Earlier this year, a distinguished group of Indians attempted to fill the gap by releasing a comprehensive report entitled Nonalignment 2.0. Not surprisingly, it has unleashed a furious debate and some controversy, especially with regard to its most important recommendation — that India should refrain from strong strategic alliances with major powers, maintaining a policy of “non-alignment”. Critics fear that this would result in India losing strategic partners and becoming vulnerable to foreign pressures. Nevertheless, since its authors are influential figures, representing liberal and left-of-centre views, the recommendations may acquire increasing acceptance with the Congress government. It seems, however, that our own experts have missed it.
The report embraces both domestic and external aspects of national security and state power, while touching on relations with the major powers. It, therefore, deserves to be read in its entirety by our foreign policy formulators and executioners. However, because of limitations of space, this article will have to confine itself primarily to recommendations relating to Pakistan and in that context, to China.
Starting with the premise that Asia is the emerging fulcrum of global power, the report calls for close attention and a new approach to South Asia and the Indian Ocean because of their significance to India’s security. Consequently, it urges a comprehensive modernisation of India’s armed forces, supplemented by a modest consolidation of its nuclear capabilities to deter strategic coercion and nuclear terrorism. It expresses concern about China’s enormous “economic and strategic footprint” on the region and its likely impact on India. It is brutally blunt in pointing out that “China will remain a significant foreign policy and security challenge for India … as it impinges directly on India’s geopolitical space”. Even growing Sino-Indian trade is not without its downside, as the authors fear that it assists China’s “penetrations into India’s strategic sectors”.
While China poses a challenge, Pakistan is seen as posing “present and potential threats” to India. Though advocating a policy of “normal diplomacy” as well as deepening of economic relations, collaboration on water and energy issues and expansion of inter-societal links, the report calls upon India to make it clear to Islamabad that “the actual pace of negotiations would be contingent on its behaviour”. These measures would be reinforced by application of “negative levers”, including diplomatic pressures, reasserting India’s claims to Azad Kashmir and developing the capacity to mount punitive military operations in response to acts of terrorism.
Contrary to public perception, the report emphasises the superiority and relevance of “hard power”, even though it admits that the nuclearisation of South Asia has ruled out large-scale wars. It, therefore, recommends taking advantage of India’s location in the Indian Ocean, as well as the shift from the “paradigm focused on capture of territory to a paradigm based on destructive ability”. This is elaborated by highlighting the “employment of cyber and/or air power in punitive mode”, as well as “shallow thrusts” along the international frontier and the LoC. Most provocative is its recommendation that India should be prepared to “act on strong but less than perfect information”.
This report provides us with valuable insights into current thinking in New Delhi’s corridors of power, with regard to India’s national strategy. This should help us formulate our own long-term policies vis-a-vis India, neither encumbered by blinkers or inhibited by unfounded fears; in other words, with hard-headed realism.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th, 2012.
COMMENTS (65)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
We would be interested more in documents from more developed and advanced and economically prosperous country like the EU, US, Russia. Let the Indinas be obsessed with us and our news portals we want to look to higher models like the EU, North American, Russian models?
Our people are too Indian as it is ? meanwhile India is fast embracing western customs and ideas.
@Syed: "Pakistan needs to control Afghanistan. It can’t let India-Afghanistan join hand and threat Pakistan from both sides."
Sir are we not supposed to bring our country fully under our own control, before we even think of controlling Afghanistan?
@ Observer India suspended the dialogue with Pakistan for two years over Mumbai. Dialogue is the best way to discuss all problems. In life, countries as individuals move on. If not, nothing can ever be resolved.
@Maula Jut
The Indians are dominating ET website to project their viewpoint. Another step in India’s march to become a peaceful and friendly neighbour?
At least more peaceful and friendly than a neighbour exporting Ajmal Kasabs. Don't you agree?
The Indians are dominating ET website to project their viewpoint. Another step in India's march to become a peaceful and friendly neighbour?
@Cynical: Of course i will agree on this..But let me tell you this.. each & every civilization in History had its own ups/downs, strength/weakens.India went for a downhill for 1000 years because of its own weakens.When India got Independence, it was in a mess..many had predicted that with such poverty/diversity/religious acrimony it will disintegrate in to chaos.But it survived & now it is thriving & if things fall in place, we will overcome all obstacles & succeed..
Relax Mr Fatemi. Indians and strategic thinking.No way. Indians can't see beyond their nose.That's why they were ruled by foreigners for 1000 years.
In the heat of this India-Pakistan debate, we are losing sight of the Policy Document it self. Here is what it says regarding Pakistan on page 18
60. The internal stability of Pakistan—whether it continues in the current unstable equilibrium, moves towards greater stability or instability—will be primarily determined by forces at work within Pakistan itself... Concerns on this account must not inhibit our strategy towards Pakistan.
61. The aim of our Pakistan strategy must be to impart stability to our relationship. This comes down to the pursuit of two broad objectives. First, we need to ensure that no serious terrorist attacks—defined as attacks that could have significant domestic impact— are launched on Indian territory by groups based in Pakistan. Second, we need to create a situation where both sides have sufficient confidence and trust to tackle the more deep-seated and thorny outstanding disputes...
Do Pakistanis object to (i) being masters of their own destiny and (ii) India facilitating tackling of outstanding disputes? Simply because it comes from India?
@not-an-indian:
Never touched a history book did you?
Imran Khan promises heaven but a process of destruction of society and institutions cannot be removed in 90 days as he promises. I am fan of IK but he is outside the parliament and promising a moon to people. If he fails and my personal view is he will, then what !!, ppp has made huge blunders but it is stabilizing democracy. Otherwise it will be a repeat show my father used to see in his time. Pakistan has to succeed for south Asian peace. Zardari's birthday is this week , happy birthday prez
@hamza khan: We will succeed. All of India is not Gujarat administration. We play a balancing factor. People of east India are a part of it. India has 28 states, we observe and act accordingly. We care for our constitution and its guarantees to us. The state administration and politicians know our feelings that's why we vote for the congress everytime. Please give your ppp a chance, imran khan is a person who will ruin your country. He is hand in hand with all the kind of mullahs we all despise. Thank you.
Pakistani diplomats need to discuss and find a possible to the Sir Creek issue before it gets too late. India's concern regarding it's water security suggest it's high time to finally bring this so-called "doable" issue to table not for the sake of table talks, but for a genuine solution.
@not-an-indian - explain your morbid obsession with our news websites ?
Pakistan excels in - denial,obfuscation,prevarication,double-speak,double games,propaganda,brain-washing,fact-twisting,playing victim while being the perpetrator etc,etc
We are trying to understand how such a mind works;and why it works the way it does.
We have to - you are right there beside us.
India and Pakistan, as someone suggested can be a single economic zone in the same model as European union, but before that ever becomes reality, the countries have to desire it and meet bare minimum legal requirements, similar to those set by EU. Democracy, secularism will be among them.
Pakistan needs to control Afghanistan. It can't let India-Afghanistan join hand and threat Pakistan from both sides.
@observer: "Let us say, we are worried, very worried about RSS and VHP terrorists. Let us count all the killings by them. Say 2000 in Gujarat and add another 2000 to take care of your worries. "
Directionally I am good with what you were saying. But just fyi- 790 Muslims and 250 Hindus died in Gujarat riots not 2000 Muslims as is frequently claimed on these boards. Of the 33 Hindus convicted in these riots none of them was an RSS member.
@hamza khan: Please don't worry about us..The idea of India is stronger than any Indian.. Pakistanis today have an Identity Crisis, not us. India does not want an inch of Pakistan Frankly speaking, after seeing the present state of Pakistan, every Indian agree on this fact,that the partition happened and they are glad it happened.. Akhand Bharat...well..you have no idea of it? How will you know when ur missles are named after Ghazni,ghauri etc. Do you know anything about Harappa,Mohenjodaro,Taxila. Do you know about Chandargupta maurya/Chanakya?
@hamza khan
you worry about your extremist RSS and VHP hindu terrorists. i am more afraid of them than any AQ or taliban.
Let us say, we are worried, very worried about RSS and VHP terrorists. Let us count all the killings by them. Say 2000 in Gujarat and add another 2000 to take care of your worries. Now as Gujarat happened in 2002, that makes 4000 people in 10 years. Contrast that with 5000 people in two year in Karachi alone.
Now that the cobwebs are cleared use your head for clear thinking. Good Luck.
World Affairs
Brother, you hit the bullseye. But we shouldn't associate the word 'formidable' with India.
@not-an-indian: Dear..whatever your name is... Distorted history is taught in Pakistan,not in India.Do the student of Pakistan know anything about pre-Islamic history of the subcontinent? Last time i was writing a comment on a blog, when someone commented they ruled India. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/12108/hinudana-rasm-or-a-radical-mindset/
@Arijit Sharma : "...To correct your ( collectively ) sense of history, geography, politics and genetics vis-a-vis India..."
This is rich coming from the ones who have almost zero sense of history. you history was written by brits and muslims and your geography was determined by them too. who are you kidding ? you folks really have a comically vainglorious sense of self and, really, we don't have taste for your tamasha.
@world affairs: " ... Nagaland, Tripura, Assam, Bodo Areas, Kashmir, Junagarh, Hyderabad Deaccan and all other occupied areas, which india thrashed at and after partition, need to be discused, resolved and settled before a formal discussion on trust building initiated. ... "
You stake a claim Hyderabad Deccan because it was ruled by the Nizam. But the fact is that the Deccan Plateau was inhabited by Hindus much before the first Muslim set foot in the sub-continent. So, even if we took Deccan Hyderabad by force, we had a justification.
@not-an-indian: " ... That pretty much sums up our view about you. Now explain your morbid obsession with our news websites ? ... "
To correct your ( collectively ) sense of history, geography, politics and genetics vis-a-vis India.
seeing(through my own eyes) india's restraints to a hostile pakistan i wonder what could have been india's attitude towards a friendly pakistan.
@not-an-indian: Relax man... People are giving their personal views/comments. They are not writing the foreign policy of your country here.
@Arijit Sharma : "..No Sir. You go your own way, we go ours..."
That pretty much sums up our view about you. Now explain your morbid obsession with our news websites ?
Nagaland, Tripura, Assam, Bodo Areas, Kashmir, Junagarh, Hyderabad Deaccan and all other occupied areas, which india thrashed at and after partition, need to be discused, resolved and settled before a formal discussion on trust building initiated. UN resolutions are still awaiting a formidable positive response from india.
India does not want even an inch of Pakistan. We accept Pakistan as a reality. There are too many mullah brain washed extremists in Pakistan to absorb it. Secondly,international politics are based on ground realities and not wishful thinking. The changing of loc into international border is a road to peace. The secession movement in j&k is a industry now which is run by the hurriyat conference. The money feeds the geelanis & Omar over there. People are least bit interested because it has a tourism industry mainly running on the money of Indian tourists. Do you think it will survive if the state gets its independence. Thirdly, all those kashmiris who reside outside in USA and UK having foreign nationalities having taken oath of allegiance there, please stop patronizing us. Lastly, would Pakistan get back the piece of land given to China and reinstate gilgit and northern areas back to pok areas officially before asking for a plebiscite. Thank you
you people are living in a small nation with 4 or 5 provinces and with population of 180 million people so that you find time to discuss about neighborly or regional politics but India with 1.2 billion people with 28 provinces possessing with lots of social economic problem and ethic conflict we couldn't find time even to address our own problem.
@Majid sheikh: " ... Maybe 20 years down the road a confederation of sub-continental States will see everyone better off. ... "
No Sir. You go your own way, we go ours. We do not want to make your problems our problems.
Pakistan's interests are best served by three internal 'thrusts' and three external 'thrusts'. On the internal front Pakistan must try to give up religious pretensions, bring about a better law and order environment and concentrate on the economy. On the external front special relations with Iran, Afghanistan and China, it should try to quickly negotiate the Kashmir and water issues with India, and try to unite the entire sub-continent as a powerful integrated economic unit. Maybe 20 years down the road a confederation of sub-continental States will see everyone better off.
Contrary to common impression, India's strategic thought underwent huge transformation after Indo-China war of 1962 when India was encouraged by no less than the American president himself to develop nuclear device to neutralize threat from China. China has always been a national security challenge for India and China factor alone made US and China partners in nuclear technology even when both the countries were bitter adversaries. Read more at: http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2012/07/galbraith-was-original-author-of-indo.html
China's only aim is to keep India engaged in South Asia box. For attaining that they are using Pakistan as a pawn in this great plan so that India will be busy with terrorits & Jihadists. It will try to limit India's influence outside South Asia. India should be more assertive in South China sea by making more friends with countries like Japan, Vietnam, Phillippines & Australia.
What is hard headed realism? Wish it is not similar to strategic depth policy. As far as I know the whole Af Pak standoff is basically a standoff with India played in Kabul. Look forward to know from you what this formula will be like in your next article.
@Caramelized_Onion: You are right. It was indeed a shallow thrust by Pakistan in Kargil. It was so shallow that it was devoid of any strategic vision or foresight. Almost like a bunch of schoolboys directing what they thought to be military ops.
@Caramalized_Onion who writes "We’ve been hearind about ‘shallow thrusts’ and ‘cold starts’ and ‘punitive strikes’ for several decades now. The only shallow thrust in the last two decades was by Pakistan into Kargil. And to think Indians celebrate it as a victory whereas Pakistanis did not lose an inch of land."
For someone who don't even know the meaning of the word victory, you assumption that you are smart, sounds ironic. Victory is achieving ones goals.
Pakistan's goal was to occupy parts of Kashmir. However, India never intended to occupy an inch of your land. You do the math.
Caramelized_Onion: War/Battle is about achieving an objective. Objective of Kargil incursion by Pakistan was to hold on to a piece of land from where it can cut off Indian access to Leh-Ladakh. Victory/Defeat is about whose objective was met. Indian objective was to gain back the geography, not to occupy Pakistani controlled territory.
Pakistan indeed knows the strength & weakness of India. That is why, while it knows it was broken up in to two in 1972, it also knows India is a pacifist nation that won't retaliate easily even when gravely provoked with adventures like Kargil & terrorist attacks. But, what Pakistan may not know is War is not the only way a nation can be punished. Check the level of ignominy and indignity that Pakistan suffers in world perception due to its own perfidies, that have been made public by India.
True victory is winning without firing a shot.
@Rajendra Kalkhande: Lol...man you guys always think in bollywood paradigm....amuses us to the most
Hey carameised.......What strengths?????
Well, when you have an adversary like Pakistan, strategizing is not needed. It will do the work for you without any strategy, by pressing the self-destruct button.
There is one route India must take to coerce Pakistan into accepting its dominance: Economic strangulation by outside powers. Pakistan, having pressed the self-destruct button, is economically starved and bankrupt. It always has been, just that the regular aid that used to flow in used to make sure Pakistan was kept afloat. Is it any wonder that Pakistan achieved high growth numbers only when US gives aid to Pakistan, like during Musharaff rule?
The best part about India's strategy is that its status-quo. Even China's to a certain extent is status quo, vis a vis India, at least. India and China historically, for the past 2000 years have never fought a war except in the modern age. There is no reason why they should be at each other's throats.
Pakistan is an irritant because it is anti-status-quo. It is a revisionist state. There is ubiquitous motivation in Pakistan for revision will keep its relations with India on the boil.
I doubt how many Indians are aware of this report , surely not many even among so called intelligentsia may have read. I think we should not read too much out of this report..in India many reports are created by many committees and think tanks. India being such a diverse and democratic country , its hard to believe that one report would be guide for any govt in India. I would take such reports by pinch of salt, even though some thoughts expressed may appear to be reflecting the actions taken by the current govt in India. Just like corporate house, India will need to review its tactical plan every 2-3 years and strategy every 5-10 years. This review obviously is not discussed in open forum by any Govt.
@ Shahid
you are showing Pakistan the way.
@ Not-an-India : Value the message please and don't try to shoot the messengers. Most Indians will like to see a peaceful and friendly Pakistan.
@not-an-indian: Great comments. Meaningful contributions are always welcome, but aimlessly trolling by our Indian contributors and reducing the quality of the conversation adds a bad taste.
We've been hearind about 'shallow thrusts' and 'cold starts' and 'punitive strikes' for several decades now. The only shallow thrust in the last two decades was by Pakistan into Kargil. And to think Indians celebrate it as a victory whereas Pakistanis did not lose an inch of land.
Indians need a reality check and fast, but we in Pakistan are not worried about it much. We know our strengths and weaknesses as well asthose of the Indians. Better than they do.
@shahid:
A perfect list reflecting a very mature view of the nation's future. Interesting read
What a misfortune for us(India). On one side we have a crazy army(Pak army) and the other side we have cunning army(Chinkis). And both of them have grouped together. Need to teach chinkis a lesson.
The Pakistani establishment is expected to ignore any such document as their REAL policies of India re well-engraved in their heads since their childhood school tectbooks: India is a castiest-bania-Hindu abomination which never accepted Pakistan and is looking at every opportunity to destroy/take over it in connivance with Crusaders and Jews.
Pakistani establishment therefore needs no strategy document!
Dear Mr. Fetemi,
Thank you for this article. I have not read the report and nor have I read or heard of any furious debate and controversy around it.
I have a strong suspicion that you have not read the report as well and have done a quick Pakistan word search and produced this piece. I will have a go at chewing this strategic paper and advise other readers to do the same.
Too many of the establishment in India and Pakistan make a living of this fear mongering of short wars, incursion and all that crap.
Fundamentally, India does not have a national strategy - articulated or unarticulated. And neither does Pakistan. What these countries do have is a roving door of dynastic (and the occasional newcomer) leaders who develop short term policy for narrow personal (power), political (again, power) gains.
The faster, we the idiots, realise that - the better placed we will be to understand each other.
Here is a reality - Most developed & high per capita income/tax nations are liberal, secular democracies. India doesn't need to formally align with them to share the same goals and aspirations. China - India - Pakistan can't really fight a war. But, a cold war is already forced on India by Pakistan through its actors (state, proxies or non-state) committing aggression. India should fight this cold war with 'jaw-jaw' policy, and do its best to destroy the credibility, economic capability & and nuisance potential of Pakistan in concert with other world players (read USA). It shouldn't stop till Pakistan gives up on this 'cold war' of 'thousand cuts' & 'strategic depth' policies.
@Shahid: Very valid suggestions. Most of these are implementable. However, hardliners in Pakistan will find your suggestions against the very idea of Pakistan (read two nation theory). I am sure India will agree to all of them without much problem. If this happens, we will have soft borders and VISA free travel. Ultimately this is the only possible solution.
"Contrary to public perception, the report emphasises the superiority and relevance of “hard power”, even though it admits that the nuclearisation of South Asia has ruled out large-scale wars. It, therefore, recommends taking advantage of India’s location in the Indian Ocean, as well as the shift from the “paradigm focused on capture of territory to a paradigm based on destructive ability”. This is elaborated by highlighting the “employment of cyber and/or air power in punitive mode”, as well as “shallow thrusts” along the international frontier and the LoC. Most provocative is its recommendation that India should be prepared to “act on strong but less than perfect information”." That time has gone for good when wars meant "bang-bang- you are dead". Wars will not be fought to kill but to starve. Such wars will therefore be less costly to wage, spread as they will be over long periods. Future wars will be wars of attrition which will creep on the target unawares and can be defeated only by constant vigil. The battlefield for such wars will be mostly in the economic sphere where the attempt will be to pauperize the adversary. "Hard power" would be only for display; of course large-scale wars or protracted wars barring those using attrition, are entirely out of question. There would be no attempt at gaining or holding territory chiefly because it would concurrently mean holding hostile populations. As far as China goes, India need not be too concerned about its material power. China has already painted itself into a corner in the South China Sea. Unless it backs down, the next theater for the world war will be South China Sea with China against the world, all its neighours arraigned against it. Like it or not, India, for all its wonted "non-alignment", shall be drawn into it. Pakistan will serve China as its ally just like Italy served for Nazi Germany, which is certainly not good news for China as, like Nazi Germany, Chinese will be mostly rescuing the Pakistanis as Germans had to do for the Italians (being as boastful, lousy warriors as the Pakistanis). Such a war will usher in independence for Tibet and Xinjiang. So, prognosis is not all bad!
India's military is steadily adopting American strategy -- size doesn't mean much in modern warfare - especially if you don't plan on holding territory. A small well trained/equipped army is far more effective than a large/lumbering army. Some army's are large and look good on paper - yet large portions of their own country are controlled by militants.
Dear Mr. Shahid: You have expressed a excellent set of goals and objectives that any intellectual concerned with substantial improvement in India-Pakistan ties will fully accept in both countries. Every one of the 7 points that you have listed above is worthy of serious consideration-the only doubters will be those that have an agenda for profiting from the miseries of war, ignorance and hunger in both countries. You are truly a "Shahid" in the highest sense of the word! God bless you! RR Iyer
The idea of shallow thrusts is pure fantasy. During heightened tension, a mass of mechanized infantry and armored vehicles concentrating near the border cannot be concealed from foreign media or the intelligence agencies. The roar of thousands of vehicles moving from the cantonment to the assembly areas will alert the opposing army. And a mass of vehicles intending to conduct an armored thrust would present a terrific target practice to anti-tank, artillery and aircraft. And even if successful, what would this thrust achieve? If the formation retreats, it would be labeled a failure; if it doesn’t, it would present itself for a counterattack. People should study the conduct of both armies during previous wars; such thrusts are beyond the technological, moral and intellectual limits of these armies.
Pakistan shoul make radical chhanges towards India as follows;
1. Accept the present line of control as international borders with greater local autonomy and self rule and in exchange for India's acceptance and facilitating to meet Pakistan's water needs. 2. Pakisran and India signing a peace and friendship treaty without compromising good relations with china. 3. drasticaly reducing spending on military and directing funds towards social services. 4. Establishing relations with every country of world on universal brotherhood. 5.Declearing Pakistan's identity as a secular democracy and stopping drumming it's Islamic credentials which is the root cause of Pakistan's downfull. 6..Establishing itself as a part of world community rather than restricting it self as part of so called Ummah which only exist in Pakistan's mind. 7. Realise the importance and need of accquiring science and technology which in few years will change the world so much which is diffficult even to imagine .Majority of Indians consider China as threat and certainly not Pakistan. Pakistan at best is nothing more then a irritation. However, Indians are learning to deal with Chinese mind games. While whole world takes Chinese dictations in hosting Dalai Lama, India has been hosting him and his entire government in exile for last 53 years. Even in South China see India has stood to her point of view. Indians by nature are not impulsive and therefore will will always take a long term view in national interest. As far as Indo-Pak relations are concerned, India will be friendly towards common Pakistani people, but quite aggressive against Jihadis and Pak army.