Jaibans Singh
In the domain of national defence and security, national interest remains constant. Philosophy and values that the people hold close to their heart are given due weightage in a democracy. Strategy is guided by the aforementioned factors and by the ideology of the political party running the government.
Over the past decade, India has witnessed a marked transformation in the interpretation of its defence and security paradigm which, in turn, has led to a visible strategic shift. The earlier largely reactive and Pakistan-centric paradigm has given way to an India-centric approach anchored in national interests, strategic autonomy, and comprehensive power-building.
“The dynamics of strategic planning now exhibit a well-defined direction with the setting of long-term goals supported by allocating of the required resources to achieve military supremacy at the regional level and ultimately in the global security environment,” says Lt. General RK Jagga, an Army veteran and former corps commander.
Militarily Inexperienced Political Leadership
Indian defence remained in the imperial hands of foreign rulers for the best part of a millennium. The British created in the sub-continent a well-oiled and professional military machine that maintained their hold internally and saved their skin in the two world wars of the nineteenth century.
Post-Independence and partition, while the military leadership was well trained, experienced and professional, the Indian political leadership was deficient in military thought.
The lack of military experience of the Indian political leadership in 1947 can be gauged from the fact that despite being geographically four times larger it agreed to divide the British Indian Army in a roughly 64:36 ratio between India and Pakistan. Pakistan walked away with an army that was too large for its needs.
The Pakistan Army built upon this massive force and took over political control of the nation. The country carried out modernisation of its forces at a pace much faster than India. Its military leadership held the belief, for the first two decades, of being militarily superior to the Indian Army. Consequently, Pakistan triggered wars against India in 1947 and 1965 on the basis of a conviction that it would easily beat the Indian forces.
Indian Doctrine of Peace and Non-alignment
The first prime minister of India, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, declared peaceful coexistence, non-alignment and belief in the United Nations as the guiding principles of the Indian defence policy. He openly declared that India did need a military force at all. Surprisingly, he did not even learn any lessons from the Indo-Pakistan War 1947-48 and lost the strategic initiative of being the winning side due to a misplaced belief in the United Nations. The end result was a humiliating defeat in the hands of the Chinese in 1962.
Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri did not get enough time to set right the mistakes of Pandit Nehru. He had just about laid the foundation of a defence partnership with Russia before war clouds enveloped the nation. Pakistan initiated the Indo-Pakistan War, 1965 because it had received new and state-of-the-art military equipment from the United States, especially the vastly superior Patton tanks. Its ruling military leadership felt that it would be able to defeat India conclusively. The field was saved by the superior training and courage of the Indian soldier and the experience and professionalism of the military leadership.
The political leadership of India, once again, failed to leverage the victory in the war to strategic advantage. All areas of Pakistan occupied by our forces were returned back without taking any military advantage or guarantee in return.
Strategic Realignment
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi exhibited better military understanding than her predecessors. Under her premiership post the Indo-Pakistan War, 1965, the Soviet Union, on the basis of a strategic partnership laid by PM Shastri, started providing military equipment to India. The partnership was aimed at countering Chinese influence.
This was a pivotal strategic realignment that transformed India into the dominant military power in South Asia and put into the back-burner the policy of Non-alignment. PM Gandhi went a step further and formalised the partnership with the Soviet Union through the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, 1971. In 1974, India, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi also carried out its first nuclear weapon test codenamed Operation Smiling Buddha.
The rapid modernization enabled the Indian Armed Forces to achieve an overwhelming victory in the Indo-Pakistan War, 1971 which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. Though the Indian Armed Forces were well armed and strong willed, a commensurate strong military thought continued to elude the political leadership.
Indira Gandhi failed to leverage the massive victory against Pakistan in 1971 to strategic advantage for India. What followed was adoption of the proxy war paradigm by Pakistan termed as the policy of a thousand cuts
Indian Strategic Dormancy
Post 1971, India continued to hesitate from leveraging her military might to completely neutralise the Pakistani threat. Even the nuclear blast was labelled a “peaceful nuclear explosion” (PNE) rather than a weapons test and the government opted against weaponisation at the time.
The end result was that for the next two decades plus, Pakistan, in pursuit of its proxy war policy, caused untold damage in selected areas of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir through sponsored terrorism. The post 1971 period is characterized by a “no war, no peace” scenario between India and Pakistan, marked by limited military engagement rather than full-scale war. No effort was made to find a permanent solution to the Pakistan problem.
“India’s reluctance to adopt a head-on military approach stemmed from the suspicion that Pakistan had also developed nuclear weapons by the mid-1980s. Pakistan often used nuclear rhetoric to deter conventional superiority of the Indian military machine. The national defence doctrine was one of strategic dormancy. The situation was advantageous to Pakistan all the way,” says Paramjeet Singh, a scholar in defence and strategic studies.
The conduct of the five nuclear weapons tests by the Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee led Government of India 1998 code named Operation Shakti established India as a declared nuclear-weapon state and marked a transition from undefined and covert nuclear posturing to explicit, overt nuclearization in 1998. Pakistan also conducted nuclear weapons tests the next day.
India finally learned to shed fear in military matters and stand up on its own. This heralded the end of the strategic dormancy phase. The constraints on the conventional warfare option remained, but at least, the air was cleared of uncertainty. The situation escalated to the Kargil war of 1999 in which Pakistan again faced a humiliating defeat.
Pakistan Sponsored Terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir
Indian Obsession with Pakistan
Numerous military set-backs, an internal economic crisis, frail democracy and gun culture did not deter Pakistan from retaining momentum in asymmetric warfare against India in the new millennium. It continued to leverage the nuclear overhang to constrain India’s options.
Despite being a military superpower and a nuclear state, India exhibited a military passivity that would be inexplicable in the eyes of any expert on national security. Somewhere in the back of their minds the Indian political leadership looked upon Pakistan as equal to India in terms of military power. Pakistan was the default military reference point and focus was on avoiding escalation. Where did this fear come from? Apparently, the weak political will prevailed over a disciplined and professional military structure.
The security situation marked by incessant terrorist attacks led to an obsession with Pakistan that spilled over from the security to issues like sports, especially cricket. Each weak response added to the confidence of the Pakistan generals who fine-tuned their tactics.
India’s security responses were shaped by immediate provocations from Pakistan. Her security forces went into a state of siege even as the enemy set a debilitating agenda. Turning a blind eye to terror attacks, ceasefire violations, and diplomatic brinkmanship often dictated India’s strategic posture.
Strategy revolved around managing Pakistan diplomatically with the military option remaining defensive and symbolic. The emphasis was totally on de-escalation, maintenance of a moral high ground, and international opinion forming. The reason given was the nuclear risk.
Ideological and Strategic Shift
The change in government in 2014 brought about an ideological as well as strategic shift in the security paradigm of the nation. The Nehruvian mind-set of restraint and the fear of a nuclear backlash were replaced with a proactive policy wherein a deterrent intent was exhibited with firm responses such as surgical strikes and air operations. The emphasis has moved from signalling outrage to shaping the strategic environment.
A big element of the strategic shift was acceptance of China as a bigger security threat to India. China was there in the background all through the Pakistan centric phase. It was, however, more a sleeping Dragon. After having given India humiliating defeat in 1962 it was content in holding minor non-military skirmishes along the Line of Actual Control that defines its border with India. But, it kept the friction alive by not agreeing to a formal resolution of the border dispute.
“China and India look at each other as serious competitors in the economic, technological, maritime, informational domains and, as a consequence, a long-term strategic challenge. This has resulted in a shift in strategic focus of India towards sustained investment in maritime power, cyber, space and a dominant role in the Indo-Pacific region. To achieve this counter weight, stronger partnerships and formal alliances with other world powers are required. Pakistan’s significance pales in comparison,” says Major General Anil Khosla (Retired).
In other words, India has decoupled its national planning from Pakistan’s actions and she no longer allows imbecile type provocations from the neighbouring country to dominate her strategic bandwidth. The emphasis is on preparedness for a full spectrum of conflict.
National security is being increasingly linked to growth, infrastructure, and technological self-reliance. Long-term initiatives in manufacturing, defence production, digital infrastructure, and critical technologies underscore the recognition that sustained power flows from economic resilience.
The Indian psyche is also witnessing a drastic change. Gone are the days of self-doubt and overawe of the west or Pakistan. The narrative now exudes confidence in cultural superiority that brings with it articulation with authority on the basis of justice and righteousness.
The New Approach
The new approach keeps national interest paramount and does not believe in bending to blackmail. Internal resilience and comprehensive national power is exhibited to deal with pressure. Indian first is the defining ideology. Decisions are being taken in national interest without looking over the shoulder. Panic reactions are now a thing of the past. Responses are well thought out and calibrated in time and space.
“Diplomatically, India has broadened its strategic horizons. Engagement with major powers and global leadership in multilateral forums, and partnerships across the Indo-Pacific reflect her aspiration to be looked upon as a shaping power rather than a reactive one. Strategic choices are now guided by global supply chains, energy security, technology access, and geopolitical balance, not merely subcontinental rivalries.” says Colonel Manoj Chanan (retired)
The foregoing signals the emergence of a more confident and self-directed state that is poised to make a serious bid for a place on the big table globally.
The primary focus of the nation is now on capacity building as a part of defence preparedness. The thrust to self-reliance through Aatmanirbhar Bharat and Make in India is finding maximum resonance in the defence sector. There is a strong focus on indigenization in defence production to ensure less dependency on imports. New military doctrines involving jointness and theatre commands are being talked about in open debates and implemented with clarity.
Foreign policy too has evolved in concert with national aspirations. As PM Indira Gandhi moved on from non-alignment and PM Vajpayee demolished strategic ambiguity, the present dispensation is building on strategic autonomy and issue-based partnerships. India is comfortable working with the Quad, engaging the Middle East, pushing Act East, staying active in BRICS, and projecting itself as a net security provider. From avoiding choices, India is increasingly shaping them.
Misadventures will Invite Punishment Beyond Imagination -PM Modi
Ramifications of the Strategic Shift
To all future provocations from any adversarial entity be it Pakistan, China or anybody else, India will respond with strength and resolve. In the response multiple instruments – diplomatic, financial, legal, covert and overt will be put to use. She will not be pulled into adversary-defined timelines and provocations.
The political leadership of Pakistan has, for long, used the proxy war card to maintain its relevance in the eyes of domestic as well as international audiences. As India moves on from the Pakistan obsession, the neighbouring country’s ability to command attention through India bashing has been severely jeopardised. Domestic and international circles are clearly exhibiting fatigue over its counter-productive policy.
Pakistan is attempting a recalibration by reaching out to old friends like China and the United States while also engaging the immediate South Asian neighbourhood, especially Bangladesh and other Islamic entities. The intention is to build an anti-India coalition of nations. Many who are wary of India’s rapid rise are ready to become a part of this coalition in some manner or the other. This aspect poses a security challenge for India
Consequences of the Strategic Shift
The new paradigm will find feet with time. India will fine-tune its multi-domain and two-front contingency planning. She will improve upon economic resilience with self-sufficiency in defence becoming a seamless offshoot to create a new strategic shield. Growth, manufacturing depth, and technological leadership will underpin deterrence.
Once the elements are in place, India’s adversaries will not be to gain leverage from either economic or security coercion as has been happening for many decades since independence.
Pakistan will find it increasingly difficult to find allies as more and more states understand the necessity of aligning with the more powerful India. It will have to address its internal problems, especially its rapidly deteriorating economic situation or become an irrelevant failed state. The Pakistani leadership could well be compelled by public demand to shed the anti-India posture that it has maintained for self-preservation over decades.
A strong India will emerge as a security provider which will greatly limit the space for inimical global powers to exploit regional anxieties. To achieve this India will have to create a posture of trust rather than domination.
Conclusion
India’s security thinking evolved from a misplaced romanticism with peace and non-alignment to a rapid build-up of military power. However, despite being much larger and stronger economically and militarily India continued to look at Pakistan as an equal in strategic terms. Foreign policy revolved around Pakistan.
Post-2014, what has changed is that Pakistan still matters, but it no longer defines India’s strategy. It’s now treated as a problem to be managed, not a rival to be obsessed over. Terrorism and asymmetric threats remain, but they are only one part of a much wider security picture. Deterrence is more punitive, and there’s no dialogue for the sake of dialogue.
The change has come about because of the political ideology of the incumbent government being different from the previous regime.
Another factor is the change in the socio-political and security environment due to the aspirations of China and India as rising powers with global interests. The priorities have witnessed a paradigm shift. The focus now is on economics, technology, diplomacy, and global competition. The approach is one of confidence and mobility.
Defence in India is no longer seen as the sole responsibility of the armed forces. In place now is a “whole-of-nation” approach with seamless integration of defence, economy and diplomacy. There is higher trust between the political leadership, the military and bureaucracy, especially external affairs.
The new approach reflects the mood of the nation as more confident and upwardly mobile. It is a step in the right direction. However, it has brought in its wake a new set of challenges. The nation is well poised to meet these head on.