Why India does not have a vibrant strategic culture

[arp2041]

Manmohan Singh, bemoans its absence. In the halcyon days of his first term, Singh, attempting to change the strategic outlook of this giant nation, was often heard complaining, "We must develop a strategic culture in this country."

He joins a large number of Indian intellectuals who decry our apparent lack of ability to plot out India's "strategic thought" or even plan a "grand strategy".

To a casual observer, India's actions — or lack thereof — often appear to be a result of who the government spoke to last, or based on ad hoc considerations that undermine India's interests. What makes this outlook interesting is that foreign analysts writing about India, seem equally clear that India does not have a vibrant strategic culture.

So Inchoate

Many of us would agree with George Tanham who wrote in his seminal RAND study on Indian strategic thought: "[India] is an extraordinarily complex and diverse society, and Indian elites show little evidence of having thought coherently and systematically about national strategy."

Why do we seem to be an inchoate mass of chattering classes, government, national security establishment and politicians, all working at cross purposes, with the result that nobody quite knows why we do what we do or whether Indian interests are at all being advanced in the global marketplace?

India, many argue, does not have a strategic culture because it has never faced an existential threat. The burden of being around for millennia has given a sort of timelessness to its strategic outlook.

Off the Mark

On a more mundane level, though, part of the problem is the lack of an articulated grand strategy — that makes it difficult for either practitioners or analysts to figure out exactly why we do what we do. For instance, why do we hanker after a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, even without veto power?

The fact is, it is part of an otherwise unarticulated Indian trait that we must be acknowledged as a great nation, even if we missed the boat in the first place. Second, the wild accusations of "sellout" during the negotiations before the India-US nuclear deal missed the point about why we were entering into the deal in the first place. This resulted in most of the strategic debates being wide off the mark. When "strategy" does find voice, Indian "interests" are often expressed as third person "values", again unnecessary in the modern age.

Ironically, this is why think tanks or strategic analyses remain hopelessly emasculated even in this information age — their discourse depends mainly on published stuff in the media, because the establishment freezes them out of the processes behind real decision-making. This means think tanks are also personality-driven, depending on their personal contacts within the "system".

Second, a severe lack of capacity constrains India's national security apparatus — the number of bureaucrats in the foreign office has been a subject of discussion for some time. What is less talked about is the system itself, which doesn't really lend itself to strategic thinking. Since the national security/ foreign policy system functions through silos, the division "handling" say, Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan, is also responsible for the grand strategy therein. This sucks the oxygen out of any policy planning or strategy exercise within the foreign office.

Back to the Epics

The truth, as always, is complex. What is strategic culture, and do we have it? Kanti Bajpai writes: "Strategic culture consists of two parts. The first is the central strategic paradigm — the basic assumptions about orderliness in the world. Included here are assumptions about the role of war in human affairs, about the nature of the adversary, and about the efficacy of the use of force. The second part is grand strategy, or the secondary assumptions about operational policy that follow." Bajpai says there are three streams of Indian strategic thought — Nehruvian, neo-liberal and hyperrealist, saying that core values remain common to all, but strategies differ.

Is there a strategic culture in India? Actually, yes. There are core strategic values that India has embraced and lived by since Independence despite changes in strategic, foreign and security policies. It is inspired by not only the Arthashastra, but the Ramayana and the Mahabharata also, leavened by the complexities and contradictions inherent in Indian thought that have evolved over centuries of being a culture that encompassed and assimilated "foreign" influences.

Tanham says, "Four principal factors help to explain Indian actions and views about power and security: India's geography; the 'discovery' of Indian history by Indian elites over the past 150 years; Indian cultural and social structures and belief systems; and the British rule (raj)."

The Need for Autonomy

Shivshankar Menon, in a tribute to strategic guru K Subrahmanyam, describes the bedrock of Indian strategic thought as defined by "Subbu" — the need for "strategic autonomy". Often mistaken as a synonym for non-alignment, this is actually much closer to flexible realism. Menon says, "India is alone, along with the USA in an earlier age, in seeking to industrialise and accumulate power as a democracy."

Therefore, Indian strategic culture is a function of our assimilative history. As Menon says, "Strategy is not just about outdoing an adversary who is trying to do the same to you. It is also about finding cooperative solutions and creating outcomes in non-zero-sum situations, even when others are motivated by self-interest and not benevolence."

Why India does not have a vibrant strategic culture - The Economic Times

 

[Abingdonboy]

It is true sometimes India looks like a genius wrt being able to be friends with so many nations and forge random relationships and yet sometimes India makes poor decisions that contradict some of its values it says it holds true. Also here doesn't seem to be an overriding master plan at work but more of a peckemeal strategy. It has been successful uptil now but I imagine India could above much more.

 

[ajtr]

How can India have a strategic culture when it always lacked a strong national vision.And how can a country like india have a national vision where strret level politicians get elected to parliament to do there mohalla level politics in the parliament.Where its armed forces were always kept out of the strategic vision or relegated to backstage by politicians.

So what india end up is to generally reacting to the actions of other countries instead of being proactive in its actions.

 

[arp2041]

I think not making long term goals & finding the answers to the questions like where India wants to see itself in say next 2 decades, has really hurt India. Our post independence stance on idealism, policy decisions like Pansheel etc. have not done us any good. Not taking our armed forces seriously, or taking effective strategic decisions was a disaster. Also on the economic front we followed a totally socialistic approach & govt. controlling everything from bread to building dams, without any breather for our private sector, thus making our economy a more stagnant one needing a drastic make-over, because of low GDP nos., India was not seen as a power but just another Third world country with crores of poor & billion of troubles.

Things changed for good with break-up of USSR, end of cold war, rise in trade deficit & increasing troubles in the Indian economy, we realized that the old school policies are no more good & are burden in the long term. In 90's LPG initiative was taken, which turned out to be a major policy decision impacting not just India but world as a whole. Slowly we changed our world view. We started to look for world beyond USSR, Looked East, Looked West, Looked everywhere so that we can become friendly with every country, size din't matter, Israel has become as important a partner of India as USSR or the USA.

We are trying to settle every dispute peacefully, but that has not stopped us from becoming the largest arms importer in the world. With exponential increase in GDP figures, India is finding itself as a much stronger country whose voice can never be left unheard, i think slowly but steadily we are understanding what strategic culture is & formulating our policies & actions accordingly, so it will be just matter of time when India will be really counted among the Big Boys of Global Governance.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think not making long term goals & finding the answers to the questions like where India wants to see itself in say next 2 decades, has really hurt India. Our post independence stance on idealism, policy decisions like Pansheel etc. have not done us any good. Not taking our armed forces seriously, or taking effective strategic decisions was a disaster. Also on the economic front we followed a totally socialistic approach & govt. controlling everything from bread to building dams, without any breather for our private sector, thus making our economy a more stagnant one needing a drastic make-over, because of low GDP nos., India was not seen as a power but just another Third world country with crores of poor & billion of troubles.

Things changed for good with break-up of USSR, end of cold war, rise in trade deficit & increasing troubles in the Indian economy, we realized that the old school policies are no more good & are burden in the long term. In 90's LPG initiative was taken, which turned out to be a major policy decision impacting not just India but world as a whole. Slowly we changed our world view. We started to look for world beyond USSR, Looked East, Looked West, Looked everywhere so that we can become friendly with every country, size din't matter, Israel has become as important a partner of India as USSR or the USA.

We are trying to settle every dispute peacefully, but that has not stopped us from becoming the largest arms importer in the world. With exponential increase in GDP figures, India is finding itself as a much stronger country whose voice can never be left unheard, i think slowly but steadily we are understanding what strategic culture is & formulating our policies & actions accordingly, so it will be just matter of time when India will be really counted among the Big Boys of Global Governance.

Very nice post. I think India is doing a good job of staying out of the limelight and buildin up military and soft power without causing to much alarm in international community- this is something China has failed at, many nations are extremely wary of China's rise but are not with India. For exmple We hear so much of China's work in Africa but almost nothing about india's even though it rivlals China's in scope.

 

[arp2041]

Very nice post. I think India is doing a good job of staying out of the limelight and buildin up military and soft power without causing to much alarm in international community- this is something China has failed at, many nations are extremely wary of China's rise but are not with India. For exmple We hear so much of China's work in Africa but almost nothing about india's even though it rivlals China's in scope.

But it's time that we should move forward with a purpose, there should be a consistent % of GDP reserved for Military, we should start taking stands in International affairs even if it means upsetting big powers, we should not hide anymore behind half a century old Nehruvian policy of Non-Alignment, we should aggressively put forward our stand on every issue be it - Kashmir, UNSC permanent seat, South Asia policy or IOR policy.

It's really amazing how still India tries to be on the middle path, egs. being no "exclusive" military satellite launch as ISRO is a "civilian" space agency, no ICBM as India wants deterrence with it's neighbors only, etc. Also some times dealing with foreign countries we don't even know how to deal with it & whom to satisfy & whom to offend making a mockery of our Foreign policy case being Sri Lanka - we can't even decide on taking sides with LTTE & satisfy the Tamil Nadu leaders or side with Sri Lankan govt. & offending the Tamils, we only become active when we see that another country has come to our backyard & is making gains because of our repeated flip-flops, why aren't we a pro-active power rather than being an active one??

 

[CZAR]

Very nice post. I think India is doing a good job of staying out of the limelight and buildin up military and soft power without causing to much alarm in international community- this is something China has failed at, many nations are extremely wary of China's rise but are not with India. For exmple We hear so much of China's work in Africa but almost nothing about india's even though it rivlals China's in scope.

I am afraid, i have to disagree with you, with respect to Africa. The reason India gets limited attention - is not because we are discreet - it's because India, is incapable of making as much noise in Africa vis-a-vis China.

Chinese investments in the continent far outmatch India's. So much so, that the movement of chinese labour to the continent has significantly altered the demographics of certain pockets in the region - giving china not only the "economy" card but also a very viable and potent "political" card.

India, is no where near matching China, in Africa. And this is the reason, that India needs to step on the gas, ASAP. There are abundant opportunities in regions of central asia and africa, which for long have been neglected. India has to combine its soft power status, global goodwill and new found economic muscle to secure its own fair share of global resources.

Companies such as OVL, looking to secure energy interests overseas, should receive greater financial backing in the form of cheaper credit, tax benefits, etc to help them amass the required financial muscle.

Even at sobered down rate of growth of 5-6%, India will be a massive consumer of resources. Securing strategic resources should be the focal point, driving our foreign policy.

 

[somebozo]

India is a mass chaos of disorganized people but will improve over time.

 

[arp2041]

I am afraid, i have to disagree with you, with respect to Africa. The reason India gets limited attention - is not because we are discreet - it's because India, is incapable of making as much noise in Africa vis-a-vis China.

Chinese investments in the continent far outmatch India's. So much so, that the movement of chinese labour to the continent has significantly altered the demographics of certain pockets in the region - giving china not only the "economy" card but also a very viable and potent "political" card.

India, is no where near matching China, in Africa. And this is the reason, that India needs to step on the gas, ASAP. There are abundant opportunities in regions of central asia and africa, which for long have been neglected. India has to combine its soft power status, global goodwill and new found economic muscle to secure its own fair share of global resources.

Companies such as OVL, looking to secure energy interests overseas, should receive greater financial backing in the form of cheaper credit, tax benefits, etc to help them amass the required financial muscle.

Even at sobered down rate of growth of 5-6%, India will be a massive consumer of resources. Securing strategic resources should be the focal point, driving our foreign policy.

I agree that China's investments in Africa far outweigh India's but the real question is how the native people of Africa see both India & China, India has formed a very favorable image among African people as Indian companies recruit the local people whereas China bring it's own workers for every project in Africa. African people know that it was India that helped get African people there independence from imperialistic countries in 1960s & 1970s, i.e. even before Africa was seen as a continent full of resources, India stood by it's side through various international forums (mainly NAM) to achieve it's freedom. Though motives of both India & China are same (i.e. African resources), on the one hand China is following an aggressive policy to gain African resources which are alienating local people, on the other hand, India is following a policy of mutual cooperation & trust through it's soft skills & knowledge power, which can really help India in the long term.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Strategic thought is a by-product of nationhood and nationalism. With so many ethnic, cultural and religious divisions India finds its nationalism stretched in different directions so it is difficult to weave a cohesive and unidirectional strategy. Unlike India, Japan is more of a monolithic society and has no problem on strategic levels.

 

[karan21]

India is a mass chaos of disorganized people but will improve over time.

India is not one country but a country made by many countries coming together and pledging to live together. Punjabis love punjab, tamils love tamil, Bengalis are proud of bengal. Assamese and easterners look different than rest of India and resemble China. If you look closely India is just a foreign given name to all these regions coming together. But we all love our nation, work together and die for each other.

Strategic thought is a by-product of nationhood and nationalism. With so many ethnic, cultural and religious divisions India finds its nationalism stretched in different directions so it is difficult to weave a cohesive and unidirectional strategy. Unlike India, Japan is more of a monolithic society and has no problem on strategic levels.

Agreed

 

[Splurgenxs]

Strategic thought is a by-product of nationhood and nationalism. With so many ethnic, cultural and religious divisions India finds its nationalism stretched in different directions so it is difficult to weave a cohesive and unidirectional strategy. Unlike India, Japan is more of a monolithic society and has no problem on strategic levels.

yeap, and as time goes by, the Internet is gona catalyze a big transformation ;well at least in my calculated opinion.

In this particular case ,India may have a big negative regarding the multiculturalism it keeps within itslf ,
but India's biggest strength is the feeling of Hospitality tht emanates from this very unique identity. Only out matched by the US. This translates to more nationalists and patriots,less sedition.

The Change is already happening , u see it with Modi . THe Direction for most, is clear as it ever could be .
hes the only Banner under wich all culture rallies. There always will be fringe elements with contorted priorities, but the collective vision is development and prosperity no one can challenge that.

 

[arp2041]

Strategic thought is a by-product of nationhood and nationalism. With so many ethnic, cultural and religious divisions India finds its nationalism stretched in different directions so it is difficult to weave a cohesive and unidirectional strategy. Unlike India, Japan is more of a monolithic society and has no problem on strategic levels.

I somewhat agree, but Strategic culture is not bound by differences, differences are part of each & every society, bigger the nation, bigger the differences. The main issue concerning India is poverty & education, i mean why will an ordinary person bother about how India should deal with other nations when there is no surety that he will be able to eat his day's meal because of the abject poverty he is facing. If the need of food is satisfied than the issue of education comes, an uneducated man doesn't know anything outside his/her locality, why he will bother for how India deals with the Lankan crisis or what's India's stand on Iran in IAEA, until & unless we cannot make nearly all Indians literate & bring all poor people above poverty line, we cannot aspire for an all uniform strategic culture deep inside the Indian blood.

 

[Wickerman]

Like Karan said, India is indeed a country of countries. There is so much of diversity, its absolutely crazy that this nation stands together as one today. That is also part of our pride and our identity. But that said here are a few reasons why I feel India lacks strategic thought.

1. Multi party system: Because India is a country of countries, and because everyone needs representation we have a multi party system. But this has resulted in so many political parties today, that no single party can gain a simple majority and do whatever it wants to do at the center. You have people like Mamata who will drop her support at the first hint of disagreement and destabilize the govt. So rather than actually doing something for the country, the govt is forever obsessed with STAYING in power long enough to complete their term. The coalition partners also do not care. They are coalition partners for their own reasons. This system of vested interests is bound to slow down growth and it is also bound to force India in different directions instead of a planned one.

2. Old men ruling a Young country: India is a young nation. Its average age is only 26. Yet if you see the people in power, most of these guys are all 70 or 80 yrs old. People from pre colonial times. Most of our laws in the Indian Penal Code will have dates like IPC 310 (1850) Stuck in the past, still socialists or communists, these guys dont have it in them to take India into the 21st century using modern principles of market based economics. Even the ones that do, like Subramaniam Swamy for example, used to be sidelined earlier. In 1978, when China liberalized its economy, Swamy said the same thing, that India should open up its economy for foreign investments. Indira Gandhi called him "Santa claus with unrealistic dreams". 13 years later, this same santa claus was sitting in the Planning commision along with Manmohan singh and drafted the blue print for the reforms - the effects of which we still see today.

3. Corruption and Socialism: Because old men rule India, and because its a multi party system which has basically created a free for all political culture, with people with zero qualifications being able to get to powerful positions, and because people have been used to this corrupt socialist form of governance, they are unable to proceed forward. Mostly to serve their own interests.

4. Divide and Rule If its one thing these politicians learned from the colonial powers, its this. Divide and Rule. Ridiculous affirmative action policies keeping communal and caste feelings alive, swindling money while not doing anything for the poor and thereby keeping them poor all their lives, gives them an opportunity to stay in power. There are poor people in India that will vote for a guy just cuz he bought him a Biryani. Thats the state in some places.

Although of late, after liberalization things are slowly, very slowly changing. We need some serious right wing politics in India. We need to be bold, learn from countries like China and not be afraid to open up our economy to investments. We need to take the armed forces more seriously, involve private players in defense contracts, create a culture of competition that will bring in more innovation and take the country forward into the 21st century. We must also be quick to react and do what is necessary but be slow to criticize, but its always the other way around. We keep fighting over this and that, and dont actually DO anything. These guys will build a castle with words while countries like China ACTUALLY build a castle.

 

[Machete]

Hinduism is the common factor you can notice throughout India our religion holding our nation together. Muslims/Christians rise in India would be threat of Indian unity for sure. Save Hinduism Save India.