For decades, India has been debating a two-and-a-half-front war scenario with China as the primary aggressor, Pakistan operating in close collaboration with the PLA and the half-front being counter-terror and counter-insurgency in the hinterlands. All along, this debate has remained focused on New Delhi’s strategic thinking in which the two adversaries would collude to launch a concentrated military operation to help each other gain territory along India’s Northern borders or Western front or in the Eastern sector. This strategic thinking of India is justified in view of the continued military and political collusion between China and Pakistan and influence they have inside India.
It is; however, not so simple to explain these strategic security concerns of India because; while they continue to remain rooted in bilateral relations, border security and regional dynamics with territoriality at its core. The debate over national security has come to be dominated by non-contact spheres. Internal stability, demography, refugees, cyber space, information warfare, perception management and several other unconventional means form part of the non-contact warfare domain. All these when applied strategically – independently or in collaboration, possess a tremendous potential to cause disturbance of unimaginable magnitude deep inside enemy territory before conventional military operations are launched to fulfil territorial ambitions. Terrorism too is included in the unconventional or the irregular warfare category, but for the purpose of this debate it is also considered as a conventional challenge. In view of the non-contact spheres mentioned above; one may argue that violence has been marginalised and the aggressor possesses the capabilities to have a strategic advantage over the adversary without bloodshed. For instance: cyber warfare equips a nation to achieve strategic advantage by compromising critical national infrastructure of the adversary and use it as a negotiating tool.
However, surrounding the construct of war lies territorial expansion, which cannot be fulfilled without engaging the adversary on the battlefield, invasion across the national frontiers and holding on to the land mass gained. This brings us to discussing the very basic – the ‘Nature of War’. It can be classified into the following three categories. First, war is the ultimate reality. For any territorial gain, military operations of varying degrees will be launched. Second, the nature of war is unchanging. It continues to be violent. Only its character changes. And third, peace is an illusion. If the peace phase lasts for a prolonged duration – it would be safe to assume that the enemy is indulging in deception.
Always changing character of war/Peace In a conventional war scenario, a nation is in a state of war with all possible resources applied to protect its territorial integrity. The enemy is definite, geography under attack and likely to come under attack is also clear, military forces operate as per the war plan approved, ultimate aim is clearly defined and on achievement of the final aim forces rest their operations. As a result of these factors, the conventional war in all likeliness lasts for a shorter duration. The black coloured region on the left of the bar above is the figurative description of it. When a nation is away from violence closer it is considered to peace. The grey colour is depiction of the same. While the factors enumerated for the war period above are present in peace phase, various unconventional techniques are at play to create disturbance and keep a nation off balance. here war does not depend on military operations. It is imagined without violence and force is employed without combat. The measure of violence from war is stripped, blurring a nation’s vision to see through it the reality of war that is present, clearer and bigger. Such warfare peaks immediately before the war, reach zenith during the war and likely to be used as a negotiating tool afterwards.
A nation is able to achieve such unconventional capabilities when its security apparatus has weaponised its own intellectual capabilities that considers the cognitive space to be the primary battle field and its efforts are directed at compromising the collective thinking of the adversarial society. When India’s national security concerns vis-à-vis Pakistan and China are placed on the above bar, where does it appear? When put on the bar above; India’s strategic environment of past few decades emerge very clearly. The extreme left of the bar depicts the India’s conventional wars with the two adversaries. However, attention pivots to the region coloured in grey. This is a depiction of unconventional warfare techniques applied by Pakistan and China in past several decades.
Pakistan has indulged in religious extremism, terrorism, politics of religious identity, drug warfare, Information Warfare, perception management, intellectual discourse etc; to keep India off balance. Its state-sponsored terrorism has caused violence comparable to conventional military operations. China on the other hand has been very subtle in its aggression against India. Its cartographic aggression has been aimed at altering the history, incursions along the LAC have graduated to become violent brawls, it has attacked India’s critical national infrastructure and have been manufacturing anti-India feelings in New Delhi’s immediate neighbourhood. Such behaviour of Pakistan and China have repeatedly pushed India closer towards the left of the bar above.
Under the nuclear umbrella an absolute war is highly implausible. However, a limited war on India’s either front will always lurk. In other words, for India to achieve absolute peace is going to be very difficult. Peace can now mean no outright hostilities, but always preparing for war or being on guard from a horrible end. However, before India is once again pushed to the extreme left of the ‘Nature of War’ bar; internal security should gain primacy – especially the non-contact domain because more than the security forces and intelligence agencies; the people are the direct and indirect tools of the warfare.