Coastal Security

Indian Coastline 7516 km. 1993 Mumbai serial blasts and 2008 Mumbai attacks were a proof of flaw in coastal security. 

 

Threats and Challenges:-

• Remoteness of these coastal areas makes them unguarded. Boats can easily land and disappear in stealth and thus remains undetected.

• Creek Areas of Gujarat and Sunder-bans (W.B.) are particularly vulnerable to clandestine activities since they side by Pak and Bangladesh borders. Creeks are interconnected through small islands and hence make border porous. Man-grooves and Sand Bars provides shelters. No approach channel from Indian Side.e.g. harami nala is a channel which originates from India enters Pakistan and then re-merges in India is a major route for terrorists

• Proximity to volatile countries. There is less than 2000 km distance between Gujarat and UAE. Dhows –large wooden boats used for trade are involved in illicit trade and smuggling from Pakistan through Dubai. No mechanism to stop this trade.

• India’s proximity to Sri Lanka has undermined it’s security. LTTE and other migrants to Tamil Nadu are involved in clandestine activity.

• Due to fencing of land borders, Bangladeshis have been creeping into through sea routes.

• Unsettled Maritime Boundary disputes e.g.

River-line border along Sir Creek with Pakistan and with Bangladesh dispute over maritime boundary and Islands that appear after cyclone i.e. New Moore in India and Talpatti in Bangladesh. The Island disappear but dispute does not.

Bangladesh instituted arbitral proceedings for the delimitation of the maritime boundary with India under Annex VII of UNCLOS,16 the verdict of which will be pronounced in 2014.

• Discovery of vast Hydrocarbons has complicated the situation. Neighbors are claiming the territory under EEZ.

• Strategic Installations although vital for security are high value targets for terrorists.

• Increasing Maritime traffic

Three tier structure of Coastal Security:-

Organisation	Responsibility	Flaws
Indian Navy	Overall Maritime Secirity(outline tier)	Does not have power to control other organizations and their resources
Indian Coast Guard	Territorial water till shoreline (Intermediate Tier)	Not responsible for complete coastal security and Coordinates only Central and state agencies
Marine Police	Patrolling Shallow and Inland water	No responsible for Intrusion

• Other organization such as Custom department and CISF (Marine wing) uses the interceptor boat for Patrolling without having the technical knowledge and manpower to use it. Hence, either the national assets go waste or send for repair due to mishandling.

• Capabilities in terms of assets, manpower, presence, mindset and mind-set are poor. e.g. Indian Navy only prepares for war time defense. Marine Police receives inadequate state attention.

• Organizations do not share intelligence with each other and work reluctantly. Propels only on saving their own goals.

• Measures such as Joint operation Centers, Coordination Committees and Joint coastal security exercises prove inadequate.

Why Indian Coast Guards should be given sole responsibility?

1. Strong presence along entire coastline

2. Has training, tradition and the mind-set.

3. Functioned as the national authority for Offshore Security Coordination Committee (OSCC), national authority for maritime search and rescue, lead intelligence agency for coastal borders and the coordinating agency for coastal security.

4. established good working relationships with concerned organizations as well as with fishermen.

Steps to take:-

1. the Charter of ICG should be amended and its forces should be enhanced and Indian Navy should be freed to develop its wartime capabilities.

2. The ICG should be treated as a border guarding force and brought under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This will ensure administrative cohesion and revenue flows.

3. MHA should concentrate on training of Marine Police

4. Include private players in Maritime security

5. Should recruit talented local fisherman in Marine Police.

6. Training should be conducted frequently

7. State and Center govt. should co-operate with each other.

Small boats are threat:-

Indian Coast Guard is wary of small vessels without masts in the seas with engines can be operated with oars and are capable of mixing with fishing boats. But Human Intelligence is applied to find the odd boat.

• A Pilot project for tracking vessels <20metres began.

• Difficult to put technology on small boats which do not have masts.

• But registration of fishermen completed and data has been shared with different units of coast guards.

• Radio identification fingerprinting of boats will take place and the prototype model is in place. Card readers are also being provided to monitor movement of the crafts.

• Floating armories are cause of concern. Due to pressure on Somalian pirates they have moved their operation east towards India. Merchant vessels no carry armed guards and since they operate close to Indian waters these guards posed a challenge to us.

• It through ministry of shipping urged regulation of these merchant ships and recording of data of their crew, armed guards and weapons carried by them.

•Patrolling has been increased by 75 percent.

INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY STATES / भारतवर्ष

INTEGRATION OF PRINCELY STATES

Just after the independence New India has more than 500 princely states at the eve of integration. In princely states era they all categorized in to area and amount of revenue collected varied widely in size and status- smallest Bilbari ( annual revenue of Rs. 8) and largest Hyderabad (80,000 square miles). For A very long time they were indirectly controlled by the British. All the states needs different levels of economic and political development.

Efforts by British (before independence)

·         Direct annexation and de facto paramountcy (policy of subordinate isolation) - upto Revolt of 1857.

·         Indirect rule and de jure paramountcy (policy of subordinate union) following GoT Act, 1858

·         Chamber of Princes-1921.

·         Harcourt Butler Committee (alongside Simon Commission).

·         Federal Scheme of GoI Act, 1935.

Reasons for Integration

·         Termination of paramountcy would have left princes technically free to choose to accede or remain independent, a possibility suggested by Cripps Mission also.

·         INC wanted to avoid the 'balkanisation' of India and insisted on the incorporation of the princely states into India in its negotiations with Mountbatten.

·         Development of trade, commerce and communications during the 19th and 20th centuries had bound the princely states to British India through a complex network of interests.

·         Mountbatten was convinced that integration of the princely states into independent India would to some extent assuage the wounds of Partition.

Princes

·         Bikaner and Jawahar were motivated by ideological and patriotic considerations.

·         Bhopal, Travancore and Hyderabad planned to remain independent.

·         Some proposed a confederation of states.

·         Many dreamt of a return to the situation in 16th century India of several independent principalities.

·         Baroda was the first to join the Constituent Assembly. Bikaner made an appeal which led to several states of Rajputana too joining.

·         Lack of unity.

Mountbatten's role

·         Lumby and Moore take the view that Mountbatten played a crucial role in ensuring that the princely states agreed to accede to India.

·         Enormous prestige and legitimacy - relative of the King.

·         Personal friend of many of the rulers like the Nawab of Bhopal.

·         Princes believed his position as Gov-Gen of Indian dominion following independence would guarantee safeguard of their interests.

·         Assured them of the most favorable terms of accession as possible.

·         Told them that Britain would no longer patronize or protect them.

·         Convinced them that though technically independent they would be rudderless on their own.

·         Highlighted the geographic compulsions that meant most of them must choose India and also religious compulsions (otherwise would be violation of 2 Nation theory).

·         Dealt with the symbolic and princely courtesies of accession.

Pressure and Diplomacy (Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon)

·         Congress' stated position was that the princely states were not sovereign entities.

·         While Nehru and Rajaji took aggressive stances(said they would be treated as enemy states), Patel was more conciliatory in his approach.

·         Policy of carrot and stick.

·         Example of realpolitik.

·         Policy of divide and rule - played princes against one another by winning over support of some early on which unsettled others.

·         Used democratic tools like plebiscite (in Junagadh).

Carrot

·         Aroused spirit of nationalism in rulers.

·         Promised protection of their traditional rights (during accession).

·         Promised autonomy in internal matters and asked only for surrender of defence, external affairs and communication subjects.

·         Assured the provisions of a new constitution wouldn't apply to them.

·         Offered privy purses, retention of personal property and titles, inducements of Governorships as 'Rajapramukhs' (during integration).

·         Emphasized that without integration their economies would collapse resulting in situation of anarchy.

Stick

·         Used threat of popular protest.

·         Encouraged prajamandals to agitate for accession to India - Travancore, Mysore, Kathiawar, Orissa.

·         Cut off critical supplies and lines of communication to Junagadh.

·         Threat of military action.

·         Use of military occupation - Junagadh.

·         Use of police action - Hyderabad (Operation Polo).

·         Kashmir - threat of proxy war- diminished role of Patel - problem still lingers (other acceded states - Patel has had a role - no problems since).

Process of Integration

            1. Accession

·         Instruments of Accession (IoA) - Defence, Foreign Policy, Communications.

·         Produced a rather loose federation, with significant differences in administration and governance across the various states.

            2. Merger

·         Merger Agreements -   to merge the smaller states that were not seen by the Government of India to be viable administrative units either into neighboring provinces.

·         Covenants of Merger -   convince groups of large states to combine to form a "princely union"  -Eg. PEPSU, Saurashtra, United States of Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin.

·         The only princely states which signed neither Covenants of Merger nor Merger Agreements were Kashmir, Mysore and Hyderabad.

·         Ended the discrete existence of states.

            3. Democratisation

·         Special covenant signed by the Rajpramukhs of the merged princely unions, binding them to act as constitutional monarchs.

·         Gave same measure of responsible government to people of erstwhile princely states as the rest of India.

·         But these governments still remained insulated from central control save for the 3 subjects specified in IoA.

            4. Centralisation and Constitutionalisation

·         Signed new Instruments of Accession which gave the Government of India the power to pass laws in respect of all matters that fell within the seventh schedule of GoI Act,1935.

·         Only exception was Kashmir, whose relationship with India continued to be governed by the original Instrument of Accession.

            5. Reorganisation

·         State Reorganisations Act, 1956.

·         Rajpramukhs lost their authority, and were replaced as the constitutional heads of state by Governors appointed by the central government.

·         Privy purse, the exemption from customs duty, and customary dignities survived, but only till 1971.

Post-Integration Issues

1.      Colonial Enclaves

·         French

o   Chandernagore- 1950.

o   Pondicherry, Karaikal, Yanam, Mahe - 1954 (unofficial) ; 1962 (official).

·         Portuguese - after negotiation attempts failed despite popular protests, forced occupation in 1961.

2.      Remaining princely states

·         Nepal -  recognized by the British and the Government of India as being independent.

·         Bhutan - considered a protectorate outside the international frontier of India - treaty in 1949 that Bhutan would abide by India's direction in external affairs.

·         Sikkim

o   Treaty in 1950 with Chogyal Rulers.

o    India had responsibility for defence, external affairs and communications, and ultimate responsibility for law and order, but Sikkim was otherwise given full internal autonomy.

o   1973 - Anti-Chogyal agitation broke out (led by Kazi-Dorji of Sikkim State Congress) - demand for popular elections and democratic government.

o   1975 - the Sikkim Assembly passed a resolution calling for the state to be fully integrated into India - endorsed by referendum.

3.      Secessionism

·         Kashmir

·         Tripura

·         Manipur

4.      Sub-nationalism

·         Telengana

·         Vidarbha

Who was responsible for integration ?

·         Sardar Patel - through his wisdom, foresight, diplomacy and intrigue - guiding hand.

·         V.P. Menon - Patel's right-hand man, ran all the hard yards slowly chipping away at the rulers, without which accession wouldn't have been possible.

·         Bureaucrats - who effected the actual transition by creating the conditions for social and financial integration.

·         The faceless masses - through vigorous protests and active Prajamandals.

o   without the threat of mass agitation from below there would have been no successful integration from above as states wouldn't have ceded so easily.

Critical Perspectives

·         Ian Copland and Ramusack - one of the reasons why the princes consented to the demise of their states was that they felt abandoned by the British, and saw themselves as having little other option

·         Lumby, in contrast, take the view that the princely states could not have survived as independent entities after the transfer of power, and that their demise was inevitable. They therefore view successful integration of all princely states into India as a triumph for the Government of India and Lord Mountbatten, and as a tribute to the sagacity of the princes.

·         Bipan Chandra – criticizes Mountbatten for overstating his mandate and his impact on integration. Believes it to be the result of

o   Sardar Patel’s leadership

o   V.P. Menon’s hard work

o   Urges and aspirations of the Indian people

References

1.      India’s Struggle for Freedom – Bipan Chandra

2.      India After Gandhi – RamachandraGuha