That technological change is
value neutral and can lead to either greater security or insecurity is well
known. But the linkage of technological change to a “cultural time lag” is
seldom identified, which is the period required for cultural adjustment to
catch up with technological innovation. Social conflicts are inherent in this
situation, and wisdom lies in taking ameliorative action before social
conflicts due to technological change arise. Still, as explained by sociologist
William F. Ogburn in 1922, a period of maladjustment often occurs
while society struggles to cope with technological change.
These questions were
addressed by former Foreign Secretary and current Convener of the National
Security Advisory Board, Shyam Saran, in his Prem Bhatia Memorial lecture on 11 August. He drew attention to: “An altered landscape,
which is still in the throes of further change, [and] is no longer amenable to
being managed by the tools that were fashioned to deal with an altogether
different environment.” He then drew attention to the maritime, space and
cyber-space domains where technological changes are multiplying the insecurities
arising from a globalizing world.
The maritime dimension, for
instance, is slated to grow by quantum measures as the melting of the Arctic
snow cap shortens sea route distances between Europe and Asia. No accurate
estimate is available of the mineral wealth that could be mined in the Arctic
continent, but it is generally believed to be immense. A shift, therefore, in
“the centre of gravity of global power to the Asia and Pacific region,” placing
emphasis on maritime expansion, which presages the need for investments in a blue ocean navy, aircraft
carriers, and nuclear submarines . All this would, no doubt, be music to the
ears of the Indian Navy.
However, Shyam Saran went
further to criticize “those who continue to allocate resources to large and
increasingly less effective land forces and weaponry.” The sensitivity of
India’s land borders vis-à-vis China and Pakistan needs little elaboration in
the light of events over the recent weeks. And, Shyam Saran had clearly
forgotten the role of land forces to handle the internal dimensions of Indian
security. Competent opinion holds that India’s most serious national security
threat arises from Left Extremism, militancy and terrorism. In these
circumstances, suggesting that further investments in land forces and weaponry
would be “less effective” overstated his case. Maritime and land security are
equally important.
Coming to the space domain
it obviously encapsulates the entire global communications system. Space-based
satellites are used for navigation, communications, surveillance and
terrestrial surveys, which have both peaceful and military, applications. In
future space-based assets could become launch pads into outer space, and the
possible colonization of Mars and the Moon. Technological innovations in
space-bases defenses are being pursued by United States and China to dominate
space in their search for global power. India needs to be cognizant of these
developments and how they would impinge on its security.
Finally, Shyam Saran noted
that cyber space is a “complex hybrid of both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial
domains. “ Terrestrial because it is
dependent on fiber-optic cables based on land or under the sea. But, also
extra-territorial because it is linked to space-based systems. Internet,
television, mobile phones and computers permeate our daily life, highlighting the
ramifications of cyber space and raising attendant problems of cyber security,
invasions of privacy, crime and espionage. Cyber space also provides a powerful
mechanism for achieving national development, and the reality obtains that “no
nation or society can opt out of [cyber space applications] and survive as a
viable entity.”
So, what does this linkage
between technological change and security forebode for India? Shyam Saran
genuflects towards India being “an influential actor in the emerging global
order, precisely because it has demonstrated capabilities in all these three
critical domains.” He then suggests that India display leadership by “creating
global governance structures … on an understanding that only collaborative
responses will be able to deal with the inter-linked challenges posed by these
emerging domains.” He is right in recognizing that the global challenge posed
by technological change will only yield to global efforts seeking their
amelioration. He is also right in believing that an ambitious goal of this
magnitude “ require(s) leadership which understands the altered landscape in
which we live and leads in putting in place institutions and processes that are
appropriate to this changing landscape.“
Unfortunately, after making
all these irreproachable recommendations, Shyam Saran offers no practical
options on achieving them A long term
program requires continuous thinking about its structure, objectives, and
desirability juxtaposed against feasibility, and the mid-course corrections
that may be required. The National
Security Advisory Board, which Shyam Saran also heads, could be charged with
this responsibility. And, civil society should ensure that this responsibility
is not shirked.
IPCS
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें