There is a broader issue at stake here. A rapidly growing economy has given India the ability to spend on its defence readiness like never before. India has emerged as one of the largest arms buyers in the global market. In line with India’s broadening strategic horizons, its military acquisitions are seeing a marked shift from conventional land-based systems to means of power projection such as airborne refuelling systems and long-range missiles. But it remains unclear under what conditions India would be willing to use force in defending its interests. 

If at all some suggestions are being made, they have verged on being facile. For example, ruling out sending of troops to Afghanistan, the Indian army chief said some time back that “India takes part only in UN approved/ sanctioned military operations and the UN has not mandated this action in Afghanistan so there is no question of India participating in it.” The army chief’s statement was not only factually inaccurate but also demonstrated a fundamental misreading of Indian security policy. Like other nations, India has tended to accept or ignore the UN as per national interest. The Indian armed forces remain obsessed with China and Pakistan while the civilian leadership lacks a substantive and sophisticated understanding of the role of force in foreign policy. 

Military power remains central to the course of international politics as force retains its role as the

final arbiter among states in an anarchical international system. A state’s diplomatic posture will lack effectiveness if it is not backed by a credible military posture. In the words of Thomas Schelling, “like the threat of a strike in industrial relations, the threat of divorce in a family dispute, or the threat of bolting the party at a political convention, the threat of violence continuously circumscribes international politics.” Few nations face the kind of security challenges that confront India. Yet, since independence, the military was never seen as a central instrument in the achievement of national priorities. Even though policy-makers themselves had little knowledge of critical defence issues, the defence forces had little or no role in the formulation of defence policy till 1962, when even Nehru was forced to concede that “military weakness has been a temptation, and a little military strength may be a deterrent.” A state’s legitimacy is tied to its ability to operate effectively in an international strategic environment. India lacked this clarity.

A lot of attention is being paid to the fact that India will be spending around $40 billion on military modernisation in the next five years and is buying hardware useful for projecting power beyond its shores, such as C-130 transport planes, airborne refuelling tankers, and aircraft carriers. But such purchases in and of themselves do not imply a clear sense of purpose. The armed forces are today operating in a strategic void and under weak leadership, unable to fully comprehend the changing strategic and operational milieu. At a time when Indian interests are becoming global in nature, India must update its approach. It is up to the civilian leadership to come up with a credible policy on the use of armed forces and it is up to the military leadership to provide them with sound guidance. India has always been a nation of great ambition. But it is not clear if the Indian elites understand the implications of their nation’s rise. India can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines of unfolding global events that impinge directly on vital Indian interests. What is the point of building muscle, if we shy away from a fight.

The writer teaches at King’s College, London

express@expressindia.com