THE CONTEXT: Unlike the United States National Security Strategy (2022), revised biennially, or China’s recurring National Defense White Papers, India still operates without a formally articulated doctrine that binds political, diplomatic, military, and socio‑economic instruments into a single “grand strategy”. The recent Pahalgam (April 2025) and Reasi (June 2024) attacks, and Pakistan’s drone‑enabled escalation on 10 May 2025, underline that gains remain fragile and reactive operations are substituting for a doctrinal compass.
CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
| Doctrine building Lens | Key Insights for India | Applications |
|---|---|---|
| Classical Realism | Power differentials with China–Pakistan axis demand credible hard power deterrent and balancing coalitions | Balance of Power, Security Dilemma |
| Deterrence Theory | Shift from deterrence by punishment (nuclear “massive retaliation”) to blended deterrence by denial (multi domain denial grids) | Credible Minimum Deterrent, Escalation Control |
| Comprehensive National Power (CNP) | Integrate cyber, space, economic, energy and climate resilience into security calculus | Multi Domain Operations, Whole of Nation |
| Gray Zone & Hybrid Warfare | Pakistan leverages non state proxies, drones and information ops below conventional thresholds; doctrine must plug the “left of boom” gap | Sub Conventional Conflict, Information Warfare |
WHY THE ABSENCE OF A DOCTRINE IS A STRATEGIC VULNERABILITY:
1. Reactive Posture – Tactical brilliance (Uri–Balakot–Sindoor) masks strategic drift; adversaries exploit India’s predictable restraint window.
2. Civil–Military Silos – Cabinet Committee on Security decisions rely on episodic briefings, not a legislatively endorsed roadmap, hampers accountability.
3. Ambiguity for Allies & Adversaries – Partners lack clarity on India’s red‑lines; adversaries test thresholds through gray‑zone probes, e.g., drone intrusions in Punjab sector (2024-25).
4. Resource Diffusion – Without doctrine‑linked force development goals, budgeting tilts toward platform acquisition over disruptive technologies (artificial intelligence‑enabled early warning, directed‑energy weapons).
EXISTING POLICY ARCHITECTURE:
-
- 2003 Nuclear Doctrine – No First Use and “Massive Retaliation” remain official; internal review (2016, 2022) yet unreleased.
- Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) & Department of Military Affairs (DMA) – Structural push for jointness, but Theatre Command reform not legislated.
- Integrated Battle Groups, Defence Cyber & Space Agencies – Experimental, awaiting full operational doctrines.
- Legislative Arsenal – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; but no umbrella National Counter‑Terrorism Centre.
- Border Tech Stack – Comprehensive Integrated Border Management System (CIBMS) Phase II covers ~350 km; Phase III funding pending.
COMPARATIVE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
| Country | Doctrinal Cadence | Notable Elements | Lesson for India |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Biennial National Security Strategy + Quadrennial Defence Review | Integrated Deterrence, Resilient Supply Chains | Embed economic & technological secure supply chains into doctrine |
| China | White Papers (every 2 3 yrs); “Active Defence” | Three Warfares (Public Opinion, Legal, Psychological) | Codify non kinetic warfare lines; deter without contact |
| Israel | 2015 IDF Strategy, updated 2020 | Deterrence, Early Warning, Decisive Victory under missile rich environment | Short, public, principle driven document; parliamentary oversight |
ISSUES IDENTIFIED
-
- Strategic Myopia – Over‑reliance on “credible minimum” nuclear rhetoric while neglecting cyber‑nuclear entanglement risks.
- Fragmented Intelligence – Despite Multi‑Agency Centre, state–central flow uneven; Poonch ambush showed tactical intel blind‑spots.
- Legal‑Diplomatic Capacity – Limited use of lawfare (International Court of Justice, United Nations sanctions) to brand LeT/JeM operatives.
- Civil Preparedness – Absence of national resilience drills; intermittent blackouts in border districts during May 2025 escalation exposed preparedness gaps.
PILLARS OF A PROPOSED INDIAN NATIONAL SECURITY DOCTRINE:
1. Deterrence by Denial & Punishment: Publish graded escalation matrix (conventional, cyber, space) to respond to state‑sponsored terrorism.
2. Jointness & Multi‑Domain Operations: Statutorily mandate five Theatre Commands (Northern, Maritime, Air‑Defence, Cyber‑Space, Strategic Support) within five years.
3. Advanced Border Dominance: Complete CIBMS + Counter‑Unmanned Aerial Systems (C‑UAS) grid; integrate fibre‑optic acoustic sensors and directed‑energy weapons.
4. Integrated Intelligence Fusion: Upgrade National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) with artificial‑intelligence predictive analytics; institutionalise “Red‑Cell” adversary gaming.
5. Strategic Communication & Lawfare: Create a Strategic Communication Command under National Security Council Secretariat to synchronise narrative‑shaping and legal action in multilateral fora.
6. Economic & Technology Security: Link Production‑Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes to critical defence value‑chains (semiconductors, rare‑earths).
7. Human Security & Climate Resilience: Embed disaster‑risk reduction, pandemics and food‑energy security in doctrinal annexure – reflecting “security–development nexus”.
8. Governance & Oversight: Place doctrine before a Joint Parliamentary Committee every five years; align Union and State security budgets under Outcome Budgeting.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Regular “Security Posture Reviews”: Biennial white paper to Parliament, akin to United Kingdom’s Integrated Review.
- Codify Cross‑Border Counter‑Terror Thresholds: Pre‑authorised Special Forces raids within two kilometres of LoC against identified launch‑pads if infiltration is imminent.
- Drones‑to‑Missiles Continuum: Induct PRALAY quasi‑ballistic missiles for conventional stand‑off deterrence below nuclear threshold.
- Civil Defence Modernisation: Mandatory contingency drills in border districts; upgrade National Disaster Response Force for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) contingencies.
- Autonomous Tech Stack: Allocate 5 percent of defence capital budget to Defence Artificial Intelligence Projects Agency (DAIPA).
- Strategic Partnerships 2.0: Forge mini‑laterals (India‑, France‑, UAE in Western Indian Ocean) to outflank two-front collusion.
- Integrated Border Economy Corridors: Transform vulnerable zones (Rajouri–Poonch) into economic buffers, following the logic of “border livelihoods for border security”.
THE CONCLUSION:
India’s security environment—defined by nuclear-armed adversaries, gray-zone incursions, and technological disruptions—demands a codified, dynamic, and publicly articulated National Security Doctrine. The doctrine must mirror Krishna’s counsel in the Bhagavad Gita: “Yuddhāya kṛta niścaya” (enter battle with a resolute purpose), yet internalize Sun Tzu’s higher wisdom: win without fighting when feasible. By fusing deterrence, denial, resilience and influence into a single strategic framework, India can graduate from reactive crisis‑management to proactive peace‑management—creating conditions where wars are not merely won but rendered unnecessary.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Analyse the multidimensional challenges posed by external state and non-state actors, to the internal security of India. Also discuss measures required to take to be taken to combat the threats. 2021
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
The absence of a codified National Security Doctrine (NSD) has encouraged adversaries to exploit India’s ‘grey‑zone’ vulnerabilities. Discuss.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word