08.09.25

Key aspects to focus on:

• Define “external state actors” and “non-state actors.”
• Understand “destabilizing internal security” – threats to sovereignty, governance, economy, social cohesion, etc.
• Identify specific mechanisms of destabilization (e.g., funding, arms, propaganda, cyberattacks, proxy wars).
• Provide concrete, historical or contemporary examples for each type of actor and mechanism.
• Explain the interconnectedness and synergy between different actors.
• Analyze the motivations of these actors.
• Consider the impact on the targeted state’s internal stability.

Core concepts underpinning the answer:

• Sovereignty: The supreme authority within a territory. External interference undermines this.
• National Security: Protection of the state and its citizens from threats.
• Internal Security: Maintaining law and order, preventing civil unrest, and ensuring stable governance within a state.
• Proxy Warfare: Using third parties to fight instead of direct confrontation.
• Asymmetric Warfare: Conflict between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly.
• Hybrid Warfare: A military strategy combining irregular warfare, conventional warfare, and other influencing methods.
• Transnational Threats: Security threats that cross national borders.
• Geopolitics: The influence of geography and politics on international relations.

The internal security of a state is a delicate balance, susceptible to erosion not only from domestic factors but also significantly from the intricate web of external state and non-state actors. These actors, driven by a diverse range of motivations including strategic advantage, economic gain, ideological propagation, or humanitarian concerns, can employ sophisticated and multifaceted strategies to destabilize a nation’s internal fabric. This destabilization manifests in various forms, from undermining governance and economic stability to exacerbating social divisions and fueling armed conflict, thereby posing a profound challenge to national sovereignty and the well-being of citizens. Understanding the nature and impact of these external influences is crucial for comprehending contemporary security landscapes.

External state actors, such as rival nations or powerful alliances, frequently engage in activities that directly or indirectly destabilize the internal security of other states. Their primary motivations often revolve around geopolitical competition, the desire to weaken adversaries, or to exert influence over strategic regions. One of the most direct methods is through proxy warfare. For instance, during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union supported opposing factions in conflicts across the globe, such as in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Angola. These interventions prolonged civil wars, armed insurgent groups, and devastated local infrastructure, creating long-term internal instability in the targeted nations. More recently, allegations of state-sponsored cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, election interference, and the dissemination of disinformation campaigns aimed at sowing discord and undermining public trust in governance are potent tools employed by external states. The alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, using social media to spread divisive content and manipulate public opinion, serves as a prominent example of a non-military but highly destabilizing tactic.

Non-state actors, a diverse category encompassing terrorist organizations, transnational criminal syndicates, private military companies, and even certain international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with specific agendas, also play a significant role in internal security destabilization. Terrorist groups, like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, actively seek to overthrow governments, create ungoverned spaces, and incite sectarian violence. They achieve this through direct attacks, recruitment of disaffected populations, and the exploitation of existing ethnic or religious fault lines. The conflict in Syria, where ISIS established a caliphate and attracted foreign fighters, illustrates how a non-state actor, with support from various external state and non-state sponsors, can create a catastrophic internal security crisis. Transnational criminal organizations, involved in drug trafficking, human smuggling, and arms dealing, corrupt state institutions, fuel violence, and create parallel power structures that challenge legitimate authority. The influence of cartels in Mexico, leading to widespread violence and corruption, is a stark illustration. Private military companies (PMCs), while sometimes hired by states, can also operate with their own agendas, potentially exacerbating conflicts or engaging in activities that violate human rights, thereby undermining local security and governance. Even ideologically driven NGOs, though often with benign intentions, can inadvertently contribute to instability if their actions empower extremist factions or bypass legitimate state structures without adequate oversight.

The interplay between external state and non-state actors is a critical element of this destabilization. State actors often covertly or overtly support non-state groups to advance their own interests, thus acting as enablers. For example, Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, or Saudi Arabia’s past support for certain Sunni militant groups, have had profound destabilizing effects on the internal security of those nations and the wider region. Similarly, non-state actors can be leveraged by rival states to carry out deniable operations. The proliferation of advanced weaponry, often through illicit channels facilitated by criminal syndicates or supplied by states, to insurgent groups further amplifies their capacity to challenge state authority. The spread of sophisticated cyber capabilities, accessible to both states and well-funded non-state groups, allows for coordinated attacks on a state’s digital infrastructure, disrupting essential services and sowing widespread panic.

In conclusion, the internal security of a state is a complex ecosystem constantly under pressure from a variety of external forces. Both state and non-state actors possess diverse capabilities and motivations that, when leveraged effectively, can lead to profound destabilization. From the direct intervention of rival states through proxy wars and cyber warfare to the insidious influence of terrorist organizations and criminal syndicates, the threat landscape is multifaceted and ever-evolving. The interconnectedness of these actors, with states often emboldening or equipping non-state groups, creates a potent cocktail of challenges that can shatter governance, economic stability, and social cohesion. Effectively countering these destabilizing influences requires a comprehensive approach that not only addresses immediate threats but also tackles the root causes of vulnerability and fosters resilient national institutions capable of withstanding external pressures.

Federalism, Division of Powers, Legislative, Executive, Financial relations, Concurrent List, Centripetal, Centrifugal forces, Cooperative Federalism, Competitive Federalism, Constitutional safeguards, Inter-State Council, National Development Council.

The Indian Constitution establishes a quasi-federal system, a unique blend of federal and unitary features. This involves a division of powers between the Union government and the State governments, delineated through various Lists in the Seventh Schedule. The interplay between these levels of government is governed by legislative, executive, and financial relations, each with its own set of responsibilities and potential friction points. Understanding these concepts is crucial to appreciating the dynamics of India’s federal structure.

India’s federal structure is characterized by a dual polity, with the Union government at the centre and State governments in the various states. This division of powers is enshrined in the Constitution, aiming to balance national unity with regional aspirations. While the Constitution clearly demarcates responsibilities, the overlapping nature of certain functions and the inherent dynamics of power can lead to significant interplay and potential conflicts between the Union and State governments.

Union Functions and Responsibilities:

The Union government is vested with powers concerning subjects of national importance, ensuring uniformity and integrity across the country. These include:

• Defence: Maintaining national security, armed forces, and foreign affairs.
• Foreign Affairs: Conducting international relations, signing treaties, and representing India globally.
• Currency and Coinage: Sole authority over monetary policy and issuance of currency.
• Communication: Overseeing national communication networks like post and telegraph.
• Broadcasting: Regulating national broadcasting services.
• Railways: Managing the national railway network.
• Inter-State Trade and Commerce: Regulating trade and commerce between states.
• Banking and Insurance: Legislating on banking and insurance matters.
• Atomic Energy: Exclusive control over atomic energy and its development.
• National Highways: Development and maintenance of national highways.
• Census: Conducting national censuses.
• Union Territories: Direct administration of Union Territories.

State Functions and Responsibilities:

State governments are responsible for subjects that are primarily of regional concern, allowing for diverse approaches to governance based on local needs. These include:

• Public Order and Police: Maintaining law and order within the state.
• Agriculture: Development of agriculture and allied sectors.
• Public Health and Sanitation: Managing healthcare services and sanitation.
• Education: While higher education and research are on the Concurrent List, primary and secondary education primarily falls under state purview.
• Local Government: Administration of municipalities and Panchayats.
• Land Reforms: Implementing land revenue and land reforms.
• Fisheries: Regulation of fisheries within state waters.
• Markets and Fairs: Administration of local markets.
• Intoxicating Liquors: Regulation of production, sale, and consumption of liquor.
• Public Health and Hospitals: State-run hospitals and public health initiatives.

Concurrent List:

The Seventh Schedule also contains the Concurrent List, where both the Union and State governments can legislate. In cases of conflict, Union laws generally prevail, but this list allows for shared responsibility and cooperative action. Subjects include:

• Criminal Law and Procedure: While the core principles might be set at the Union level, states can enact specific laws.
• Marriage and Divorce: Personal laws are complex, with both levels having influence.
• Education: Higher education, technical education, and professional training.
• Forests: Conservation and management of forest resources.
• Labour Welfare: Industrial disputes, trade unions, and social security.
• Protection of Wild Animals and Birds: Conservation efforts.
• Economic and Social Planning: Both levels are involved in development planning.
• Social Security and Social Insurance: Welfare schemes.

Potential Conflicts Arising from their Interplay:

The division of powers, while meticulously crafted, is not always a smooth sailing affair, leading to several points of contention:

• Legislative Overlap and Dominance: When both Union and State governments legislate on subjects in the Concurrent List, conflicts can arise. The Union’s power to override state laws can be perceived as an encroachment on state autonomy. For instance, differing interpretations or implementations of environmental laws can lead to disputes.
• Executive Interference: The Union government can issue directions to states in certain matters, particularly concerning national importance or the implementation of Union laws. This power, especially under Article 256 and 257, can be viewed as an erosion of executive independence of the states. The appointment and functioning of Governors also present a recurring area of conflict, as they act as the Union’s representative in the states and can influence state government functioning.
• Financial Dependence and Control: States are constitutionally dependent on the Union for a significant portion of their revenue through the divisible pool of taxes and grants-in-aid. This financial dependence can lead to states feeling beholden to the Centre’s policies and priorities. Conditional grants and the recommendations of the Finance Commission, while intended to be objective, can sometimes become politically charged.
• Inter-State Disputes: Conflicts can arise between states themselves, often concerning resource sharing (e.g., river waters), border disputes, or economic competition. The Union government often plays a mediating role through bodies like Inter-State Councils, but the resolution can be protracted and contentious.
• Political Differences: When different political parties are in power at the Centre and in the states, ideological differences and policy disagreements can exacerbate tensions. Issues like the imposition of President’s Rule, the distribution of resources, and the implementation of national policies can become politicized.
• Centralization Tendencies: Critics often point to a trend towards centralization, where the Union government assumes more powers or influences state policy through various mechanisms, thereby weakening the federal spirit.
• Fiscal Federalism: Disagreements over the allocation of financial resources, the design of GST compensation, and the extent of fiscal autonomy for states are perpetual issues.

India’s federal structure is a dynamic equilibrium, constantly shaped by the interplay of Union and State functions. While the Constitution provides a framework for shared governance, the potential for conflicts arising from legislative, executive, and financial relations is inherent. Effective resolution of these conflicts hinges on the spirit of cooperative federalism, mutual respect for each other’s domain, and a commitment to upholding the constitutional principles that ensure both national unity and regional diversity. Mechanisms like the Inter-State Council and the Finance Commission are vital in fostering dialogue and finding common ground, but ultimately, the strength of Indian federalism lies in the willingness of both the Union and State governments to engage in constructive partnership.