Indian Defence Philosophy: A 'no-win' Concept
Panipat Syndrome. In times past, an Indian ruler met an invading army not at the frontiers of his kingdom but close to the seat of power. He remained well entrenched with his army within a fort or a fortified location. The enemy had a free run of the rest of the territory, winning half the battle without firing a single shot. He then reached the seat of governance. Here, either he was met by the king’s army on the outskirts. In the alternative, he laid siege of the fort. Expecting a long siege, the fortifications of the defending king were well stocked. Meanwhile, the enemy looted and plundered the surroundings for sustenance, labour, riches and pleasures. The few exceptions in this sanctified war philosophy were the Gupta dynasty, the heydays of Mughal rule and the British period.
Also, the Indian king confronted the enemy mounted on elephants (mobile forts) around which the rest of his forces were structured. The structure was ceremonial no doubt, but was fatally ponderous. It was such war philosophy that enabled Babur’s highly mobile cavalry to win against the cumbersome local ruler’s army.
The irrational defensive defence policy, which simply is the sum total of Indian civilizational belief that peace at all costs is vital, allows the enemy to keep nibbling the territory at the frontiers.
Underlying the entire edifice of such war philosophy was the craving of Indians for peace at any cost. The Indians simply abhorred use of force, and viewed it in utterly disparaging terms. Diplomacy continued to search, even in a critical situation, for alternatives that enabled bypassing the need for use of force. The end result was that Indian rulers invariably blinked first!
Independent India. On independence, instead of taking a realistic and rigorous look at the reasons for the country’s history of subjugation, the leadership again naively delinked the military component from its foreign policy. There was no way that the political leadership, fed and brought up on defensive defence characteristics, and the modern Indian military, trained on the universal concept of offensive defence capabilities, could see eye to eye. A persistent belief that since an Indian desires peace and the rest of the world will act according to our role model, has invariably let us down.
In the 1947-48 conflict, despite India’s superior ratio of 2:1, Pakistan’s invasion to grab Kashmir was localised and absorbed within Kashmir. No doubt, in the difficult mountainous terrain a herculean effort was required to counter-attack. But if the political leadership had pushed an offensive into Pakistan through Punjab or Rajasthan, simultaneously, the results could have been dramatic.
Despite sound military advice in 1962, the Indian army was ordered to throw the Chinese “out of every square inch of the Indian territory”. This was neither here nor there! A general from the Army Supply Corps was thrust as Corps Commander. He almost literally followed the instruction to hold every square inch of land by thinning out troops in a forward policy. (The police in Delhi may be observed even today resorting to this forward policy in crises by deploying two constables on each road to no effect). And the Air Force was not brought in which could have tilted the scales.
Also read: Seven blunders that will haunt India for posterity
The political leadership surprised the military top brass in the 1965 conflict by agreeing to the strategy of opening new fronts as counter-pressure points instead of allowing the enemy to retain the initiative in his place of choosing, i.e., Rann of Kutch. But here too, the failure was in not building up a tri-service effort to break the will of the enemy. This was rectified to some extent in 1971 when the political and military leadership moved in a rare synergy to launch a quick offensive to create a new nation in a single stroke.
The Fallout. The irrational defensive defence policy, which simply is the sum total of Indian civilizational belief that peace at all costs is vital, allows the enemy to keep nibbling the territory at the frontiers. Low-intensity conflict in the last ten years in Kashmir is the current example. This policy has multiple negative ramifications. Some of them are listed below:
...the Indian outlook ensures that the frontiers are left at the mercy of the enemy. The riches of India attracted Babur and the British, and they had a field day.
- By refusing to meet the enemy on the frontiers, the initiative is lost. In modern terms, protecting the borders implies assessment of the other side and appropriate initiative to neutralize the developing threat across the border through diplomacy, economic activity, military action and international alignments.
- By allowing the enemy access to the seat of power, the ruler exhibits a lack of vision and daring. This gets translated to every aspect of life, producing people with defensive orientation, whether in sports, education, business and trade or in the art of governance itself.
- Power and prosperity are two sides of the same coin – both require a will to power. Where the ruler is Content to fight from his fort or fortification – as does the Indian-demonstrating absence of the will to power, he stands very little chance of attaining either power or prosperity.
- The Indian ruler’s fort or seat of power is logistically well catered for and his entire outlook, even in the present times, is to survive a long siege. Ancient India was characterised by the abject neglect and poverty in surrounding areas, which his majesty deigned to visit once in a while. Even today poverty outside the main townships remains extreme. Especially, the states touching the international borders and under insurgency need to be economically developed on a war footing.
- A fallout of this defensive defence philosophy, not entirely negative, is the harking on self-reliance. The king ensured that he had adequate supplies to sit out the siege. He was, in a way, self-reliant. But on the negative side, he was unable to form alliances and collaborations with the enemy’s enemy in activity of mutual benefit. In the present context, India’s isolation diplomatically is the key result. A modification to achieve balance in this respect is a necessity.
The Danger. Clausewitz held that war is a rational instrument which a ruler resorts to in pursuit of “political discourse by other means”. The world, too, subscribes to that axiom. Naturally, therefore, if the enemy slaps you once, it is his fault; if he slaps you again, it is your fault. In reversal of all strategic norms our defence philosophy continues to offer the other cheek. Result: Heads, we lose. And tails, you win!
While American policies are aggressively designed world-wide to ensure peace and prosperity at home, the Indian outlook ensures that the frontiers are left at the mercy of the enemy. The riches of India attracted Babur and the British, and they had a field day. A far greater danger for India than any asymmetry in weapon systems lies in its asymmetry in mental thinking vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The king, his men and the people, if they cannot bring themselves to shift to offensive defence postures, are likely to have a great fall.
About the author
Bharat Verma, a former Cavalry Officer is Editor, Indian Defence Review, frequently appears on television as a commentator, and is author of the books, Fault Lines and Indian Armed Forces
Most Popular
Lancer Military Bookshop
Interviews / Spotlight
Our racial memory has, with good reason, always been obsessed by the perpetual threat of invasion from the Himalayan passes; the Pakistani marauders who came across Uri in 1947 and the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) hordes who swarmed down the...
Read More
Archives
© Copyright 2012 Indian Defence Review
glass dildos
Thanks for this great site, I've found here a lot of useful info!the best video editing software
There is a saying that half a war can be won or even prevented, by espionage. The contribution of the then Indian PM Indira Gandhi in winning the 1971 Indo-Pak war was tremendous. But, the later day Pakistani leadership led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, secretly planned revenge. While publicly putting up a very humble appearance in Shimla and signing the dotted lines in July 1972, Bhutto tried his level best in rallying countries in the Middle East for his cause of "dealing with India". There were initially few takers though, as many Middle Eastern nations had and have a cordial relationship with India and despite helping Pakistan in the 1971 war, were reluctant to do anything to offend India. They were however willing to help Pakistan, if it suited their requirements. Here, Bhutto stated that his requirement was making Pakistan a nuclear state and that he would use that expertise for the benefit of the Middle Eastern nations also. This was too tempting an offer for the Middle Eastern countries and they agreed to assist Pakistan in establishing what is known as the "Islamic Bomb". However, in 1977, Bhutto was overthrown by his then Army Chief Zia ul Haq. Zia was believed to have been a secret Indian agent, known in espionage language as "sleeper". Zia was supposed to have helped India in many ways by undermining Pakistan, while pretending on the surface to be very keen on revenge on India. Zia's contribution to India has not been officially acknowledged by the Indian Government, as he was a "very complicated agent". His being an Indian agent was too secret and believed to have been kept off from even very senior governmental and military officials for quite some time. However, Zia's contribution to India by neutralising Pakistan, during the crucial decade from 1980-1990, is too significant and is bound to make extremely sensational news, once disclosed.
Bharat Verma has written very well. One of the few exception however was 1971.The 1971 war against Pakistan was undoubtedly, a decisive moment in the history of the Indian sub-continent. The war saw a total rout of Pakistan in both its then eastern and western fronts, in land, water and air. The Pakistani Navy was crippled by its Indian counterpart in a matter of just two days. So was the Pakistani Air Force out of action in less than a weeks time. The Pakistani Army surrendered to its Indian counterpart in what was then East Pakistan (today Bangladesh) within 13 days. In present day Pakistan, which was then known as West Pakistan, large parts of the States of Punjab and Sindh came under the control of Indian Army. The Karachi Port was effectively closed on account of naval and air bombardment from India. However, the real scent of victory could be felt because of the then political leadership of the then Indian PM Indira Gandhi. Though in earlier and later wars with Pakistan, direct and proxy, India won in all military fronts, it failed to realise the benefits of victory, which was not the case in 1971. Pakistan has never really recovered from that defeat. Today, despite being a so-called nuclear power, Pakistan is on the verge of total destruction. The jihadi forces nurtured/ created by the Pakistani State and numerically many times smaller than the Pakistani military are however more powerful than the State of Pakistan and want to devour their benefactor/ creator, which would have been possible, but for the presence of USA military in that region.
Major problems of India are its 1.Population, 2.Illiteracy, 3.Poverty, and 4.Democracy. 1. Due to over population, there is constant demand for subsidized food and welfare schemes, which suck huge percentage of GDP dragging down the growth momentum. 2. Due to illiteracy, there is acute shortage of grass-root level intelligentsia resulting in lack of understanding the concept of India, its welfare, security and growth. 3. Over population competing for scarce national resources and illiteracy making inefficient use of such scarce national resources, result in inadequate and poor-quality supply for all, resulting in unhealthy lifestyle, which is otherwise called Poverty. 4. Due to democracy, there is no way of getting and retaining quality national leadership. The ruling class is shunted-out at regular interval, a new bunch walk-in only to be shunted-out. This has produced the present cronies interested only in fighting for the seat of power at any cost by only pleasing the voter and not really bothered about the country, its welfare, security and growth. The only minimal advantage of democracy is that the people are having ways and means of venting their anger and fizzle out eventually. (like Anna Hazare's Aug-15th deadline) We continuously postpone our milestones, keep changing our goalposts and forgetting our targets and promises. Those small crowd which dream a great India are shunted to the corners left only to dream. This is called India.
Major problem for India is its 1.population, 2.illiteracy, 3.poverty, and 4.democracy. 1. There is constant demand for subsidized food and welfare schemes, which suck huge percentage of GDP, due to over population. 2. Lack of grass-root level intelligentsia resulting in understanding the concept of India, its welfare, security and growth, due to illiteracy. 3. Over population results in competing for scarce resources, illiteracy results in inefficient use of scare resources, result in inadequate supply for all, resulting in unhealthy lifestyle, due to poverty. 4. There is no way of getting and retaining quality leadership, due to democracy. The ruling class is shunted-out at regular interval, a new bunch walk-in only to be shunted-out. This results in the neta crowd only interested to fight for a share in the seat of power at any cost by only pleasing the voter and not really bothered about the country, its welfare, security and growth. The only minimal advantage of democracy is that the people are having ways and means of venting their anger and fizzle out eventually. (like Anna Hazare's Aug-15th deadline) We continuously postpone our milestones, keep changing our goalposts and forgetting our targets and promises. This is called India.
Major problem for India is its 1.population, 2.illiteracy, 3.poverty, and 4.democracy. 1. There is constant demand for subsidized food
I think democracy has become a sex worker that one spanks when one clearly runs out of imagination. Even if the Indian state was communist (hypothetically), I still dont see any change in posture. We'l still be the peace loving whimps that follow some pointless advice on showing the other cheek. Im not trying to suggest that we need to become war mongers, but it is highly recommended that we develop a spine, that we stand up and eye the land far beyond the mountains and say "get out or we'l shoot". Peace must be an option as much as war is.
No amount of writing is going to resolve the issues unless the people at the helm of affairs change their attitude.By saying India too can do a gerimo will the ground realities change. Answer id big no. As a first step the bureaucrats have to be shunted out from the MOD and replaced by offrs from the three services Director level upwards. The false relativity among the babus and the defence has to be straightened out. The para mili forces have to be made sub ordinate to the armed forces and not vice a versa. 26/11 is a classic example when DG NSG was in charge, a cop by profession wearing army insignia. The mind set has to change. So much has been written yet we refuse to open our eyes.Result we are back to pre 62 days. Do we need another jolt to get out of our slumber. Kargil war very ceremoniously it was said it will take 7 days; took months. Gen Musherif threatenned us with consequences if we cross the LOC and we dared not. I can go on the list is endless.Facts are known to all
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF AND WE BEING INDIANS WILL NEVER LEARN FROM IT . the politians are so busy looking at party differnces and their personal bank accounts that they have no time or intensions of looking up and seing the enemy at the front gate . I have mentioned befor and state it again that we need to get rid of all these old DHOTI LANGOTI OLD POLITICIANS AND THE GUNDAS PUT THEM IN THE FRONT LINE AGAINST THE PAK ARMY OR CHINA FOR 6 MONTHS AND THEN HAVE FRESH BLOOD YOUNG BLOOD TO RULE IN THE COUNTRY. I think we need martial law and have the army take over they can get the gundas out and put the politicians in their place . we need to revamp the system in India.
A very good point made - While American policies are aggressively designed world-wide to ensure peace and prosperity at home, the Indian outlook ensures that the frontiers are left at the mercy of the enemy. US policy whatever you say or criticizes ensures one thing peace at home. It is also due to their heaven geographical condition because of which they cant see or face everyday threats and to long threats they counter it by aggressive mode. In India, the problem is Bapus and Chachas. These two were and are ruining the union of India. Whatever happens in India what GOI has to offer: peace-talks, mutual interest, cry hard at International forum where none listens to India. Now a days, situation is like that even a Bangla tiger didnt think once before shooting at India's BSF!!
Our Singh is King though soft spoken he takes firm decisions he just called a defence coordination mission just after his mission from Afghanistan he is good only wish he was at the helms of the affairs. next is Shri Vermas contention it is not the same Indians from the time of Babur then the British rule as independent and one GRAND India things are different yet we must pay heed to Shri Vermas observations lest we falter.
Nicely written column Mr. Verma. Indeed our outlook is very grim. In absence of power, we have embraced Gandhian philosophy to the hilt of weakness. So much so that we can have Paki agents (read terrorists) come to our towns, pillage and destroy our centres of excellence and all we will do is hold candle light vigils. And for several years we will keep asking the international community to help us out. Several times we built our forces on the Paki border and then as usual we pissed in our pants and backed out. As a country we have born enemies Pak and China, but we have managed to allienate Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. So in essence our enemies will have a field day if/when they choose to attack us. Our politicians are busy looting the country. Our media is busy kissing Sonia's a$$. The common man is busy trying to earn 2 meals a day in this economy. So GOD save us
Sir,I read ur article on 'Threat From Chiana'What about our Internal Security : Today "Naxalism is Part time Business for Adiwasee.." do u have any conditional thought...?B Yogesh
we as a nation are again in need oe chanakya and chandragupta to ensure the defence of our boders. the invasion of greeks united the country, the invasion of british divided the country and gave us gandhi and nehru and their 'holier than thou' attitude. What a shame!!
very true! I guess the problem is that Indian Army is well versed in what needs to be done, its just political class which is just busy minting money from the system. They don't care about country. All they care is money and Sonia Gandhi! I have still failed to understand how can people select a foreigner to rule on them and that too without any responsibility. We're just waiting for a disaster to happen, and we will see Britisher's coming back to rule us again. I mean, look at the message we give to his world. We're OK if an Italian rule us, we're ok if our citizens are killed everyday in terror attacks, and we're ok if prime minister is involved in a scam. Basically we're ok with everything. Shame on us!!!Anyways, well written article.