Strategic planning comes out of introspection and discourse, and analytical inputs, which are often provided by think tanks. After all, governments are most of the time busy with micro-management of issues that require immediate attention but may not have macro-importance. In his book on Vietnam, Robert McNamara complains that major blunders were made by the US government owing to the distraction of being too busy. As such, a wise government will engage in continuous dialogue with think-tank analysts, frequently commissioning studies on a variety of issues of national concern. At the request of President Nixon, for instance, Rand Corporationpresented him with a range of options on Vietnam, including the implications of each option, leaving it to the President to make his choice. Such a culture is almost totally absent in India. That is why India possesses but a few overarching strategic analysts. Apart from the Americans, who have a surfeit of think-tank organisations, the Chinese have been able to develop strong think tanks. It is said that it is on account of this think-tank approach that China was able to abandon ideology in the formulation and implementation of its economic policy. The Chinese have been gloating that despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were able to not only hold their country and political system together but make enormous economic strides.

In comparison, what does India have to show? Apart from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), India has few think tanks that focus exclusively on national security. Some excellent private think tanks such as theIndian Defence Review and the Forum for Strategic Studies are being run by retired defence services officers but receive little government attention. Others such as the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) and the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) function with a wider focus, often taking up national security issues also.

The Joint Intelligence Committee is a think tank of the government. But it has always been kept so small, so toothless and so fundless that nobody takes it seriously. Its chairman is generally an ignored or sidelined person, unless he has a strong personality and is able to make his presence felt. On occasions, unwanted chiefs of intelligence agencies have been dumped in the JIC to make way for those who enjoy the confidence of the party in power. Its studies are generally middle-level presentations prepared with inputs and discourses provided by middle-level functionaries of various organisations and disciplines. Top level officers have neither the time nor the patience forthe JIC and treat it with a kind of disdain. Naturally, top officers do not also have the time to read the JIC studies.

It is time that India too promoted think-tank organisations on national security. In the US, the University of Pennsylvania has a think tank exclusively on India. By the same token, India should have think tanks not only in its neighbours and other countries of strategic importance to us but also on internal security issues such as terrorism and communalism. And maybe separate think tanks for the Northeast, Kashmir and Punjab. However, it is not enough to just create think tanks. The government should nurture and support them while encouraging their autonomy. Once they are in position, the government should frequently consult them, even at the highest level, drawing on their studies, their expertise and their assessments.

It is time we gave up our non-reflective, non-consultative, ad hoc and reactive approach. Let us hope the K.C. Pant Committee comes up with meaningful recommendationson this subject as well.

The writer is a former director of the CBI