domestic politics

Security, under the changed paradigm, embraces all aspects of individual, group, societal, and state affairs, including physical, territorial, economic, food, energy, and environmental. Though security often remains a contested concept, it needs clarity for its realisation at all levels because it is inextricably linked with domestic politics. The security of the state is dependent on domestic politics for its political independence, developmental strategy, economic prosperity, and human resource development.

The security dilemma of developing nations due to their political elite’s dishonest domestic politics often leaves the state and its people at the mercy of regional aggressors, because such states remain politically submissive, militarily weak, economically dependent, technologically backward, and diplomatically isolated. Bismarck’s golden words that ‘politics is the art of the possible’ are often utilised by the political elite in domestic politics to achieve self-centred objectives. Domestic politics overrides all policy decisions including those related to national security, particularly in developing countries and therefore, at times, these states end up compromising their sovereignty and political independence.

South Asia is unique in its domestic political sphere where we have an enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan fanned through domestic politics. In both states, the political elite of the two estranged neighbors projects each other as the ‘enemy’.

Let us first take Pakistan. For one, the country’s political elite see security through the lens of military security only and do not understand the transformed concept of the subject. Therefore, they do not take responsibility for other important dimensions of human security. Second, to make politics an art of possibility, Pakistan’s political elite do not hesitate in putting state security at risk for self-centred political agendas. Even in matters related to national security (including strategic matters), domestic politics plays a central role in political decision-making; and public institutions are left spineless and rudderless without the political elite being held accountable for their wrong-doings. However, the most unfortunate part of such reckless domestic politics has been that it has adversely affected the well-being of the people who elect them to power again and again.

Political parties, especially in India, use venomous slogans and media campaigns to win elections and then cannot go back on their stated stances to resolve regional disputes through dialogue or peaceful means. Successive governments and institutions alike, have put the state and the region at great risk through decisions under domestic political compulsions.

Without going too far back in the history of wars and conflicts between India and Pakistan, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi allegedly put regional security at risk to earn an election victory. On 14 February 2019, a Kashmiri youth carried out a suicide bombing near Pulwama in Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), on a paramilitary convoy killing 40 Indian soldiers. India instantly blamed Pakistan without any inquiry or evidence. While rejecting India’s allegations, Pakistan counter-claimed that this was a false-flag operation by India to malign the former and gain sympathy for the purpose of elections. Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Imran Khan, sensing India’s nefarious designs, warned that if India ventured into any misadventure, the state would not think of retaliation but certainly retaliate without any delay.

However, India did not take this warning seriously and carried out dark night air strikes on 25-26 February 2019. Indian Air Force (IAF) destroyed a few trees close to the Pakistani town of Balakot but claimed to have destroyed a terrorist training camp killing some 300 terrorists, a claim New Delhi could not prove. However, Indian media gave a lot of hype to IAF strikes and PM Modi got the desired results for his electioneering across India, even after losing two fighter jets the very next day which were shot down by Pakistan Air Force (PAF) during an aerial engagement. One of the downed aircraft crashed in the Pakistani part of Kashmir and its pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan was captured. However, after the necessary documentation, Pakistan decided to return him to India primarily as a gesture of goodwill and for the want of peace and avoid escalation of the conflict between the two nuclear states. ‘Much later, it was learnt that Balakot strikes were pre-planned to take revenge for the Pulwama incident without considering the consequences of conflict escalation between the two nuclear neighbours. India’s PM Modi placed the entire region at risk of conflict escalation only to gain sympathy from his vote bank and then declared victorious in Balakot strikes, without accepting the loss of two fighter jets of the IAF, including a captured pilot.’

The above cases clearly show how domestic politics overpowers policymaking, at times at the cost of national security in developing countries, where the political elite’s corruption and ineptness have become a norm. Democratic institutions in both Pakistan and India are fragile, unassertive, and corrupt and because of this human security indices continue to decline or remain abysmally low. National and regional development continues to suffer. However, at the end of the day, power lies with the people of these nations. They must learn not to fall prey to the lies and deceit of their political leaders, and choose wisely.

Dr Zia Ul Haque Shamsi is the author of ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan’ and ‘South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace.’ He is presently working as Director (Peace and Conflict Studies) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in Daily Times. He can be contacted at: [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »