Indian Defence Review

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September 2022 at the sidelines of the SCO summit stated, “this isn’t an era of war.” PM Modi stated this in presence of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Since then this statement has been used to decry the so-called “unprovoked Russian aggression” in Ukraine by the US. However, is it correct to presume that wars are a thing of the past? Or wars and conflicts will continue to define and alter the world order as they have since time immemorial.

The idea behind writing this paper is to offer an opinion that stresses upon close and meticulous reading of military history. The main line of the argument is, a nation which has placed its national security on the backburner or has shown reticence to master the art of war has either perished or has turned into someone else’s colony.

The author briefly narrates how the evolution of warfare changed the condition of obscure tribes, empires, and civilizations as some rose and many fellwhen they failed to adapt to the changed geostrategic/political. During the paper, readers will find that ample historical anecdotes have been mentioned to stress the necessity of military resilience.

The author concludes that maybe this era is not an era where huge Armies will fight like in World Wars. However, the ongoing trends demonstrate that wars and conflicts are and will remain the centre of the global world order. Hence, it becomes prudent for a nation like India, which aspires to be a global power, to invest in military modernisation and technological upgradation.

A glimpse of history: 

The chronicle of human civilization reflects a continuous effort of man to attain peace, educate, cultivate land, and foster familial happiness. Yet, a noteworthy aspect of this paradigm is the prevalence of conflict. Recent archaeological findings globally underscore how the pursuit of equitable access to arable land resulted in violent confrontations, often leading to the annihilation of entire generations. In the aftermath, succeeding generations shouldered the responsibility, perpetuating the struggle and giving rise to kinship bonds. As survival hinged on unity among clan members, a heightened sense of solidarity emerged, intertwining families with clans to enhance their chances of survival. This bond amongst clans gave rise to small kingdoms, who often clashed with one another.

With this bond of unity, the evolution of warfare strategies became apparent. While early military history often favoured numerical superiority in determining the outcome of wars, a shift occurred over time. Individuals recognised that a smaller army could triumph over a larger one if led by a commander with the unique ability to envision the battlefield beyond mere numbers. Mastery in planning, preservation of troops for pivotal engagements, and understanding the enemy’s vulnerabilities too became pivotal. This shift in mindset gave rise to exceptional military leaders, exemplified by figures like Alexander the Great. Commanding a smaller force, he achieved victories, notably in Persia, showcasing the transformative impact of strategic thinking on war, prompting advancements in weaponry, tactics, and leadership skills across the board.

The introduction of gunpowder in the 11th century sparked yet another revolution in warfare strategy, propelling the ascendancy of the Mongols. Sweeping across the Central Asian grasslands, Afghanistan, Persia, China, Poland, and Hungary, they employed mounted cavalry, colossal crossbows, stone-hurling machines, and gunpowder. Led initially by Chengez Khan and later by his remarkable son Ogudai, the Mongol Armies executed swift and brutal campaigns, exemplified by the complete devastation of the Central Asian city of Nishapur, where every living thing, including dogs were killed. Similar tales unfolded in sacked cities like Merv, Herat, Baghdad, Balkh, Kiev, Ryazan, and Tver. The evolved strategies of the Mongols proved catastrophic for local rulers, causing their swift collapse akin to a house of cards.

Indian kings, although showed extraordinary courage against Arabic and Persian Armies but succumbed due to inability to improvise as wargames changed. The Sindh Kingdom of Chach Dynasty which faced the first Arab attack in 632 CE successfully repulsed Arabs till 712 CE. Similarly, the Brahman Shahi of Afghanistan kept Arabic, Persian and Turkic Armies at bay till the early 11th century. However, they made a grave strategic error of persistently relying on elephants as their primary combat force even though they faced invading armies equipped with horsed cavalry. The horses provided invaders with increased mobility, rendering the defending commanders on elephant-back vulnerable targets for archers wielding flaming naphtha arrows. This imbalance, among other factors, led to successive defeats of the Shahi Kings in the frontier areas ending in complete defeat by 1026. With their defeat the Afghan invasions became more regular and brutal. Mahmud of Ghazni, Sultan of Ghaznavid Empire, who replaced the Shahi Kingdom invaded central India just after reducing the Shahi might in 1018 AD. He raided Meerut, Bulandshahr, Kannauj, Mathura, and many other cities and plundered them. He also killed civilians and converted them to his faith. These Afghan invasions lead to the foundation of Delhi Sultanate in 1192, after the loss of Prithvi Raj Chauhan at Tarain. The Sultanates continued till they were uprooted by Turk invader Babur in 1526.

Around the same time in the 16th century some revolutionary changes were brought upon in Europe. These changes were initiated by the discovery of Swiss pikemen in the 1520’s, described by Prof. Paul Kennedy as dealing “a blow to cavalry dominance.” Swiss pikemen evolved into “mixed formations wielding pikes, swords, crossbows, and aquabuses,” elevating infantry to become the army’s most crucial component. This military reorganisation extended to city fortifications and bastions too. Also, this wasn’t confined to continental warfare, maritime forces too improved with shipbuilding techniques to counter Barbary corsairs and potential attacks by rival Europeans and Turks in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. By the early 18th century, flintlock rifles replaced pikemen, and newly developed naval guns, known as carronades, enhanced warship destructive power. Europe, with numerous professional military forces, surpassed the rest of the world in military and economic capabilities, leading to brutal colonial expansion into Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

In India, Babur’s Mughal Empire, continued to exist till 1857. The Mughal power reached its peak by the middle of the 17th century, after which it started to decline rapidly due to a continuous prevalence of conflict. Aurangzeb’s religious and military policy in the late 17th century emptied his treasury. The final blow was dealt by the illustrious era of Maratha Peshwa Bajirao, who tamed Nizam in Deccan and humbled Mohammad Shah in North.

During this era, when Indian Kings were trying to build stable Kingdoms, India produced some exceptional military leaders like Chatrapati Shivaji, Peshwa Bajirao, Misr Diwan Chand, Hari Singh Nalwa, Mahan Singh Mirpuri, and General Zorawar Singh. Shivaji pioneered guerrilla warfare, Bajirao rose on to become the finest cavalry general of India, while MisrDiwan Chand, Nalwa and Mirpuri, demonstrated mastery in combat over rugged terrain of the frontier areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Kashmir. General Zorawar Singh elevated Indian war-fighting capabilities with breath taking campaigns into Eastern Tibet, where he routed joint Chinese and Tibetan troops in 1841. However, inability to sharpen the indigenous combat strategies and failure to produce modern weaponry, and treachery, among other factors, from other Indian leaders contributed to the colonisation of India.

The British in the course of colonising India, also exploited Indian war-fighting capabilities. They enlisted Indians to combat their compatriots in regions like Malwa, Deccan, Mysore, Bengal, Sindh, Punjab, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These Indian soldiers, under British command, burned Kabul in 1842. They also build political unity in the subcontinent, albeit under British rule. The absence of a sense of unity among Indians shaped a different history. With the availability of a large pool of recruitable manpower in their largest colony, the British continued to leverage Indian manpower in both the First and Second World Wars. Without this immense support the outcome of the Wars may have been very different. When the European wars came to an end and with the loss of colonies, new realities took preeminence. 

Since 1947:

The British, underlining “new realities”, exploited communal divisions to partition India. This tragic event resulted in the permanent loss of one-third of India, severing its geographical reach to Persia and Kabul. Millions of lives were lost, families were displaced, and ancestral homes were abandoned. The partition led to the loss of huge amounts of arable land in Bengal and Punjab, and religion took on heightened significance. India gained independence on 15th August, but just two months later, on 22 October Pakistan, using men from22 Pashtun tribes, invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. We found ourselves entangled in a war forced upon us. The Indian military, under Lt Gen Kulwant Singh and Brigadier Sen, exerted every effort to safeguard Kashmir. However, political discord influenced by British involvement at the highest decision-making level resulted in the loss of one-third of J&K to Pakistan. This loss continues to haunt India to this day and is expected to remain the biggest threat to Indian sovereignty.

In 1950, China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet severed India from Tibet and for the first time in history, China had a border with India. Our highest leadership, instead of building necessary deterrence (as suggested by many erudite leaders), went by “larger implication for world peace”. (The author here highly recommends reading the meticulous and eye opening, four volume research of Mr. Claude Arpi covering India, Tibet and China between 1947-62). The Indian leaders also fatally mistook that China wouldn’t initiate a conflict with India, while the Communist Chinese were always clear, starting 1954, with their intent to box India. This ultimately led to a loss of territory and a humiliating defeat in 1962. Even in the war of 1965, after facing unprovoked aggression in the Gujarat-Sindh sector, India opted for negotiations under British mediation. By then the Pakistani GHQ had already planned its Operation Grand Slam. The exception came in the 1971 war, a moment of military-political-intelligence triumph for India, marking the grandest military operation in the history of the Indian Armed Forces. However, India here too, lost monumentally on the negotiating table. Neither were we able to secure Gilgit Baltistan region, nor the Siliguri Corridor could be strengthened. Thus, the Indian North East remained isolated, while the Northern regions remained vulnerable.

During these conflicts, the Indian Armed Forces demonstrated exceptional performance, achieving significant outcomes despite operating with limited funds and obsolete weaponry. However, the political leadership often hesitated to pursue lasting resolutions to territorial disputes. In 1947, opting not to engage the Indian Air Force for major offensive actions and seeking UN mediation only resulted in strategic and territorial losses to India.. In both the 1965 and 1971 wars, the Indian political class missed crucial opportunities. Withholding the Air Force in the War with China in1962 was a monumental strategic blunder. 

The Internal conundrum:

Since the 1980s, India has consistently grappled with internal security challenges in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), Punjab, and the North East. External powers have repeatedly exploited these issues to exert pressure on India. India has also been actively combating cross-border terrorism, particularly incubated by Pakistan in J&K. The period between 1990 and 2017 witnessed over 41,000 casualties in J&K, encompassing 5,000 security officials and 14,000 civilians. Since 2017, 293 civilians, 420 security forces, and 1360 terrorists have been killed in 886 incidents of counter terrorist operations. Additionally, more than 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits were compelled to leave their ancestral homes due to the prevailing militancy. In the North Eastern states, insurgency incidents since 2000 have claimed the lives of over 4300 civilians, 1173 security forces, and 6066 insurgents. Now add the recent violence in Manipur to this category, the civilian deaths shot up to greater numbers. While in Punjab from 1980 to 2000, 11,782 civilians lost their lives, 1,753 security officials were killed or injured, and 8095 separatists were killed. India also faces left wing extremism also referred as Naxalism, has led to the death of 11372 people since 2000. These stark figures underscore the hidden war fought by Indian security forces, a reality unaffected by political statements, illustrating the ongoing toll of counter-terrorist and insurgency operations. Hence, for a country facing such a grim internal security outlook it becomes prudent to solve them thus helping national prosperity.

The 21st century: an era of global conflict? 

In the last two decades of this century, we have witnessed wars, invasions, and conflicts. The US’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan illustrated how unipolarity could be exploited to build public opinion leading to death and destruction on an unimaginable scale. Millions died and millions were forced to leave their home. A similar story unfolded in Syria, where the US desire for regime change led to a civil war creating a massive refugee crisis. The Russian invasion of Crimea and now of Ukraine has also led to the death of hundreds of thousands and the migration of millions. The civil wars in Sudan, Libya, and Congo, have similar devastating effects.

A notable characteristic of the current era is the existence of global terrorist networks and non-state entities. Consider the case of ISIS, a global Sunni Islamic extremist movement that aimed to establish Islamic jurisprudence worldwide. ISIS attracted supporters and fighters worldwide from Africa, India, Europe, the United States, Indonesia, and others. This transnational influence surpassed that of Al-Qaeda. Additionally, a distinctive aspect of this century also involves states employing non-state actors for strategic purposes. Countries like Iran, the US, and Pakistan excel in this unconventional warfare. They have established networks of groups to achieve national security objectives.

Carlotta Gall, British Journalist who authored, The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan 2001-14, meticulously detailed how Pakistan’s intelligence and military agencies backed the Taliban and the US’s Afghan war was actually fought against the wrong enemy. As it was Pakistan which was the brains behind the working of the Taliban. Pakistan also hosts at least 124 active terrorist groups. Similarly, the US has been a known supporter of terrorists globally to achieve its vested interests. Even in Syria, a number of scholars claim that the US is supporting Al-Qaeda, the group responsible for the horrific 9/11 attacks. The CIA and MI6 (British counterpart of US CIA) in conjunction with Turkish intelligence also supported, trained, and funded the rise of Islamic State (IS). Allegedly, the US is also tied to Jaish Al Adl (JAA), the group that captured Indian Naval Officer Kulbhushan Jadhav from Sistan province of Iran. The JAA is meant to be used against Iran. Iran too has built its own network of militias across West Asia. Groups such as the Hamas in Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Resistance in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen, are all backed by the Iranian Ayatollah regime. These groups act as an equaliser to the presence of the US defence assets in the region. This influence of Iran also keeps the US away from involving itself directly in a major confrontation with Iran. The involvement of Houthis in the recent Red Sea imbroglio is testament to the capabilities of these radical militants. It is important to note that the Red Sea region is very important from an Indian perspective as a huge amount of Indian trade passes through this region. Henceforth, the future by no standard is expected to be peaceful rather conflicts are expected to increase both in frequency and impact.

India, encircled by two adversarial nuclear-armed neighbours, faces an increasingly uncertain future. The recent surge in radicalisation following the Taliban’s resurgence could potentially escalate into a greater threat down the line. While the present Kabul regime may be supporting factions opposed to Pakistan, there’s a possibility that these militant groups could also pose a threat to India in the future.Therefore, it’s illogical for an Indian to claim that this isn’t an era of war, given the multitude of threats facing the country from various directions. Consequently, India should continue to prioritise military modernisation to counter emerging challenges, particularly those stemming from advanced technologies while being ready for conventional wars.