Condoleeza Rice was all of 46 years of age, a professor and not a retired official, when the most powerful head of state in the world appointed her as a National Security Advisor (NSA). Ms Rice was chosen because of her impeccable intellectual credentials in the field of strategic policy, apart from her political affiliation to the incumbent President of the United States. India has yet to decide what ought to be the qualifications of its NSA. Thus far, it is the individual in the job who has defined the post, and not the other way round. India’s first NSA, Brajesh Mishra, defined the job in his own idiosyncratic way. It was a model that his successor, the late JN Dixit, wanted to follow but that was not to be, for purely political reasons. There was no institutional thinking about the need to switch from the Mishra model to the first Manmohan Singh model — in which not only was the NSA no longer the principal secretary to the prime minister, but there were two security advisors (internal and external) rather than one. Six months down the road, Mr Dixit died and a third model was created when MK Narayanan took on the job. During Mr Narayanan’s five-year tenure, the job description changed quite a bit. India now has a new man in the post and there is talk of redefining his role. There will be many waiting to see how the job is now defined. This long list of anxious NSA watchers will include, apart from the army of media commentators and retired civil servants, the members of the National Security Council and India’s strategic partners, and there are many now around the world!
As strategic policy guru K Subrahmanyam said in the columns of this newspaper last week, the NSA has to be the “eyes and ears of the PM on national security” and assist and advise him on long-term national security and strategic policy issues. The job that the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission and the chairman of the PM’s Economic Advisory Council do for the PM on the economic policy side, has to be done by the NSA on the national security and strategic policy side. For this reason, the NSA need not always be a retired civil servant. In good time, India could have a Condy Rice of its own. In Shivshankar Menon the prime minister has a thinking diplomat who has the capability to think long term and offer useful policy advice. If he resists the temptation to become a “super foreign secretary” or an “intelligence czar” and brings a more thoughtful, forward-looking approach to the task at hand, he would help institutionalise the NSA’s job. With his perch in the PM’s office, the NSA can commandeer intellectual resources from wherever he wishes. The NSA needs a good NSC secretariat, with talented researchers, and be able to draw on talent outside government, just as economic policy advisors do. India’s strategic policy establishment needs a dose of professionalism. Mr Menon can deliver, and he should.