Political Science · Ch 5 — Security in the Contemporary World
India’s Security Strategy
India’s Security Strategy
India’s security strategy has been shaped by the full range of threats it has faced — both traditional (military) and non-traditional — and these threats have come from within the country as well as from outside its borders. The strategy rests on four broad components, used in different combinations depending on the situation.
Strengthening military capabilities is the first component. India has been involved in armed conflicts with its neighbours: wars with Pakistan in 1947–48, 1965, 1971, and 1999, and a war with China in 1962. Because India is surrounded by nuclear-armed countries in South Asia, the government justified its 1998 nuclear tests as necessary for national security. (India had first tested a nuclear device in 1974.)
The second component is strengthening international norms and institutions to protect India’s security interests. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, supported Asian solidarity, decolonisation, disarmament, and the United Nations as a forum for settling international conflicts. India pushed for a universal and non-discriminatory non-proliferation regime — one in which all countries would have the same rights and obligations regarding weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical). It argued for an equitable New International Economic Order (NIEO). Most importantly, India used non-alignment to create an area of peace outside the bloc politics of the two superpowers. India also joined 160 countries that signed and ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sets out a roadmap for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to check global warming. Indian troops have been sent abroad on UN peacekeeping missions as part of cooperative security initiatives.
The third component is meeting security challenges within the country. Several militant groups — from Nagaland, Mizoram, Punjab, Kashmir, and elsewhere — have at times sought to break away from India. India has tried to preserve national unity by adopting a democratic political system, which allows different communities and groups to freely articulate their grievances and share political power. …
The political cartoon in the textbook is a simple, schematic map of four villages — Kotabagh, Gewali, Kandali, and Goppa — arranged side by side along a river. The river is the only natural feature shown; there are no mountains, forests, or other landmarks. Each village is drawn as a distinct block or cluster of houses, and the river runs along one edge of the entire settlement.
The cartoon uses arrows or labels to show the claim each village makes. Kotabagh, the first settlement on the riverbank, argues for a greater share of resources because it was there first. Gewali and Kandali, which have larger populations, argue that size of population should determine the share. Goppa, though smaller in population, claims it needs a bigger share because its people are used to an extravagant lifestyle.
No arrows show agreement or negotiation — only competing demands. The overall layout makes clear that all four villages share the same river and the same surrounding natural resources, but there is no boundary line or agreed-upon division. The result, as the caption explains, is frequent clashes and a loss of peace.
What this cartoon teaches
The cartoon is a parable about the tragedy of the commons — a classic non-traditional security problem. It shows how unregulated competition for shared, finite resources can lead to conflict, even among communities that once lived peacefully. The river and the land are a common resource pool; no village owns them exclusively, but all depend on them.
The key lesson is that military strength alone cannot solve such conflicts. No amount of weapons or border patrolling can make the river larger or the land more fertile. The problem is not an external enemy but the absence of a cooperative framework — a set of rules that all villages accept for sharing resources fairly. …
The figure shows a simple map of four villages — Kotabagh, Gewali, Kandali, and Goppa — arranged side by side along a river. The river runs through the region, and the villages are placed in a line beside it, each with its own boundary. The map likely uses arrows or labels to indicate the flow of the river and the relative positions of the villages. No other geographical features (hills, forests, roads) are mentioned; the focus is purely on the four settlements and the river.
The story the figure tells is about resource conflict. Kotabagh, the first settlement, claims a larger share of natural resources because its people were the original settlers. Kandali and Gewali argue for a bigger share based on their larger populations. Goppa, though smaller in population, demands a larger share because its inhabitants are used to a more extravagant lifestyle. The figure illustrates how each village makes a different, incompatible claim — and how these competing demands lead to clashes and a breakdown of peace. The villagers eventually wish to return to the earlier "golden age" of harmony but do not know how. …