The National Security Council (NSC) of India is a three-tiered organization that oversees political, economic, energy and security issues of strategic concern. It operates within the executive office of the prime minister of India, liaising between the government’s executive branch and the intelligence services, advising leadership on intelligence and security issues. The National Security Council comprises the Strategic Policy Group, the National Security Advisory Board and a secretariat from the Joint Intelligence Committee. The National Security Advisor presides over the NSC, and is also the primary advisor to the prime minister. The current National Security Advisor is Shivshankar Menon.

Unlike its American counterpart, the National Security Council of India’s details remain opaque to the public. This has been the case since its formation in 1998, when a broad outline of the structure was provided.

Discussions about developing a National Security Council began in earnest in 1988, in line with the development of India’s nuclear and missile programs. The armed forces did not plan any long-term budgets back then, thus discarding their structures for the defense budget. Military officers and the Minister for Defense, K.C Pant, recognized the need for a national security planning institution. A proposal was drafted outlining the architecture of such a council. This was strongly resisted and contested by the army chief of staff, V.N. Sharma.

In 1990, another proposal for a national security council came forth amidst nuclear discussions with Pakistan. This was a bid to strengthen policymaking between the two countries. A body was formed with additions to an existing Cabinet Committee of Political Affairs. Once again, this was dropped due to the ministers and ministries’ apparent reluctance to cede authority and power. A decade-long power struggle between the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress, international concerns over India’s nuclear development programs, and an apparent bureaucratic ego-clash caused further delay in setting up the National Security Council.

India’s nuclear policy has always been a source of friction between India’s political and military leaders. Military leaders were long excluded from making nuclear policy due to many bureaucrats fear of shifting too much power to the military. The Vajpayee administration (BJP) in 1998 finally created the NSC. Since then, however, the prime minister has retained final authority over nuclear policy. Two years after the NSC’s establishment, military interests were integrated with political and scientific interests.

The historic Lahore Summit of 1999 was held in response to nuclear tests conducted by both India and Pakistan, which raised international concerns about the possibility of a nuclear crisis on the subcontinent. During this summit, power remained with then Indian PM A.B. Vajpayee and the National Security Council were sidelined, affirming that India’s nuclear policy was still controlled by its prime minister.

The formation of the council was initially disputed when proposed in 1995. NSC and the National Security Advisor position, which was first filled by Brijesh Mishra, were created in tandem.

The BJP Election Manifesto 98 committed to “establish a National Security Council to constantly analyze security, political and economic threats and render continuous advice to the Government. This council will undertake India's first-ever Strategic Defense Review to study and analyze the security environment and make appropriate recommendations to cover all aspects of defense requirements and organization.”

At the apex of the National Security Council sit six decision-making members. the Pr­ime Minister, a Strategic Policy Group, a National Advisory Board, and a Secretariat representing the Joint Intelligence Committee, and the National Security Advisor. The NSC’s agenda includes issues of external and internal security, military affairs, conventional and non-conventional defense, space and high technology, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, economy and environment. The military has no representation in this tier.

The Strategic Policy Group is the first level of the NSC structure. It is headed by the Cabinet Secretary and includes the chiefs of staff from the Army, Navy and Air Force, the governor of Reserve Bank of India, Secretaries of the ministries of Home, Defense, External Affairs, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Revenue, Research and Analysis Wing of Cabinet Secretariat, Dept. of Atomic Energy, Department of Space, Department of Defense Production and Supplies, Scientific Advisor to the Defense Minister, and several other secretaries of union ministries and the Director of the Intelligence Bureau. Other invitees can be added as required. The SPG publishes the Strategic Defense Review – a draft of short term and long term security threats and defense matters for the consideration of the apex body.

At the second level of the NSC structure, lies the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB). The constituting members are “persons of eminence” outside the Government with expertise in external security, strategic analysis, foreign affairs, defense, the armed forces, internal security, science and technology and economics. The NSAB is the council’s think-tank. It holds monthly meetings to recommend solutions and policy issues to the policy makers upon referral from the NSC.
 

The third level is the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). Modeled on its British counterpart, the JIC is responsible for directing the national intelligence organizations and analyzing intelligence data. The JIC operates with its own Secretariat that works under the Cabinet Secretariat.

A Confidence Man in the NSA

Among the more scandalous revelations from the Wikileaks cables, Indian cables contained allegations that former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati sent a private jet to pick up a pair of shoes regarding a man named Nachiteka Kapur. Kapur is emblematic of the broken Indian political system and it’s patronage appointments. Kapur, who lied about having a college degree, was a research officer in the NSA. The cables detail his involvement in creating a fund of Rs. 50 crore (approx. $9.4 million USD) to bribe politicians.  The payoffs were aimed at MP’s to buy their votes for the Congress party. After getting bounced from the NSA, Kapur was appointed to the Commonwealth Games committee by chieftain Suresh Kalmadi, who eventually went to jail for his role in bilking the taxpayers of millions of dollars through bribes and kickbacks.

Full Text of Wikileaks Cable on Trust Vote Controversy (NDTV)

Who is Nachiketa Kapur? (India Today)

Political Bargaining Continues Prior to Key Vote in Parliament (U.S. State Department Cable, WikiLeaks)

India’s Weak Cybersecurity

In recent talks between the Indian and American governments, the U.S. has shown increasing interest in India’s cybersecurity since numerous American companies run substantial parts of their operations from their Indian offices. The U.S. has some reason for concern. The Information Warfare Monitor March 2009 discovery of Ghostnet revealed that a network of Chinese hackers compromised Indian government computers both domestically and abroad while targeting the Tibetan exile community in India. Since then, India has attempted to improve their protection through the efforts of CERT-In and the National Technical Research Organization. Yet as cybersecurity expert Ulrik McKnight’s excellent three-part series on the India site shows there is still reason for concern:

“A Mumbai-based hacker specializing in network penetration says: ‘If I was attacking the Government today, I would send every email address in every government department a malicious link or attachment. I have no doubt that it would be opened by over 75% of people, and that I would have control of government systems at multiple levels by the end of tomorrow afternoon. Sadly, this is neither a sophisticated nor a novel attack.’”

He’s right. This has already been done to the Indian government, and not even to junior staffers.

In August 2011, newspapers reported that these types of emails had been sent to many senior government officials, including the head of the foreign service. The attacks were so successful that in the Ministry of External Affairs even offline machines, which should be the safest, were compromised and their data sent to the adversary. In this case the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), the apex group under the Prime Minister’s Office tasked with India’s cyber-security, responded to the attack and neutralized it – but not before discovering that some of the machines had been under hostile control for over 2 years.

The government’s cybersecurity plan is to be released shortly and was developed by Lt. Gen. Prakash Menon, the military advisor to the National Security Council Secretariat, under the guidance of the National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon. This cybersecurity plan will establish a dedicated computer network, which includes a technical-professional body, which will assist with Indian cyber security.

India Hacked: Part I – The Extent of the Compromise (By Ulrik McKnight, The India Site)

India Hacked, Part II: Cyber Warfare – The New Battlefield (By Ulrik McKnight, The India Site)

India Hacked! Part III – Building Shadow Armies (By Ulrik McKnight, The India Site)

Govt’s Cyber Security Plan Ready For Activation (By Shishir Gupta, Hindustan Times)

More Transparency and Oversight

The National Security Council is seen as necessary for a nuclear-enabled country and it was initially established to oversee nuclear policies. The composition of the NSC, though, has long been an ideological power struggle between politicians and high-ranking military officials. The result has been an organizational structure that exposes the country’s many shortcomings. This, along with structural faults and promoting ‘integrated thinking,’ in national security affairs suggest the ineffectiveness of the body. Yet the presence of an ineffective NSC is apparently better than an “independent and overarching body” that may demonstrate too much power over other institutions concerned with national security.

The NSC, as it is today, was born through an executive order. However, its existence and continuity needs to be sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, as in the United States. The structure of the NSC is borrowed from counterpart organizations from democracies like the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France. But in the case of India, the centralization of all national security decision-making seems to hinder the process.

Perhaps the biggest problem facing the body to is the complete dearth of detailed information available about discussions in the NSC today.  More transparency would enable more effective oversight. The NSC is often believed to be an inscrutable body that needs to operate more efficiently. A widely suggested reform is that the NSC and its different levels must modify its management system in a coordinated manner and work toward a more action-oriented analysis and follow-up action plans rather than concealed discussions. The Joint Intelligence Council frequently morphing structure is often cited as an example of this dysfunction. It has been bifurcated, merged, renamed, restored, and subordinated since its inception.

An Open Letter to the New NSA (By B Raman, Rediff)

India’s National Security Council – A Critical Review (by Subhash Kapila, South Asia Analysis Group)

India's National Security Council: Stuck in the Cradle (by D. Shyam Babu, Security Dialogue)

M.K. Narayanan

M.K. Narayanan served as National Security Advisor until January 2010. He later served as the governor of West Bengal. He was criticized for focusing more on LTTE rebels even after the attacks in Mumbai. He was accused of showing leniency toward Hindu nationalist groups for sending informal orders to the police investigating the 2007 attack on the Samjhauta Express – a train that runs between India and Pakistan.

Official Biography