When should India change it's defensive doctrine?

[ezsasa]

I am sure all of us agree that largely our military equipment indicate a defensive doctrine simply because there was no need for us to procure them other wise. Since our independence all of our wars have been in and around sub continental neighbourhood there was no need for India to view on offensive weapons and infrastructure.

However given the present government's focus in export oriented economy based on manufacturing, assuming that current and future governments stay on this path there will be a need for raw materials from other countries and continents. As more and more of our dependency on such a kind of economy increases there will be a need to sustain the economy by ensuring supply lines of remain open at any cost.

One example of such a military intervention is US role in middle east, I am pretty sure if there was no oil in the middle east united states will care a damn about what happens in middle east. When US government talks about stability in middle east what they are really saying is they want stability of supply of oil from middle east. Agreed that most governments of the world try to avoid war as far as possible military intervention in most cases is always a last option.In other words they would be investing a lot less than what they are doing now.

Here comes my dilemma. Incase India requires such a military intervention in the future outside of sub continent, when is the right time to change our doctrine? Considering "Necessity is mother of invention" if we do not have such a policy in place we might have to suffer initial losses both economical and military if indeed such a situation arises. As for me financial losses are acceptable but not loss of lives of our brave soldiers, Money can always be earned a later point in time but loss of life cannot be reversed.

Continuing on my hypothetical scenario below a list of things our military will need.

1. Soldier's military gear needs to be ramped up seriously, current Indian soldier's standard gear is not designed to prevent loss of life a hundred percent in my opinion.
2. Muti barrel carbine is in the right direction thankfully. let's hope conversion from INSAS happens faster.
3. Soldiers comm units needs an upgrade, In my opinion every soldier needs a handsfree comm unit. At this point it looks like only some SF have individual comm units not all of them.
4. Machinery for large scale troop mobilisation. I am talking about mobilisation of something like 2 to 3 division within a span of a week or two. Both through Air and sea .
5. Dedicated satellite support for communication and Real time imagery.
6. Lastly as an optional hopefully our soldiers can learn at least one more language other than english like say arabic, mandarin,french and spanish.
7. More military engagements outside of the country thru some sort of coalition engagements.
8. Larger Navy.

Although it is clear change in doctrine is not an immediate necessity, That does not mean we need not think in that direction. I have always believed a GOOD Plan always looks for unforeseen contingencies.

What say you?

 

[zain8500]

This system is good and no need to change it.

 

[Ray]

I am sure all of us agree that largely our military equipment indicate a defensive doctrine simply because there was no need for us to procure them other wise. Since our independence all of our wars have been in and around sub continental neighbourhood there was no need for India to view on offensive weapons and infrastructure.

India's defence posture, to include its weapon and weapons platform array is not really defensive. It is proactive, that is to say, it is to defend our territory, but with adequate punch to take the battle into the adversary's domain.

Weapons as a category is offense oriented in nature.

I might add that today it is not feasible or desirable to 'annihilate' the adversary and instead to 'put it in its place'.

India does not have expeditionary ambition and nor is it desired.

However given the present government's focus in export oriented economy based on manufacturing, assuming that current and future governments stay on this path there will be a need for raw materials from other countries and continents. As more and more of our dependency on such a kind of economy increases there will be a need to sustain the economy by ensuring supply lines of remain open at any cost.

If one observes the mineral map of India, India has adequate reserves of 'strategic minerals'. The requirement for import of raw materials from abroad would be minimal, if indeed, necessary.

The requirement to 'keep open the supply lines' would be basically for trade, especially export, to boost the economy and the strategic lacking of oil. To this extent, the requirement of a 'triad' becomes paramount and in cognisable clout.

One example of such a military intervention is US role in middle east, I am pretty sure if there was no oil in the middle east united states will care a damn about what happens in middle east. When US government talks about stability in middle east what they are really saying is they want stability of supply of oil from middle east. Agreed that most governments of the world try to avoid war as far as possible military intervention in most cases is always a last option.In other words they would be investing a lot less than what they are doing now.

The US claims it is self sufficient in oil. Yet, one must understand the one requires maintaining her own strategic reserve of 'strategic minerals' like oil. In other words, let the others deplete their stock so that a strategic clout can become stronger since one's own is still held in reserve. This then becomes a lever for political and economic blackmail to suit one's purpose.

Here comes my dilemma. Incase India requires such a military intervention in the future outside of sub continent, when is the right time to change our doctrine? Considering "Necessity is mother of invention" if we do not have such a policy in place we might have to suffer initial losses both economical and military if indeed such a situation arises. As for me financial losses are acceptable but not loss of lives of our brave soldiers, Money can always be earned a later point in time but loss of life cannot be reversed.

If – As for me financial losses are acceptable but not loss of lives of our brave soldiers, then why have an expeditionary force? Sensibily speaking, why stick your neck out when there are enough who want to act as Khalifas and global policemen. Encourage them to bring their financial and manpower doom acting as if we are ever so concerned for their global ideals.

Why try to prove that we are also Khalifas in tow?

Continuing on my hypothetical scenario below a list of things our military will need.

1. Soldier's military gear needs to be ramped up seriously, current Indian soldier's standard gear is not designed to prevent loss of life a hundred percent in my opinion.
2. Muti barrel carbine is in the right direction thankfully. let's hope conversion from INSAS happens faster.
3. Soldiers comm units needs an upgrade, In my opinion every soldier needs a handsfree comm unit. At this point it looks like only some SF have individual comm units not all of them.
4. Machinery for large scale troop mobilisation. I am talking about mobilisation of something like 2 to 3 division within a span of a week or two. Both through Air and sea .
5. Dedicated satellite support for communication and Real time imagery.
6. Lastly as an optional hopefully our soldiers can learn at least one more language other than english like say arabic, mandarin,french and spanish.
7. More military engagements outside of the country thru some sort of coalition engagements.
8. Larger Navy.

We must cut our coat as per our cloth.

We can dream and dreams one day can be reality.

If we can hold our own with our current threat analysis, that would be more than adequate.

The Sonia – Manmohan – Anthony era has ensured that what we could achieve earlier is slowly became a vision and no more.

Our replenishment, refurbishing, modernisation has gone back a decade. If we use our economy to only make our armed forces return to its operational readiness of yore, then we would have achieved something to build up upon.

Right now, that should be the crying need.

And the issue raised by you are already being done or else already in the pipeline.

Our DRDO has to shape up or ship out.

Although it is clear change in doctrine is not an immediate necessity, That does not mean we need not think in that direction. I have always believed a GOOD Plan always looks for unforeseen contingencies.

The Defence are on the same page as you.

 

[ezsasa]

India's defence posture, to include its weapon and weapons platform array is not really defensive. It is proactive, that is to say, it is to defend our territory, but with adequate punch to take the battle into the adversary's domain.

Weapons as a category is offense oriented in nature.

I might add that today it is not feasible or desirable to 'annihilate' the adversary and instead to 'put it in its place'.

India does not have expeditionary ambition and nor is it desired.



If one observes the mineral map of India, India has adequate reserves of 'strategic minerals'. The requirement for import of raw materials from abroad would be minimal, if indeed, necessary.

The requirement to 'keep open the supply lines' would be basically for trade, especially export, to boost the economy and the strategic lacking of oil. To this extent, the requirement of a 'triad' becomes paramount and in cognisable clout.



The US claims it is self sufficient in oil. Yet, one must understand the one requires maintaining her own strategic reserve of 'strategic minerals' like oil. In other words, let the others deplete their stock so that a strategic clout can become stronger since one's own is still held in reserve. This then becomes a lever for political and economic blackmail to suit one's purpose.



If – As for me financial losses are acceptable but not loss of lives of our brave soldiers, then why have an expeditionary force? Sensibily speaking, why stick your neck out when there are enough who want to act as Khalifas and global policemen. Encourage them to bring their financial and manpower doom acting as if we are ever so concerned for their global ideals.

Why try to prove that we are also Khalifas in tow?



We must cut our coat as per our cloth.

We can dream and dreams one day can be reality.

If we can hold our own with our current threat analysis, that would be more than adequate.

The Sonia – Manmohan – Anthony era has ensured that what we could achieve earlier is slowly became a vision and no more.

Our replenishment, refurbishing, modernisation has gone back a decade. If we use our economy to only make our armed forces return to its operational readiness of yore, then we would have achieved something to build up upon.

Right now, that should be the crying need.

And the issue raised by you are already being done or else already in the pipeline.

Our DRDO has to shape up or ship out.




The Defence are on the same page as you.

Frankly i agree with all your remarks, The future i am talking about maybe a good 25 years from now. Hopefully by that time India-pak issues are long resolved, defence manufacturing infrastructure is well established, we are in exporting mode, economically stable, Friendly neighbours etc.

This thought process started when i heard about the Chinese involvement in Nicaragua canal. I thought panama canal is sufficient but it looks like Chinese do not think so. To me it looks like they are looking into the future where dependency on panama canal does not fit into their plans. which means they are strategically looking far ahead even though there is no immediate need for them to do that. i have a feeling that around year 2025 there will be a Chinese military angle on this canal (hypothetical of course).

I am not saying war is the way to go. Even i believe in Kshatriya method of "Sama, dana, bheda, danda". even there war comes last. if need be shouldn't we have the capability to protect our interests in places far far away from the sub continent?

Hence my original hypothetical question "When should india change it's defensive doctrine?".