The Indian Army's Land Warfare Doctrine 2018: A Critical Analysis
The Indian Army's Land Warfare Doctrine 2018: A Critical Analysis
The Indian Army's Land Warfare Doctrine 2018: A Critical Analysis
*
The author is Assistant Professor at the Department of Politics and International
Relations, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be contacted
at: masood.rehman@iiu.edu.pk.
_____________________
Introduction
I
ndia’s strategic thinking has revolved around China and Pakistan since
its independence. It propagates China as a primary threat but its force
modernisation and military orientation is aimed at Pakistan. Therefore,
India competes with China at the system level and challenges Pakistan at
the regional level because the latter is a stumbling block to New Delhi’s
hegemonic ambitions. India’s relationship with Pakistan has always
suffered from mistrust, intrigue, suspicion and persistent rivalries over
unresolved issues including Kashmir, water distribution, Siachen, Sir Creek
or proxy wars. Both states fought three wars and a small-scale conflict over
Kargil in 1999, changing the dynamics of warfare in South Asia. After its
1962 defeat, India never pursued aggressive policies against China except
a small-scale skirmish at Doklam.1
However, after the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan, it
consolidated its position against the conventionally weaker Pakistan and
adopted an aggressive force posture under which it not only re-organised
the military’s force deployment, but also focused on deep thrusts inside the
country.2 New Delhi has always been trying to work out a military way to
restrain Pakistan’s alleged aggression and terrorism in Indian Occupied
Jammu and Kashmir (IOJ&K) or on India’s soil.3 Since, it cannot militarily
defeat Pakistan without risking nuclear war, it introduced several military
doctrines from the Sunderji Doctrine or mechanisation period in the
1980s to the post-1999 Limited War under the nuclear overhang; from Cold
Start Doctrine (CSD)/Proactive Doctrine to surgical strikes or hybrid
warfare.
Such doctrinal development is a continuous process in the Indian
Army. A major shift in the Indian Army’s offensive doctrinal development
1
Jonathan Marcus, “China-India Border Tension: Satellite Imagery Shows Doklam
Plateau Build-Up,” BBC.com, January 26, 2018, https://bbc.in/2VuLLZP.
2
Jo Inge Bekkevold, Ian Bowers and Michael Raska, eds., Security, Strategy and
Military Change in the 21st Century: Cross-Regional Perspectives (New York:
Routledge, 2015), 101, http://opac.lib.idu.ac.id/unhan-ebook/assets/uploads/files/c40a4-
031.security-strategy-and-military-change-in-the-21st-century.pdf.
3
Sunil Dasgupta and Stephen P. Cohen, “Is India Ending its Strategic Restraint
Doctrine?” Washington Quarterly 34, no. 2 (2011):172, http://bit.ly/2Vc31xO.
took new shape in 1975 under the Government of Indira Gandhi. She tasked
three Generals to formulate the Indian Army’s Land Warfare Strategy
against Pakistan.4 Subsequently, the Army focused on three Strike Corps;
mechanised infantry; and armour divisions to carry out deeper attacks
within Pakistan. India tried to operationalise the Sunderji Doctrine in 1986-
87 in the Brasstacks wargames.5 Following Pakistan’s conventional and
non-conventional counter measures the Indian Army could not cross the
border.6
In the post- nuclearisation phase, the Kargil conflict in 1999
between both states brought a huge shift in India’s strategic thinking; and
the concept of ‘limited war under the nuclear overhang’ was born.7 This
thinking received further impetus from the wider strategic community in
India after the failure of Operation Parakram in 2001-02. It took almost
three weeks for the Indian Strike Corps to reach the border.8 During this
period, Pakistan established its defences on the border and India could do
nothing because of three things: first, nuclear factor/deterrence; second,
international pressure; and third, the element of surprise was lost. The
failure of Operation Parakram gave birth to the Cold Start Doctrine (CSD)
in 2004.9 The CSD aimed at quick, swift, Blitzkrieg type shallow
manoeuvres. The reaction time under CSD was set at 72-96 hours after any
alleged terrorist attack in IOJ&K. Aims and objectives were kept limited to
only hold small-scale territory, take out Pakistan’s military outposts to
4
Ian Cardozo, The Indian Army: A Brief History (New Delhi: United Service Institution
of India, 2005), 159.
5
Ali Ahmed, India’s Doctrine Puzzle: Limiting War in South Asia (New Delhi:
Routledge, 2014), 44.
6
Feroz Hassan Khan, Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb (California:
Stanford University Press, 2012), 222.
7
V.P. Malik, “Fighting Limited Wars: A Major Challenge for the Military,” Centre for
Land Warfare Studies, July 3, 2010, https://archive.claws.in/385/fighting-limited-wars-
a-major-challenge-for-the-military-gen-v-p-malik-retd.html.
8
Verghese Koithara, Managing India’s Nuclear Forces (Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 2012), 28.
9
Ibid.
soothe the public back home.10 However, the CSD over a period of time
could not achieve these objectives. For example, following the Mumbai
2008 attacks, the Indian Army could not operationalise the CSD against
Pakistan because of operational weaknesses; lack of adequate offensive
weapons & equipment; command and control issues; integration and
synergy between the Armed Forces; and most importantly; adequate
Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities along with
required agility and training for quick and swift operations as required for
such offensive manoeuvres. Close assessment of the CSD suggests that this
doctrine has remained an aspiration of the Indian Army because of its
operational and structural deficiencies.11 However, Pakistan’s
countermeasures in the shape of conventional readiness; quick and swift
warfare concepts to reciprocate any offensive manoeuvres; and
development of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) along with Full
Spectrum Deterrence (FSD) restricted CSD-based operations:
Many experts suggest that the CSD has been just a myth:13
10
Joseph F. Pilat and Nathan E. Busch, Routledge Handbook of Nuclear Proliferation and
Policy (New York: Routledge, 2015), 90.
11
Vipin Narang and Walter C. Ladwig III, “Taking ‘Cold Start’ out of the Freezer?”
Hindu, January 11, 2017.
12
Lt. General (Retd.) Khalid Kidwai (Former Director General Strategic Plans Division),
in discussion with the author, December 6, 2017.
13
Narang and Ladwig III, “Taking ‘Cold Start’ out of the Freezer?”
14
Walter C. Ladwig III (Assistant Professor International Relations, King’s College
London) in discussion with the author, October 18, 2017.
15
Mark Fitzpatrick (Former Executive Director, International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) Americas; and head IISS Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy
Programme), in discussion with the author, December 6, 2017.
16
Lt. General (Retd.) Naeem Khalid Lodhi (Former Defence Secretary of Pakistan; and
Corps Commander XXXI Corps), in discussion with the author, October 22, 2017.
punitive surgical strikes against alleged terrorist camps across the border.17
This concept was further developed by the Indian military in the Joint
Armed Forces Doctrine of 2017.18 Subsequently, in 2018, the Land Warfare
Doctrine-2018 (LWD-18) was produced.19 Through primary in-depth
interviews coupled with secondary data analysis, this study focuses on
doctrinal transformation in the Indian military since 1975; and how LWD-
18 is going to impact the strategic stability of South Asia, particularly
Pakistan.
17
Arjun Subramaniam, Satvinder Singh and K.K. Nair, Basic Doctrine of the Indian Air
Force 2012 (New Delhi: Indian Air Force, 2012).
18
Ministry of Defence, Joint Indian Armed Forces Doctrine-2017 (New Delhi: Integrated
Defence Staff, Government of India, April 2017), 26, https://bit.ly/2SlUFXf.
19
Indian Army, Land Warfare Doctrine-2018 (Government of India, December 2018).
Figure-1
Main Features of India’s LWD-2018
Multi-
front
Scenario
Joint Force
Operatio Modernisa
ns tion
Military
Exercises
Land Hybrid
Warfare
Warfare
Doctrine
2018
ISR
Surgical
Capabilit
Strikes
y
Military
Diplomac IBGs
y
20
“International Land Border,” Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, accessed
January 25, 2019, https://bit.ly/2S3GYvR.
21
“Stabilizing Sino-Indian Security Relations: Managing Strategic Rivalry after Doklam,”
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, July 10, 2018, https://bit.ly/2MFmDrH.
Given the long-standing animosity and the unresolved Kashmir dispute, the
Indian military’s main focus is on its western front with Pakistan.
22
Harsh V. Pant and Pushan Das, “China’s Military Rise and the Indian Challenge,”
Observer Research Foundation, April 19, 2018, https://bit.ly/2CIbvWe.
23
Indian Army, Land Warfare Doctrine-2018.
24
Walter C. Ladwig III (Assistant Professor International Relations, King’s College
London) in discussion with the author, October 18, 2017.
25
Vijay Mohan, “Shift in Army’s War Strategy,” Tribune India, May 12, 2005,
https://bit.ly/2HAJju3.
26
Himanil Raina, “Integrated Battle Groups Are India’s Response to Pakistan,” National
Interest, November 18, 2018, https://bit.ly/2AT88Mb.
27 Ibid.
28 Sudhi Ranjan Sen, “Integrated Battle Groups Now a Reality as Indian Army Braces for
Sweeping Changes in Combat Strategy,” Hindustan Times, October 14, 2018.
29 Ibid.
Figure-2
Composition of IBGs under LWD-18
30 “Army to Carry out Major Reform, Roll out Integrated Battle Group: General Bipin
Rawat,” Economic Times, January 10, 2019.
31 “New Battle Groups to Face Pak, Says Army Chief,” Tribune India, November 5, 2018,
https://bit.ly/2CytQVv.
32
Suman Sharma, “Army Mobilization Time: 48 hours,” DNA India, May 16, 2011,
https://bit.ly/2HpxKWv.
33
Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal (Professor, School of Politics and International Relations,
Quaid-i-Azam University, Pakistan), in discussion with the author, October 24, 2017.
34
“Army to Raise New Battle Formations along Pakistan Border by October,” Economic
Times, June 19, 2019, https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/army-to-raise-new-
battle-formations-along-pakistan-border-by-october/articleshow/69855566.cms.
35
“Army to Raise New Battle Formations along Pakistan Border by October,” Economic
Times.
Figure-3
IA Exercise at Chandi Mandir (Western Command)
Chandi Mandir
Western Command
36
Sandeep Unnithan, “The New Strike Strategy,” India Today, October 5, 2019,
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the-big-story/story/20190916-the-new-strike-
strategy-1595666-2019-09-06.
topography from Jammu and Kashmir to the Rann of Kutch to see how well
these IBGs could be deployed and used against Pakistan.37 On the
possibility of the limited war question, Rawat has claimed:
The Indian Army plans to have about ‘a dozen IBGs along the
western border with Pakistan, in the next four to five years’ to not only
move quickly and break Pakistan’s defence lines within a few hours not
days, but to also seize small-scale territory, or to establish ‘launch pads’ for
the remaining forces to join in for consolidated action. 39
The Western Command looks after four primary areas of interest:
Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi. The Indian Army will
reorganise the IBGs keeping in mind terrain and areas of operations –
‘sector- and terrain-specific IBGs’ equipped after assessing the Threat,
Terrain, Task and Resources (TTTR).40 It could be assumed that on the
Punjab border (which is a heavily defended border with anti-tank units,
strong defensive bunkers and armour units), the Indian Army may pitch its
modern T-90S tanks for rapid thrusts, advance infantry combat vehicles,
strong air defence system, and lethal Apache helicopters along with close
air support.
However, in the Rajasthan desert, where opposition is not likely to
be as taut, the main threat will come from Pakistan’s tanks, artillery and
anti-tank units. Here, the Indian Army can pitch its long-range advance
artillery for back-up along with gunship helicopters and air force for close
air support to the rapidly moving tanks and mechanised infantry.
37
Unnithan, “The New Strike Strategy.”
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
Figure-4
Efficacy of IBGs for the Indian Army
Enhanced • Offensive
Firepower and
Lethality
Punch
Figure-5
IBGs Test-Bedded Wargames since 2018
Under the LWD-18, regular military exercises would help the Indian Army
to validate their doctrines, enhance synergy and integration among all
branches and mitigate any loopholes in their overall military strategy or
execution when it comes to intense warfare scenarios.
Force Modernisation
States modernise their military capabilities with the perception that once
their armed forces are modernised, they will be able to pursue their political
objectives through military means. On the other side, they feel that
modernisation of weaponry and doctrines will strengthen their defence. In
both cases, it intensifies the security dilemma within a region which
motivates other regional actors or neighbours to modernise their armed
forces accordingly or come up with their own counter-measures in the shape
of aggressive doctrines/strategies or weapons.
The Indian Army in LWD-18 also puts greater emphasis on ‘force
modernisation, resource optimization and innovative conceptual processes
leading to winning strategies for future wars.’41 Any swift warfare doctrine
requires agile forces and advance weaponry to achieve the element of
surprise against an adversary with greater speed, manoeuvrability and
firepower. The Indian military under Prime Minister Modi has started a
massive military modernisation programme. Although, military
modernisation is a sluggish process, the Indian Army is vying to get highly
sophisticated weapons and equipment to execute their limited war doctrine
(Table 1):
Table-1
India’s Force Modernisation to execute LWD-2018
41
“Indian Army, Land Warfare Doctrine-2018.
42
Ashley J. Tellis (Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Washington D.C.), in discussion with the author, November 4, 2017.
43
Late Professor Dr Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema (Dean Faculty of Contemporary Studies,
National Defence University), in discussion with the author, October 17, 2017.
44
“Indian Army, Land Warfare Doctrine-2018, 3.
45
Ibid.
46
Shashank Joshi (Former Research Fellow, Royal United Services Institute for Defence
and Security Studies, Whitehall, London), in discussion with the author, October 2017.
47
Bharat Karnad (Research Professor, CPR and a national security expert), in discussion
with the author, October 10, 2017.
48
Harsh V. Pant (Professor International Relations, Defence Studies Department; and, the
India Institute at Kings College, London), in discussion with the author, October 11,
2017.
49
Brigadier (Retd.) Gurmeet Kanwal (Former Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies
(CLAWS), New Delhi) in discussion with the author, October 11, 2017.
50
Michael Krepon (Co-founder, The Stimson Center), in discussion with the author,
October 13, 2017.
51
Walter C. Ladwig III (Assistant Professor, International Relations, King’s College
London), in discussion with the author, October 18, 2017.
The Indian Army claimed to have carried out a surgical strike against
Pakistan in 2016, but the evidence on the ground suggests that there was no
such strike across the LoC,52 and more recently on February 26, 2019,
which led to Pakistan’s counter-strikes during which the IAF lost two of its
MIG-21 and SU-30 aircrafts shot down by Pakistani missiles:
52
“Uri Aftermath: Global Media Doubts Surgical Strike Claims,” Express Tribune,
October 4, 2016, https://bit.ly/2RR1v7n.
53
Helen Regan, Nikhil Kumar, Adeel Raja and Swati Gupta, “Pakistan Says It Shot down
Two Indian Jets as Kashmir Border Crisis Deepens,” CNN.com, February 28, 2019,
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/27/india/india-pakistan-strikes-escalation-
intl/index.html.
54
Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, s.v. “Om Gupta.”
55
General (Retd.) Ehsan-ul-Haq (Former DG-MI, DG-ISI and CJCSC), in discussion with
the author, January 16, 2018.
56
“Indian Army, Land Warfare Doctrine-2018, 6.
57
Brigadier (Retd.) Feroz Hassan Khan (Research Professor, Department of National
Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, USA), in discussion with the author,
October 16, 2017.
58
“Transcript of RAW Agent Kulbhushan’s Confessional Statement,” News, March 30,
2016.
on the border with Pakistan (Figure 6). Though, military exercises are
routine matter, an assessment suggests that they are trying hard to assimilate
new technologies, work on joint operations and shorten mobilisation time.
Figure-6
Indian Military Exercises (2004-18)
It can be argued that India has tested and experimented synergy and
integration among its Armed Forces for quick and robust operations. It has
also practiced day and night war-fighting capabilities, surveillance and
reconnaissance skills, behind enemy lines’ operations, air mobility and
logistics, mechanised Armour, Infantry and Artillery (see Figure 7). India
has also exercised NBC warfare capabilities, NCW and EW capabilities.
Navy’s marine commandos, Special Forces operations, para-dropped,
Strikes Corps, air-fire power, and Pivot Corps have also been part of these
exercises carried out in the plains of Punjab and deserts of Rajasthan.
Figure-7
Key Elements of India’s Military Exercises 2004-20
NBC Warfare
Capabilities
Mechanised Air Mobility &
Forces Logistics
Behind Enemy
NCW & EW
Lines
Capabilities
Operations
Key Elements
practiced in
Exercises
Surv. and 2004-2020 Heli-borne
Recon. Operations
Capability
62
General (Retd.) Ehsan-ul-Haq (Former DG-MI, DG-ISI and CJCSC), in discussion with
the author, January 16, 2018.
63
Adil Sultan, “India’s Surgical Strike Doctrine: Implications for South Asian Strategic
Stability,” Strategic Foresight for Asia, February 26, 2020, https://strafasia.com/indias-
surgical-strike-doctrine-implications-for-south-asian-strategic-stability/.
64
Brig. (Retd.) Dr Naeem A. Salik (Senior Research Fellow, CISS, Islamabad; former
Director ACDA-SPD), in discussion with the author, April 5, 2018.
65
General (Retd.) Ehsan-ul-Haq (Former DG-MI, DG-ISI and CJCSC), in discussion with
the author, January 16, 2018.
When you can achieve this, with a few million dollars why
should you spend billions of dollars to cross into Pakistan,
face unnecessary risk and world criticism also.66
Conclusion
The Land Warfare Doctrine-2018 of the Indian Army is inherently
aggressive in nature, focusses on quick, swift and limited war scenarios
below the nuclear threshold of Pakistan. The LWD-18 puts greater
emphasis on force modernisation; restricting strike formations into smaller,
quicker, well-equipped forces for joint operations with other arms of the
Indian military as well as hybrid warfare. The Indian Army in its third
doctrine (IAF Doctrine-2012, Joint Armed Forces Doctrine-2017 and
LWD-18) in a row has given an indication that it may carry out ‘punitive
strikes’ surgical strikes in case of any alleged terrorist attack on Indian soil
or in IOJ&K. Pursuit of such aggressive thinking will invite strong, sharp
and quick response from Pakistan which may escalate the conflict.
66
ACM Tahir Rafique Butt (Former Chief of Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force (2012-15), in
discussion with the author, November 23, 2017.