6 min readMay 10, 2025 07:10 AM IST
First published on: May 10, 2025 at 07:10 AM IST
“Doctrine” is a word mostly used in a theological sense. This word with roots in Christianity, meaning a set of beliefs or principles, has long entered military parlance. Most big countries have certain core principles that guide their military machines, called the “strategic doctrine”.
Amid the conflict between India and Pakistan, there is a need to revisit the debate over whether India, too, should have a doctrinal approach to its national security. This debate has been raging for decades, especially since India achieved the significant security milestone of becoming a nuclear power.
Some may argue that our defence forces have all the required strategic and operational thinking in place to deal with any security challenge, and hence there is no need to bother about a doctrine. They also point out that India won three wars with Pakistan without a national security doctrine. We are also successfully thwarting border incursions by China on one side and terrorist incursions by Pakistan on the other. Our military might is increasing with each passing year, and fortunately, we have a political leadership that is determined to safeguard India’s security interests at all costs. Then why bother about a doctrinal approach?
A national security doctrine is needed precisely for the same reasons. The question that should be asked is not whether we were able to thwart attacks from our neighbours effectively, but whether we can ensure that there won’t be any attacks at all. After all, when we became a nuclear power, we assumed that we had acquired the ultimate weapon for security. We called it the greatest deterrent. In fact, we articulated a “nuclear doctrine” in 2003 — perhaps the only time we talked about a doctrinal approach — in which we proclaimed that our new status as a nuclear power would entail the development of a “credible minimum deterrent”. Two decades down the line, the so-called deterrence has not prevented India’s two nuclear neighbours from continuing to cause tensions and terror. Even our smaller neighbours do not seem to hesitate to align with India’s enemies.
China has not fought a single war since its conflict with Vietnam in 1979. Some assume that this shows China’s weakness or inexperience. On the contrary, there is a strategic doctrine that guides China’s military and political thought, influenced by The Art of War. As Sun Tzu says, “To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
As a country surrounded by two big adversaries, India should develop a doctrinal approach to its security that not only minimises the threat of war but also enhances its sphere of positive influence. Such a doctrine should not be misunderstood as a permanent guidebook. On the contrary, it only provides certain core principles to achieve specific end-goals. The strategy will vary from time to time.
The problem with India’s policy-making is that we are romantic on one level and lazy on another. When we announced our nuclear doctrine in 2003, we adopted the principle of “No First Use”. As the land of Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi, it suited our national character. The unfortunate part is that we understood it as passivity and continued with the same policy in all aspects, including tackling terrorism. But we are also the land of Krishna, who insisted on proceeding with the Mahabharata war despite the availability of other options such as a limited kingdom of five villages for the Pandavas, which Yudhishthira was ready to accept in pursuit of peace. Millennia before John F Kennedy proclaimed that preparing for war was the only way to secure peace, Krishna told Arjuna to be “yuddhaya krita nischaya (resolved to wage war)” because it was meant not just to defeat the Kauravas but to achieve the end goal of establishing dharma — the righteous order.
Having such a clear end goal is called a doctrinal approach. In the absence of that, even “No First Use” remained a romantic notion. When Manohar Parrikar, as the country’s defence minister, questioned the principle, it became a controversy. In fact, the same doctrine also says that if India is attacked with nuclear weapons, its response will be “massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage”. Such an approach to dealing with terrorism and other forms of war — “inflict unacceptable damage” — is the need of the hour, although the public posturing for the sake of the world could still be that our reaction was “focused, measured and non-escalatory”.
That is where the need for a well-crafted national-security doctrine becomes apparent. There is a misconception that national security is the domain of the police and the military. In fact, it is much more than military security. We quote ad nauseum Chanakya’s statement, in his Mandala theory, that the immediate neighbour will be your enemy. But he also insisted that a kingdom is as safe as its farthest borders, meaning that the immediate neighbours must be tackled effectively. That is where politics, diplomacy, society and religion come into the picture.
Emperor Ashoka sent Buddhist monks, including his children Mahinda and Sanghamitta, to all neighbouring countries to spread Buddhism. History describes it as his contribution to Buddhism. But through that, he also helped create a ring of security around his empire to deter any foreign aggression. That is how a doctrinal approach works.
Even without a national-security doctrine, we will win wars. But with a doctrinal approach, we can not only avoid wars, as China has done, but also avoid becoming re-hyphenated with rogue powers.
The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
Amid the conflict between India and Pakistan, there is a need to revisit the debate over whether India, too, should have a doctrinal approach to its national security. (PTI) 
Share
