Though India is a peace-loving nation, when threatened, it must have the capability to defend itself. Capability, to be credible, must be consistent over long periods of time
As the confrontation with China escalated in eastern Ladakh, many Indians wondered whether war was a possibility. Under the circumstances, a query of that nature is quite justified. If there is anything that is constant with the evolution of mankind, it is conflicts and wars. The nature, type and duration of wars may differ but conflicts have never left the human race. Prehistoric societies were violent and nothing seems to have changed. As per the Imperial War Museum (UK) data, military conflicts took place every year in the 20th century, too. There were only short periods of time when the world was free from war. The total number of deaths caused by armed conflict during the 20th century has been estimated at 187 million. It, therefore, necessitates deliberation as to why, despite making unbelievable progress, humankind is unable to resolve differences through non-violent means.
Von Clausewitz states in his classic book On War that, “War is nothing but a duel on extreme scale. War is, therefore, an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.” Wars are executed when vital interests of a nation are threatened. Military and other instruments of national power are employed on the adversary to execute a national or political policy, mostly as a last resort, when other efforts have not succeeded. The summation is that two or more nations are involved and it concerns each country’s basic and fundamental values.
This brings us to the thought that is this relevant in today’s interconnected, digitised and highly commercial world? One needs to consider, first, whether the vital national interests would change or be negotiated, if threatened and second, in the highly interdependent world, would it be possible to negotiate a settlement by means other than war?
Vaclav Smil, after examining armed conflicts of the past two centuries, in the book, Global Catastrophes and Trends: Next Fifty Years says, “The most important finding regarding future likelihood of violent conflicts comes from Lewis Fry Richardson’s search for causative factors of war and his conclusion that wars are largely random catastrophes whose specific time and location we cannot predict but whose recurrence we must expect.” The probability of wars and conflicts in future cannot be ruled out. However, the nature and scale may be different. The possible spectrum of conflict in today’s world is very wide indeed. A nation may choose to fight a war with its adversary even by proxy, as Pakistan is executing in Kashmir for the last four decades. At the lowest end of the spectrum is the low-intensity conflict and at the highest is nuclear war. However, the level of escalation, once commenced, cannot be controlled fully as the adversary need not be governed by the escalatory ladder that one has planned to execute.
Depending upon how soon the national intention is fulfilled, conflicts/wars could be limited in scope. It could be limited to a particular geographical area, limited by international/binational commitment, limited by use of weapon systems or limited by time. A classic example of limited conflict is the Kargil War wherein it was limited to the geographical area of Kargil, limited by India not crossing the Line of Control (LoC) and was terminated on July 26, 1999, once all the Pakistani encroachments were evicted. With modern technologies, wars could also be fought by kinetic, non-kinetic means or a combination of both. Whereas the lethality of kinetic weapon systems is ever-increasing, in terms of range, accuracy and stand-off attacks, the threat of non-kinetic systems like in the field of cyber and space is indeed very potent. New systems like Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) can bring a change to warfare. Likewise, a well-orchestrated cyber attack can immobilise an adversary. History has shown that skilful employment of new weapon systems can significantly enhance the chances of victory.
How does this play out in the Indian context? Asia is home to two of the most populous countries of the world — India and China. Despite being old civilisations with many common understandings, the two nations have quite different political systems, ideologies and cultures. Border problems, too, exist despite efforts to come to an understanding. On the western border, Pakistan, with its deeply-troubled economic condition, obsession with continuance of proxy war in Kashmir and lack of democratic values, remains a poor State in constant flux. Our threats from both northern and western neighbours, are therefore quite real and do not seem to be diminishing in the foreseeable future.
A prediction of whether these threats will end in wars is difficult to make. It is, however, necessary to note that keeping the theory of war in mind, execution of war as a last resort of implementing the nation’s will and policy remains very real.
The role of world bodies and multilateral approaches to prevent conflicts and wars are of great import but they have their own limitations in inter-State conflict resolution. Though the United Nations (UN) has performed better than its predecessor, the League of Nations, but lack of true representation of the world in the UN Security Council (UNSC) and vested interests of individual nations, do curtail it from preventing conflicts between States. When a crisis deepens, every country, including those with friendly relations, would consider the overall strategic scenario prevailing at that time and react keeping their own national interests in mind. Such reactions need not necessarily be in favour of one or the other adversary. In other words, a country should have the capacity to defend itself.
This would lead us to the aspect of capability development. The significant facet to be deliberated is skill vis-à-vis intention. Whereas intentions can change within a short period of time, proficiency cannot. Capability, to be credible, must be consistent over long periods of time and most importantly, keep the threat of war in mind. Any dilution in perception of threat of war can immensely set back proficiency development, thereby seriously impacting a nation’s war-waging power. Capacity development has to consider future technologies, too. Advancement of technologies in the world and their possible usage by the adversary need to be constantly scanned and systems upgraded to meet these challenges.
Prior to World War II, despite a ban, the Germans developed tanks and air power, unknown to the world. And when the Allies learnt about it, it was too late and these systems contributed notably to German victory in battles. The entire spectrum of conflict, from low-intensity conflict to nuclear war, as also threats from kinetic and non-kinetic use of systems need to be factored in. While weapons/equipment/other war-like material form one part of capability development, the other important part is human resources development. A high morale of the armed forces is a battle-winning factor. So is thorough training of all personnel in war-like conditions, in an all-arms integrated environment. Another vital element in capacity development is strategic self-reliance in defence production. The war-waging capability of the armed forces can be seriously neutralised if any weapon/equipment, ammunition or even a small part of a system, being imported from another country, is denied or delayed. As per SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), in 2019, India was the third-highest military spender of the world at $71.1 billion, next only to the US and China. Plus, in the time period between 2015-2019, India was the second-largest importer of weapons, accounting for 9.2 per cent of the world’s arms import. The Government’s policy of Atmanirbhar Bharat has created a win-win situation. On one end, strategic self-reliance can be achieved and on the other, it can create opportunities and much-needed employment in the country. However, it is necessary to highlight that such systems produced in the country have to be world-class, meeting the operational requirements of the armed forces in terrain and situations that they need to be employed in. Any faulty production would endanger the lives of soldiers and the security of the country, besides being economically self-defeating in the long-term.
India has always been a peace-loving country, with no territorial ambitions and has contributed to the world in every field. Such an attitude is instilled in the culture of majority of Indians. Hence conflicts and wars are not desirable. Though India is a peace-loving nation, when threatened, the capability must exist to completely annihilate the adversary and protect our culture.
Another value which is deeply embedded in Indian culture is Ahimsa. This word is sometimes misunderstood and portrayed as meek submission. Whereas, it has quite a different meaning. Ahimsa prohibits thoughts of causing injury to others. It does not mean that if physically threatened, you do not retaliate. You should retaliate and strike the attacker so hard that he is rendered incapable of any further threat. The fear of defeat, just by the strength of your retaliation would, therefore, suffice to keep him away. This is deterrence by capability development.
(The writer is a military veteran and former Director-General, National Cadet Corps.)
