A timely rehearsing of General Sundarji’s principal contribution to strategic thought

https://thewire.in/security/general-sundarjis-ideas-on-nuclear-conflagration-remain-relevant-to-the-india-pakistan-military-situation

 I was one of three Indian Military Academy gentlemen cadets selected to attend the Army Day events as the army chief’s guests in January 1987. At the traditional reception at Army House, General Sundarji personally introduced us to the president and the prime minister. We had a group photo taken, a portion of which has made its way into the selection that graces the new biography of General Sundarji, Probal Dasgupta’s General Brasstacks, with two of us, including me, edited out!

Understandably, the general spending a longer-than-necessary portion of the evening with us left a lasting impression. It is no wonder then that a couple of decades later I wrote an article in tribute of the late general. The atypical conclusion of that article - that finds mention in the book – was that the General would be known to history not so much for aspects of his life well covered in the book - his commendable work on mechanization of the army and his spooking of the Chinese at Sumdorong Chu, or the less praiseworthy stewardship of two subconventional operations (Op) (Op Blue Star and Op Pawan) - but for his thoughts on nuclear use.

The fraught situation

The general’s thinking bears reiteration in the current regional security environment, that has a ‘forever war’, Op Sindoor 2, on ‘pause’. A prominent strategic commentator, General Panag, reckons that if not sooner when prompted by a black-swan terror event, the next round of Op Sindoor is due within five years, by when both sides would be well up-gunned.

Rightly, Panag notes that, “There is no scope for decisive wars among nuclear-weapon-armed states. Conflict must remain below the nuclear threshold….” He had earlier held that, “India, and Pakistan are modern armies that have to wage conflict below the nuclear threshold. Keeping in view the nuclear threshold, there are obvious constraints in the way conflict will manifest.”

Though he expects “a high-end conventional air, missile, and drone campaign with each side trying to do all it did in 2025 with higher tempo, depth, and lethality,” and can also “foresee limited ground operations in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K),” he nevertheless holds that, “(T)he echoes of a limited war, without major ground operations, can be heard loud and clear.”

However, Panag bases his case on the popularly held juncture of where the two sides left off in round one: “(T)he measure of victory is to create psychological paralysis…up the escalatory ladder, as a result of which the adversary, despite its military potential, cannot respond.” This, he believes, “was achieved in the early hours of 10 May, when the Indian Air Force (IAF) could strike at will…and the adversary’s air force and air defence could not respond or retaliate.”

Two problems with the popular version

One problem with a clipped reading of the conflict is in the significance of a news report not registering adequately. The report had it that the Pakistanis had convened their national command authority (NCA) that controls nuclear use. Overtaken by events the preceding night – the last night of Op Sindoor - the Pakistanis distanced themselves from the report.

That the matter is graver was clearer from one of the Pakistani airfields hit being the Nur Khan airfield. Apparently, it is proximate to the Chaklala cantonment where Pakistan’s nuclear hub, the Strategic Plans Division, is located. There was also considerable disinformation surrounding whether nearby Kairana hills had also been hit, allegedly a nuclear storage site. Such egregious targeting could have trigger nuclear-related misperceptions: that nuclear facilities are under a degrading attack. Consequently, it can reasonably be surmised that a nuclear dimension to the crisis might have materialised.

The second problem is the assumption that the Pakistanis succumbed to military force application. On his part, the raksha mantri takes to hyperbole on this: “Op Sindoor as a short-duration, deep-penetration, high-intensity, and high-impact operation which showcased India’s ability to compel its adversary to surrender.” The prime minister goes a step further, holding that India ‘forced Pakistan to its knees,’ whereupon Pakistan ‘pleaded’ to be let off. Even if theatrics and rhetoric are discounted, analysis that speaks truth to power cannot be wholly blind to such delusions.

From Pakistan catapulting to brokering of a ceasefire in the Iran-US conflict, it is clear Pakistan was playing for higher stakes. Munir forewent the opportunity for getting even, playing to get into Trump’s good books as his ‘favourite field marshal.’ Further, that there have been no images of like damage on the Indian side does not mean there was none. Pakistan, reassured by its performance on the first night, thought it could replicate the same with interest in future iterations.

The nuclear factor

Indian reticence to concede that the Americans had anything to do with the pause would likely make them less enthusiastic next time. Absent a line of communication between two parties increases the premium on third party intervention; which will be less than forthcoming. Therefore, Pakistan will likely holdout longer. Its principal takeaway from the Iran War II can only be that a weaker side must sustain in a fight. The field marshal is already attempting build resilience by reiterating his belief that a ‘battle of ideologies’ is on.

Pakistan has taken care to centralise military authority and authority over its nuclear structure under one chair, that of the newly-created Chief of Defence Forces; occupied by the army chief promoted to five-star rank. It has also divorced its conventional and nuclear missile forces, for prosecuting either type of war. An assessment has it that it has given itself a velocity upgrade, enabling a head start in the next round. Not only are Chinese J35s in the pipeline of procurement, but there is a half-a-billion dollars F-16 upgrade also on.

Even so, its budgetary increase of some 20 per cent is outpaced by India’s increase of 24 per cent of a budget eight-to-nine times larger than that of Pakistan. India is also on the cusp of theaterisation, allowing it to take on the western front with greater coherence. In the interim, there is movement towards operationalising a a joint operations and coordination center for greater synergy at the apex military level. Not only is convergence of outcomes in multi-domain operations sought by the out-going chief of defence staff (CDS), but the raksha mantri discerns a “new military ethos.”

Pakistan – even if back-stopped by China - may wish to preserve itself from greater punishment. With India fully capable of matching escalatory step, Pakistan reach for nuclear signalling. An American analyst warns: “They (India and Pakistan) also appear increasingly convinced that, should the conflict erupt again, more intense conventional fighting would not risk nuclear escalation.”

That such recourse that should worry has not figured in the deafening din from the one-year-on discussions owes to multiple reasons. First, is that there has been a clampdown on nuclear doctrinal discourse; in contrast to the appreciative buzz around missile tests. Two is that the political level may not wish to obscure the dangerous backdrop to India’s forever war, hastily and impulsively embarked on. Third, it wishes to avoid the corollary: that dialogue channels are necessary to keep open, if not for conflict resolution but merely for crisis management.

How will it manifest?

One measure has already found mention: activity of Pakistan’s nuclear decision-making body, duly advertised to make an impression. The second is movements of its nuclear-related weapons, such as a Nasr or two visible to Indian peeking systems. The third is activating well-intentioned third party diplomacy, by mutual interlocutors as Gulf states or concerned neighbours. Fourth could be activation of its nuclear test sites for a demonstration test. Fifth could be a greenfield test of its nuclear weapon in, for instance, the Kharan desert. Sixth could be information operations to generate a ‘no smoke without fire’ panic. Seventh, as has been seen earlier, the firing of nuclear-capable missiles. Eighthly, intelligence operations; and, finally, a ‘shot across the bow’, at no military target in particular, such as in the Cholistan desert.

Likewise, the introduction of nuclear weapons into the conflict can be decidedly at the lowest possible level of provocation. This could be in the desert along the border or on an enclave captured prior, or, indeed, on the seas.

Under the circumstance, the rationality exhibited by both sides in Op Sindoor, would hopefully continue. By the yardstick of strategic rationality, it would not be irrational on Pakistan’s part to bandy nuclear weapons. Since the escalatory tendency inherent in war - observed some two hundred years ago by Clausewitz - could take hold, it would be irrational for Pakistan not to reach for its nuclear card.

It could be forced by Indian reinforcing of failure by progressively larger scale conventional operations. For instance, while Panag’s reference to operations in J&K was in respect to operations to tidy up the LC; however, some chicken-hawks in the regime and its right wing support formations or a misinformed public may wish for taking Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Heeding Sundarji

It is at such a juncture that Sundarji becomes posthumously most relevant. He left behind the Sundarji nuclear doctrine, that has not received traction in Indian doctrinal discussion. He posited that any introduction of nuclear weapons into a conflict must prompt not only an immediate termination of the exchange(s) at the lowest possible level of opprobrium of nuclear use, but also an early cessation of hostilities itself, if necessary by easing up on the matter that led to outbreak of the conflict in first place.

As is evident, this is diametrically opposite the tenet of India’s nuclear doctrine that calls for an annihilating nuclear attack of the nuclear taboo breaking party; ‘unacceptable damage’ being code for counter-value targeting, itself jargon for city-busting. It also goes against the new Pakistan-centric policy of ‘no talks with terror.’

The conclusions that emerge are as follows: the pursuit of escalation dominance is to chase a receding horizon; it is best to pull punches at every level to keep from ascending the escalatory ladder, even if matching the other side punch for punch (tit-for-tat has deterrence value as Axelrod found in his experiment at game theory); minimally a crisis management mechanism must be in place prior; and maximally, incompatibilities must be engaged with in a dialogue.

Though the incoming CDS General Subramani is advantaged by his current proximity to the nuclear strategy staff, he would unlikely have had his knowledge base for his forthcoming duties as military adviser to the nuclear command authority expanded with this bit of wisdom. He would do well to read up Sundarji on what nuclear armed states owe their citizens, a duty to preserve them from harm.

Service think tanks must not be conduits for political ideology

https://aliahd66.substack.com/p/service-think-tanks-must-not-be-conduits

In the fitness of things, a think tank under the circumstance of political dominance of particular party and ideology may require to lean a particular way. Practical people deem this reasonable: sway with the wind, rather than break for being unbending. There may be issues as release of funds that require a certain amount of virtue signalling to unlock; there may be pressures, tacit and upfront; and there may be a lilt to strategic culture to pay obeisance to.

However, such liberties cannot be taken in think tanks of the armed forces. This is a corollary to the popular adage: the military is apolitical. Think tanks affiliated to respective service and one jointly accredited, act as gatekeepers of institutional ethos. If they dilute their vigil on what gets on to their agenda - such as partisan positions or politically-polluted stances - then they end up as a conduit for propaganda. An assembly line of contaminated input can potentially change the military’s organizational culture, making it susceptible to politicisation.

A service-affiliated think tank has autonomy. Autonomy is to enable creativity and innovation, so that the service stands intellectually stimulated. The think tank is an institution in itself, but answerable to its clients; incidentally also paymasters. Presence of an ideological slant in a think tank’s products must raise eyebrows. Should a centre appear to be providing an opening to the military’s intellectual space for propaganda, it has to be examined for motives. If it is absentminded and lethargic, it must stand cautioned. If a wilful participant, it has to be outed. If complicit from being like-minded, a spring-cleaning is warranted.

It suits interested parties targeting the think tank and the military to undercut the apolitical character of the military as a preliminary step to politicization: setting up of the armed forces as yet another instrument of partisan political purpose. Therefore, instances of such deviance from the standards of political propriety and intellectual probity must be pointed out in good faith, lest service think tanks betray public trust and that of their clients, the armed forces.

Examples of departures

Here the army-affiliated think tank, the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), is taken up to see if the centre is manifestly cognizant of its role in respect of keeping the army apolitical. Two of its issue briefs and two programs it conducted are considered. The intent is that timely cautioning would strengthen editorial watchdogs and vetting procedures of organisations it collaborates with, making the think tank less of an ‘easy meat.’ It is important to do so when institutional strength is dissipating rapidly across the board.

In an issue brief, the author, a long-retired major general uses the Delhi terror blasts to launch into an ideology-tinged overview of Muslim separatism historically, which in his mind’s eye continues up to the current day. Academic concerns over complexity and historical accuracy do not hold up this whatsapp uncle. Wholly mindful that assuming Muslim professionals exhibit potential for terrorist acts, he deliberately seeks to undo the progressive and professional success of the Muslim middle class. He recommends a stringent internal security regime, including covert, deniable ‘unobtrusive’ actions on his menu. Though knowing the outcome of such a regime will only further marginalise Muslims and undercut democratic freedoms, he remains undeterred. The paper’s title ‘India’s real enemy’ points to India’s Muslims. He wishes for a ‘War ‘that has no rules of morality or concern for human rights’.’ Taken along with the din and exaggerations over individual criminal behavior marginalizing Muslims, such legitimizing tracts are mischievous and dangerous.

The second ‘issue brief’ is by a retired lieutenant general. The paper is on regional political parties in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), tracing their alleged ambivalence towards the Indian state from independence till after the bifurcation of the state. Targeting political parties, the author is in the footsteps of a former chief - who as candidate chief of defence staff - opined on a political party in the North East. The author, though once a commander in Badami Bagh, appears blind to the salience of identity in the makeup of human beings and communities. There, not only did he run multiple shows in an army auditorium for days on end of The Kashmir Files, but - tone deaf - also had Kashmiris over for a view. As a former head of the army’s publicity wing, he is surely well aware of limits and guardrails. Even if these are not fully applicable to him in his retired capacity, he must know that these apply to the CLAWS. That the paper was published with a CLAWS imprimatur shows the clout of such high-profile social media stars.

A potential tendency for leaning towards the right on CLAWS’ part is reinforced by its recent engagements. At one CLAWS-organized seminar, it had Member of Parliament Mr. Tejasvi Surya over as key speaker, presumably because the seminar was to interest youth into national security affairs. He took care to note, ‘we lost our temples and our libraries were burnt (27:19).’ He condescendingly concludes by subtly peddling caste (26:30): that India’s national building principle has civilisationally always been to entrust security to the ‘wise’ (read brahmins) and the ‘strong’ (read kshatriyas). There is no call for a service think tank to be raising the profile of politicians. It needs being mindful that the credibility of the uniform can be (ab)used for white-washing of political resumes short on commitment to constitutional currently upstanding principles of secularism and fraternity.

Another questionable seminar had CLAWS as co-host, where the veteran speakers it whistled up had an opportunity to rub shoulders with civilian speakers such as a general secretary of the ruling party, among other majoritarian ideology-endorsing notables and ruling party apparatchiks: ‘distinguished scholars and policy visionaries’ in a CLAWS endorsement.

Treading with due caution

For ‘nationalist’ politics to seek to influence the military is not a new phenomenon. In the last BJP dispensation at the turn of the century, there were a surfeit of such contributions by veterans in military publications. This author had taken up cudgels on several occasions with editors of professional journals. In a salutary instance, a self-correction on part of an institution led to the withholding of the second part of an article by a veteran (p. 3).

The second outbreak was in the Modi era, with one writer going overboard: “One of the best Facebook posts from abroad by a known staunch critique of Prime Minister Modi says, “Indians are lucky to have Narendra Modi as their Prime Minister in this time of need!!”. Innocuously timed with the Tablighi Jamaat episode during Covid days, an article on its website egregiously noted, “the terrorist with fidyan (sic) mind set on getting infected will try spreading it to the target groups by intermingling with them…. He however, may take care not to infect the group/community whose support or sympathy he continues to seek in achieving his larger aim.” My observations were met with the director pulling rank!

The facilitation of a majoritarian ideology into the military’s cognitive space by its think tank is problematic. A complicit think tank lending its services for ideological ends calls for overhaul. The exercise of self-regulation and self-correction is compounded if a director is appointed based on his political posturing. A service think tank was once headed by a bhakt, placed by a chief who went on join the ruling party just ahead of last elections. One think tank head went on to a leadership position in an amply-funded right wing think tank, associated at one remove with the regime’s chief security honcho, Ajit Doval.

A feigned slip of tongue is all it takes to identify a majoritarian streak. Substituting the term ‘anti-nationalists’ with ‘poly-nationalists’ (9:20-10:20), the head of CLAWS at a ‘nationalist collective’ of a rabid media group explicates the right wing stereotype of those with a liberal and leftist world view. They, to him, ‘break the fabric of our country and lead us to our detriment and also pose problems for us in the future and our lofty goals of viksit bharat 2047 and in the process our own development of people of India.’ The think tank head believes in ‘one nation, one people’ (9:13); negating the ‘unity in diversity’ principle that has held good for decades. The notion neglects the nature of the proposed oneness; which - to this think tank head - is decidedly nationalist: read majoritarian.

Normalizing of majoritarianism makes it institutional ‘common sense;’ thereby preventing picking up the cues of politicization. Ideological blinkers tend to blind. When in listing only J&K, North East and Left Wing Extremism as internal security challenges, CENJOWS was blind to Hindutva extremism as a significant threat. Indeed, subscription to an ideology misrepresents challenges to the ideology as national security threats when the distinction between a political formation and the nation is lost sight of, a phenomenon liable to occur in a majoritarian setting.

The political cultural shift towards majoritarianism is demanding of a makeover of strategic culture in a particular direction. A think tank’s legitimate domain is the latter. Change if any must be organic and not by arbitrary diktat or – worse - by stealth. A service think tank is not an instrument of information operations targeting the internal, domestic space either of the polity or the military. Its uniformed minders must find the moral courage – albeit in difficult times – to rein political propensities of those in safari suits running it. National security demands speaking truth to power, requiring that think tanks nurture the moral capital to do so, at the very least, in-house.