The strategic doctrine of an Assertive India

Published in Agni July 2015

India is a status quoist power. This is easier to establish in terms of its approach to territory. It appears to have reconciled to the fact that some of its territory is occupied by neighbours, Pakistan and China. While rhetorically it is inclined to see the return of this territory, it has not taken any military or political steps to bring this about. However, it would not like to see any more territory lost to neighbours and on this count has a credible military in place. However, is India politically a status quoist power?

Politically, it is an emerging power. A regional power, it is now also a power of reckoning in Asia. This can be easily seen from the busy diplomatic schedule of the new prime minister in his first year. Its growing economic clout, self-evident from the finding that it has displaced China as the fastest growing economy, is being translated into political power. Its growing economy is also enabling military power, with it being the largest importer of weapons over the past decade and having its defence budget touch $40 billion this year. This makes India’s position as a regional power unassailable, thereby partially sustaining the proposition that it is politically a status quo power.

However, India is also demonstrating assertiveness as a power under the new National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in Delhi. The strategic refrain of the political forces currently in government when in opposition during the preceding United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime was that India was not measuring up to its weight. It was constantly reactive and on the back foot. Such arguments came to a head in the wake of the 26/11 attacks in which India did not respond militarily. When elected via a majority in the lower house for the first time in two decades, the government has attempted to distance itself from the strategic policies of its predecessor.

The most visible manner it has done so is in the way it cancelled the talks with Pakistan last August and engaged in a prolonged standoff with that country on the Line of Control (LC). Even while engaging China, it is clear from its stance with Japan, the US, Vietnam and Australia that it is hedging its options even if not part of the containment of China. The recent outreach by the prime minister into the Indian Ocean Region, backed by rhetoric of India as a security provider, indicates the direction of the future. Cumulatively, these are suggestive of an Assertive India.

This means that it is not quite a status quoist power politically, but would like to see a change in the status quo with India acknowledged as a pre-eminent power in the region and one with a continental role in Asia. The former implies distancing from Pakistan decisively and the latter implies measuring up to China, if not substantially, at least nominally and perceptually. Therefore, the short answer to the question is that politically India can be counted as a quasi-revisionist power.

It is a truism that the strategic doctrine of a status quoist power is different from that of a revisionist power. The former tend towards the defensive and defensive-deterrent end of the doctrinal continuum, whereas the latter’s strategic doctrine can be situated towards the offensive and offensive-deterrent ends. The continuum can be imagined with defensive at one end and compellence on the other, with defensive-deterrence, offensive deterrence and offensive, as three mid-course stops (See Figure A below).

Figure A: Strategic doctrine in theory

This framework informs this review of India’s strategic doctrine. A discussion of strategic doctrine is a necessary prelude to discussing military doctrine since the former informs and determines the latter. An offensive strategic doctrine finds expression in and is reflected by offensive military doctrines.

The popular image is that India is a status quoist power and its strategic doctrine is one of defensive deterrence. However, there are two very diverse adversaries that India contends with. Therefore, it has a differentiated strategic doctrine: in effect two strategic doctrines. With respect to China, India would readily accept that it moved from a defensive strategic doctrine to a defensive-deterrent one. At the conventional level the mountain strike corps is evidence a credible defensive-deterrent doctrine. At the nuclear level, the long range Agni series and the efforts for a ‘boomer’ underway indicate firming in of such a doctrine. India’s foreign policy confabulations with the US, Japan, Australia and Vietnam are also indicative of this. This is the case for the moment.

However, taken cumulatively, the three – conventional, nuclear and foreign policy – enable a potential turn towards an offensive-deterrent strategic doctrine. An invulnerable second strike capability, a deepened strategic relationship with partner US and maturing of the mountain strike corps in terms of equipment and infrastructure needs met, could by end of the decade position India at a juncture of choice between the defensive-deterrent and offensive-deterrent. It is here that the preceding discussion on India’s positioning as a status quo or revisionist power comes in. A revisionist India, one with a self-image of an Asian power, if not a great power itself, would want an Asian balance of power reflecting this image. This would imply greater involvement in the strategic games afoot in Asia, pitching it at odds with China and in the US camp, even if today the refrain is one of multi-alignment. An offensive-deterrent can be envisaged once all the enabling elements are in place. The current defensive-deterrence is for the interregnum (See Figure B below).

Figure B: Situating India’s strategic doctrine

In respect of Pakistan, the 1965 War fifty years back was the juncture at which India moved decisively away from a defensive strategic doctrine. The subsequent war in 1971 is evidence of an offensive inflection in India’s strategic doctrine before it once again settled back into one of defensive-deterrence. In the eighties and nineties, India’s posture was one of conventional deterrence by denial through its holding formations and punishment in the form of counter offensive by its strike corps. Its nuclear posture was one of NFU and minimum deterrence, implying counter value targeting but only in retaliation. The Kargil War and Operation Parakram resulted in a shifting away from defensive-deterrence. The question is whether this is a shift to offensive-deterrence or to an offensive strategic doctrine.

In the NDA period the shift towards offensive was made, with changes in both the nuclear and conventional doctrines. The nuclear doctrine that preceded the conventional doctrine created space for conventional operations by positing ‘massive’ nuclear retaliation in case of Pakistan going nuclear even in face of conventional pressure by India. The conventional doctrine – dubbed ‘Cold Start’ - was made proactive and offensive. Even if mindful of potential nuclear thresholds, the nuclear deterrent posture was to enable heightening of any such thresholds. Together the two spell an offensive strategic doctrine rather than an offensive-deterrence one. The NDA displaced soon thereafter led to the new offensive strategic doctrine being still born. Hypothetically, the NDA could if reelected could have employed the ‘carrot and stick’ strategy to get Pakistan to heel, by using the two doctrines – military and nuclear – as stick while the Vajpayee opening up to Pakistan was the carrot.

In the event, the UPA decade led to a step back from the offensive strategic doctrine to offensive-deterrence. The strategic doctrine was influenced by neo-liberalism, the wider strategic philosophy of the government. Even though there was no change in the declaratory doctrines, both conventional and nuclear, the government less than enthusiastic in respect of both. There was no political imprimatur to the conventional doctrine and the government was less than forthcoming on equipment demands, as the preparedness profile of the army in wake of 26/11 demonstrated. At the nuclear level, the critique of the ‘massive’ nuclear retaliation formulation was allowed to play out, discrediting the nuclear doctrine. The nuclear status quo did not matter since the government did not have an offensive strategic doctrine involving ‘Cold Start’ conventional offensives in first place. It was not a defensive-deterrent strategic doctrine either in light of the unmistakable offensive content in conventional doctrine and continuity in nuclear doctrine despite its lack of credibility.

Further at the nuclear level was continuing work on missiles and warheads which when viewed against the discredited ‘massive’ nuclear retaliation formulation meant a move away from the ill-thought out formulation. As to whether the move away was back to the safety of the earlier mantra of ‘punitive’ nuclear retaliation or further to not discounting a nuclear warfighting is moot and can only remain unknown for lack of evidence. The latter - a move towards nuclear warfighting involving lower order retaliation for lower order nuclear first use by Pakistan, such as employment of nuclear armed Nasr – cannot be ruled out owing to such a response being non-escalatory and assured.

This indicates an offensive-deterrent strategic doctrine was in play in the UPA period as seen from the two doctrines – conventional and nuclear. This finding is buttressed by the fact that there was no move in the Manmohan Singh years to coerce Pakistan, despite some grievous terror attacks targeting Indian interests such as at Mumbai and Herat. Even the intelligence game, cited frequently by Pakistan as targeting it, was caliberated at a level to sensitise Pakistan to its underbelly with a deterrent intent in respect of its proxy war in Kashmir. It was therefore not an offensive strategic doctrine.

The discussion brings one up to the current Modi era. The question is whether in light of the projection of itself as a decisive government that is strong on defence, the strategic doctrine is one of offensive-deterrence, offensive or one of compellence. What is Assertive India’s current strategic doctrine? What are the potential strategic doctrines for the future?

There is no question that a qualitative change has taken place with the advent of BJP to power with a parliamentary majority for the first time in a quarter century. This along with the government’s year long distancing from its predecessor in terms of optics and its projection of the prime minister as a decisive leader are indicative of a different India from hitherto fore. In its first year it has concentrated on strengthening fences, even more so than on the economy. In fact it would appear that the economic card of ‘Make in India’ has the defence industrial sector as key. Its foreign policy activism, being tough with Pakistan and taking a stand on the border issue with China are evidence of an Assertive India. The National Security Adviser (NSA) has articulated the intelligence possibilities of Balochistan, if only to deter Pakistani interference in Kashmir. The ‘terror boat’ incident off the Gujarat coast at the turn of the year indicates preparedness. It has hinted at organizational changes in the offing, such as the Permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee that the previous government ignored despite its own committee, the Naresh Chandra Task Force, advice on the matter.

The strategic doctrine of the government has remained unarticulated so far. This is of a piece with India’s strategic culture and precedence. It can only be inferred from statements of higher appointments and actions on ground. The measures that make for an Assertive India are suggestive of a shift in strategic doctrine from the offensive-deterrent to an offensive strategic doctrine. Is this reflected in military doctrines: nuclear and conventional?

In the campaigning season last year, it was suggested that the nuclear doctrine would be up for revision. However, since India, as part of its hedging against China is also courting Japan, nuclear doctrine revision has been shelved. This does not mean that it is not underway, in that while declaratory doctrine could remain unchanged, the operational doctrine could be tweaked. With Prahaar posing as India’s answer to Pakistan’s Nasr, it can be taken that India potentially has lower order retaliatory strikes to Pakistani nuclear first use. Its movements towards operationalising the boomer on both fronts - nuclear power and nuclear armed submarine – enable it to move beyond the ‘massive’ formulation since it will by end decade have invulnerable second strike capability.

On the conventional front, the go-ahead to the Army on the LC can be taken as reinforcing conventional deterrence. While the measure was useful from point of view of deterring proxy war action during election season in Kashmir, it also is a message of offensive action on India’s part in case it is provoked by mega-terror attacks. In the event, that India has not been challenged so far is a positive. Also, feelers from the Pakistani army are largely that it is not averse to Nawaz Sharif taking the India relationship further. The downside is of a commitment trap in which India is forced to match its rhetoric and Mr. Modi is to live up to his image when and if tested by just such a terror attack the strategy is designed to deter. Will India in this case behave differently from the Manmohan Singh government when faced with 26/11?

Based on the foregoing the plausible answer to this question is affirmative. It would appear that India may take coercive action in such a case. This need not necessarily be military led. India’s NSA’s intelligence background enables prioritization of other instruments of response. The suggestions in Pakistan of an Indian hand behind Pakistani discomfiture from terror attacks indicate that this lesser known option is a live one. During the Manmohan years a constant refrain from former intelligence officials was underdevelopment of this option. The usual reason cited was that this was taken off the table by Inder Gujral who had excised the capability. That Mr. Manmohan Singh had ineptly allowed Balochistan to figure in his Sharm es Shaikh declaration with Zardari had made his reaching out to Pakistan after 26/11   a dead initiative. It had been pilloried in intelligence circles. Therefore, now that the national security elite and environment is more receptive and Pakistan revealed as more vulnerable after the Peshawar terror attack, it can be expected that the intelligence option figures prominently. Plausible deniability that Pakistani hid behind in the heyday of its proxy war is a card that can now be turned against it. Diplomatically, Mr. Modi’s shuffle of bureaucratic hand in the foreign ministry alongside enables a diplomatic offensive. Obama’s Republic Day visit on invitation to India and Mr. Modi’s impending China visit can help with isolating Pakistan.

This implies that the military option is not necessarily the default option. The Cold Start doctrine is now into its second decade and can be expected to be considerably practiced. The equipment shortfalls are being remedied by the government with one of its first major decisions last August clearing Rs 17000 crores of acquisitions. Since this will take time to materialize, India’s military option can be expected to take a back seat so as to avoid a repeat of the post 26/11 scenario in which its army chief reportedly pointed to equipment shortfalls on being asked after a military response. A military option is particularly risky in terms of outcomes. Inability to prevail could lead to escalation impetus from within the Indian side. This would imperil over the long term the developmentalist plank of the government. It would also expose it to embarrassment if it exposes lack of strategic finesse. The military reforms such as levels of jointness necessary for such operations have not been undertaken yet. There are no indicators in open domain as to whether the government has ironed out the issues roundly critiqued in both the conventional and nuclear doctrines. It is hardly likely to chance the military instrument with unrevised doctrines it has not had time to familiarize itself with. It would also be more difficult to sustain diplomatically. The China factor cannot be discounted. Therefore, the military option can better serve to deter rather than be deployed if it comes to the crunch.

What is the potential strategic doctrine of the new regime? Once all the military cards are on the table in terms of doctrinal revision, organizational reform and equipment acquisitions, possible by end decade and in the prospective second term of the current NDA government, it is possible for India’s strategic doctrine to move up a notch. On the Pakistan front, this could be from the offensive strategic doctrine today to a coercive and compellent strategic doctrine. For China, an explicit offensive-deterrent can be envisaged with acquisitions in the offing in terms of mobility and firepower for the Mountain Strike Corps. The direction of India’s US relationship, including its military-technology prong with US displacing Russia as India’s largest arms exporter, is such as to make primarily for a force projection capability. This is in keeping with US’ expectations of India in the relationship, currently couched in the security provider framework. This will be the culmination of Assertive India and signal its ‘arrival’ as a Great Power.

To sum up, this article has made the case of a shift up the strategic doctrinal continuum by India. In the UPA period, India placed at the interstices of defensive-deterrent and offensive-deterrent juncture of the spectrum. In the second NDA period, an Assertive India has been posited. The implication of this is a movement in strategic doctrine up one notch to an offensive strategic doctrine in respect of Pakistan and offensive-deterrent in respect of China. The multiple defence related measures in place by the new government suggest a potential movement towards a compellent doctrine in respect of Pakistan and an explicit offensive-deterrence in relation to China.
Previous governments have not been inclined to articulation of strategic doctrine. This owed to India’s unstated strategic doctrine being slightly more reliant on force than India’s strategic professions would have it. India’s present government has no such inhibitions. Therefore, its stepping up to acknowledge the strategic doctrine attributed here to it is possible to envisage. This should be encouraged by calls for a national security policy white paper or open domain periodic strategic reviews. This will serve deterrence, besides conditioning the government to the underside of the offensive-compellent direction it appears headed.  

  

A cautionary word for the NSA

Kashmir Times, 11 September 2015

http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=44865

India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval in a public lecture averred that India’s propensity to punch below its weight needed correction. India’s diplomatic and security shuffles ever since Mr. Modi’s election can be credited to India’s national security reset under Mr. Doval.

The latest example of Indian operational footwork is the creation of conditions under which Pakistan’s NSA was forced to cancel his trip to New Delhi. The trip itself had a promising beginning going back to the very first ‘surprise’ by the government in the invite to SAARC leaders, including Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif, for Prime Minister Modi’s swearing-in.

India roughed up the sheen with its very next move by calling off foreign secretary talks with Pakistan last August. Even so, it yet again created space for a potential opening in the joint statement of the two foreign secretaries at Ufa when the two prime ministers met on the sidelines of the SCO meet in July.

Perplexing move are in other areas as well.

When in Paris, the prime minister made a step-back from ‘Make in India’ to short-circuit the long drawn defence acquisition process in buying 36 Rafale aircraft off-the-shelf. The sudden signing of a framework agreement with Naga interlocutors is another example.

Whereas these actions suggest decisiveness, could they also have an underside in a shortcutting of the decision making process?

That the NSA is in the driver’s seat is unmistakable. He has figured prominently in what would otherwise be matters to be handled by the relevant institutions rather than by intervention of the NSA.

Media let on that the NSA was off, along with the then IB head, to Iraq on a rescue mission for Indians numbering in the double digits reportedly taken hostage by the ISIS. Could not this mission have been left to IB’s Asif Ibrahim who has since taken over as Special Envoy for West Asia and AfPak region?

Doval skipped the prime minister’s Bangladesh trip in order to organize the somewhat belated ‘hot pursuit’ operation in Myanmar after Naga hostiles killed 18 army men in an ambush in Manipur in early June. Apparently, the Indian army chief was also in tow, overseeing a tactical level action that could well have been left to the reputed corps commander there.

Where ordinarily the foreign ministry, in charge of Modi’s ‘Act East’ strategy, could have stepped in, instead Doval went over to assuage Myanmar’s hurt over possible sovereignty violations after the raid.

Another controversy over ‘turf’ has been in his getting on the phone for berating the Pakistani high commissioner in New Delhi and instructing India’s high commissioner in Islamabad to tell Pakistan to lay off firing on the Line of Control.

In what could be seen as undermining state governments, including in the BJP’s, he was spotted in Mumbai to supervise control over any backlash in the aftermath of the hanging of Yakub Memon. He queried Delhi Police on the Uber cab rape case. Though the NIA was already seized of the case, he visited Burdwan over the accidental blast there killed two alleged Bangladeshi bomb makers. In Kashmir, a new strategy to keep Kashmiri youth from radicalism was attributed to him after his visit there.

Clearly, Doval is indeed a man of action, as the numerous hagiographical profiles had it when he took over as one of Modi’s first appointees. However, Doval’s numerous interventions bring under cloud his remonstrations of teamwork, reinforcing criticism of Modi running an over-centralised ship.

Institutional good health depends on due processes and cohesion. The NSA can at best play a coordinating and facilitating role, and needs being self-effacing when about it in order that a national security culture based on institutions rather than individuals develops.

Concentration of power and authority in the person leads to an avoidable premium on personality factors, with an underside. Observers point to a Pakistan obsession resulting from the NSA’s long stint under cover there that can potentially render India’s Pakistan strategy awry.

More significantly, ideology potentially contaminates strategic rationality. The web-pages on culture and history of the foundation Doval headed for close to a decade, Vivekananda International Foundation, and that of his son, the India Foundation, reflect the Hindutva narrative. Ideology leads to a colouring of perceptions of national interest, with corresponding knock-on impact on national security.

Finally, expertise necessarily implies narrowness. A forte for intelligence does not necessarily imply operational dexterity or strategic finesse. Indian cultural constraints and bureaucratic deference, compounded by Doval’s omnipresence from the tactical to strategic level policy making and implementation, can result in a dearth of practitioners willingness to ‘speak the truth to power’.

While it is too early to write his report card or write-off Doval, a cautionary word can prove timely. Policy entrepreneurship and individual hyper-activism are recipes for personal and, worse, institutional failure with prohibitive national security consequences.

---

India-Pakistan: Silver linings and band aids are not enough
http://www.kashmirtimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=44700

India's army chief, using the occasion of commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the India-Pakistan War of 1965, has made clear that his army is on a short fuse. At a military seminar he said, "we are acutely aware that the swift, short nature of future wars is likely to offer limited warning time. This calls for maintaining very high levels of operational preparedness at all times. This is something that has now become inherent in our operational strategy." Army sources indicate that 'it will now take just four-five days for the battle groups to get going'. This current state of readiness confirms the timeline given out by an earlier chief who in 2012 said that, 'What we did in 15 days, we now do in 7; and will do in 3 days in the future.' It is clear that the army is well on its way to reaching its aim of moving from a 'cold start' to operations under a 'proactive strategy' within three days. This would please its minister, who at the same tri-service commemorative seminar said,  'A cursory analysis of the 1965 war highlights the fact that a nation's entire military establishment must constantly refine its capabilities and processes in order to ensure territorial integrity and counter any hostile actions.' This is to misread the lesson of the 1965 War. Such a misreading and action thereupon can prove catastrophic in the next subcontinental crisis. Indian army's preparedness indicates that the diplomats of the two states, the international community and peaceniks within the both civil societies will have at best 72 hours of time for  prevention. The lesson from the war fifty years ago is that escalation can prove inexorable. This time round escalation will be in double quick time. To India, the take away from the 1965 War has been that Pakistan having failed to take Kashmir by force - a measure of its choice - in launching the war, has no further stake. Its attempt at wresting Kashmir by proxy war over the past two decades has also been thwarted. It cannot be allowed to take it by any other means either, such as by talks. Therefore if at all there is anything to talk about, it is minimally to get Pakistan to back off, even if rhetorically it could include taking back the portion of Kashmir that Pakistan seized in 1947. For its part, Pakistan believes that its resort to force was not so much to wrest Kashmir as to coerce India to talks and catalyse international interest and pressure towards this end. Whereas the two countries pledged to address the issue through bilateral talks in the Simla Agreement of their 1971 War, it is clear that talks have made no headway. The latest instance is in the talks between the National Security Advisers (NSA) being called off at the last minute  late last month over divergence on the agenda. That leaves the possibility of use of force open. India's position is that Pakistan must first give up  this option - its support for terrorism. The two back-to-back attacks by terrorists in the run up  to the NSA talks indicate that Pakistan's national security establishment is loath to give up such support. The current nadir in the security situation is best illustrated in the Pakistani defence minister's  reminding India that India stood to incur 'heavy losses' if it 'impose(d)' war on Pakistan. The silver lining is that the two border security chiefs are slated to meet soon and a meeting between  the military operations heads of both armies is still on the cards. The two prime ministers have yet  another opportunity coming up for a meeting on the sidelines of the UN summit. To India's defence minister, India's preparedness can help deter. Doing so can at best preserve the  status quo, characterized by a close observer, Stephen Cohen, as 'shooting for a century'; and this, only if it impacts the mind of the Pakistani army favourably. This can only serve as band aid against relatively autonomous jihadists out to put the two nuclear  armed states at odds with another mega terror attack. A recent Brookings study has a scenario  with the two states at war. This is not implausible since the two states not talking to each other  but instead already firing at each other on the Line of Control lack a buffer. The more that needs doing includes the NSAs talking to each other; reactivation of a 'back channel'; and international attention at levels that can be ratcheted up exponentially in short order. Also, if it is  not to talk, India nevertheless would need to dispel the continuing alienation in Kashmir. Under the circumstance that is likely to persist for a while - of an aggressive Indian government and weak Pakistani civilian counterpart - this may prove just enough to lengthen the fuse.

India's Hard Power Options Considered

http://www.claws.in/1431/indias-hard-power-options-considered-ali-ahmed.html

				September 04, 2015
Publicity on release of a book by former Pakistan President Musharraf’s foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri refer to his recount of a meeting in the aftermath of 26/11. He claims to have been horrified of learning from American interlocutors of the possibility of India wanting to have a go with its air force at Muridke, Lashkar’s headquarters in Punjab. Kasuri apprehended Pakistan’s army would react and together with India’s counter, escalation would result. The situation and attendant fears have not changed much since. The recent attacks in Gurdaspur and Udhampur indicate that the Lashkar remains among the ‘good terrorists’ in Pakistan army’s book. As long as this is so, India’s position in the run up to the cutting off of NSA talks by Pakistan suggests that it is keeping its powder dry. What then are India’s options? How do these measure-up against Kasuri’s fears of escalation? ‘Do nothing’ was never an option. Now, the several cautionary words by this government to Pakistan clearly rule in hard power. Whereas warnings are a prudent exercise in deterrence, they also amount to burning one’s bridges. This time around, India is presumably better prepared. Alongside, internal political factors and individual biases of decision-makers will also chip in to drive an Indian response in favour of hard power. The parameters of such a response would be to visibly get back at the Lashkar. India would also not want to allow the Pakistan Army impunity behind ‘plausible deniability’. While at it, India would make a distinction of the army from the civilian government and people in Pakistan. Discriminating thus, it would get the international community alongside it diplomatically. Finally, a long-term perspective must attend exercise of hard power, including a political perspective on shaping the outcome. Whereas diplomacy, the promise of political engagement and economic incentives constitute soft power, military and intelligence operations are two hard power instruments. The hard power strategy options that best create conditions for reversion to soft power would be the more attractive. In terms of time, strategy orchestration would be such that the military and intelligence instruments would figure in the immediate and near term and diplomatic and intelligence over the near and middle term. The economic and political instruments will come in over the middle and long term, once the conditions have been created by the exercise of hard power. This entails a certain mix and match. The NSA, charged with thinking through the mix, can be expected to give intelligence operations greater consideration than hitherto. In a lecture,  prior to taking over the appointment, he had noted the principal advantage being, that these need beless cognizant of nuclear thresholds. Intelligence operations shall be sui-generis and inherent in all options. The response strategy options are essentially four: target the terrorist organization; target the terror organization along with the supporting elements of Pakistan army; targeting the Pakistan military directly; and, last, targeting Pakistan as a state. In terms of probability of India’s choice, the fourth is least likely since India makes a distinction between Pakistan as a state and the ‘deep state’ in Pakistan. It would not unnecessarily want to weaken the civilian government any further than it already is in relation to extremists in Pakistan and its military. It would also be mindful of international pressures wary of a nuclear war. The third – expansive targeting of the military - is less likely. Pakistani military counter could spell war. Not directly provoking this choice by attacking military targets outright, India would leave the choice of upping-the-ante to Pakistan. Preparedness to withstand the counter will help deter any non-commensurate Pakistani military reaction. The drawback is in India risking loss of initiative. Competitive mobilization liable to be misread, it has escalatory potential. The second – hitting at terrorist infrastructure that includes the army - is likely. Targeting the military implies activation of the Line of Control (LoC) to levels witnessed at the turn of the century. Hurting that military directly would be the aim. It also messages resolve. The underside is in the Pakistani military getting its ego in way of sound strategy and pushing of the two, terrorists and hardliners, together. The first – as Kasuri lets on - is most likely, in that targeting terror infrastructure in the first instance would be discriminatory, legitimate and easily justifiable. It is also de-escalatory, in that it would release pressures on India to ‘do something’. Whereas this can be done through intelligence means alone, these pressures may include a military punch or two. Preserving the Pakistan army from retaliation, does not compel any reaction on its part, thereby short-circuiting escalatory impulse. The disadvantage is that the aftermath of the strikes would witness an unsustainable premium on diplomacy to keep the pressure on Pakistan.  In all options, the escalation cannot be ruled out. In fact, some may argue that it needs to be ruled in subtly for  sending a message on escalation dominance, that a worse punishment is held in reserve. Thus far, Pakistan has been manipulating the threat of escalation. India, with more to lose, now that it is on a good economic trajectory, has rightly avoided distraction.The cautionary messaging has it that India will be less mindful of escalatory prospects. India may choose to actively manipulate risk. Since the first option is a ‘given’, the choice is between the second and third options. Which of the two enables manipulation of the escalation risk favourably? A bout of hard power application is to condition Pakistan army’s hardliners and terror proxies. The second option, that does not imply war, spells this out at lower cost and risk. However, it is also apparently an option already in play with the LoC active to a degree. On its effectiveness, precedence of the nineties does not enthuse. This leaves the third option – directing attacks on the Pakistan army. These attacks should be limited both in time and range of targets, backed by declaration of the limited intent publicly and through diplomatic channels. Alongside, partial mobilization, some in public domain and some covert, need being taken. Those taken publicly serve notice on Pakistan, even as those taken covertly are anticipatory. Such operations, perhaps some version of Cold Start lite and air power and confined geographically, do not in themselves flirt with nuclear thresholds but in their boldness and departure from past practice manipulate the risk. India’s military no doubt already has a menu up its sleeve. Finally, the hard power option is only as effective as its supplementing political incentives. India is committed to talks once the terror by proxy is turned off. Pakistan’s army appears to want indicators that India would not renege. This will need conveying through the diplomatic prong of strategy. However, with NSA talks aborted, this can serve as agenda for a subsequent - ‘first-ever’- round. India would do well to create conditions for such a round, without recourse to the third option chipping in - in the interim.

- See more at: http://www.claws.in/1431/indias-hard-power-options-considered-ali-ahmed.html#sthash.qIYM2wSv.dpuf

India-Pakistan: With NSA Talks Aborted, What Next?

http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/india-pakistan-with-nsa-talks-aborted-what-next/

Referring to a “whole history of unproductive dialogues with Pakistan,” Kanwal Sibal, a former Indian foreign secretary, reflects negatively on whether a “more resolute government as that of Modi (should) get into the rut of sterile dialogues with Pakistan.” Sibal need not worry. Talks between the two countries’ respective national security advisers were aborted just a day prior to their scheduled start.

The talks were first mooted in the joint press statement of the two foreign secretaries at the Ufa meeting of the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers. The two NSAs were to meet in Delhi, potentially clearing the way for the Indian prime minister to travel to Pakistan for the SAARC summit next year.

Skeptical reports in the run-up had hinted that the Pakistan army was bearing down on Nawaz Sharif, pressuring him to halt the meeting. This gave a window for Indian skeptics to snipe at the idea. This positioning prior to the talks had more or less ensured that they would have been, at best, as the Pakistani NSA Sartaj Aziz put it, “ice-breaking.”

That the naysayers on both sides managed to scuttle the talks underscores their hold over their respective security establishments. This mirroring is unlikely to go away any time soon.

This answers the question “Why were the talks called off?” The more important question remains: “What next?” It is here that Kanwal Sibal’s policy recommendation comes to fore.

Sibal, miffed by the two attacks by Pakistani proxies – one in Indian Punjab bordering Jammu and Kashmir and the other within Jammu and Kashmir itself – in the run-up to the talks, argues that India should first develop “levers to modulate Pakistan’s conduct” and “then agree to a dialogue should Pakistan seek it.”

With the talks called off, this is the only option India is left with. For that reason, it bears scrutiny.

The problem with Kanwal’s thesis – and he speaks for India’s Pakistan skeptics – is that it is without an end date or exit strategy.

Even had the exploratory talks at NSA level gone on to reopen the dialogue, India would have developed the levers to modulate Pakistan’s conduct. This would have been done both as a measure to keep up the pressure on Pakistan to stick to the table, as well as an insurance should the talks have failed to moderate Pakistan.

These levers are military, intelligence and diplomatic.

Militarily, India has been at it, ramping up its defense budget. A statistic from Modi’s first year in office was that India fast tracked 40 defense projects worth over Rs. 1 trillion ($15.1 billion), intended in part to increase the gap in conventional armaments with Pakistan’s army.

Over the past year, it has given the army liberty to give a “befitting reply” to provocations along the Line of Control and International Border. Pakistan has over the last month made two references to the firing along what it considers the “working border” to the UNMOGIP, the UN mission overseeing the ceasefire since 1949. Both countries have used embassy channels to record their displeasure at the other side’s aggressive firing.

On the intelligence front, India’s defense minister has hinted at proactive intelligence operations in Pakistan. Understandably, the NSA subsequently watered down the defense minister’s remarks and India has denied any proxy action. However, a rare complaint at the Pakistani corps commanders’ conference suggests otherwise – although proof is obviously hard to come by. In preparing for the NSA talks, Pakistan had compiled a dossier with its complaints of Indian “interference.”

Diplomatically, the visits of Obama and Jiang Zemin to New Delhi, though intended by India to suitably isolate Pakistan over the latter’s support for terrorism, can only have limited effect. Pakistan’s strategic location buttresses its indispensability to the eventual outcome in Afghanistan. Pakistan is looking to play the Russian card if necessary.

The call in India will be more of the same and for longer. But this is not without underside.

Militarily, the “two front” problem has already kicked in, with reports of India diluting its Mountain Strike Corps due to lack of finances.

Doctrinally, there is dissonance. While at the conventional level India intends to be on the offensive, its nuclear doctrine has not been able to come to terms with the problem posed by Pakistani nuclear first use in the form of tactical nuclear weapons. The devastating response that the current nuclear doctrine posits can hardly be risked in the face of Pakistan’s vertical proliferation of nuclear warhead numbers into the three digits.

On the subconventional front, Jammu and Kashmir, which has been relatively stable for more than a decade, could slide back into turmoil, offering a fertile ground for penetration of more radical ideologies, such as those of the ISIS. Indian responses and Pakistani reactions would then flirt with the nuclear threshold. Under the circumstances, it would not do to up the military ante.

The intelligence game of using proxies has an unremarked downside, in its impact on the domestic politics of both countries. Using Pakistani extremists against their own state – as Pakistan accuses India of doing – can only strengthen their hand.

The more significant effect is in India’s domestic politics. India’s Muslim minority will come under pressure as a potential conduit through which Pakistan could be expected to strike back. India’s majoritarian extremists, arguably already rampant, will use the canard of a Muslim fifth column to further raise their profile.

Diplomatically, it would be difficult for India to sell a zero-tolerance for terrorism strategy with India letting off “saffron terrorists,” even as it takes Pakistan to the UN sanctions committee. India’s inability to isolate Pakistan will make it more reliant on its military and intelligence cards, accentuating the risks.

Finally, eventually, as Sibal says, these levers will need to be exercised to bring Pakistan round. This will down the line be at an even higher level of risk and cost. Indeed, the NSAs would then have much to discuss but no forum in which to do so, the first ever NSA talks having been aborted at their very inception

http://www.claws.in/1419/nuclear-battlefield-preparedness-ali-ahmed.html

Nuclear Battlefield Preparedness

It is well known that in May 1998 India conducted five nuclear tests. One was reportedly of a nuclear weapon based on the 1974 test already in stock. The second was of a thermonuclear device with a fusion-boosted fission trigger with a potential yield of 200Kt. The other three were sub-kiloton fission devices.[i] Of the latter, writing ten years on in 2008, Dr. Chidambaram, the architect of the tests, wrote: ‘The sub-kiloton devices tested again had all the features needed for integration with delivery vehicles and were tested from the point of view of developing low-yield weapons and of validating new weapon-related ideas and sub-systems. Thus the carefully-planned series of tests carried out in May 1998 gave us the capability to build nuclear weapons from low yields up to around 200 kt. A great deal of further scientific and technical development work has taken place since then.’[ii] Whereas the 15Kt and 45Kt yield tests attracted due attention, the three tests that confer on India a tactical nuclear capability have been largely overshadowed. This perhaps owes to the principle that under-grids the declaratory nuclear doctrine of 2003, that for India there is nothing known as TNW. However, it is not possible that three of five tests were without appropriate doctrinal pedigree. Consequently, the three have a rational basis that needs resurrecting. Clearly, another seven years since Dr. Chidambaram’s assessment, it can be plausibly assumed that India has the low yield weapons mentioned in stock. From declaratory doctrine it is not certain that these are TNWs. Since all nuclear weapons are for strategic use, and not military use, these weapons, even if of low yield, may have strategic utility alone. Good health of deterrence calls for reinforcing this line of argument. The nuclear enemy could erroneously assume that since India has low yield weapons it may undertake lower order retaliation. Such thinking may then tempt him to go first with TNW. Since Pakistan has proliferated vertically, it may reckon that it has in-conflict deterrence against higher order nuclear retaliation, thereby giving it confidence to use TNW. Pakistan therefore needs being constantly disabused of such thinking. The notion of TNW applicability in nuclear war has to be dispelled. For this reason India has abjured discussing TNWs. By this yardstick, even if low yield weapons exist, these are for strategic targets, such as nuclear command and control facilities or for counter force strikes. Their low yields can prevent escalatory collateral damage, particularly since the Indus Valley is densely populated. Since these low yield weapons have strategic utility, they are not meant as TNW for battle field use. That said, the fact is that the western adversary tacitly promises to ‘go first’ with TNW. Professional answer-seeking involves a look at the proverbial ‘worst case scenario’ of introduction of TNW into a conflict by the adversary. The military would then be able to focus on what to do and have the adversary in question know that it can follow through in a nuclear environment. Nuclear battlefield preparedness therefore has a two-fold logic. Firstly, battlefield nuclear preparedness enhances deterrence Whereas India has no intention of viewing nuclear weapons as having military utility even in the circumstance of nuclear first use by Pakistan, Pakistan will be skeptical of this. As has always been reiterated by India that its troops will not fight at a disadvantage, Pakistan in its assessment cannot rule out Indian TNW use, in addition to the strategic retribution involving higher order retaliation it promises. Consequently, knowing that any prospective gains will be denied and at a cost, an adversary, suitably impressed, will then hesitate with TNW first use. The bonus for India is that it raises the nuclear threshold for optimum use of its conventional advantage. Secondly, in any case, since the adversary tacitly promises to go first with TNW, a look at operational and tactical level implications is warranted as the battlefield could go nuclear. At the strategic level this implies the Strategic Planning Staff considering whether India’s strategic response needs an operational supplement. The contours of this are not dwelt on here as the declaratory nuclear doctrine already rules this out. At the operational level, there are three aspects. First, the initiative of TNW use being with the enemy, degradation through conventional means could prove preventive. To be sure, this runs the risk of occasioning nuclear first use by the enemy, triggering the ‘use them-lose them’ phenomenon. This risk may be inescapable since the enemy could employ the TNW more fruitfully later, such as on a bridgehead, if left unmolested. Second, is building in conventional responses, such as through having at hand reserves and their appropriate use; an example is forcing through another bridgehead thereby denying the enemy any gain from TNW use. If in a defensive mode, this entails sidestepping reserves to plug any nuclear hole the adversary may punch. The third is input for a nuclear response. Bottom-up options for this have to feed into considerations in the Strategic Planning Staff. In any case, operational fallout of any nuclear response options chosen need to be factored in. So that the nuclear dimension of conflict is not lost sight of in the melee of war, the operations staff corps level upwards can do with a nuclear operations cognizant adjunct. At the tactical level, the impact will be more psychological. Ongoing commentary from the centenary commemorations of the Great War invariably covers the impact chemical weapons had on the battlefield. A similar effect can be imagined, if in greater magnitude. Extant pamphlets no doubt cover decontamination and survival drills, and equipment is possibly stocked to a degree. Nevertheless, aspects such as cohesion, discipline, morale supports and perception management of troops need attention alongside. Defence lines and spearheads will be sorely tested, particularly horizontal subunit cohesion and vertical cohesion of command chains. An aspect warranting a closer look may be to have on hand military police and military law capabilities for speedy battlefield justice. Communication zone nuclear strikes could have front line effects, such as in case cantonments are targeted for their command and control and logistics facilities, with collateral damage on resident families. This may entail mobilization schemes from front line military stations also undertaking speedy vacation by troop families. This is a foreseeable measure to prevent inadvertent escalation. War games to simulate the complexity of the nuclear environment must include such non-kinetic effects. ‘A’ matters need a review in light of the tactical effects of nuclear impacts. Finally, incorporation into training needs moving from pamphlets and lecture halls to squad posts and exercise areas. Nuclear preparedness cannot be left to the Strategic Planning Staff, charged with serving the Nuclear Command Authority, and the Strategic Forces Command for executing nuclear retaliation. Operationalization of the deterrent involves the wider army too.

- See more at: http://www.claws.in/1419/nuclear-battlefield-preparedness-ali-ahmed.html#sthash.Sk7oAexL.dpuf

India: Dissecting The Doval Doctrine – OpEd

http://www.eurasiareview.com/07082015-india-dissecting-the-doval-doctrine-oped/

Friday, August 7th, 2015

Ajit Doval’s appointment as India’s National Security Adviser (NSA) was among the first appointments made by Mr. Modi on becoming prime minister. That Doval was perhaps tipped off by Modi of post-election possibilities is evident form a lecture Doval delivered at the Sastra University in Tamil Nadu early last year in which he outlined his strategic world view. That he is now India’s NSA makes this speech consequential.

The speech has become infamous since for the wrong reason. Excerpts of the lecture having been uploaded on YouTube early this year, it has erroneously been reckoned that Doval as NSA has threatened Pakistan with losing Balochistan in case it triggers another Mumbai 26/11. While Doval did threaten as much, it was in his capacity then as head of the conservative think tank, Vivekananda International Foundation.

Nevertheless, Doval perhaps anticipating his next assignment used the opportunity of his lecture on ‘India’s Strategic Response to Terrorism’ to lay out his worldview. Since he has been India’s leading spook, with a penchant for the tactical, it is not unlikely that his strategic worldview goes no further than the intelligence domain covered in the lecture. This makes the lecture more important then merely yet another lecture by a think tank head.

That India’s current day strategy appears to be unfolding along the lines he laid out makes the lecture virtually a key statement of India’s strategic doctrine. Since Pakistan is taken as a state sponsor of terror, the lecture also goes some way in also explaining India’s Pakistan strategy. The lecture consequently bears critical scrutiny.

Doval restricted his counter terror strategy discussion only to terror incidents attributed to India’s largest minority, its Muslims. As he was head of IB when a spate of terrorism broke out in the Indian hinterland, dated by him to March 2005, he would know that not all incidents attributable to the minority have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists.

The manner India’s current regime is covering its tracks in letting off majoritarian terrorists lately is suggestive of something to hide. In case the terror incidents Hindutva elements are responsible for is subtracted from the volume of terror India has been subject to, minority terrorism emerges as a bogey. No wonder the home minister has made a show of taking offence to the term ‘saffron terrorism’, hoping to marginalize such allegations and obscure any truth behind them.

This becomes clearer by dissecting Doval’s prescription. His strategic response to terrorism is, firstly, ‘smothering’ terrorist outfits; pitching nationalist Indian Muslims against the anti-national Islamists within their community; and making Pakistan hurt through a strategic doctrine of ‘defensive offense’.

Of the first, the smothering of terrorists by denial of arms, money and support, superficially, there is little to complain. The problem is when a distinction is not made between terrorists and common folk. Security forces are apt to see potential terrorists everywhere in Muslim ghettos.

Under the circumstance of right wing prejudice now mainstream, resulting impunity can only multiply this tendency. With tall tales of Daesh making a South Asian debut, rushing the home ministry into thinking up a counter radicalisation doctrine, surveillance of the community is not unlikely.

The second – ‘divide and rule’ by using the pro-national and anti-national Muslim against each other – smacks of Chanakyan cunning. Strategy is mistaken for cunning in light of the iconic status of home grown strategist Chanakya.

The association of cultural nationalists with the pro-national Muslims can only serve to marginalize them, leading to non-secular alternatives. Take for instance, Zafar Sereshwala, a Modi acolyte, hardly has a constituency. Instead, ever since mainstream parties were sidelined in the last elections, a firebrand party, the Hyderabad-based Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), appears to be filling the vacuum.

Equally disturbing is Doval’s intent to buy terrorists: by paying out ‘one and a half times’ more of their price! His experience teaches him that since they are mercenaries, they can be bought and turned against theirs sponsors. Is it that this strategy is already in play?

If so it may account for some of the terror Pakistan is subject to and perhaps explains the defence minister’s cryptic remark of fighting terror with terror (‘removing thorns with thorns’). The rare complaint of Pakistan being subject to terror by proxy by India coming as a corps commanders’ conference outcome makes this a compelling possibility.

However, more disturbingly, terrorist turncoats can also be used for questionable strategic purposes. For instance, they can be used to attack Indian targets to project that such attacks are Pakistan perpetrated. The commentary in Pakistan questioning the antecedents of the Dinanager terror attack of last month is a case.

Terror attacks so engineered can enhance the case against Pakistan, enabling that state to be subject to Indian pressures with greater vigour. They can also be used to push India’s minority further into tis corner through manipulation of guilt by association.

Clearly, there is a case for political control of the intelligence apparatus. This cannot be entrusted to Mr. Doval, himself an intelligence czar. With a right wing regime in power, democratic control would instead of implying restraint, may imply quite the opposite.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly on account of the nuclear overhang, is Doval’s assertion that India can prise loose Balochistan. His assumption is that there would be no nuclear fallout, as this would not involve military engagement and the consequent need to be wary of nuclear thresholds

As current custodian of India’s nuclear doctrine in his capacity as head of the Executive Council, he is by now surely better briefed. He would know that Pakistan in an uncharacteristic fit of transparency had in 2002 let on that in case it is faced with internal destabilization on a large scale, it would resort to the nuclear weapon, implying it would up the ante perhaps by first going conventional. This puts paid to Doval’s notion that the military would not come into the equation.

Clearly, the Doval doctrine is problematic with cultural nationalism contaminating strategic rationality. And, worse, remedy is four years away.