Strategic Analysis

ISSN: 0970-0161 (Print) 1754-0054 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsan20

National Security: Concept, Measurement and

Management

Satish Chandra & Rahul Bhonsle

To cite this article: Satish Chandra & Rahul Bhonsle (2015) National Security:
Concept, Measurement and Management, Strategic Analysis, 39:4, 337-359, DOI:
10.1080/09700161.2015.1047217

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2015.1047217

Published online: 26 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1683

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsan20
Strategic Analysis, 2015
Vol. 39, No. 4, 337–359, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2015.1047217

National Security: Concept, Measurement and Management

Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Abstract: The concept of national security has often been taken to merely connote the
preservation of sovereignty, territorial integrity and internal stability with the focus on the
coercive power of the state. In today’s complex and interdependent world faced with many
non traditional threats like pandemics, climate change, etc it must, however, be seen in a
more holistic manner. Such an all encompassing view of national security demands that the
determinant of security is not just the coercive elements of state power but its comprehen-
sive national power with the latter being a composite of many factors across all facets of
national life. These factors, inclusive of leadership, if quantified, can help develop a
national security index which in comparative terms could serve as an indicator of the
relative security of a country vis a vis its peers. The holistic nature of national security
demands that appropriate structures are in place to manage it. India is fortunate to have
such structures which, of course, need revitalisation.

Concept of national security

he concept of national security is often defined in excessively narrow terms and
T taken to simply connote the preservation of territorial integrity and sovereignty of
a state, as well as its core political and cultural values, against military threats from
without and disruptive elements from within. Since these threats are seen to arise from
the use, or threat of use, of force, national security is regarded to hinge essentially on
the coercive power of the state and on the reliability and strength of its friends and
allies. Accordingly, the safeguarding of national security is believed to be largely
dependent upon the state’s military capabilities, the efficacy of its internal security
system, notably its paramilitary, police and intelligence apparatus, and its ability to
forge an effective foreign policy designed to keep at bay threats from inimical foreign
elements.
This narrow view of national security was popularised by the realist school of
thought in the context of the East–West divide following the Second World War and
drew upon thinkers from classical Greece and subsequent political theorists such as
Hobbes, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu etc. Such an approach, which is
preponderantly focused on force, implies that a nation’s security hinges upon its
ability to deter an attack, or to defeat it.
According to David Dewitt, such a restricted view of national security is at
variance with the view in earlier ages, both in the East and the West, when it was
felt that security denoted the ‘total well-being of the elites and the communities which

Amb. Satish Chandra is the former Deputy National Security Advisor, Government of India, and
currently Dean, Centre for National Security and Strategic Studies, Vivekananda International
Foundation, New Delhi. Brig. Rahul K. Bhonsle (Retd) is Director, Sasia Security Risks.com, a
South Asian security risk and knowledge management consultancy specialising in future scenarios,
military capacity building and conflict trends in South Asia.

© 2015 Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

338 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

they led’.1 Hence, such a limited construct is clearly inadequate, particularly today, as
it does not take into account the innumerable additional factors impinging on national
security, including the new challenges of the 21st century such as globalisation,
climate change, terrorism, proliferation, pandemics etc. It is no surprise, therefore,
that from the 1980s several writers, like Richard Ullman, Barry Buzan and Daniel
Deudney, called for an enlargement of the concept of national security. This process
was facilitated with the end of the Cold War and the prevailing bipolar international
structure along with the changes subsequently wrought by globalisation.
One of the more important of such additional factors, which is a critical attribute
for the preservation of national security and has long been recognised as such, is
economic strength. Norris M. Ripsman thus asserts that ‘[m]ercantilists have long
contended that “money is the sinews of war” because wealth converts rather fluidly
into military power’. Elaborating upon this, he refers to Napoleon’s observation that
‘an army marches on its stomach’ and notes that ‘wealthier states could employ larger
and better- equipped armies’.2 Economic strength and development is not only the key
for generating the financial resources required to maintain and upgrade a country’s
armed forces but is also a pre-requisite for establishing the basic infrastructure, such
as roads, railways, telecommunications, energy and industrial systems, which consti-
tutes the backbone of the coercive institutions of the state. A strong economy,
furthermore, enables the state to attain its national security objectives through the
use of economic sanctions and incentives.
Richard H. Ullman, in a paper entitled ‘Redefining Security’,3 argues that defining
national security primarily in military terms ‘conveys a profoundly false image of
reality’. This is dangerous as it causes states to ‘concentrate on military threats and to
ignore other perhaps even more harmful dangers. Thus, it reduces their total security’.
A good example of the dangers of focusing too heavily on military muscle, at the cost
of other aspects of nation building, is the break-up of the Soviet Union which can, in
part, be attributed to its huge defence spending during the Cold War. An even better
example, closer to home, is Pakistan’s single-minded focus on its military, to the
neglect of all other sectors of national life, in response to the perceived threat from
India, which has resulted in the country becoming a failed or near failed state.
Ullman suggests that a threat to national security may be conceived as an ‘action
or sequence of events’ that:

● threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the
quality of life for the inhabitants of a state, or
● threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the
government of a state or to private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups,
corporations) within the state.

In the first category Ullman includes disturbances and disruptions ranging from
external wars to internal rebellions, from blockades and boycotts to raw material
shortages and devastating disasters. In the second category he includes the extension
of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which restricts opportunities for unfettered
intellectual, cultural and scientific exchanges. As an example, he suggests that this is
what would have happened for the USA if Hitler’s Germany or Stalinist Russia had
come to dominate Europe. In today’s world and on a smaller scale it may be posited
that Jehadi fatwas are similarly impinging adversely on the socio-cultural freedom of
groups in several countries.
 Strategic Analysis 339

More recently, the well-being of its people has been acknowledged as a critical
component of a country’s national security. This is, in no small measure, due to the
individual-centred concept of security introduced in the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)’s Human Development Report (1994) which has led some
scholars like Caroline Thomas to argue that security is only achieved when basic
human needs are met and ‘meaningful participation in the life of a community’ and
human dignity are realised. Similarly, Edward Newman has asserted that human
security must ‘place the individual—or people collectively—as the referent of security
rather than, although not necessarily in opposition to, institutions such as territory and
state sovereignty’.4
While ab initio national and human security, including the liberty of the indivi-
dual, may appear to be tenuously linked or even incompatible, a closer examination
reveals that this is illusory and the latter is a critical component of the former. If one
accepts that a free democratic society, with inclusive economic development, is
intrinsically more resilient on account of the much greater commitment of its citizenry
than one that is autocratic with uneven economic well-being, then it is axiomatic that
national security demands that due attention be paid to human security. This does not,
of course, mean that in crisis situations, when the very existence of the state is at
stake, it should desist from placing curbs on human security. Such restraints could
take many forms, such as stronger anti-terrorism laws, higher taxation, conscription
etc. While these, on the one hand, restrict human security, on the other hand they
preserve it by addressing the threat to the state which, if left unattended, would be far
more harmful to human security. Such restrictions, as imposed by the state in crisis
situations, more often than not with popular consent, must be temporary in nature and
must be relaxed as soon as possible after return to normalcy. Liberal democratic
societies constantly balance human security vis-à-vis the state’s coercive powers, and
the former tends to be in flux, waxing and waning in inverse proportion to the extent
to which the state’s existence is under threat.
The 1994 Human Development Report listed the following facets of human
security:

(1) Economic security: requiring an assured basic income for every citizen usually
from productive and remunerative work or as a last resort from a publicly
financed safety net;
(2) Food security: requiring that all people at all times have both physical and
economic access to basic food;
(3) Health security: requiring access not only to proper nutrition and a safe
environment but also to basic healthcare;
(4) Environmental security: requiring a healthy physical environment through the
elimination of threats arising from the degradation of the ecological system,
from water scarcity, desertification, salinity, pollution, etc.
(5) Personal security: requiring the elimination of threats from the state like
torture and intimidation, war, ethnic tension, violence, crime, etc.
(6) Community security: requiring security of every racial, ethnic, tribal or
religious group providing a sense of identity to the individual.
(7) Political security: requiring that every individual should be able to live a life
in which his basic human rights are not infringed upon by the state.
340 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Mahbub-ul-Haq, the driving force behind the Human Development Report and the
Human Development Index, postulated in 1995 that:

The world is entering a new era in which the very concept of security will change—and
change dramatically. Security will be interpreted as:

● Security of people, not just territory.

● Security of individuals, not just of nations.
● Security through development, not through arms.
● Security of all the people everywhere—in their homes, in their jobs, in their streets, in their
communities, in their environment.5

If well-being is taken in its broadest sense and not just limited to the economic sphere,
there can be little doubt that it constitutes a powerful and effective vaccine against
disaffection as well as a propellant for development and economic growth. Such well-
being demands not only the availability of all the basic economic requirements of life
for the common man but also that of good education, healthcare and employment in
an environment conducive to liberty of thought and expression with the state ensuring
the rule of law and good governance.
The enlarged construct of the concept of national security, as detailed above,
becomes even more all-embracing when one realises that it demands successfully
addressing new categories of challenges arising from the nature and rapidity of
globalisation, technological advance, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, transnational
crime (including cyber crime), environmental degradation, climate change, pan-
demics, resource constraints, migration etc.
Clearly national security, in our complex and interdependent world, must neces-
sarily be viewed in a holistic and all-encompassing manner. It requires the preserva-
tion of the independence, integrity and sovereignty of the state against external and
internal adversaries, the promotion of economic growth with equity, ensuring food,
energy and water security, ensuring human development with particular emphasis on
education, health, housing, sanitation etc, the creation of a knowledge-based society
with a focus on science and technology, the deft management of the multifaceted
challenges which are a feature of globalisation such as terrorism, proliferation and
climate change, the provision of good governance where the rule of law and the
efficient delivery of services is assured in a non-discriminatory fashion, and effective
institutional mechanisms to manage national security. In short, there is no facet of
national life that does not impinge on national security. Underperformance in any area
of national life inevitably impinges adversely on national security. There can thus be
no hierarchical importance of any one sector of national life over any other as a
determinant of national security. Health and education, for instance, have as much of a
bearing on national security as the armed forces or the police. Put another way, a
state’s failure to provide education for all and to create a knowledge-based society, or
its inability to keep in check diseases like malaria, TB and more recently HIV, bird flu
and Ebola, can prove to be as detrimental to national security as its failure to ensure
that its armed forces are in good shape.
When national security is seen in this all-encompassing perspective, the differ-
ences between internal and external security, military and economic strength, devel-
opment of the social sector and promotion of economic growth tend to blur because
one impinges on the other. Internal and external security are often two sides of the
same coin. Foreign powers since time immemorial have played upon the internal fault
 Strategic Analysis 341

lines of states in order to promote their ends, often with such success that it becomes
difficult to assess whether the threat posed is primarily internal or external in nature.
A state that is internally secure is much better able to cope with external challenges
than one whose house is in disarray. Similarly, an economically well-developed state
will have the requisite wherewithal to become militarily strong. The economic under-
pinnings of military capability are self-evident in the modern world. Equally, it is also
becoming increasingly evident that due attention to the social sector is a major
requirement for sustainable economic growth. Such growth is only possible on a
long-term basis if the workforce is healthy, well-educated and motivated.
Such a holistic view of national security recognises that the determinant of
security is not just the coercive elements in a state’s armoury but its comprehensive
national power. The latter is a composite of several factors such as the armed forces,
science and technology, economy, the size, composition and well-being of the popu-
lation, education, health, governance, leadership quality etc. Simply put, the more
comprehensive the national power, the greater the national security. Indeed, compre-
hensive national power is the guarantor of national security.

Measurement of national security

Having concluded that national security is holistic and a function of comprehensive
national power, it is clear that a measurement of the latter in respect of a number of
countries would provide a good indicator of the degree of security enjoyed by each of
them as compared to others.
Such an exercise was undertaken by the National Security Council Secretariat
(NSCS) in 2001 whereby it evolved a National Security Index (NSI), measuring a
country’s comprehensive national power. The index comprised an average of five
indices, namely a Human Development Index, a Research and Development Index, a
GDP Performance Index, a Defence Expenditure Index and a Population Index. In this
exercise, India was ranked tenth out of a list of 30 countries whose comprehensive
national power was so evaluated.
As acknowledged by the NSCS itself, the NSI had some limitations. The most
important of these, perhaps, was that it did not fully factor in all the ingredients that
go into comprehensive national power, such as basic natural resources, mature and
wise leadership and soft power. While all these are self-explanatory, soft power needs
some elaboration. Joseph Nye coined the term in 1990 and argued that it enabled
countries to get the outcomes they want by co-option rather than coercion.6 He further
suggested that a country’s soft power rests on three resources, notably the attractive-
ness of its culture, the traction of its values when it lives up to them, and its foreign
policies when others see them as legitimate and enjoying moral authority.7 In sum, a
country’s soft power is the attractive pull emanating from its attributes such as its
culture and way of life, ideology and politico-economic system, quality of education
and think tanks, scientific and technological prowess, reach of intelligentsia and
media, legitimacy of action and international influence. Joseph Nye suggested that
the Soviet Union profited greatly from its soft power in the early post-war period as a
result of communist ideology, the myth of invincibility and transnational communist
institutions. It can also be argued that it was India’s soft power in the 1950s and
1960s, as epitomised by its stand against colonialism and adoption of a non-aligned
foreign policy, that enabled it to punch far above its weight.
342 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

While an NSI can be developed incorporating ratings for many of the above-
mentioned elements of national power, it is much more difficult to evaluate and
quantify the quality of a country’s leadership and specifically whether or not it has
the will and capacity to take hard and wise decisions in its exercise of power in the
promotion of national goals. There is also no means to assess whether or not the
leadership is prone to be overly adventurist, which could jeopardise the national well-
being through overreach.
Taking into account the holistic nature of national security as outlined above, an
effort has been made to develop an NSI that makes it possible to assess India’s
comprehensive national power capabilities vis-à-vis those of several other countries.
The countries selected for evaluation including India are those ranking amongst the
first 30 in GDP as per Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). It is felt that this includes a
universe that is most relevant to provide a holistic perspective of the relevance of
comprehensive security and includes developed countries as well as developing
countries. These countries in alphabetical order and based on GDP PPP for 2011 as
per the World Bank are enumerated in Table 1.
The factors considered essential in order to assess a country’s comprehensive
national power are its size and intrinsic resources, human capital, scientific and

Table 1. Countries Selected for Comparative Evaluation.

Serial No. Country

1 Argentina
2 Australia
3 Belgium
4 Brazil
5 Canada
6 China
7 Colombia
8 Egypt
9 France
10 Germany
11 India
12 Indonesia
13 Iran
14 Italy
15 Japan
16 Malaysia
17 Mexico
18 Netherlands
19 Nigeria
20 Pakistan
21 Poland
22 Russia
23 Saudi Arabia
24 South Africa
25 South Korea
26 Spain
27 Thailand
28 Turkey
29 United Kingdom
30 United States
 Strategic Analysis 343

technological capabilities, economic strength, military power and leadership quality.

Soft power has not been included as a factor as it is difficult to objectively quantify
and some of its components, in any case, find a place in some of the other factors
enumerated. Moreover, the potency of soft power in many cases is a function of hard
power and without a certain minimal hard power its utility is suspect. This adds to the
difficulty of measuring soft power with any degree of accuracy.
It is sometimes argued that in evaluating national security, national interests and
threats should also be accounted for. This has not been done as both national interests
and threats are not immutable and vary from time to time. Comprehensive national
power on the other hand is much more tangible and easier to measure.

Size and intrinsic resources index

Three sub factors have been included to develop the Size and Intrinsic Resources
Index, the total area of the country, its per capita arable land and per capita availability
of renewable fresh water. Each of these resources is a factor of national strength and
adds to security. Many more factors could have been included to develop this index
such as petroleum, coal, iron ore, bauxite, uranium reserves etc. The reason this has
not been done is because it is near impossible to develop an equivalence spread over
several countries for diverse and often non compatible resources. For instance, it is
impossible to grade a country rich in iron ore reserves but without any hydrocarbon
reserves against one brimming with hydro carbon reserves but with negligible
reserves of metallic assets Accordingly, only basics have been addressed and the
focus has been kept only on area, per capita arable land, and per capita fresh water
resources. Details of this index for each country are at Appendix I.8 As apparent there-
from Canada, Russia, Australia, Brazil and USA figure amongst the top five. India
comes at the tenth position while China weighs at number seven.

Human capital index

Human capital is naturally an important component in determining a country’s
comprehensive national power. Six sub-factors taken into consideration are size of
population, ratio of economically active population to total population, expenditure on
health as a percentage of GDP, physicians per 10,000 of population, literacy and
public spend on education as a percentage of GDP. However, size of population alone
is not enough and must be qualified by the extent of economically active population.
Even more important is the quality of this population as evaluated on the basis of the
outlays provided for its education and health. A populace that is ill educated or in
poor health is a handicap rather than an asset. Details of the Human Capital Index for
each country are given in Appendix II. While the USA, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Spain and Germany figure in the top five countries, India is among the bottom five.

Science and technology index

Science and technology is clearly a key driver for national development and growth
and therefore a critical element in comprehensive national power. The sub-factors
taken into account for developing this index include expenditure on science and
technology as a percentage of GDP, number of personnel involved in research and
development, and the number of patents produced in a given year. Details of the
344 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Science and Technology Index for each country are given in Appendix III. The top
five countries as per this index are the USA, Japan, China, Germany and South Korea,
while India ranks sixteenth.

Economy index
The economy is naturally a critical component of national power. No nation can be
secure if the economy is unable to provide the requisite resources for a variety of
functions ranging from military-related activity to development-oriented actions. In
the index developed in this article, to measure economic strength the following sub-
factors have been considered: nominal GDP, gross national savings as a percentage of
GDP, foreign exchange (Forex) reserves, public debt as a percentage of GDP and
nominal GDP per capita. Nominal GDP has been used as opposed to GDP at PPP as
the former more realistically captures the strength of the economy than the latter.
Gross national savings as a percentage of GDP is another important element indicat-
ing the inherent potential of the country to generate resources. The importance of
Forex reserves in assessing the strength of a nation’s economy is self-evident. The
larger the reserves, the more secure the nation is from both internal and external
vulnerabilities. Public debt as a percentage of GDP represents the liability of a nation
as a contra indicator of its strength. Nominal GDP per capita has been factored in to
go beyond the mere size of the economy and to provide an indicator of the wealth the
economy generates per individual. Details of the Economy Index for each country are
given in Appendix IV. China, the USA, Australia, Saudi Arabia and South Korea
figure in the top five. India is mid-way in the index.

Military index
The components used to construct the Military Index are the total armed forces, the
defence expenditure, the amount spent per soldier, and the nuclear factor. The first
two components are self-explanatory. The third component—the amount spent per
soldier—is important in so far as it indicates the level of capitalisation of the armed
forces and is a corrective to indices developed merely on the basis of the size of the
armed forces. The importance of capitalisation of armed forces is evident as Australia,
despite a military that is restricted in number, scores highly given its proportionately
large defence budget. The nuclear factor has been included by an enhancement of 25
per cent in the index obtained of the three sub-factors stated above for nuclear armed
states, that is the USA, Russia, China, the UK, France, India and Pakistan. Details of
the Military Index for each country are given in Appendix V. The top five countries in
this index are the USA, China, the UK, Australia and Russia, while India is sixth.

Leadership index
Effective leadership is a major determinant of any country’s progress and is therefore
a critical factor in its comprehensive national power. It can overcome overwhelming
challenges through smart management and by galvanising people and institutions into
constructive nation building. Bereft of quality leadership, even the most well-
endowed country will perform well below its potential.
The quantitative assessment of the quality of leadership across the entire spectrum
of national life is exceedingly difficult. However, it is easier across some areas of
 Strategic Analysis 345

national activity and proceeding on the assumption that the quality of leadership
shown in those areas would also be reflected in others.
Accordingly, an attempt has been made in this article to evaluate leadership for the
target countries. This is based on progress achieved over more than a decade in two
key areas—governance and human development. For evaluating governance, country-
wise governance figures developed by the World Bank for the years 2000 and 2012,
and Human Development Indices for these countries developed by the UNDP for the
years 2000 and 2013, have been used. While the World Bank’s governance indices
cover democracy and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness,
regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption, the UNDP’s indices cover
life expectancy, education and income.
In terms of methodology, the World Bank’s governance indices for the year 2012
have been further modified upwards or downwards to the extent that there has been an
improvement or deterioration over the corresponding indices for the year 2000.
Similarly, the UNDP’s indices for 2013 have been further modified upwards or
downwards to the extent that there has been an improvement or deterioration over
the corresponding figures for 2000. The sum of the final modified World Bank and
UNDP indices divided by two provides the Leadership Index.
There are many obvious shortcomings in the development of the Leadership
Index. Firstly, it evaluates leadership only on governance and human development-
related issues. Leadership exercised in these areas may be quite different from that
exercised in the area of defence, foreign policy, infrastructure development etc.
Secondly, such an evaluation is valid only for a specific point in time in the past
and would be for leaderships that may have changed and is, therefore, not necessarily
an indicator for the future. Nevertheless, it is important to factor in leadership quality
as a measure of composite national power. Whether or not the approach adopted in
this article for evaluating leadership quality is the most appropriate is debatable, but
certainly more thought needs to be given to this issue so that better methodologies are
evolved in this regard. Details of the Leadership Index for each country are given in
Appendix VI. The top five countries in this index are Australia, the Netherlands,
Canada, Germany and Japan. The USA comes in at seventh while India is virtually at
the bottom with only Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria below it.

National security index

This index is a product of the above six factors and has been derived by adding
together indices relating to them for each country and dividing the same by six. Equal
weightage has been given to each factor because each of them is uniformly important
to national security. Appendix VII details the National Security Index (NSI) country-
wise along with the indices for each factor.
Appendix VIII details the NSI with and without the leadership factor as per a
country’s ranking respectively. As may be expected, the US has the highest NSI. It
figures in the top five in five of the six factors. China, which figures in the top five of
three of the six factors, is third on the NSI. Russia is seventh and Brazil is thirteenth.
Developed countries dominate the top 15 slots. India occupies 23rd position and does
not figure in the top five of any of the six factors considered, and is also in the bottom
five of two of them, notably the Leadership Index and the Human Capital Index.
It is interesting to note that the leadership factor seems to have a varied impact on
the inter se rating of different countries. It has shown no impact on the rating of some
346 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

countries like the UK, South Korea and France, it has had a relatively limited impact
on that of others like China, Australia and Russia, and it has had a considerable
impact on that of countries like India, Poland and Turkey. While India’s rating with
the leadership factor drags it from 17th to 23rd position, Poland’s rating goes up from
21st to 16th position, and Turkey’s rating rises from 27th position to 22nd.
On the whole India fares very poorly in the Leadership Index and the Human
Capital Index; its performance on the science and technology index is also not very
flattering.

National security management

The holistic nature of national security demands that appropriate structures are in
place for its oversight and for providing direction. Such structures were created in
India in 1999 by way of the National Security Council system comprising the
National Security Council (NSC) and other appropriate adjuncts by way of the
National Security Advisor, the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), the
National Security Advisory Board and the Strategic Policy Group. Unfortunately,
the NSC system has not been used optimally, and this partially explains why India is
not as secure as it ought to be and why it figures in the bottom third of the 30
countries reviewed in the National Security Index.
The need for creating the NSC system emanated from the realisation that the apex-
level political and bureaucratic decision-making bodies on security, such as the
Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and the Core Group of Secretaries respectively,
tend to focus only on matters of immediate concern. Neither of these bodies has the
time or inclination to debate, analyse and develop medium- and long-term policy
options and strategies. Moreover, neither of them is geared up to view security
holistically. Their horizon usually extends only to hard security issues like defence,
foreign policy, terrorism, law and order, insurgencies etc. The security aspects of
issues such as governance, health, environment, technology, water etc rarely attract
debate in these bodies.
The Cabinet Secretariat Resolution of April 16, 1999, which had put in place the
NSC system, underlined that national security needed to be viewed ‘not only in
military terms, but also in terms of internal security, economic security, technological
strength and foreign policy’ and that national security management required ‘inte-
grated thinking and co-ordinated application of the political, military, diplomatic,
scientific and technological resources of the State to protect and promote national
security goals and objectives’. The NSC system was not meant to supplant the CCS or
the Committee of Secretaries, but to provide additional support to them and to cover
the gaps left unaddressed by them. These gaps arose from the fact that the existing
mechanisms were essentially geared only towards handling crisis situations in areas
traditionally associated with security and were unable to bring to bear coordinated
action across the entire spectrum of national life designed to promote national
security. It was clearly recognised that the efficient management of national security
entails not merely the effective handling of crisis situations but, perhaps even more
importantly, their pre-emption. While the former demands coordinated action by
several different departments, agencies and authorities, the latter requires undertaking
threat assessments (short, medium and long term), identification of contingencies
likely to impact the nation, and formulation of alternative strategies to counter such
 Strategic Analysis 347

contingencies. In short, therefore, the NSC system was required to see all aspects of
national life through the prism of national security, constantly analysing threats and
opportunities and providing alternative course(s) of action and strategies.
Accordingly, the Cabinet Resolution that set up the NSC gave it an extensive remit
in order to enable it to address security holistically, specifically calling upon it to deal
with the following broad subject areas:

(1) external security environment and threat scenario;

(2) security threats involving atomic energy, space and high technology;
(3) trends in the world economy and economic security threats in the areas of
energy, foreign trade, food, finance and ecology;
(4) internal security, including counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism and counter-
intelligence;
(5) patterns of alienation emerging in the country, especially those with a social,
communal or regional dimension;
(6) security threats posed by trans-border crimes such as smuggling and traffick-
ing in arms, drugs and narcotics; and
(7) co-ordination in intelligence collection and tasking of intelligence agencies to
ensure that intelligence is focused on areas of concern for the nation.

Furthermore, this Resolution required all ministries/departments to ‘consult’ the

National Security Council Secretariat ‘on matters having a bearing on national
security’.
While it is true that the NSC as constituted has been limited to an advisory role,
the conclusions it arrived at are readily implementable as its composition is identical
to that of the CCS, the apex security decision-making body.
It is unfortunate that although all the adjuncts of the NSC, in particular the NSCS,
exist solely for enhancing India’s national security and, indeed, dream, think and
breathe security, the nation’s performance in this area remains far from satisfactory.
This may be attributed to a lack of sensitivity to security at the apex level. Lack of
security consciousness afflicts both the political class and the bureaucracy. This is
reflected in the non-implementation of many of the recommendations contained in the
Group of Ministers report on ‘Reforming the National Security System’, which was
accepted by the CCS in May 2001, and the more recent proposals on security-related
issues made by the Naresh Chandra Committee in 2012. It is also borne out by the
fact that the NSCS, far from having been nurtured and strengthened, as it was in the
first five years of its existence, was allowed to atrophy through, inter alia, the
introduction of multiple chains of command and a hiving off of some functions
resulting in staff reduction. Had the NSC system been developed as originally
envisaged and had the wide-ranging security reform approved in 2001 been under-
taken, the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 26/11 would have been averted and India would
have been a far more secure nation than it is today.
Clearly, if we are serious about making India secure, the NSC system must be
reinvigorated because it alone thinks holistically about national security and is
equipped to provide across-the-board guidance in this regard. This can only happen
if the political leadership at the highest level as represented in the NSC accepts this
and bends all its energies in this direction.
348 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes
1. David Dewitt, ‘Common, Comprehensive, and Cooperative Security ’, Pacific Review, 7(1),
1994.
2. Norris M. Ripsman, ‘False Dichotomies: Why Economics is High Politics’, in Peter Dombrowski
(ed.), Guns and Butter: The Political Economy of International Security, 2005.
3. Richard H. Ullman, ‘Redefining Security’, International Security, 8(1), (1983), pp. 129–153.
4. Edward Newman, ‘Understanding Security’ in Peter Dombrowski, no. 2 .
5. Mahbub ul Haq, ‘New Imperatives of Human Security’, in Mahbub ul Haq (ed.), Reflections on
Human Development, 1995.
6. Joseph Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, 2004.
7. Joseph S. Nye Jr., The Future of Power, 2011.
8. Indexing of factors and sub-factors has been done based on basic values derived from sources
of data as per following sequence. Step 1: collection and collation of data for the relevant sub-
factor for 30 countries from credible sources such as the UN Data Bank, World Bank etc. Data
for all the countries are from the same source and for the same year to ensure uniformity. Step
2: working out maximum and minimum values for 30 countries of the selected data to establish
a comparative distinction with the highest and lowest value respectively and application in the
formula explained in the subsequent paragraph. Step 3: evolving an index that is a value of a
sub-factor in the range 0–100. Step 4: adding values of indices of sub-factors and dividing the
same by the number of sub-factors provided the value of the factor. Step 5: adding the value of
indices of factors and dividing the same by 6, that is the number of factors denoted the total
value of the composite national security index of each country. The formula used for the
calculation of the index for positive variable was as follows: Index = Country Value –
Minimum Value/Maximum Value – Minimum Value x 100. In the case of a negative variable,
wherein the lower value determines a higher power ratio, the computation is carried out based
on the following formula: Index = Maximum Value – Country Value/Maximum Value –
Minimum Value x 100. Data sets are for the latest year available for all countries to ensure
uniformity.
 Strategic Analysis 349

Appendix I
Table A1. Size and Intrinsic Resources Index.

Arable land Per capita

Area in (1,000 ha) per water Total
Country sq km1 Index capital2 Index resources3 Index index

Canada 9,984,670 58.32 1.314866 60.78 82,969 100 73.03

Russia 17,098,242 100 0.85428 38.95 30,195 36.38 58.44
Australia 7,741,220 45.18 2.142165 100 21,764 26.21 57.13
Brazil 8,514,877 49.71 0.307042 13.01 27,551 33.19 31.97
United States 9,826,675 57.4 0.518567 23.03 9,001 10.83 30.42
Colombia 1,138,910 6.49 0.039236 0.31 45,006 54.23 20.35
China 9,596,961 56.05 0.081891 2.33 2,041 2.43 20.27
Argentina 2,780,400 16.11 0.734728 33.28 6,771 8.14 19.18
Malaysia 329,847 1.75 0.061686 1.38 20,098 24.2 9.11
India 3,287,263 19.08 0.131048 4.66 1,165 1.38 8.37
Mexico 1,964,375 11.33 0.218595 8.81 3,563 4.27 8.14
Indonesia 1,904,569 10.98 0.094914 2.95 8,332 10.02 7.98
South Africa 1,219,090 6.96 0.293995 12.39 887.8 1.04 6.8
Iran 1,648,195 9.48 0.218147 8.79 1,718 2.04 6.77
Turkey 783,562 4.41 0.267726 11.14 3,083 3.69 6.42
France 643,801 3.59 0.279534 11.7 3,168 3.79 6.36
Poland 312,685 1.65 0.326407 13.93 1,400 1.66 5.75
Spain 505,370 2.78 0.265651 11.05 2,394 2.86 5.56
Saudi Arabia 2,149,690 12.42 0.120598 4.17 85.46 0.08 5.55
Thailand 513,120 2.83 0.228048 9.26 3,229 3.87 5.32
Nigeria 923,768 5.23 0.199855 7.93 1,360 1.61 4.92
Italy 301,340 1.59 0.112306 3.78 3,002 3.59 2.99
Germany 357,022 1.91 0.146914 5.42 1,302 1.54 2.96
Pakistan 796,095 4.49 0.107362 3.54 311.2 0.35 2.79
United 243,610 1.25 0.095944 3 2,314 2.76 2.34
Kingdom
Japan 377,915 2.04 0.033713 0.05 3,399 4.07 2.05
Egypt 1,001,450 5.69 0.034461 0.09 21.81 0 1.92
Belgium 30,528 0 0.080472 2.27 1,116 1.32 1.2
Netherlands 41,543 0.06 0.063058 1.44 660.1 0.77 0.76
South Korea 99,720 0.41 0.032644 0 1,340 1.59 0.66
1
Data are for 2012, at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2147.txt
(Accessed February 21, 2013).
2
Arable land is per capita and data are for 2009, at http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html
(Accessed December 7, 2012). Separate source for Japan only.
3
Total internal renewable water resources per capita (m3/inhab/yr). http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/
query/results.html (Accessed December 7, 2012). Data for 2011.
Appendix II
Table A2. Human Capital Index.

Economically Public
Expenditure active spending on
Physicians on healthcare population as education as
350

per as percentage ratio of total percentage of Overall

Country Population1 Index 10,0002 Index of GDP3 Index population4 Index GDP5 Index Literacy6 Index index

United 313,847,465 22.76 24 54.76 16.2 100 0.52 68.75 5.43 70.79 99 98.66 69.29
States
Belgium 10,438,353 0 30 69.05 11.8 68.12 0.45 48.95 6.57 100 99 98.66 64.13
Netherlands 16,730,632 0.47 29 66.67 10.8 60.87 0.52 70.03 5.94 83.91 99 98.66 63.43
Spain 47,042,984 2.75 40 92.86 9.7 52.9 0.49 60.11 5.01 59.92 97.7 95.75 60.71
Germany 81,305,856 5.32 36 83.33 8.1 41.3 0.52 68.97 5.06 61.06 99 98.66 59.77
United 63,047,162 3.95 27 61.9 9.5 51.45 0.51 67.8 5.63 75.76 99 98.66 59.68
Kingdom
Argentina 42,192,494 2.38 32 73.81 9.5 51.45 0.46 49.29 6.03 86.07 97.2 94.63 59.61
Canada 34,300,083 1.79 20 45.24 10.9 61.59 0.57 86.17 5 59.66 99 98.66 58.85
Australia 22,015,576 0.87 30 69.05 8.5 44.2 0.54 76.32 5.11 62.32 99 98.66 58.57
China 1,343,239,923 100 14 30.95 4.6 15.94 0.62 100 3.3 15.72 92.2 83.45 57.68
Russia 142,517,670 9.91 43 100 5.4 21.74 0.55 77.65 4.1 36.41 99.6 100 57.62
Brazil 199,321,413 14.17 18 40.48 9 47.83 0.51 67.01 5.62 75.63 88.6 75.39 53.42
Mexico 114,975,406 7.84 20 45.24 13.8 82.61 0.43 41.68 5.29 67.13 86.1 69.8 52.38
France 65,630,692 4.14 34 78.57 3.5 7.97 0.43 41.93 5.9 82.83 99 98.66 52.35
Thailand 67,091,089 4.25 30 69.05 4.6 15.94 0.6 93.62 4.13 37.03 92.6 84.34 50.71
South 48,860,500 2.88 20 45.24 6.5 29.71 0.5 64.63 5.05 60.88 97.9 96.2 49.92
Korea
Poland 38,415,284 2.1 22 50 7.1 34.06 0.45 48.15 5.09 61.98 99.5 99.78 49.34
Japan 127,368,088 8.77 21 47.62 9.3 50 0.5 62.59 3.78 28.15 99 98.66 49.3
Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Italy 61,261,254 3.81 35 80.95 5.1 19.57 0.43 40.34 4.7 51.72 98.4 97.32 48.95
Malaysia 29,179,952 1.41 9 19.05 8 40.58 0.44 45.68 6.26 92.2 88.7 75.62 45.75
Colombia 45,239,079 2.61 1 0 6.4 28.99 0.54 76.11 4.71 52.14 90.4 79.42 39.88
South 48,810,427 2.88 7.7 15.95 8.5 44.2 0.38 25.24 5.5 72.39 86.4 70.47 38.52
Africa
Saudi 26,534,504 1.21 9 19.05 5 18.84 0.39 28.72 5.61 75.26 86.6 70.92 35.67
Arabia
Indonesia 248,645,008 17.87 3 4.76 5.5 22.46 0.49 59.68 3.53 21.53 90.4 79.42 34.29
Egypt 83,688,164 5.5 28 64.29 6.4 28.99 0.32 7.32 3.76 27.62 72 38.26 28.66
India 1,205,073,612 89.63 6 11.9 2.4 0 0.42 37.88 3.21 13.42 61 13.65 27.75
(continued )
Table A2. (Continued).

Economically Public
Expenditure active spending on
Physicians on healthcare population as education as
per as percentage ratio of total percentage of Overall
Country Population1 Index 10,0002 Index of GDP3 Index population4 Index GDP5 Index Literacy6 Index index

Iran 78,868,711 5.13 9 19.05 3.9 10.87 0.39 29.39 4.68 51.46 77 49.44 27.56
Turkey 79,749,461 5.2 15 33.33 6.7 31.16 0.32 5.04 2.86 4.43 87.4 72.71 25.31
Nigeria 170,123,740 11.98 4 7.14 5.8 24.64 0.3 0 3.21 13.42 61.3 14.32 11.92
Pakistan 190,291129 13.49 8 16.67 2.6 1.45 0.34 13.1 2.69 0 54.9 0 7.45
1
Population data for 2012. This entry gives an estimate from the US Bureau of the Census based on statistics from population censuses, vital statistics registration systems, or sample
surveys pertaining to the recent past and on assumptions about future trends. Source: CIA Gov, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2119.
txt (Accessed December 7, 2012).
2
Physicians (per 10,000 population), http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=74 (Accessed December 13, 2012). Physicians per 1,000, http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS (Accessed December 13, 2012) used in case of countries where the data are not available for 10,000 citizens.
3
Total expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP. Health expenditures are broadly defined as activities performed either by institutions or individuals through the application of
Strategic Analysis

medical, paramedical and/or nursing knowledge and technology, the primary purpose of which is to promote, restore or maintain health. Source: CIA Country Reports, https://www.cia.
gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2225rank.html?countryName=Afghanistan&countryCode=af&regionCode=sas&rank=67#af (Accessed December 15, 2012).
Variation of 0.20 in UK not corrected as minor.
4
The economically active population is taken as a proportion of the total population. The economically active population comprises all persons of either sex who furnish the supply of
labour for the production of goods and services during a specified time-reference period as per the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Data are to be multiplied by 1,000 and are
for 2011. FAO, http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html (Accessed March 10, 2013).
5
Public spending on education, total percentage of GDP). Public expenditure on education as percentage of GDP is the total public expenditure (current and capital) on education
expressed as a percentage of the GDP in a given year. Public expenditure on education includes government spending on educational institutions (both public and private), education
administration and transfers/subsidies for private entities (students/households and other privates entities). Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS for 2009
(Accessed December 15, 2012). Some data are for other years and from other sources where data are not available in main source. For instance, China 2008 data from http://www.oecd.
org/china/48677215.pdf (Accessed December 15, 2012). Figures for Nigeria GDP percentage are not available, hence that of India used based on same level of literacy but will not be
an accurate indicator.
6
Literacy as percentage of population implies aged 15 and over and can read and write. Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/print_2103.html
(Accessed December 15, 2012). India literacy is as per 2001 Census and has been retained for uniformity with other countries’parameters even though new census (2011) has been
published.
351
352 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Appendix III
Table A3. Science and Technology Index.

R&D No. of Total

percentage R&D No. of S&T
Country of GDP1 Index personnel2 Index patents3 Index index

United States 2.9 76.98 1,412,639 44.32 53916 100 73.77

Japan 3.36 89.59 1,152,787 36.16 40411 74.95 66.9
China 1.7 44.29 3,183,687 100 18557 34.42 59.57
Germany 2.82 74.95 774,271.5 24.26 24430 45.31 48.17
South Korea 3.74 100 500,124 15.64 10935 20.28 45.31
France 2.26 59.66 480,249.9 15.01 11481 21.29 31.99
United 1.86 48.49 507,524.1 15.87 6006 11.14 25.17
Kingdom
Australia 2.37 62.67 137,137.7 4.23 2727 5.06 23.99
Canada 1.92 50.33 242,686 7.55 2925 5.42 21.1
Belgium 2.03 53.16 88,770 2.71 1233 2.29 19.38
Netherlands 1.82 47.58 105,217 3.22 3630 6.73 19.18
Russia 1.16 29.42 736,540 23.07 2599 4.82 19.1
Italy 1.26 32.31 354,513 11.06 5142 9.54 17.63
Spain 1.39 35.8 358,803 11.2 2328 4.32 17.11
Brazil 1.16 29.47 428,013 13.37 564 1.04 14.63
India 0.76 18.45 391,149 12.21 1329 2.46 11.04
Turkey 0.84 20.8 147,417 4.55 1609 2.98 9.44
South Africa 0.93 23.17 58,895 1.77 319 0.59 8.51
Iran 0.79 19.29 141,871 4.38 16 0.03 7.9
Poland 0.74 17.84 120,923 3.72 594 1.1 7.55
Argentina 0.6 14 83,211 2.53 24 0.04 5.53
Malaysia 0.63 15.09 24,588 0.69 263 0.49 5.42
Pakistan 0.46 10.44 137,220 4.23 1 0 4.89
Mexico 0.4 8.53 80,158 2.44 225 0.42 3.79
Thailand 0.21 3.57 73,498 2.23 67 0.12 1.97
Nigeria 0.22 3.73 66,574 2.01 5 0.01 1.92
Egypt 0.21 3.5 0.004 1.025 71 0.13 1.55
Colombia 0.16 1.97 0.006 0.147 56 0.1 0.74
Indonesia 0.08 0 55,118 1.65 13 0.02 0.56
Saudi Arabia 0.08 0.01 2,655 0 147 0.27 0.09
1
GERD or General Expenditure on R & D as a percentage of GDP. Data from 2009 unless otherwise indicated,
partial data not included. http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=2656 (Accessed
December 16, 2012). Where only provisional and partial data of a country is available for 2009, the same has not
been taken but nearest year where final data is available has been included.
2
Total R & D personnel by sex (Headcounts: HC). Data from 2009 but in some cases earlier. In some cases dates
may have been derived from full time equivalents as given in the source head count, http://stats.uis.unesco.org/
unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=5472 (Accessed December 16, 2012).
3
International applications via the PCT, Madrid and Hague systems by origin. Data are for 2011. A patent is a set
of exclusive rights granted by law to applicants for inventions that are new, non-obvious and commercially
applicable. It is valid for a limited period of time (generally 20 years) during which patent holders can
commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. In return, applicants are obliged to disclose their
inventions to the public in a manner that enables others, skilled in the art, to replicate the invention. The patent
system is designed to encourage innovation by providing innovators with time-limited exclusive legal rights, thus
enabling the innovators to appropriate the returns on their innovative activities. World Intellectual Property
Organisation, WIPO 2011, WIPO Publication No. 943E/2012, wipo_pub_943_2012 Patents.pdf (Accessed
December 15, 2012), Annexure page 39. Data for Brazil are 564 but erroneously reflected as 584 and is not
corrected being a comparatively marginal error.
4
Data not available but index is extrapolated.
5
Index extrapolated based on 420 per million population in 2009. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.
SCIE.RD.P6 (Accessed February 15, 2013).
6
Data not available but index is extrapolated.
7
Index extrapolated based on 157 per million population in 2008. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.
SCIE.RD.P6 (Accessed February 15, 2013).
Appendix IV
Table A4. Economy Index.

Gross national
savings Public debt as Per capita Total
GDP nominal (percentage of Forex reserves percentage of nominal GDP economy
Country US$ million1 Index GDP) year2 Index US$ billion3 Index GDP4 Index World Bank5 Index index

China 9,240,270 54.36 52.37 100 3,213 100 43.5 82.15 6,091.01 7.3 68.76
United States 16,800,000 100 11.64 0 148 4.08 67.8 69.83 49,965.27 74.04 49.59
Australia 1,560,597 7.99 22.85 27.54 46.83 0.91 26.7 90.67 67,035.57 100 45.42
Saudi Arabia 745,273 3.07 37.69 63.96 541.1 16.38 12.6 97.82 20,777.67 29.64 42.17
South Korea 1,304,554 6.45 31.92 49.81 306.4 9.04 33.6 87.17 22,590.16 32.4 36.97
Russia 2,096,777 11.23 27.54 39.05 498.6 15.05 8.3 100 14,037.02 19.39 36.94
Germany 3,634,823 20.52 23.52 29.18 238.9 6.92 80.6 63.34 41,514.17 61.18 36.23
Iran 368,904 0.8 38.66 66.35 79.86 1.95 18.2 94.98 6,815.57 8.4 34.5
Netherlands 800,173 3.4 22.65 27.04 51.27 1.05 65.1 71.2 46,054.41 68.09 34.16
Japan 4,901,530 28.16 23.29 28.61 1,296 40.01 205.5 0 46,720.36 69.1 33.18
Canada 1,825,096 9.59 18.43 16.67 66 1.51 87.4 59.89 52,218.99 77.46 33.02
France 2,734,949 15.08 17.24 13.77 171.9 4.83 86.1 60.55 39,771.84 58.53 30.55
Indonesia 868,346 3.81 32.10 50.23 110 2.89 24.1 91.99 3,556.79 3.45 30.47
India 1,876,797 9.9 33.74 54.27 297.9 8.77 50.5 78.6 1,489.24 0.3 30.37
Strategic Analysis

Malaysia 312,435 0.46 34.22 55.46 133.6 3.63 51.8 77.94 10,380.54 13.83 30.26
Belgium 508,116 1.64 23.06 28.03 29.43 0.37 98 54.51 43,412.53 64.07 29.72
Nigeria 522,638 1.73 31.10 47.79 35.21 0.55 17.8 95.18 1,555.41 0.4 29.13
Thailand 387,252 0.91 30.95 47.42 175.1 4.93 44.9 81.44 5,473.75 6.36 28.21
Mexico 1,260,915 6.18 23.57 29.3 149.3 4.12 35.4 86.26 9,741.79 12.85 27.74
Spain 1,358,263 6.77 18.64 17.19 47 0.92 68.5 69.47 29,195.38 42.44 27.36
United 2,522,261 13.8 12.40 1.87 95 2.41 85.3 60.95 38,514.46 56.62 27.13
Kingdom
Brazil 2,245,673 12.13 17.53 14.47 352 10.46 54.2 76.72 11,339.52 15.29 25.82
Argentina 611,755 2.26 22.46 26.56 46.35 0.9 41.7 83.06 11,557.57 15.62 25.68
Italy 2,071,307 11.08 16.77 12.61 173.3 4.87 121.1 42.8 33,048.75 48.31 23.93
Poland 517,543 1.7 16.93 12.99 97.86 2.51 53.4 77.13 12,707.85 17.37 22.34
Turkey 820,207 3.52 13.19 3.82 88.21 2.21 40 83.92 10,666.06 14.26 21.55
(continued )
353
 354

Table A4. (Continued).

Gross national
savings Public debt as Per capita Total
GDP nominal (percentage of Forex reserves percentage of nominal GDP economy
Country US$ million1 Index GDP) year2 Index US$ billion3 Index GDP4 Index World Bank5 Index index

South Africa 350,630 0.69 16.46 11.85 48.87 0.98 38.6 84.63 7,507.67 9.46 21.52
Colombia 378,148 0.85 17.40 14.14 31.91 0.45 43.4 82.2 7,752.17 9.83 21.49
Pakistan 236,625 0 21.34 23.82 18.09 0.01 60.1 73.73 1,290.36 0 19.51
Egypt 271,973 0.21 17.79 15.12 17.66 0 83.6 61.82 3,187.31 2.89 16.01
1
World Bank 2013 World Development Indicators, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD (Accessed August 12, 2014).
GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included. It is calculated
without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current US dollars. Dollar figures for GDP are
converted from domestic currencies using single year official exchange rates. For a few countries where the official exchange rate does not reflect the rate effectively applied to actual
foreign exchange transactions, an alternative conversion factor is used. Data are for 2013.
2
Gross savings (percentage of GDP). Gross savings are calculated as gross national income less total consumption, plus net transfers. World Bank national accounts data, and OECD
National Accounts data files. Data are for 2010.
3
Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold for 2011. This entry gives the dollar value for the stock of all financial assets that are available to the central monetary authority for use in
meeting a country’s balance of payments needs as of the end-date of the period specified. This category includes not only foreign currency and gold, but also a country’s holdings of
Special Drawing Rights in the International Monetary Fund, and its reserve position in the Fund. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/
2188rank.html (Accessed February 21, 2013).
4
Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Public debt as percentage of GDP for 2011. This entry records the cumulative total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country’s home currency.
Public debt should not be confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign exchange
earnings. Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch&regionCode=eas&rank=75#ch
(Accessed February 21, 2013).
5
GDP per capita is GDP divided by mid-year population. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies
not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are
in current US dollars. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (Accessed February 22, 2013).
Appendix V
Table A5. Military Index.

Defence expenditure Defence Defence expenditure Per soldier Total military

Country Total armed forces1 Armed forces index US$ millions2 expenditure index per soldier, $US3 expenditure index index4

United States 1,458,219 63.2 668,841 100 458,669.8 100 100**

China 2,285,000 100 157,603 23.32 68,972.87 13.35 56.95**
United Kingdom 197,780 7.09 59,795 8.65 302,330.9 65.24 33.74**
Australia 59,023 0.92 25,555 3.52 432,966.8 94.29 32.91
Russia 1,027,000 44 90,646 13.28 88,262.9 17.64 31.22**
India 1,325,000 57.27 48,255 6.92 36,418.87 6.12 29.29**
France 352,771 13.99 62,582 9.07 177,401.2 37.46 25.22**
Canada 68,250 1.33 22,382 3.04 327,941.4 70.93 25.1
Japan 230,300 8.54 59,242 8.57 257,238.4 55.21 24.11
Germany 195,893 7.01 48,617 6.98 248,181.4 53.2 22.39
Saudi Arabia 233,500 8.68 45,655 6.53 195,524.6 41.49 18.9
Italy 293,202 11.34 35,719 5.04 121,823.9 25.11 13.83
South Korea 687,000 28.87 31,484 4.41 45,828.24 8.21 13.83
Brazil 327,710 12.88 36,751 5.2 112,144.9 22.95 13.68
Netherlands 61,302 1.02 10,395 1.24 169,570.3 35.72 12.66
Turkey 666,576 27.96 17,906 2.37 26,862.65 3.99 11.44
Pakistan 617,000 25.75 6,630 0.68 10,745.54 0.41 11.18**
Belgium 38,452 0 5,352 0.49 139,186.5 28.97 9.82
Iran 523,000 21.57 9,809 1.16 18,755.26 2.19 8.3
Strategic Analysis

Spain 128,013 3.99 12,185 1.51 95,185.65 19.18 8.23

Poland 99,778 2.73 9,912 1.17 99,340.54 20.11 8
Egypt 468,500 19.14 4,175 0.31 8,911.42 0 6.48
Colombia 285,220 10.98 11,446 1.4 40,130.43 6.94 6.44
Thailand 400,000 16.09 5,114 0.45 12,785 0.86 5.8
South Africa 62,082 1.05 4,785 0.4 77,075.48 15.16 5.54
Indonesia 302,000 11.73 7,048 0.74 23,337.75 3.21 5.23
Mexico 267,506 10.2 7,103 0.75 26,552.68 3.92 4.96
Malaysia 109,000 3.14 4,662 0.38 42,770.64 7.53 3.68
Argentina 130,263 4.09 4,356 0.34 33,440.04 5.45 3.29
Nigeria 80,000 1.85 2,100 0 26,250 3.86 1.9

** Indicates accretion of 25% to basic military index for nuclear weapon states.
1
Active military personnel represent those ready to fight. Source: SIPRI 2010 as indicated in Wikpedia list of countries by number of military personnel which include active forces
only, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel (Accessed June 22, 2013). Data have also been counter-checked with other
sources.
355

2
Defence expenditure 2012 at 2011 constant prices. Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2012, http://milexdata.sipri.org (Accessed June 22, 2013). Defence of some countries
including China is SIPRI estimates and may vary with actual. Data are for 2012.
3
Defence expenditure per soldier is calculated by dividing the total defence expenditure for 2012 by the number of armed forces personnel.
4
Nuclear weapon states, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, the UK and the United States have been given a 25% accretion in the basic military index due to possession of higher
capability.
Appendix VI
Table A6. Details of Leadership Index.1

HDI
HDI HDI Difference value of leadership 2000 2012 Difference Governance Overall
356

HDI 2000 HDI 2013 HDI index 2013– value4 Governance Governance 2012–2000 leadership value7 leadership
Country 20002 index 20133 index 2000 (e+/-f) index5 index6 governance index (j+/-k) value8

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (j) (k) (l) (m)

Australia 0.886 100 0.933 99.92 ‒0.08 99.84 95.34 96.84 1.5 98.35 99.09
Netherlands 0.874 97.22 0.915 95.87 ‒1.35 94.52 100 99.96 ‒0.04 99.92 97.22
Canada 0.867 95.6 0.902 92.74 ‒2.86 89.88 94.77 97.65 2.88 100.539 95.2
Germany 0.854 92.59 0.911 94.97 2.38 97.35 93.84 92.44 ‒1.4 91.03 94.19
Japan 0.858 93.52 0.89 90 ‒3.52 86.47 83.95 88.44 4.49 92.93 89.7
South 0.819 84.49 0.891 90.13 5.64 95.77 66.26 73.39 7.13 80.52 88.15
Korea
United 0.883 99.31 0.914 95.51 ‒3.79 91.72 91.82 88.12 ‒3.7 84.42 88.07
States
France 0.848 91.2 0.884 88.65 ‒2.55 86.1 84.89 86.74 1.85 88.59 87.35
United 0.863 94.68 0.892 90.38 ‒4.3 86.08 92.95 90.35 ‒2.6 87.75 86.91
Kingdom
Belgium 0.873 96.99 0.881 87.83 ‒9.16 78.66 89. 42 91.1 1.67 92.77 85.72
Poland 0.784 76.39 0.834 76.97 0.58 77.56 69.72 75.45 5.73 81.18 79.37
Italy 0.825 85.88 0.872 85.74 ‒0.14 85.59 76.35 66.6 ‒9.75 56.85 71.22
Spain 0.826 86.11 0.869 85.06 ‒1.05 84.01 85.86 70.85 ‒15.01 55.84 69.92
Saudi 0.744 67.13 0.836 77.28 10.15 87.43 36.09 42.56 6.47 49.04 68.23
Arabia
Turkey 0.653 46.06 0.759 59.36 13.29 72.65 41.32 49.51 8.19 57.7 65.17
Malaysia 0.717 60.88 0.773 62.68 1.8 64.48 58.33 60.95 2.62 63.57 64.03
Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Brazil 0.682 52.78 0.744 55.86 3.08 58.94 51.25 52.45 1.2 53.66 56.3
Mexico 0.699 56.71 0.756 58.7 1.99 60.69 46.87 46.12 ‒0.75 45.37 53.03
Colombia 0.655 46.53 0.711 48.19 1.66 49.85 27.23 41.04 13.81 54.85 52.35
China 0.591 31.71 0.719 50.14 18.42 68.56 31.88 32.25 0.37 32.63 50.59
Russia 0.717 60.88 0.778 63.94 3.06 67 14 22.6 8.6 31.2 49.1
Argentina 0.753 69.21 0.808 70.93 1.72 72.65 49.25 36.9 ‒12.35 24.55 48.6
Indonesia 0.609 35.88 0.684 42.02 6.14 48.16 22.57 34.99 12.42 47.42 47.79
South 0.628 40.28 0.658 35.84 ‒4.44 31.4 60.23 57.49 ‒2.74 54.76 43.08
Africa
(continued )
Table A6. (Continued).

HDI
HDI HDI Difference value of leadership 2000 2012 Difference Governance Overall
HDI 2000 HDI 2013 HDI index 2013– value4 Governance Governance 2012–2000 leadership value7 leadership
Country 20002 index 20133 index 2000 (e+/-f) index5 index6 governance index (j+/-k) value8

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (j) (k) (l) (m)

Thailand 0.649 45.14 0.722 50.8 5.66 56.46 59.27 42.36 ‒16.91 25.45 40.95
Iran 0.652 45.83 0.749 57.19 11.36 68.55 20.5 12.14 ‒8.36 3.79 36.17
India 0.483 6.71 0.586 19.05 12.34 31.39 41.79 37.22 ‒4.57 32.65 32.02
Egypt 0.621 38.66 0.682 41.39 2.74 44.13 37.03 23.58 ‒13.45 10.13 27.13
Pakistan 0.454 0 0.537 7.58 7.58 15.17 12.41 12.18 ‒0.23 11.96 13.56
Nigeria 0.466 2.78 0.504 ‒0.08 ‒2.86 ‒2.95 8.05 9.57 1.52 11.09 4.07
1
Leadership Index is calculated based on the improvement made in Human Development Index and Governance Index from the years 2000 to 2012 and 2013 respectively. The
difference in the HDI and Governance Index from 2000 to 2013 has been added to the HDI and Governance Index of 2013/2012 to arrive at the value for leadership in each factor. An
Strategic Analysis

average of the two that is HDI and Governance leadership factor is then taken to arrive at the final leadership index.
2
Human Development Report 2014, Statistical Tables, Table?2.
3
Human Development Report 2014, Statistical Tables, Table?2.
4
HDI leadership value is arrived at after adding/subtracting the difference of HDI Index 2013 and 2000 to/from HDI Index 2013.
5
Governance Index is based on the Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2013 Update, Aggregate Indicators of Governance ?1996–?2012, www.govindicators.org of World Bank
Institute.
6
Governance Index is based on the Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2013 Update, Aggregate Indicators of Governance ?1996–?2012, www.govindicators.org of World Bank
Institute.
7
Leadership value of governance is arrived at by adding/subtracting difference in Governance Index between 2012 and 2000 to/from Governance Index of 2012.
8
Leadership Index is calculated based on the improvement made in Human Development Index and Governance Index from the years 2000 to 2012 and 2013 respectively. The
difference in the HDI and Governance Index from 2000 to 2013 has been added to the HDI and Governance Index of 2013/2012 to arrive at the value for leadership in each factor. An
average of the two that is HDI and Governance leadership factor is then taken to arrive at the final leadership index.
9
A value above 100 is accepted for overall calculation purposes to gain accuracy.
357
358 Satish Chandra and Rahul Bhonsle

Appendix VII
Table A7. Composite National Security Index.

Size and
Human natural Overall
Country Leadership Economy Military S&T capital resources index

United States 88.07 49.59 100 73.77 69.29 30.42 68.52

Australia 99.09 45.42 32.91 23.99 58.57 57.13 52.85
China 50.59 68.76 56.95 59.57 57.68 20.27 52.3
Canada 95.2 33.02 25.1 21.1 58.85 73.03 51.05
Japan 89.7 33.18 24.11 66.9 49.3 2.05 44.21
Germany 94.19 36.23 22.39 48.17 59.77 2.96 43.95
Russia 49.1 36.94 31.22 19.1 57.62 58.44 42.07
United Kingdom 86.91 27.13 33.74 25.17 59.68 2.34 39.16
South Korea 88.15 36.97 13.83 45.31 49.92 0.66 39.14
France 87.35 30.55 25.22 31.99 52.35 6.36 38.97
Netherlands 97.22 34.16 12.66 19.18 63.43 0.76 37.9
Belgium 85.72 29.72 9.82 19.38 64.13 1.2 35
Brazil 56.3 25.82 13.68 14.63 53.42 31.97 32.64
Spain 69.92 27.36 8.23 17.11 60.71 5.56 31.48
Italy 71.22 23.93 13.83 17.63 48.95 2.99 29.76
Poland 79.37 22.34 8 7.55 49.34 5.75 28.73
Saudi Arabia 68.23 42.17 18.9 0.09 35.67 5.55 28.44
Argentina 48.6 25.68 3.29 5.53 59.61 19.18 26.98
Malaysia 64.03 30.26 3.68 5.42 45.75 9.11 26.38
Mexico 53.03 27.74 4.96 3.79 52.38 8.14 25.01
Colombia 52.35 21.49 6.44 0.74 39.88 20.35 23.54
Turkey 65.17 21.55 11.44 9.44 25.31 6.42 23.22
India 32.02 30.37 29.29 11.04 27.75 8.37 23.14
Thailand 40.95 28.21 5.8 1.97 50.71 5.32 22.16
Indonesia 47.79 30.47 5.23 0.56 34.29 7.98 21.05
South Africa 43.08 21.52 5.54 8.51 38.52 6.8 20.66
Iran 36.17 34.5 8.3 7.9 27.56 6.77 20.2
Egypt 27.13 16.01 6.48 1.55 28.66 1.92 13.62
Pakistan 13.56 19.51 11.18 4.89 7.45 2.79 9.9
Nigeria 4.07 29.13 1.9 1.92 11.92 4.92 8.98
 Strategic Analysis 359

Appendix VIII
Table A8. Country comparison of Composite National Security Index including/excluding leader-
ship factor.

Country Index with leadership Country Index without leadership

United States 68.52 United States 64.61

Australia 52.85 China 52.65
China 52.30 Australia 43.60
Canada 51.05 Canada 42.22
Japan 44.21 Russia 40.67
Germany 43.95 Japan 35.11
Russia 42.07 Germany 33.90
United Kingdom 39.16 United Kingdom 29.61
South Korea 39.14 South Korea 29.34
France 38.97 France 29.29
Netherlands 37.90 Brazil 27.90
Belgium 35.00 Netherlands 26.04
Brazil 32.64 Belgium 24.85
Spain 31.48 Spain 23.79
Italy 29.76 Argentina 22.66
Poland 28.73 Italy 21.47
Saudi Arabia 28.44 India 21.36
Argentina 26.98 Saudi Arabia 20.48
Malaysia 26.38 Mexico 19.40
Mexico 25.01 Malaysia 18.85
Colombia 23.54 Poland 18.60
Turkey 23.22 Thailand 18.40
India 23.14 Colombia 17.78
Thailand 22.16 Iran 17.00
Indonesia 21.05 South Africa 16.18
South Africa 20.66 Indonesia 15.71
Iran 20.20 Turkey 14.83
Egypt 13.62 Egypt 10.92
Pakistan 9.90 Nigeria 9.96
Nigeria 8.98 Pakistan 9.17