INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD

PGP 2017-19
ANALYTICAL WRITING
WAC

Exercise 1

Read the following passage1 and answer the following:

i) Examine the line of reasoning underlying the conclusion and assess its strength.
ii) What are the assumptions being made about the value of an Internal Security Ministry?
iii) What kind of evidence has been provided to support the call for setting it up?
iv) What kinds of evidence/reasons might be offered by someone who wished to counter the
assumptions and claims?

Following the November 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai, there is a glaring need for a new
administrative architecture for security. It starts with the identification of a longstanding malaise in
Indias security bureaucracy the use of administrative deux ex machina to evade the kinds of
sustained work and attention to detail that are needed to fix deep-rooted problems. The tragedy
provides a useful prism to reflect on the problem. India possessed a copious mass of intelligence
leads suggesting the Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning an attack on Mumbai. But it failed to capitalise on
these leads both because there was no single-point authority and because the intelligence services
lacked the necessary technological and human resource capabilities. The Mumbai Police made
strenuous efforts to deal with the attacks but clearly lacked the resources and the training. The
National Security Guards less-than-brilliant response to the fighting stemmed from poor training
and leadership issues. None of these failures, and others too numerous to enumerate here, have
been properly audited by an independent, public enquiry. As the Centre plans to revive the National
Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) project it is good to remember that had there been an NCTC in
place during these attacks, it would have lacked the capabilities to handle events with any greater
efficiency. What is needed is an Internal Security Ministry to facilitate the development of
capabilities to effectively handle the challenges faced by the country in this area.

1
Based on an excerpt from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/How-to-face-security-
challenges/article16855300.ece
Answers:

i) The author argues for the setting up of an Internal Security Ministry as necessary to fighting the
security challenges of the country. The author begins with a historical reference to the lackadaisical
tendency of Indian security bureaucracy. This is then substantiated with the facts of the 2008
Mumbai incident. The argument finds strength in its use of past instances, and its clear mention of
some of the failures . By pointing out the lack of a public enquiry, the author suggests the existence
of multiple other failures that may have gone unnoticed, thus initiating a sense of doubt in the
arguments cited by the author itself. The author identifies the lacks in the existing infrastructure,
and then moves on to provide an alternative. He/she rejects the revival of the NCTC arguing that
such a centre would still suffer from the same problems as before, and instead a new Ministry
should be setup. This argument is not strong however, as the author does not provide much factual
evidence for the current failure or for the alternative suggested, simply arguing that the NCTC would
not be able to work efficiently.

ii) The author assumes that an Internal Security Ministry, once setup, would be able to address the
failures of its predecessor. It assumes that such a Ministry will be able to overcome the
longstanding malaise that has plagued the security bureaucracy of India, by assuming its financial
and administrative powers. The Ministry would overcome all the earlier failures, most importantly
acting as a single point of contact and providing resources and training. It also assumes that no
other organisational setup (such as the NCTC) will be able to overcome this malaise, and thus the
Ministry is the only option if the country seeks to meet its security challenges.

iii) The argument lacks substantial factual evidence to support its call for setting up the Ministry.
Instead, it points out the failures of the security bureaucracy in meeting past security needs of the
country. By explicitly pointing out the failure of the security forces to counter the Lashkar-e-Taiba
attack despite having ample evidence, the lack of a public enquiry, and by showing the lack of
training and leadership among the task forces (Mumbai Police and NSG), the author augments his
argument.

iv) Instead of setting up a new ministry, the government should focus on improving the
infrastructural capabilities of the existing organisations. The NCTC, for example, can be equipped
with the same functional capabilities that the author suggests the Ministry have. Since the failures of
the security bureaucracy have already been identified, it is easier to fix them. One can also look at
the successes of Mumbai Police and NSG, where they have independently countered the security
challenges. The lack of a public enquiry means there is space for better identification of existing
problems. Setting up a new Ministry would also involve huge costs without providing any certainty
of whether the Ministry will be able to overcome the failures of the existing security bureaucracy.
Instead identifying and bridging the gap between the present security infrastructure and the
estimated security needs is a more economically and administratively feasible solution. Apart from
this, real life incidents can also be cited wherein despite having a Ministry solely for the purpose of
addressing security issues, security challenges were not overcome. For example in Paris, the Ministry
of the Interior was unable to curb recent security attacks. Thus, simply setting up a Ministry will not
solve the security challenges.