Revisiting India's military doctrine

India’s Indo-Pacific strategy is both a geopolitical imperative and an economic opportunity. The region is witnessing increasing militarisation, with China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea and growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean. India must enhance its maritime capabilities, deepen partnerships through the Quad (grouping of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) including exploring options for Quad Plus, and assert its role as a net security provider. Naval modernisation, anti-submarine warfare, and maritime domain awareness are critical to this endeavour.

Strategic autonomy must evolve from a posture of non-alignment to one of strategic connectivity. India, as a bridging power, can link East and West, North and South — offering normative leadership without ideological rigidity. This approach enhances diplomatic flexibility and positions India as a responsible global actor. The doctrine must prioritise technological superiority. The success of Operation Sindoor, characterised by drone-centric warfare and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems, exemplifies the shift towards asymmetric, tech-intensive conflict resolution. Indigenous development of unmanned aerial systems, real-time intelligence fusion, and precision targeting must be institutionalised. Notably, the Chief of Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi, has outlined a comprehensive road map that includes restructuring operational and tactical-level formations. In his address at the 64th National Defence College course, he introduced the “Five Pillars of Transformation”, which emphasise jointness, force restructuring, and technological integration — key steps toward building a future-ready combat force.

Climate-induced water stress and internal insurgencies pose multidimensional threats. India must integrate civil-military responses, enhance border infrastructure, and improve intelligence coordination to address these challenges. Water security must be treated as a strategic imperative, with implications for both domestic stability and regional diplomacy. Maritime interests demand robust naval capabilities. The Indian Ocean Region is central to trade, energy, and strategic influence. India must invest in port security, naval expansion, and maritime surveillance to safeguard its interests and counter external encroachments.

India’s counterterrorism strategy must shift from strategic restraint to deterrence by punishment. Operation Sindoor demonstrated the efficacy of precision strikes and narrative dominance in deterring state-sponsored terrorism. Intelligence-led operations, psychological ascendancy, and full-spectrum deterrence must be embedded in doctrine. India’s leadership in forums like G20 and Brics positions it as a voice for the Global South. Military diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and capacity-building initiatives can reinforce India’s normative influence. Strategic partnerships with countries from Africa, Latin America, and the Association of South East Asian Nations must be deepened.

The world at war

The world is witnessing an alarming rise in armed conflicts. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a significant rise in fatalities in the Sudanese civil war in 2024 contributed to the global spike. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates over 12 million people displaced due to the conflict. Similarly, in Myanmar, the global monitor Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) reports that an average of 170 non-state armed groups operate weekly with frequent shifts in group composition and tactics. Thousands of fatalities occur annually. As far as the Israel–Hamas conflict is concerned, ACLED records over 50,000 deaths in Gaza since the October 2023 attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. In 2024 alone, fatalities in the Palestinian territories surged, with daily conflict incidents averaging 52 per day. And in the Russia-Ukraine war, both the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the IISS both highlight

According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2024 was the fourth most violent year since the Cold War ended in 1989, with 61 active state-based conflicts across 36 countries. Significant spikes in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, Ukraine, and Gaza were reported. Similarly, 17,500 battle-related deaths occurred from non-state conflicts.

The UN Human Rights Office reported a 40 per cent surge in civilian deaths globally in 2024. Of at least 48,384 individuals killed, most were civilians, including 502 human rights defenders. SIPRI estimates a total of 233,000 fatalities in 2024 compared with 153,100 in 2022, showing a sustained high level of global violence. One can surmise a steady rise in state-based and one-sided violence since 2020, with regional hotspots being Africa, West Asia, and Eastern Europe.

Several factors contribute to this global instability. Challenges to established international norms and the erosion of liberal values have created ideological vacuums. The return of great power rivalry has reignited Cold War-style tensions, while the blurring lines between war and peace have shifted the conflict into a grey zone. The fragmentation of multilateral institutions has weakened global governance, and technological disruption has weaponised emerging domains. Resource wars over rare earths are replacing traditional energy conflicts, and grey zone warfare — marked by ambiguity and deniability — is becoming the norm. Economic warfare, including de-dollarisation, is reshaping global financial systems. The erosion of nuclear norms has restricted conventional deterrence, while regionalisation of conflicts has intensified local instability. Populist leadership, including the Donald Trump factor, has further polarised international relations. These dynamics render the world brittle, anxious, non-linear, and prone to conflict. India must navigate this landscape with strategic foresight and doctrinal agility.

New battlefields

The nature of warfare is undergoing a radical transformation. Multi-domain operations are now standard, integrating land, air, sea, cyber, and space. The shift from contact to non-contact warfare is pronounced, though kinetic warfare remains relevant. Precision is replacing mass as the principal construct, and speed combined with harnessing AI defines the age of acceleration. Hypersonic technologies, AI, quantum computing, and autonomous systems are reshaping battlefields.

Military applications now include swarm drones, predictive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, anti-satellite weapons, and directed energy weapons. Tactical edge cloud computing and blockchain logistics are enhancing operational efficiency, while human endurance enhancements like exoskeletons and biotech are redefining soldier capabilities. Ubiquitous communication via low earth orbit satellites, software-defined radios, Light Fidelity technology, and Internet of Military Things are revolutionising command and control. These are not just tools — they are the battlefield itself.

These technological shifts are transforming operational capabilities. Enhanced maritime, air, and space domain awareness now enables real-time threat detection and response. The development of a common operational and intelligence picture is fostering jointness and interoperability across services. Advanced decision support systems are accelerating decision-making, reducing the fog of war, and improving mission success rates. Simultaneously, increased lethality and precision in targeting are minimising collateral damage, while cognitive dominance and narrative control are emerging as decisive tools in psychological and information warfare.

However, conducting such technologically intensive warfare demands more than jointness and integration; it requires true fusion among the three services and other warfighting entities. While Operation Sindoor, limited in scope and duration, could be managed by apex-level leadership, a full-scale, prolonged war — potentially extending over five years — would necessitate a structurally unified command. As Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has emphasised, the transformation to Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs) is not optional but mandatory. Continued delays in implementing this reform are indefensible, particularly when the challenges are surmountable. Renewed debate over theatre commands risks compromising India’s defence preparedness at a time when strategic clarity and operational synergy are critical to national security.

To adapt effectively, India’s armed forces must undertake a series of reforms. First, a joint doctrine integrating disruptive technologies must be developed to ensure synergy across services. Second, warfare labs and tech battle groups should be established at the command level to foster innovation and experimentation. Third, red-teaming against adversary technologies must be institutionalised to anticipate and counter emerging threats. Fourth, military education and training should be reformed to embed AI, space, and cyber warfare as core competencies. Fifth, a National War Centre linking policy, operations, and technology must be created to ensure strategic coherence. Sixth, a National Joint Operations Room should be built for crisis coordination and rapid response. Seventh, India must expedite the rollout of ITCs to ensure unified operational control and strategic coherence. Finally, India must ensure cognitive dominance and win the narrative war by creating an “information dominance force” comprising bot

India must redefine its strategic identity. As a rising actor seeking equilibrium in a fragmented world, India must act with the wisdom of Kautilya, the foresight of Jawaharlal Nehru, the conviction of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the boldness of Narendra Modi, and the strategic acumen of Indira Gandhi. Strategic clarity, coherence, and confidence must guide India’s defence posture. As the Mahabharata reminds us, action is the hallmark of a person — let that characterise India’s defence strategy in an age of uncertainty.

At this strategic inflection point where the nature of warfare is changing rapidly, so must India’s military doctrine. The country can no longer rely on legacy structures or incremental reforms. It must embrace disruptive technologies, institutional fusion, and integrated command structures to remain operationally agile and strategically coherent. The transformation to ITCs is not a bureaucratic adjustment — it is a national security imperative.

In an era where the battlefield is as much digital and psychological as it is physical, India’s doctrine must reflect clarity, confidence, and coherence. The battlefield of the future will be won not by firepower alone, but by foresight, flexibility, cognitive dominance, and dynamic doctrines.

(The author, now retired, is director-general, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS). Views expressed are personal)