Addressing the Combined Commanders’ Conference at Kevadia, Gujarat on March 6, 2021 Prime Minister Narendra Modi“stressed the importance of enhancing indigenization in the national security system, not just in sourcing equipment and weapons but also in the doctrines, procedures and customs practiced in the Armed Forces.” This appears to have triggered a debate in the forces for instituting only indigenous strategic thought in our professional military education (PME) dunking thoughts of foreign strategists; for example replace teachings of Sun Tzu with that of Chanakya. This is not what the Prime Minister meant but over zealousness to please the master appears leading to misconstrued notions by loyalists – witness the visual of ‘Curious case of tray snatching General’ on Twitter and other social media.
There is no doubt that Chanakya was one of the greatest strategists of his times. In fact in Pakistan’s Dawn in an updated article on February 10, 2020 by SaifTahir titled ‘Why is great philosopher like Kautulya not part of Pakistan’s historical consciousness?’ referring to the ancient Takshila University says, “But perhaps the institution’s most noteworthy alumni is the legendry political philosopher and thinker, Chanakya better known as Kautilya, the author of Arthashastra, often compared to Machiavelli and his book The Prince. If Pakistan is to come out of its tortuous identity crisis, it needs to accept its non-Muslim history as its own, recognizing someone as important as Chanakya will have to be part of the long process.”
It may be recalled that former President APJ Abdul Kalam had had been emphasizing self reliance (Atmanirbhar) in critical technologies. In his autobiography ‘Wings of Fire’ he said that the key to the modern world order lies in superiority through technology. He wrote, “When the Chinese war philosopher Sun Tzu ruminated over 2000 years ago that what matters is not decimating the enemy army physically but breaking his will so as to make him concede defeat in the mind, he seems to have visualized domination of technology in the twentieth century theatres of war.”
There is no denying that indigenous strategic thought must be part of our teachings and doctrine but not deriving lessons from teachings of renowned strategists like Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Machiavelli and others would be akin to living in a well. China’s strategic thought has evolved over the years but the basic art of war is based on Sun Tzu’s teachings, study of which would help us evolve our doctrine. Chanakya does find mention in our PME but larger inclusion of his teachings and relevant portions of Arthshastra pertaining to warfare and handling of neighbours would broaden the horizon of our strategic thought.
At the same time, it should also be acknowledged that there is nothing wrong with our military’s strategic and doctrinal thinking. If this was not so we would have not decimated East Pakistan to assist formation of Bangladesh taking 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war – highest ever taken by any country after World War II. On the other hand, India has been subjected to externally sponsored terrorism for decades but we have not been able to develop an adequate deterrence; blame for this lies with the policy making politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats, not the military. Should they not heed Chanakya how to go about this?
Pentagon’s South Asia Defence & Security Year Book, 2010 had noted: “India’s policy paralysis was exemplified as in New Delhi after the Mumbai terror attacks when Indians to their horror found that due to blatant politicization of military acquisitions India no longer enjoyed conventional superiority vis-à-vis Pakistan, throwing Indian military posture in complete disarray and resulting in loss of credibility.”
Chanakya said, “Do not be very upright in your dealings for you would see by going to the forest that straight trees are cut down while crooked ones are left standing.” Chanakya also advocated a six-fold policy to deal with neighbours; co-existence, neutrality, alliance, double policy, march and war, and, If the end can be achieved by non-military method, even by methods of intrigue, duplicity and fraud, he would not advocate an armed conflict. The military is aware of this but emphasizing this in PME has little meaning when we are not practicing this at the national level and as part of our foreign policy.
Recall Chanakya saying, “If you make snake drink milk, you increase its venom, not nectar”. Isn’t this what we have been doing to China all these decades, making it so venomous that we are now frantically searching for antidotes? Hybrid warfare is the preferred option of 21st Century. India has had little experience in this beyond operating with the Mukti Bahini during 1971 in East Pakistan. Should we not be studying foreign strategic thought, some examples being:
-
- Though fraud in other activities is detestable, in the management of war it is laudable and glorious, and he who overcomes an enemy by fraud is as much to be praised as he who does so by force – Niccolo Machiavelli.
- The advent of automatic warfare should make plain the absurdity of warfare as a means of deciding nations’ claims to superiority – BH Liddell Hart.
- Mobilization does not occur after a war is declared, but ‘unnoticed’, proceeds long before that – GeorgilIsserson.
- Methods of conflict have changed, and now involve the broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian and other non-military measures. All of this could be supplemented by firing up the local populace as a fifth column and by concealed armed forces – General Valery Gerasimov.
- China’s ‘Unrestricted Warfare’ – Wang Xiangsui and Qiao Linag.
Apart from the above, we need to study and derive lessons from foreign thinking and military applications in domains of land, sea, air, cyber, space and electromagnetic with rapid advances in technologies, in addition to how they wage various forms of warfare – psychological, information, sub-conventional, economic, political and the like.
Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, as a country we continue to suffer from: marginalization of military in evolving strategic policy formulation and defence policy; inability to think ‘through’ – use military as instrument of policy; lack of institutional capacity to give defence policy a long-term strategic orientation, and; ad hoc approach to defence acquisitions. We still have not defined a national security strategy (NSS) and not undertaken a comprehensive defence review (CDR). The NSA-headed team charged to work out the national security strategy in 2019 has reportedly completed its task and the proposed NSS is pending approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). How many months that approval will take is anybody’s guess.
Finally, Chanakya and his Arthshastra must be part of PME and military doctrine, acknowledging at the same time that strategic thought and knowledge cannot be the preserve of any one person or group. The Prime Minister should also consider making the study of Chanakya’s teachings and his Arthshastra compulsory for our policy makers and the galaxy of lawmakers adorning the Parliament. Hopefully they know who Chanakya was though it raises a doubt with a Union Minister stating the 1857 mutiny would not have been possible without Savarkar when Savarkar was not even born.
