Internal security of India

Aribam Uttam Sharma
Initially, India was more concerned about the external threats posed by China and Pakistan, but now it is also concerned about a variety of internal security risks posed by growing dissatisfaction among some sections of the population. Both are necessary, and a united, peaceful country can face foreign problems confidently and effectively. The loss of our federal framework, rising economic disparities, and the rise of communalism are just a few of the difficulties that India is dealing today. Each produces societal divisions, resulting in a ready pool of manpower and resources that may be easily manipulated and exploited by outside organisations, posing serious internal security risks.
Internal security is the act of establishing and maintaining peace within a Nation’s boundaries by upholding National law and order and defending its citizens against internal security threats. It is up to authorities ranging from police to paramilitary forces, and in extreme cases, the military itself, to keep it safe. Domestic dangers and challenges from across international borders have taken many forms, including ethnic insurrection, militancy, and terrorism, all of which have weakened and destroyed the country. India is increasing its power and expertise to eliminate the source of threats, but it must be remembered that new sources emerge at a quick pace.
The majority of India’s internal security issues are State-centric. Beginning with sponsored separatist militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, racial and cultural instability in North Eastern provinces, bloodshed in Punjab, Maoist threats expanding over the eastern shore, and others, this has been pervasive since 1947. While some of these are funded and financed by outside sources, others are the result of political incompetence, poor governance, and corruption. The current condition of affairs in the States is far from desirable.
India has faced numerous security challenges since its independence. No other country, developing or developed, is confronted with the problems and risks that India faces. Internal security challenges are those that occur within the country; in India, the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) is responsible for internal security. Internal security issues in the country are dealt with by the CAPF (Central Armed Police Force), paramilitary force, and different state police forces. The following are the major threats to India’s internal security: a) Militancy in Jammu and Kashmir; b) Northeast Insurgency; c) Left Wing Extremism (LWE).
Jammu and Kashmir Insurgency : The root of the Kashmir crisis lies in the India-Pakistan hostility. India had fought four wars against Pakistan in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. Three of the four wars between India and Pakistan have been fought over the status of Kashmir. However, the main concern in the Kashmir issue is the rise of the ethnoreligious insurgent movement. The armed separatist movement started in Kashmir in 1989. The main cause of the Kashmir insurgency is the rigging of the 1987 State election. The daughter of the then Union Home Minister, Dr Rubiya Sayeed was kidnapped by some members of the JKLF (Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front) on December 8, 1989.
Dozens of insurgents group emerged and wreaked havoc throughout the Kasmir Valley. The strength of the Kashmir militant was at its peak during the year 1990-1995. The main insurgent group includes the JKLF (Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front), and the radical Islamic and Pro-Pakistani groups  HUM (Hizb-ul-Mujahideen), Hizbollah, Harkat-ul-Ansar, and Ikhwanul Muslimeen.
The Pakistani military and the  ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence) actively support the Kashmir armed insurgency by providing them weapons and ammunition, financial aid, and even moral support.
There are also reports that the Pakistan military even gave them military training to a terrorist group like LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and JEM (Jaish-e-Muhammed) to infiltrate into Indian Administered Kashmir.
Three distinct events in 1989–90 signalled the start of the current phase of the conflict. First, there was armed militancy, which had begun to have an impact by selectively targeting security forces, Government officials, mainstream political activists, and others perceived to be sympathetic to the Indian State. Second, there was a popular uprising, as evidenced by massive demonstrations in the valley’s streets, resounding with Azadi slogans (freedom). The third event was the breakdown of the political order. It was difficult for the Government to enforce its law and order when people openly defied the State. During 1987-1989, there was ample warning of an emerging insurgency movement, but the insurgent movement caught the Indian Government off guard.
The Indian Government’s first response to the Kashmir insurgency was a militarised one. The militarised strategy of the Indian state included bringing in a large number of security forces and giving them extraordinary powers to deal with the situation. The J&K Police were found ineffective in combating the Kashmir insurgency and were replaced by paramilitary forces already stationed in the valley. In 1989, the Indian army was also called upon to combat the insurgency in Kashmir. Since 1989, the Indian Government has attempted to put down a separatist insurgency in Kashmir, which was fueled by a combination of political and economic grievances, Pakistani support, and a largely indiscriminate counter insurgency strategy.
Nearly 4,00,000 Indian security forces are deployed in the Kashmir region to fight the Kashmir insurgency and to restore normalcy in the Kashmir region. As of mid-1996, the insurgency appears to have reached a stalemate. Several security acts have been enacted in the Kashmir valley to empower the security forces to combat insurgency. The local Public Safety Act (1978), which had the provision of keeping people in detention without charge and up to one year in cases of threat to public order and two years in cases of threat to the security of the State, was amended in 1990 and made more stringent. The AFSPA (Armed Force Special Powers Act, 1990) and the Disturbed Area Act (1997) were also introduced. The AFSPA empowers military officials with extraordinary power to conduct their counter- insurgency operations. The AFSPA gave impunity to military officials from prosecution for anything done in accordance with its duty. In 1997, the Indian Army has killed more than 30,000 militants and captured around 80,000 AK-47 rifles. The only militaristic approach taken by the Indian Government to counter the armed separatist movement has helped in bringing down the violence and restore law and order, but it became counter-productive and intensified the separatist movement.
There were heavy civilian casualties due to cross-firing and collateral damage due to security operations. Many civilians were also killed by Militants. The Islamic radical militant groups also committed ethnic cleansing and threatened the Hindu minority population. Around 2,00,000 Kashmiri pandits fled Kashmir during the period 1990-2000.
During this time, the political element began to enter the policy debate. However, the fundamental strategy remained committed to using coercive mechanisms in response to Pakistan’s ‘proxy war,’ as it was dubbed.
However, even within counter insurgency operations, security forces displayed a higher level of professionalism. The various ground forces’ operations were now coordinated through a ‘unified command,’ which was established in 1993. The army, BSF, CRPF, and State police were all part of the unified command, which was chaired by the Chief Minister and advised by the General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the 15th and 16th Corps.
The same year, Rashtriya Rifles, an elite unit of the army specializing in counterinsurgency operations was also created. In 1994, the local police were activated. A specialized group of police, the Special Operations Group (SOG) 20 was also set up; it was to assume a major role in the counterinsurgency operations after the mid-1990s.
Many militants also started to surrender to the security forces, many of the surrendered militants were rehabilitated. While Pakistan continues to support militants groups fighting against the Indian Government.
In addition, the Indian Government has begun to alter its approach to combating militancy in Kashmir. The new approach was more holistic, with the goal of gaining people’s support.
(To be contd)