From the archives, 18 Oct 2000
OPINION
THE PATHOLOGY OF INFO WAR
This article explores the
less remarked-upon aspect of IW in appraising it through the framework of
military sociology. In doing so it helps
situate the concept’s non-military- specific facets within the ambit of
civil-military relations. The apprehensions
that such an exercise raises
explain the title of this paper. On this
account must the limitations of IW also sensitise our thinking on and
absorption of the same into military repertoire. This article focuses on the
manipulation of information available in the public domain, it being one of the
facets of IW. The consequence of doing so is directly on the military-society
relationship and indirectly on the military-state and state-society
relationship. Thus a reflection as is the effort here is both warranted and
imperative.
MILITARY
INFO
STATE
SOCIETY
Theoretically in the ideal-state a
visualisation of society-state-military relations may be as under:-
The military in the
Clausewitzian logic is seen as an instrument of the state for persecuting
politics by other means. Therefore the subsuming of the military within the
state as above. However the ideal type represents the aspiration. In other
words, the reality departs form the ideal in varying country-specific degrees.
Therefore a fairer image of actuality may be represented as :-
The displacement of the
state-society relationship is explicated in the understanding that the state
not only expresses but also mobilises and articulates societal will. Given that
governance is the prerogative of the party in power, the divorce of party
interest from national interest formulation is not quite axiomatic. The
displacement of the military-state relationship owes to a consideration
introduced by Huntington, namely the nature of clientship of the military.
Where Huntingtonian equations prevail the issue is resolved in favour of the
state, which in turn is expected to have society as its client.
The Huntington
Formulation
Democratic Objective
SOCIETY STATE MILITARY
Control Control
CLIENTSHIP
Direct
MILITARY STATE SOCIETY
Indirect
Evidence from cross-national
experience of state-society relations need not be marshalled here to prove that
the above is but a standard. Institutionally, the military regards itself as
the sword bearer of the nation. In our context, this has been expressed in a
published opinion of a General officer (taken as representative for our
purposes), that ‘the army belongs to the people.’ Thus viewing the
military-state-society relationship as overlapping circles is a closer
approximation of reality.
Having established the
dichotomy between precept and practice, the impact of information management on
the triangular relationships need reflection. The information dimension is
central to the state-society relationship. Given its constitutionally enjoined
obligations, the state has both the right and duty to channelise societal
energy towards fulfillment of national interest. The legitimacy of such an
endeavour rests on the democratic principle of the government exercising
sovereignty on the behalf of the electorate. It is in pursuit of this that
information acquires an instrumentality. It furnishes the state the necessary
support and political space. Two complicating factors make this problematic:
firstly, the fact that democracy is the marketplace of ideas, and secondly is
the developmental ethos of the state. To the latter is owed information
dominance of the state, as exists in the Indian context. The consequence of
this is on the ‘market’ principle underlying the former is self-explicatory.
The information aspect of
the military-society relationship is not entirely mediated by the state. The
health of the military-society relationship is deemed as a key resource for
combat power and potential. The ‘morale factor’ is considerably conditioned by
this, as the contrast between the public support and its fallout in the IPKF
and Kargil episodes proves. Thus emerges the institutional interest in
manipulating information availability in the public domain. Sensitivity to this
by the elite-nucleus at the strategic and operational levels must acquire
proportions of being a social responsibility.
The military-state
relationship, viewed from the military
end, is only less problematic. The military responsibility towards national security is interpreted in the ‘military mind’ maximally. It
emphasises threats, vulnerability windows and worst-case scenarios
conservatively, and resources required to address these liberally. However, the
grand- strategic vision of the government is constrained by completing
democratic demands on a finite resource base. Thus the military ends up as yet
another institutional supplicant . A response to its situation is in terms of
lobbying, a play not illegitimate in a
democratic polity. One aspect
of the game is the manipulation of the
information dimension in order to pressure the government via ensuing public
reaction. The informed resort to, and control of, such extra-procedural
maneuvers is again a strategic level responsibility.
The description above needs
to be complemented by the prescription. This is occasioned by the alluded to
factor - institutional interest. ‘Institutional interest’ in management theory
encompasses aspects as resource access, prestige and ethos. The institutional
elite is charged with furthering the same. In so far as this contributes to
institutional health and effectiveness,
it is justifiable. The institutional strength of the military is
considerable as it is hierarchical, homogenous, and commands societal regard.
The potential that this gives it in terms of bureaucratic politics has remained
relatively under-exploited owing to the interposition of the bureaucrat in the
Indian national security system between the political decision maker and the
military.
Where info-war related doctrinal and structural adaptations have been
incorporated, the term force-multiplier takes an added implication. In short,
the info-war tool is now available to the military for use on the internal
plane. Diagrammatically this may be represented as:-
MILITARY BUREAUCRAT POLITICIAN
(The Steel Frame)
Info
War Pressure
PUBLIC
Thus the historically evolved Indian
system is nudged towards constitutional compliance, in which the political head
is to be responsive to the military’s understanding of security environment
without the interpretation of the same by the bureaucrat. However, where
politicians’ attention spans and longevity in office are suspect, such a
whittling of the balance may yet have a price.
The premium on this aspect is accentuated
by the possibility inherent in democratic politics of the military position
being appropriated for political leverage by similarly inclined political formations, particularly of the
conservative hue. Entering such quasi-alliances, albeit unwittingly on part of
the military, may eventuate in a shadow over the traditionally treasured
apolitical status of the military. Therefore, the onus on the strategic level
military leadership for introspective self-audit of motives increases
exponentially.
The pathology of Info War
lies in the danger that inattention to this facet poses. Viewing it congenitally
as yet another means for war prosecution will result in overlooking this vital
aspect of the use, abuse or misuse of IW in the internal plane.
