responsibility for failures, enabling transparency and reform.

Core Challenges in India’s Security Architecture

• Preventive Lapses Overlooked:

  • The Pahalgam attack highlights a glaring breach in intelligence gathering, analysis, or coordination despite heightened surveillance in the region.

  • Preventive security measures are often reactive rather than pre-emptive, indicating a shortfall in anticipatory policing and intelligence fusion.

• Ambiguity in Strategic Doctrine:

  • India has responded decisively post-attacks (Uri, Balakot, now Pahalgam), but lacks a formal doctrine defining red lines, escalation ladders, or retaliatory protocols.

  • The absence of such clarity undermines deterrence, especially when adversaries are uncertain about the costs of aggression.

• Over-Personalisation of National Security

  • Security responses are often attributed to the leadership persona rather than embedded institutional frameworks, creating inconsistency across tenures.

  • Systems must work beyond individual charisma or popularity to ensure continuity and reliability in policy execution.

 Lack of Transparency and Follow-Up Audits

• • Despite recurring security breaches, public discourse seldom includes operational audits, resignations, or systemic reviews.

  • Democratic resilience demands that failures be acknowledged, studied, and corrected through public institutions – not behind closed doors.

• Parliamentary Under-engagement

  • Parliamentary debates tend to focus on partisan positioning rather than deep policy introspection or institutional reform.

  • National security deserves bipartisan commitment and a dedicated institutional forum for structured reviews and policy feedback.

Rebuilding Strategic Readiness

• Institutionalising a National Security Doctrine:

  • Codify a comprehensive doctrine that defines thresholds, escalation responses, and hybrid threat management, and regularly update it through expert bodies.

  • A national doctrine need not reveal sensitive operational details but should communicate strategic clarity to both domestic and international actors.

• Strengthening Intelligence Integration:

  • Develop real-time, interoperable intelligence platforms among central and state agencies to avoid fragmented data collection and miscommunication.

  • Promote a centralised nodal agency for inter-agency coordination and structured threat anticipation, especially in volatile zones like Kashmir.

• Enhancing Parliamentary Oversight:

  • Establish a Parliamentary Committee on National Security with cross-party representation to periodically review security lapses and institutional performance.

  • Encourage formal reporting mechanisms post major operations to enhance transparency and strategic learning.

• Reforming Security Culture and Accountability:

  • Embed a culture of accountability within the security apparatus by conducting independent post-operation audits and publicising broad findings.

  • Avoid viewing such reviews as politically motivated – they should be institutional and professional exercises.

 Preparing for Hybrid and Emerging Threats:

• • Invest in cyber defence, misinformation tracking, and drone surveillance to anticipate multi-domain attacks.

  • Build a national security curriculum within bureaucratic and police training to promote awareness of hybrid warfronts.

Conclusion

National security is not simply measured by military action but by the systems that detect threats early, respond proportionately, and reform proactively. As terrorism evolves in scale and form, India’s strength must lie in its capacity to foresee, prepare, and adapt – not merely retaliate.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY IN ERA OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

In the digital era, data, algorithms, and software form the backbone of national sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Any international commitment involving these domains must be assessed through the lens of long-term digital and developmental interests.

Background

• The India-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement (FTA), called the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), is a bilateral trade agreement that covers goods, services, investments, and digital trade.

• In the 21st century, data is akin to a strategic resource, comparable to oil or capital in previous industrial eras. Control over digital infrastructure, data flows, source code, and AI ecosystems is increasingly seen as central to national power.

• Developed economies (like the U.S. and U.K.) advocate for open digital markets and free cross-border data flows, aligning with the interests of Big Tech firms.

• India, like many emerging economies, has historically pushed back against such models, citing the need for data localisation, regulatory autonomy, and digital sovereignty.

• With CETA, India seems to have shifted from its traditional defensive stance in digital trade, raising concerns about long-term implications.

Key Terms and Definitions

• Digital Trade: It refers to the cross-border exchange of goods and services through digital platforms, including data flows, e-commerce, software, and digital services.

• Digital Sovereignty: The ability of a nation to control its own digital infrastructure, data flows, algorithms, and technology governance without undue foreign influence.

• Source Code Disclosure: The practice of requiring access to the underlying code of software applications for regulatory, security, or public interest reasons.

• Open Government Data: Traditionally refers to publicly available data collected by the government to promote transparency. In the digital age, it includes vast, valuable datasets that can be harnessed for AI and analytics.

• Data Localisation: A policy requirement for data about a country's citizens or residents to be collected, processed, and stored within national boundaries.

• Free Flow of Data: The cross-border movement of data without restrictions, often advocated in global trade discussions for promoting business efficiency.

 Concerns and Core Issues

• Dilution of Regulatory Sovereignty:

  • India’s concession on ex ante access to source code curtails its regulatory ability in critical digital domains like telecom, AI, health, and cyber-security.

  • Unlike previous global precedents that excluded sensitive or critical infrastructure from such commitments, the India-U.K. FTA lacks such protective carve-outs.

• Strategic Risk to National Data:

  • Granting equal access to Open Government Data (OGD) to U.K. entities may expose valuable national datasets to foreign commercial exploitation.

  • In an AI-driven future, data is a foundational asset. Losing control over such resources compromises India’s potential to develop indigenous digital technologies and platforms.

• Backtracking on Long-Standing Policy Positions:

  • India’s historical opposition to unrestricted cross-border data flow and support for data localisation has been weakened by clauses promising future consultations and parity in concessions.

• Asymmetry in Negotiation Capacities:

  • The digital sector lacks a strong domestic political constituency, unlike agriculture or manufacturing, making it vulnerable in trade negotiations.

  • India appears to be reacting to external trade demands without a strategic digital industrialisation roadmap.

• Irreversible Nature of Digital Commitments:

  • Unlike tariff concessions, commitments in digital trade are structural and permanent, shaping the architecture of India’s digital future in alignment with foreign regulatory norms.

Way Forward

• Formulate a National Digital Sovereignty Policy: India must craft a coherent framework articulating its position on source code access, data sharing, platform regulation, and AI governance before engaging in future digital trade chapters.

• Digital Expertise in Trade Negotiations: Trade teams should include domain experts in cybersecurity, data governance, and digital policy who can assess long-term implications and align trade commitments with strategic interests.

• Develop Digital Standards and Infrastructure: Investment in national digital infrastructure (e.g., indigenous cloud systems, AI training datasets, and secure software ecosystems) is essential to reduce dependence on foreign digital goods and services.

• Tiered and Conditional Data Access Model: Rather than blanket data access under FTAs, India should adopt conditional models with safeguards based on sensitivity and criticality of datasets.

• Multilateral Digital Norms with Safeguards: India should shape global digital governance frameworks that balance innovation with public interest, privacy, and national security concerns.

Conclusion

India’s digital future depends not just on innovation and infrastructure, but also on how well it safeguards its regulatory autonomy and data resources in the global digital order. As digital trade becomes a pillar of future FTAs, strategic foresight, institutional preparedness, and long-term policymaking must replace reactive negotiations.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………