Our think-tanks have to revolutionise their thinking and attitude to produce scholar warriors.
For every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it’s always wrong.
H. L. Mencken
INTRODUCTION
No other country in the world is more surrounded by illiberal democracies as India’s neighbours and no other country can boast of having an unwritten defence policy and its destiny guided by “guidelines” on security as stated by the then Prime Minister Narsimha Rao in Parliament while holding the additional charge of Defence Minister of India. I hate to take recourse to Western writers like Morgenthau, Jownawitz, Waltz etc. to discuss about the paradigm shift that has to occur in defining the national security policymaking architecture in India. Hence if Indian national security policymaking has to be rejuvenated to take on the challenges of the 21st century, then there has to be a renaissance of approach in India to study, formulate, weed out the geriatric manpower who have got permanently embedded in the security policymaking establishments including government supported think-tanks.
THE WAY FORWARD
One does not have to be a Western bandwagon follower, but our think-tanks have to revolutionise their thinking and attitude to produce scholar warriors, who are not merely trained but also educated in the art of warfare, to understand the difference between nature of war and character of war in the changing global economic and socio-anthropological context. The apex institutions serving as think-tanks to articulate, formulate and critically think on national security affairs are incapable of thinking or acting beyond their comfort zones
There is still a basic misunderstanding that war conflict and all forms of violence can be contained by the use of force by the application of technology. They fail to understand that all three are cultural phenomena and the problems that war, violence and conflict create have no technical solutions. The days of weaponizing military power, diplomatic, educational and political decision making is over. Think-tanks have to create and produce critical thinkers, provide the strategy of developing resilience within the nation state to securitise the non-military dimensions to contribute towards national security perspectives, to find strategies to minimise and avoid the use of force.
The oft resorted arguments on political control on use of “combat force” require to be further developed in terms of depth and its span. Political control on use of “organised” military force will have to be highly structured around international political economy, which entails the necessity to understand the economics of violence, the collateral damage to be calculated on econometric models and conflict analysis based on behavioural study’s methodology—the Ukraine episode is a prime example of the same. Unfortunately, the articles that are being published do not have the avenue to invite critical comments. Leading think-tanks in India which have the ears of the political system have not developed any procedure or culture of seeking critical comments from the intellectual community. Their operations are somewhat akin to what the webinars of western institutions have got involved with these days. They invite hundreds of participants from around the world on line, with no avenue for any discussions by outside participants. So the organisers are the wise men, the moderators are the men of wisdom and international participants are the fence-sitters.
It is hoped that our think-tanks get out of this mind fix and attitude and move the centre of gravity to incorporate critical evaluators who are in the younger age group and educated to understand the relationship between political power, political intent and practitioners’ view of the employment of military power/use of force.
Taken individually in India at a general global level the politicians, the military leadership, the military industrial complex, the think-tanks and the social scientists are like the five blind men in the dark trying to figure out what the “elephant” looks like.
I firmly believe that in the 21st century the use of force in any or at all levels is too serious a matter to be left only in the hands of politicians to exercise political control over the use of what one can say “combat power”. Nearer home a few instances have occurred of similar nature from which we should be able to draw our lessons.
THE CHINA FACTOR
India has to consider China as the largest illiberal state with a philosophy to convert the Indo-China border into a “frontier” rather than resolve it as an international border. The Chinese zeal to rationalise their long perceived notion to establish the “middle kingdom” is not a figment of their imagination but a deep rooted cultural and strategic outlook. China embarked on the call by President Xi Jinping on 27 October 2014 to initiate the process of establishing six major think-tanks with “Chinese characteristics” dealing with foreign policy, and economics, with the Chinese media to concentrate on domestic debate in which a new approach was encouraged to be cantered on the academics and policy analysts who were to analyse future trends and the likely approach to Chinese intents on the way to as to how the military think-tanks will act to establish the revolving door to cross fertilise the effectiveness better than the American model. There is a diverse array of think-tanks that support the Chinese government and military’s thinking and strategy on critical issues. Among the most prominent are: the:
1. Academy of Military Sciences (AMS),
2. Chinese Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS),
3. Center for Peace and Development Studies (CPDS),
4. Foundation for International Strategic Studies (FISS),
5. Institute for National Security Studies-National Defense University (INSS/NDU).
6. China Defense Science Technology Information Center (CDSTIC)
CONCLUSION
Indian shortcomings on matters security stem from the fact that the Indian decision making system is at a nascent stage of development to usher in a renaissance in military thinking and appears to be far away even though a decent growth of GDP has been maintained. The bottom-line is clear. The bureaucracy and the armed forces are well trained and experienced, but hardly educated. There is no revolving door as yet for the corporate, the private sector and academia to truly partner with each other and the government in an interdependent mode and the politicians are hardly educated enough to absorb the nuances of development. The key element for India for bringing about a Renaissance in India’s strategic thinking is to involve itself in the strategy to develop “Resilience” and increase the vitality of the Indian nation state by securitizing the nonmilitary dimensions of security that is ecology, environment, pollution, energy, the rights of the unborn and the political economy.
Only a few months back the first round table discussion has taken place and the first working paper deliberating on the “Essentiality of Resilience For National Security For 21st Century India” has been published by the Policy Perspective Foundation in Delhi.
Professor Gautam Sen, Pune, is Distinguished Visiting Fellow, CLAWS; Adjunct Professor NIAS, Bangalore; Emeritus Professor PPF, Delhi; Member, Accreditation Advisory Council, GoI; Founder Member Centre For Advance Strategic Studies.