The world is going through a particularly tumultuous time. Though the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, its shadow continued to hang over and mindsets that were shaped during the Cold War persisted for years. The post-Cold War period came to an abrupt end on September 11 last year with a rude and cruel shock and unforgettable images of wanton destruction and death of innocents. The global security paradigm came in for a certain transformation, while altogether new assessments of geostrategy, vulnerability and power were forced on us.

There were two strands of thought that were very prominently discussed at the end of the Cold War. The first was by Francis Fukoyama about "the end of history" which was clearly shown to be wrong in the past decade. In fact, September 11 seems to mark a new beginning of history in the wake of the unprecedented assault on the cherished symbols of hitherto the most invulnerable State in the world. The second important idea was in Samuel Huntington’s thesis of "clash of civilisations". This thesis too was summarily rejected by more thoughtful observers of international scene during the past decade. But September 11, unfortunately, provided a new lease of life to this thesis. Since its consequences cannot but be catastrophic, such a thesis must be disproved squarely and in every sense of the word.

The ‘globalised’ world which was held as the achievement of the post-Cold War period appears hopelessly vulnerable and defenceless against the machinations of terrorism and its diabolical aims. Tackling problems of national security has become much more complicated than simply building or buying more weapons. These challenges call for greater international co-operation, especially among the few and threatened democracies of the world.

Globalisation is a force that affects all of us. Like any other historical process, there is a certain inevitability about this process also. Like any other historical process, globalisation too has its positive and negative sides. To the positive side belongs its power to make the global village a reality, to bring all peoples on our small planet closer. Indeed, if this were the only effect of globalisation, the problems of national security would become less onerous.

But globalisation has less appetising side-effects also, with serious implications for our security. Though it promises greater equality and economic and social development, its potential for increasing inequality and exploitation of the powerless in the global society poses a serious danger. All that we have seen over the last decades tells us that increasing inequality for some can only create greater insecurity for all. Unfortunately, the same globalisation that empowers us also clearly empowers those determined to do evil to us.

All this becomes even more pertinent because in the age that we live in, a few mad men can create devastation that we have never before imagined. The US witnessed it on September 11, 2001. How do you disprove the terrible notions and philosophies which have misguided the stateless foot soldiers of global terrorism who have no hesitation in laying down their lives to wreck enormous destruction on others? Perhaps, the only systematic way of dealing with such madness is through multilateral cooperation, unwavering commitment, solidarity in the common resolve to fight the menace and by constant vigilance.

The UN Charter in 1945 symbolised aspirations for collective security across the globe. This concept which was enshrined in the UN Charter was held hostage for almost half a century to the unremitting tensions of the
Cold War. The past 10 years saw tremendous effort to revitalise the UN systems. Terrorism at a fundamental level represents the rejection of UN based multilateral system. Since a terrorist does not stand by anything, he risks nothing to lose. How does one look at security in the face of such an enemy?

International terrorism, though new to the rest of the world, is unfortunately something we in India have had to face for the last several decades. Over the last decade, we have faced a particulary pernicious mutation of this phenomenon–that of state supported cross-border terrorism. A proxy war of low intensity conflict has been waged against the Indian state and society. The resilience of our democratic polity and strong secular structure, and the professionalism of our Armed Forces have helped us withstand these challenges.

We have faced this covert war with characteristic restraint which the entire world has recognised. Let this not be mistaken for lack of resolve. The continued attacks on Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in October 2001, on our Parliament in December the same year and the subsequent several attacks including the one on the Army residential complex in May last have left the country anguished. These attacks, and the continuing attempt by the terrorists and their masters across the border to disrupt the democratic elections in Jammu and Kashmir, illustrated the fear that democracy generates among the terrorists. This is why we will persist despite such terrorism. Even our patience has limits, and nobody should mistake our restraint for weakness or indecision.

The distinction between terrorists sought to be made by the international community has put a damper on the war against terrorism. We had thought that such tendencies had disappeared in the aftermath of September 11. Unfortunately, they continue to survive. Let us face it once and for all. It is foolish to belive that there are good terrorists. Those that use terror as a means to achieve their political ends and states that support them should be ostracised, not rewarded.

The past year has also seen remarkable confluence of views across nations in the face of global terrorism. In Europe, systematic efforts of the past several years came to fruition in building a more cooperative security order, in developing NATO’s historic outreach to Moscow and in the expansion plans of NATO and the EU to incorporate important new members from Central and Eastern Europe. The guiding spirit behind these developments, as we understand it, is not of confrontation but of political accommodation and cooperative defence. The European defence identity which has been shaped and defined in recent years in terms of a rapid deployment force contributed by member states with specific aims for conflict prevention and peace-enforcement in the European region signifies innovative and creative approaches to deal with threats to peace and security. The European model of OSCE has also been
emulated in other areas of the world in the form of organisations like ARF and CICA. India has membership in ARF and CICA. India views these developments with optimism and sets great store by assurances that these new arrangements for security, confidence-building and conflict prevention will abide by a cooperative multilateralism rather than brusqueness and disregard for laws and norms that might have been characteristic of a bygone era. Exercise of force has to be both judicious and legitimate. Rule of law and tradition of multilateralism provide legitimacy. The authority required to back the multilateral system today to deal with terrorism is extraordinary and it can only come from greater legitimacy and judiciousness.

Another aspect that has often worried the world has been the issue of acquisition and the fear of use of nuclear weapon. We acquired nuclear weapons not for self-aggrandisement but for self-defence. We are aware of the limited utility of such weapons. They cannot make us a great power, they cannot solve our domestic economic problems, nor can they prevent wars or resolve our differences with our neighbours. But nuclear weapons do one thing well, even if it is the only thing they do-they deter other nuclear weapons, and those who might contemplate using such weapons against us. Possession of these weapons comes with great responsibility and we are fully cognisant of these responsbilities. Our nuclear doctrine is designed to reduce to a minimum the dangers that come with possession of nuclear weapons. We have a clearly defined nuclear policy of ‘no first use’ and our nuclear weapon is merely to work as a deterrent.

Abolition of nuclear weapons has always been an article of faith with us, from the day Nagasaki and Hiroshima were devastated. From the day India achieved Independence on August 15, 1947, we have consistently articulated this Article of Faith in the United Nations and in every multilateral forum to persuade the nuclear powers to abandon the weapons of mass destruction along with other such weapons. The naked dance of death which global terrorism has imposed on the world gives a sense of urgency for all of us to reject the weapons of mass destruction. In the world of individual terrorism and its extreme version of the human bomb, the nuclear arsenal has ceased to have any meaning. Only its abolition will relieve the nations of the world from the long-held fear of nuclear powers, positioning themselves to dominate the globe, taking wars into that boundary-less area, otherwise known as space. India will unceasingly continue its campaign for abolition of these weapons of mass destruction.

The regional security situation around India continues to be a cause of concern to us. Pakistan’s implacable hostility towards India, and its unwillingness to rein in cross-border terrorism is fraught with danger. We continue to hope that Pakistan will see the damage that terrorism is doing to its own society, but we also remain prepared to deal with any further aggression. We have taken several initiatives to convince Pakistan about our hope for a common and peaceful future, only to be rewarded each time with new forms of aggression. We also believe that a non-hegemonic regional Asian order is essential for all countries in Asia to achieve their full potential. We would consider attempts by any power to seek hegemony over the continent which is a serious challenge to our security.

Collective action requires cooperation among States. States with a strong sense of sovereignty become natural allies in the war against global terrorism because they perceive the threat, directly and intuitively. Strong sovereigns are able to form a strong coalition. Pluralism in nature may be a fact, but pluralism in society is the achievement of long centuries of culture and history. In a world where dependence and connectivity between States and within States has been expanding, it becomes necessary to defend and nurture pluralism, just as it is necessary to defend and nurture freedom. To promote one at the cost of the other generates intolerance, violence, instability and anarchy. Reworking these fundamental equations needs dialogue and negotiation, laws and treaties and, ultimately, security in compliance.

All the threats, killings and other acts of terrorism by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists could not derail the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir. More than 50 per cent of the electrorate has participated in the polls and, thereby, made it clear that they are citizens of India and will remain so. Their vote rejects Pakistan’s claim that Muslims of Kashmir, by definition, are Pakistanis and, therefore, Kashmir is Pakistan territory. If only General Musharraf were to understand the meaning of this vote.

Bilateral talks between India and Italy have enabled us to better understand each other’s security concerns. We have identified many areas of defence collaboration, including setting up of joint enterprises. We have also decided to hold joint exercises by the army troops and by the ships of our respective navies and Coast Guards. Joint exercise in high altitude warfare will also be conducted, both in the Alpine region and in the mountain ranges in the Himalayas, by the army troops of both the countries. Italy and India are looking forward to closer collaboration in all matters of national defence and security, and to establish strategic dialogue between the two countries. We face both old and new problems to our security. Some we need to tackle on our own, but we believe that many require international cooperation, especially between democracies. We remain committed to such cooperation.