IDSA COMMENT

The Indian Army: What the stars foretell for 2012

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomment/TheIndianArmyWhatthestarsforetellfor2012_aahmed_071211

Ali Ahmed

December 7, 2011

The Indian Army can be relied upon to ensure that the Mayan prophesy for 2012 being the doom’s day for the world will not apply to India. However, living up to such a reputation is hard work. So even as it understandably congratulates itself on a lap well run in 2011, there is no time for any over-indulgence. As is evident in hindsight, even as resounding a victory as obtained four decades ago did not prove an antidote for insecurity for very long. This article attempts a cautionary crystal-ball gazing exercise to possibly pre-empt the contents of the last Army Day parade speech of the Chief.

The foremost consideration in any such exercise has to be the Army’s preparedness for its primary task: the defence of territorial integrity and political sovereignty. Over the last year, there appeared to be crystallisation of the ‘two front’ perspective. This is not a new ‘threat’; it was foreseen by K. Subrahmanyam 40 years back in his post 1971 survey of India’s strategic predicament, ‘Our National Security’ (Economic and Scientific Research Foundation, 1972), where he wrote: ‘India must be in a position to face successfully simultaneous conventional threats from China and Pakistan’ (p. xxii).

On the Pakistan front, instability is set to continue with Pakistan having denied itself an opportunity for reprieve by staying away from Bonn II. At the subconventional level, this implies the prevailing levels of peace in Jammu & Kashmir could prove momentary. This apprehension perhaps reinforces the military’s abundant caution in respect of the AFSPA controversy in that state. At the conventional level, the possibility of a strained regional environment implies that the move away from Cold Start rhetoric has been a wise one. That the ‘option’ remains on the table does not need amplification; understated exercises as the ongoing Ex Sudarshan Shakti does that in any case. The exercise conducted by the Pune-based Southern Command is being led by the Bhopal-based 21 Corps, Sudarshan Chakra Corps. Participation of troops of the 31 Armoured Division and aircraft such as SU-30 MKI, Jaguars, Mig-27, MIG-21, AWACS and helicopters suggest little else. Pakistan’s nuclear posturing must however be taken seriously. The implications of Nasr need studying in that light. A possible outcome could be reliance on stand-off firepower led punch rather than a physical one, in the form of Cold Start, in case of grave provocation.

For the China front, the late K. Subrahmanyam’s words need heeding: ‘When Chinese troop strength goes beyond 150000 it will be necessary for India to consider stepping up the forces deployed along the northern border’ (p. xxii). With infrastructure in Tibet reportedly upgraded to sustain three times that number and China having practiced rapid reaction reserves for long distance deployment, India’s approval of an expansion by 86,000 troops appears inevitable. The mountain strike corps set to be raised is billed as the Indian Army’s largest expansion since mechanization in the eighties. One point from the eighties however remains relevant; expansion then in all three dimensions was part of the profligacy that led up to the economic crisis. In the event, the force proved unusable in the security context of the nineties, signified by the stability/instability paradox. The implication for the China front of this experience is that India should quietly go about its upgrades and engage China without indulging in premature, ego-massaging, muscle flexing. The expansion and ongoing infrastructure building itself suggests that India is playing catch up. At the nuclear level, the penultimate piece would fall into place next year with the expected test launch of the Agni V. The final piece, assured second strike capability in the form of a nuclear armed and nuclear powered submarine still lies in the distant future.

At the subconventional level the several SoOs (Suspension of Operations) agreements need to be converted into comprehensive peace agreements to remove vulnerability. The recent exposé (‘Arms and the Rogues’, The Week, 3 December 2011) on the Chittagong arms haul of 2004 should spur the special interlocutors on.

While the military can be expected to rise professionally to the strategic challenge, it would understandably need assistance in grasping the military sociology agenda; given the very human tendency to miss the warts in any mirror image.

Acknowledging that expansion necessarily implies dilution in quality should help the army focus on training. The earlier significance of socialization into military mores through observation and mentoring has suffered an immeasurable setback with the raisings of the Rashtriya Rifles and the two divisions. This cannot now be redeemed. Focusing on the training regimen implies a deepening of professionalisation. This can inject primary group cohesion under threat from personnel turbulence and organizational hyperactivity. Secondly, the earlier paternalistic leadership ethic needs abandoning without remorse. The corresponding concern for ‘welfare’ can be reviewed, with training being taken as the best welfare. Thirdly, the AV Singh committee brought on expansion of the officer cadre is set to be replicated at the Other Ranks and JCO levels. Even as the expansion and the sixth pay commission largesse are useful from the morale and status points of view, the system cannot sustain the privileges and authorizations that go with rank. These would require review, obviously beginning with the officers. This would reduce top heaviness and prevent the Indian Army going ‘Mughal’. While there is no need to preserve the ‘British’ attributes, modernization of social mores and professional relationships will help preserve the Army from wholesale indigenisation. Lastly, on ‘internal health’, the KRA of the chief and courts martial of two lieutenant generals suggest a refocus on leadership. Mundane aspects such as the balance between ‘flexibility’ and ‘integrity’ in the desired personality type need input from best practices in the human resources field.

The last point on leadership brings one to the last issue in this inevitably subjective wish list. At the organizational level, 2012 could well bring in a major change, long desired by the Army. The Naresh Chandra task force will likely tender its report. It may set a timeline for organizational evolution of the national security structure. A point on this may be greater uniformed representation in the ministry of defence. Two implications arise: one is reconfiguring the professional military education system to produce officers who can tenant these appointments; and, secondly, a reevaluation of the command culture to shift from a ‘jhanda and danda’ bias towards a collegiate manner of decision making and a democratic leadership style.

In fact, the latter is perhaps behind the impression left by the Army in its tackling of two issues in the fading year: expansion in the job profile of lady officers and AFSPA. How the military tackles these two issues set to ‘dog’ it into the future will reveal if it has indeed transformed (with a capital ‘T’) into a 21st century force. Academically, the locus of professionalism is the officer corps. The onus rests with it. At the 40th anniversary of the Army’s most famous victory it would be churlish to point out that 2012 holds a significant 50th anniversary.

TNW in Nuclear First Use: The Legal Counter

Ali Ahmed

October 2011

Volume: 

 5

Issue: 

 4

Commentaries

Attachment	Size
Download Comment [PDF]	171.33 KB

STRATEGIC ANALYSIS

Children of Abraham at War: Clash of Messianic Militarisms, by Talmiz Ahmad Delhi, Aakar Books, 2010, 475 pp., Rs 1250, ISBN 978-93-5002-080-7

Ali Ahmed

Volume: 

 35

Issue: 

 5

Book Review

September 2011

Talmiz Ahmad is an Indian Foreign Service officer who has had extensive service in West Asia. It is apparent his long stint there gave him an opportunity to observe, learn and reflect. The book is an outcome. His thesis is that there has been considerable influence of historical and cultural factors in their interplay on the contemporary situation in West Asia, explained best by his choice of title for his book.

He attributes the term ‘messianic militarism’ to Ralph Nadar’s description of the Bush presidency. It is a measure of balance in perspective of the author that he uses the term to also describe the motivating spirit of the three principal actors implicated in violence in West Asia and beyond. At the very outset he defines the concept denoted by the three terms interchangeably used – Apocalypticism, Millennialism and Messianism. The allusion is to the belief of deliverance after a period of darkness, a triumph over evil. This is both religious, having origin in semitic religions, and, interestingly, also secular, such as the the author’s concept of secular messianism. The latter is exemplified by Communism, Fascism and Nazism.

He avers that some contemporary conflicts, namely the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Islamist jihad and its counter in the ‘global war on terror’ as being influenced by religious imaginings, themselves a product of messianism. His conclusion is that a reinterpretation of history and moving to tolerance and acceptance can help resolve the conflicts.

The author cites well regarded works along the way to embellish his argument. He explains that this is to enable access of readers to the literature. The book therefore serves as a useful introduction to the scope of the subject. This facet is enhanced by it carrying an extensive glossary, bibliography, index of subjects and names. The index is marred by some confusion in its pagination and repetition of one index, detracting from the quality of production.

The argument he makes is that competitive radicalism have brought about the instability in West Asia. He establishes this by taking a look at the political influence and action of the religious lobbies in the US, Israel and of Islamists in West Asia. He notes the power of the Zionist lobby in the US in alliance with the Christian Right. In Israel is the disproportionate power of the religious parties and of a small group of settlers not averse to violence. The attention received by Islamists over past decade has accorded them well deserved notoriety. Yet the author reserves four chapters covering it.

Resort to violence by all three with the rationale of ‘god’ being on their side and that violence is inescapable in unseating the ‘other’, has had unfortunate human consequences and instability in the region. The information war surrounding the violence has obfuscated the reality. Exposure and delegitimisation of the strategy of force has yet to take place. The book is a useful step in this direction.  

However, what the book misses is the secular reasons reasons for the conflict, particular of state actors. While non-state actors as the Al Qaeda can have messianism as ideology, this is not sufficient as motivator for state actors involved, specifically the US and Israel. The author could have capitalized on his background in the ministry of petroleum and natural gas and his earlier work on energy security to bring out the secular motivations of the US in particular. While the alliance of neo-cons with the Christian Right is well taken, this has served to conceal the great power game of security energy resources in perpetuity. Gaining such control helps deny these to putative rivals and increases the dependence of allies and prospective partners on stability of the world order to be provisioned by the hegemon.

The author does mention this in passing, but without detail the criticality of this angle is liable to be missed. The US therefore is let off crucial scrutiny with the neo-cons carrying the can. This is insufficient as accounting nor does it help analytically since the ‘root’ cause of the conflict in neo-imperialism is missed. Privileging this helps bring out that the ‘Arab rage’ is less on account of messianism as is made out to be in media disseminated western discourse but due to secular angst at their helplessness against US backed authoritarian regimes. That their counter discourse draws on religion further points to the power asymmetry that they need to bridge through relying on motivating ideologies in order to make a political dent on the energy security compliant system in West Asia.

While there is no justification for terror, understanding it must involve reckoning with its causes. In this the author rightly brings to attention the Palestinian conflict and the manner Israel’s actions have aggravated its own security. The author is right in bringing out that arraigning Israel does not imply anti-Semitism. Likewise, US perpetrated violence deletimises the US as a provider of collective goods. Its citizens who profit and its allies who have been complicit cannot be absolved. Voting out Bush and Blair is simply not enough. Justice needs to catch up with them, as indeed it must with the popularly acknowledged terrorists.

The book could do with a chapter in its next edition on the current uprisings in West Asia, which has shown clientalist regimes that, at a minimum, demography will usher in democracy eventually. Orientalist lies stand exposed. That the author is a serving diplomat is the only way to account for the silences that accompany his argument. Also, a missing chapter is also on what does this imply for the South Asian?

The usual format followed by policy oriented writers, particularly in the US, is to have a final chapter on the implications for the administration. Since the author has not dissected the impact on South Asia of his subject, there is understandably no reason for him to serve a policy prescription for his government. That the same is implicit in his work is conceded.

Nevertheless, it bears reminding here that India would do well to be wary of the extent of its nascent, if deep, partnerships forged with the US and Israel. Even as it extracts its strategic dividend, it would do well to preserve its autonomy and distinct voice and position on events and issues in West Asia. Too close an embrace is to attract unwanted Islamist attention and to increase the messianisms that lurk within its polity.

That such affiliations will not develop is not a ‘given’ in light of the close technological linkages India is forging with Israel and strategic ones with the US. It is arguable the Indian government does not have the institutional strength and its society the political resilience necessary to withstand such an embrace without having its integrity compromised. On this count the book is a valuable and timely addition, but needs to also be read between the lines.

POLICY BRIEF

Elevate Human Rights as the Core Organising Principle in Counter Insurgency

Ali Ahmed

November 14, 2011

The Indian Army’s Doctrine for Sub Conventional Operations does an admirable job in balancing human rights protection with operational demands. However, there is a degree of dissonance in the approach to human rights brought about by the perspective that protecting human rights is a means to an end. This dissonance can be removed by viewing human rights as ends in themselves or as a ‘categorical imperative and elevating the principle of protecting human rights as the core organizing principle in counter insurgency.

Download Policy Brief

ISSUE BRIEF

A Consideration of Sino-Indian Conflict

Ali Ahmed

October 24, 2011

There is considerable interest in a possible conflict with China. However, little discussion exists in the open domain on conflict possibilities. This Brief attempts to fill this gap by dilating upon conflict scenarios along the spectrum of conflict. It brings out the need for limitation to conflict and the necessity for a grand strategic approach towards China as against a military driven one.

Download Issue Brief

IDSA COMMENT

Tit for Tat: A Nuclear Retaliation Alternative

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TitforTatANuclearRetaliationAlternative031011

Ali Ahmed

October 3, 2011

Since the infliction of unacceptable damage may not deter Pakistan from breaking the nuclear taboo, a ‘tit for tat’ strategy in case of lower order nuclear use is worth considering.

India’s deterrent posture is based on an assurance of inflicting ‘unacceptable damage’ as punitive retaliation in case of a Pakistani nuclear first use of any sort – either on Indian territory or on Indian forces ‘anywhere’. The declaratory nuclear doctrine of 2003 has it that such a retaliation would be ‘massive’. That the term carries some significance can be discerned from the use of the word ‘very heavy’ by the former Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee to describe India’s likely nuclear reaction. It echoes General Padmanabhan’s warning during Operation Parakram that: ‘The perpetrator of that particular outrage shall be punished, shall be punished so severely that the continuation of any form of fray will be doubtful.’

The option of ‘unacceptable damage’ commands a consensus in India for understandable reasons. India’s nuclear doctrine is for deterrence and not warfighting. However, there is one contingency that the doctrine does not address adequately well, namely, Pakistan’s defensive use of a nuclear weapon on its own territory. Such an eventuality of lower order nuclear first use does trigger the Indian doctrine since it covers Indian forces ‘anywhere’. The meting out of unacceptable damage for such a transgression or breaking of the nuclear taboo may seem disproportionate by Pakistan. In light of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the lower triple digits, an Indian response along the expounded lines may trigger a counter strike that inflicts ‘unacceptable damage’ on India. This may in turn lead to a further Indian response and ensuing escalation. Such a dénouement may not be in Indian interests, even if in the event Pakistan is ‘finished’.

Therefore, there is a case for revisiting the nuclear doctrine to address this contingency. Currently, there are two prominent nuclear retaliation options. One is as per the official doctrine of ‘massive’ punitive retaliation; and the second is inflicting ‘unacceptable damage’ which does not necessarily involve a ‘massive’ counter strike. There is also a possible third option – non-retaliation. Since India’s doctrine is one of ‘assured retaliation’, the last is not discussed any further. This commentary, however, brings out a fourth alternative: ‘tit for tat’ nuclear retaliation.

India’s nuclear doctrine is certainly credible in case the Pakistani first use is of first strike proportions or a counter value, counter command and control, counter force or decapitation strike. In such cases, India would be politically, legally and morally empowered to return the strike with interest. Given the high credibility of such deterrence, this manner of nuclear first use may be less likely. Lower order nuclear first use as in the contingency discussed is not impossible to visualize since Pakistan would be banking on the low level ‘opprobrium quotient’ for such a strike. It would be counting on the strike to help focus war termination efforts particularly of the international community. It may wish to run the risk of a disproportionate counter by India as per its doctrine for the purpose. The moot question then is: ‘How credible is such intent of nuclear retaliation against first use not of such levels?’

Analysts who privilege deterrence rightly note that in such cases India ought to show resolve by inflicting unacceptable damage irrespective of the type of first use. To them, this would ensure deterrence of even lower order nuclear first use. Assured of India’s punitive retaliation which would exact an unacceptable price, Pakistan would rationally choose against first use – rationality being in an easily made costs-gains calculation. However, deterrence based on the threat of ‘unacceptable damage’ may not credibly cover this lower level of nuclear first use since India would be open to a like counter strike. In case this is to be degraded, then a ‘massive’ punitive strike is called for. This is as per India’s nuclear doctrine that analysts themselves argue against. Leaving Pakistan the means to strike back would imply opening India to a similar strike. In case India destroys 5-10 Pakistani cities or value targets, Pakistan would for proportionate vengeance attempt to take out more than 10 Indian targets. Unwillingness to sustain such a strike may self-deter India. That is not to say there should be no retaliation, but that the non-punitive option suggests itself in such a case, i.e. the tit for tat option. The operational translation of this option is of a quid pro quo or a quid pro quo plus response.

The advantage in terms of deterrence of this option is in its higher credibility for the contingency. It counters Pakistani attempts at projection of a low nuclear threshold by innovative measures such as the demonstration of the ‘Nasr’ tactical missile recently. Pakistan ends up being struck twice over by its resort to nuclear first use, one being its own weapon on its territory and the second the retaliatory one by India. It does away with the issue of disproportionate response. It enables the cornering of Pakistani decision makers in the court of international opinion, thus staying their nuclear hand further. It conveys India’s resolve adequately.

At the political level, it helps capture the moral high ground. It caters for the understandable operation of self-deterrence in political level nuclear decision making. The decision maker has an additional option as an alternative to escalation. It does not discount the other two options on the table – ‘massive’ and ‘assured retaliation’. The ‘threat that leaves something to chance’ continues. Pakistani targets remain as hostages for further attacks, thus heightening in-conflict deterrence. In sparing Pakistan, India would itself be spared ‘unacceptable damage’. Discontinuing the exchange(s) would be easier at the lower level, conflict termination easier and the environment more amenable for post conflict peace than in the case of higher order nuclear exchanges.

First use would unmistakably change the war into a nuclear one. Since a conflict that has gone nuclear has the potential to turn into a Total War, with undesirable consequences also for India, strategic prudence dictates attempts to restrict the cost. This can be done through two ways. One is damage limitation strikes or a massive punitive retaliation to degrade Pakistan’s retaliatory capability, which will considerably disarm Pakistan though at great environmental cost. Pakistan is reported to have about 100 weapons located at over 10 sites. Camouflage, deception and other passive and active protection measures would cumulatively deny India a first strike capability. In effect, Pakistan would have a second strike capability which would be enough to inflict ‘unacceptable damage’, even if not of ‘assured destruction’ levels. In the light of India’s declaratory doctrine Pakistan would have taken measures for pre-delegation to meet such a contingency, including a ‘dead hand’ discharge of weapons in a ‘use them-lose them’ mode.

The second way lies in incentivising limitation even in a nuclear war. This can be done by following a ‘tit for tat’ strategy at lower levels of nuclear use. It would involve imitative strikes that would leave the onus to escalate on Pakistan, as also denying it any intended gains. India’s variegated capability, increasing numbers of nuclear weapons over time and second strike capability would ensure escalation dominance thus deterring Pakistan from upping-the-ante.

In effect, India’s doctrine would be assured but flexible retaliation. It would amount to deterrence by denial at lower levels of nuclear first use and to deterrence by punishment for higher order nuclear use.

IDSA COMMENT

What Does Pakistan Hope to Achieve with Nasr?

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/WhatDoesPakistanHopetoAchievewithNasr_aahmed_170811

Ali Ahmed

August 17, 2011

A partisan debate has understandably followed the unveiling of Nasr in April 2011. While analysts in Pakistan have taken pains to underline its utility, those in India have expressed an informed scepticism. This debate notwithstanding, the assumption informing this commentary is that Nasr exists as a potent weapon system with capabilities as advertised.
An answer for the question posed in the title can be hazarded along four levels: grand strategic, strategic, operational and tactical. There appears to be a contradiction in the implications of Nasr at these different levels. How Pakistan resolves these contradictions will determine how it will eventually employ the weapon system.

At the grand strategic level, the idea seems to be to focus international attention on South Asia as a ‘nuclear flashpoint’. The possibility of use of nuclear weapons increases with the ‘use them lose them’ connotations of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW). It is expected that this would energise the international community towards crisis de-escalation and conflict termination. The aim would be to have the pressure work on Indian decision makers, depriving them of autonomy of decision making.

At the strategic level, it has been rightly pointed out by Indian nuclear analysts that Nasr is an attempt at lowering, or rather projecting, a low nuclear threshold. The idea is to restrict the scope for India’s conventional operations. In the limited war logic, India does not intend to flirt with Pakistan’s nuclear thresholds. In any event, keeping these low would help Pakistan preserve its territory and military forces to the extent possible.

At the operational level, the impact of Nasr is more psychological. The aim would be to slow down Indian offensive pincers by making them ‘button down’ for a battlefield that could potentially suddenly ‘go nuclear’. The precautions, logistics load and time cycle of standard operations procedures would slow down and complicate operations. This would translate into increased combat friction, resulting in an increased leadership burden. There will be higher levels of vulnerability of bottlenecks such as bridgeheads. Pakistan would be able to counter thrust lines that it cannot address due to the relative imbalance of forces or if it is surprised. Indian forces will not be able to exploit opportunities with a sense of impunity, even those of pursuit. In fact, the more successful they get, the more the nuclear shadow of Nasr will loom large. The element of fear, surprise and its disconcerting effect will be exploited fully by Pakistan. India may need additional forces to cater for various contingencies. This will have a corresponding affect on logistics, the pace of progress of operations, coordination, presenting potential targets, etc.

At the tactical level, the physical and psychological pressures of operating in a potential nuclear battlefield will add to the strain of combat. In hot weather there would be increased physical attrition to troops, requiring earlier relief and time consuming rotation in subunit/unit roles. Wider dispersion that nuclear tactics necessitate will increase command and control problems and the fog of war. Wide frontages increase the vulnerability to counter attack, since the freedom to concentrate would be with the counter attacker.
It would appear that the seeming advantages stated above are behind Pakistan’s development of Nasr. However, it is surely not an unmixed blessing. What are the cons?

At the grand strategic level, attracting international attention to the region as a crisis point works both ways. As the Kargil conflict showed, India can profit from the situation and the onus on backing off could well be on Pakistan. Any propensity for first use may prompt the feared crackdown on its nuclear assets by the US-led international community, which would be to India’s advantage. This may convulse the Pakistan military into an internal battle over its assets, which would be especially untimely when faced with an Indian ‘threat’. Pakistan will finally end up a nuclear pariah with a dysfunctional military, a state it has managed to avoid so far.

At the strategic level, by displaying its new found capability, Pakistan has partially attempted to go down the NATO route during the Cold War. The NATO planned to employ TNW to counter the overwhelming mechanised attacks which were expected to be carried out by the Warsaw Pact forces. Using TNW would destroy the very land being defended. The difference in Pakistan’s case would be in the limited numbers of such weapon systems and, secondly, on India’s self-restraint in pulling its conventional punches. Therefore, the employment of Nasr will not be so much as to effect the military situation as to signal the crossing of the nuclear threshold. Since this would trigger the Indian nuclear doctrine of assured retaliation, in uncertain ways, it is not self-evident what Pakistan could achieve by this. It could, however, attempt to escape paying the price by choosing a ‘green-field’ option of a demonstration strike on its own territory, for instance, in the Cholistan desert.

The operational level fallout of the use of Nasr will be equally on Pakistani forces. Once nuclear weapons have had battlefield incidence, they will prove to be an equaliser. The advantages that Pakistan seeks as a defender would be nullified in a violent, possibly nuclear, Indian response. (The former Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee Air Chief Marshal P. V. Naik let on as much in his meeting with the press prior to demitting office.) The psychological, physical and logistics load will be exponentially increased by the panic among civilian populations. This will be relatively greater in Pakistan since the theatre of operations, defined by proactive Indian offensives, will be inside Pakistan.
At the tactical level, there are no empirical studies on the sociological impact of a nuclear battlefield. If combat cohesion breaks down, it will be as likely among Pakistani troops as Indian. The depth in terms of numbers available with India may help it compensate. This luxury is not available to Pakistan. The effect on the force multiplier that Pakistan intends using - irregulars – can only be expected to be negative. Since Pakistani civilians will be more affected, the ties of Pakistani soldiers to kith and kin may prove distracting. There is no evidence of either side having thought through the leadership, bonding and discipline issues on a nuclear battlefield. The emphasis has only been on personal protection at best, and that too is largely lip service for want of training equipment.

As can be seen, there are some operational level dividends that would accrue to Pakistan by using Nasr though it will come at some strategic cost. Two possibilities emerge. The first is that the Pakistani military - true to its wont in being more sensitive to military as against political and strategic concerns - has perhaps focused overly on the operational gains as against strategic costs. Alternatively, given the inescapably obvious costs that it will incur, the military is sensitive to the contradictions. It is only milking Nasr as an information war opportunity.

The judgment here is in favour of the latter. Nasr can at best likely increase India’s natural restraint and operational caution. There is no particular harm in this for there is little case for nuclear haste and any additional operational caution can only energise prior preparation. In its employment, the Nasr is unlikely to halt India in its tracks. Instead, it will likely be employed in nuclear signalling, the most likely manner of which could be in a demonstration strike.

India can arrive at prudent answers, both at the conventional and nuclear levels, to deal with this issue. What might such an answer be? The suggestion here is that the employment of Nasr, even in a ‘green-field’ mode, must release India from NFU constraint. This does not imply default retaliation. Instead, it is for debate whether manipulating the threat of nuclear attack(s) will beget India more political and military dividends than indulging in the