Priorities First

The government should focus on building military capabilities 

Recent public assertions by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others that ‘Pakistan will have to change its behaviour or will be compelled to do so’ are unequivocal declaration of India’s adoption of a strategy of compellence, which gives rise to a critical question: will military actions, such as Operation Sindoor and ambiguous ‘suspension’ of Indus Water Treaty (IWT) suffice to compel Pakistan to alter its behaviour, or do they risk unintended escalation or misinterpretation? To answer this question, we need to first examine the likely courses of action or strategies a nation may adopt and their implications. Broadly there are four types of strategies to choose from.

Defensive Strategy:This strategy focusses on deploying military power to minimise damage if attacked. It encompasses both ‘repellent’ (second) strikes, where force is used in response to an initial attack, and ‘offensive’ (first) strikes, including pre-emption (acting to seize an advantage before an imminent attack) and prevention (attacking to avert a future, less favourable balance of power).

A defensive posture demands a high level of preparedness and a comparatively larger force size, as the nation typically waits for the belligerent to reveal its intentions. It also demands psychological preparation to absorb initial setback, given the fact that initiative rests with the adversary. Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Arab forces in 1973, and the mutually assured destruction capability maintained by major nuclear powers like Russia and the US are two examples of this.

Deterrence: This involves deploying military power to dissuade adversaries from undertaking undesired actions, by threatening them with unacceptable punishment if they proceed. While potentially less resource-intensive than other strategies, its success hinges on an accurate understanding of the opponent’s intentions and resolve. Effective deterrence requires forces capable of fighting a successful, short-duration war of attrition, thereby creating the spectre of widespread destruction or losses that generate international pressure for de-escalation. Two examples of this would be Taiwan’s military readiness, which aims to dissuade the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from using force, and Pakistan’s deliberate ambiguity regarding the use of its nuclear weapons.

Compellence:The compellence strategy actively employs military power to either halt an adversary from an ongoing action or to induce them to give up their preferred option. Unlike deterrence, which is passive (success is measured by non-use of force), compellence involves active application of force, or denial of critical resources with its success measured by the quantum and duration of force or embargo required to achieve the desired change. This is arguably the most ambitious and resource-intensive defence policy. Its implementation demands overwhelming asymmetrical superiority over the opponent, requiring a force mix capable of fighting diverse conflicts across all domains and at all times. Currently, only the US openly declares an aim to maintain such a decisive edge.

Recent events, such as Israel’s operations since 7 October 2023, against Iran and its proxies, highlight the immense challenge even a protagonist with significant technological superiority and external backing will face in achieving its aim of inducing behavioural changes in a technologically poor and strategically isolated foe.

Demonstrative Strategy: Also known as ‘swaggering,’ this strategy uses seemingly peaceful displays of military strength to achieve psychological dominance over a potential enemy, rather than directly dissuading them through threats of force. Large military parades by the erstwhile Soviet Union and propaganda about the invincibility of American stealth fighter planes are some of the examples of this.

Operation Sindoor

Against this theoretical backdrop, the questions arise regarding India’s actual strategic alignment.