The reality of the changing dimensions of warfare

The Hindu

4 days ago

Machiavelli believed that in politics, one is guided solely by the harsh realities of political life, viz., a struggle for power and survival. Today, we are at a point in history when old rules that once governed international politics appear to be in terminal decline. Alongside this, the means to achieve dominance are undergoing fundamental changes. To today's power brokers, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (that sanctified the construct of a nation state), and the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15 have little or no meaning. For most, new weapons are the be-all and end-all of modern politics.
The year 2025 is also one that celebrates eight decades of seemingly relative peace following the end of the Second World War, though the years in between did see, and had seen, several conflicts, though not on the scale of the Second World War. For many, even more than the defeat and decline of Nazi Germany, it appeared that it was the apparent invincibility of the United States (wielding the mighty atom bomb — two of which were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945) — that seemed to usher in a new era of peace. Concepts such as a 'rules-based international order' also gained traction at this time.
This was, however, at best an illusion of peace, and more of a 'riddle wrapped in an enigma' than the reality. A succession of wars of a lesser magnitude that continued to occur across the world — beginning with Korea, Vietnam and North Africa, not excluding parts of Europe itself — confirmed this. It reinforced a truth embedded in a seminal piece of advice often given to diplomats based in the United Kingdom, viz., 'do not believe anything anyone tells you unless you have checked it yourself'.
Already by the 1990s, many of the fundamentals that prevailed had begun to be questioned. The end of the Cold War looked more like the beginning of a new era of conflict. Quite a few new conflicts had begun to emerge which had the potential to shatter any illusion that peace was at hand. Alongside this, it was increasingly becoming evident that a new era in global warfare was emerging. Few, however, admitted that the world was about to enter a new era of conflict.
The impact of 9/11
One of the more widely read articles recently harps on the End of Modernity and talks of the current state of the world in some detail. It lists the year 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, as the beginning of a new era in global politics. For many others, however, it was September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers in New York were attacked by terrorists, that seemed to usher in a new beginning. Admittedly, the events of 9/11 did begin a new chapter in global affairs, but it was hardly the curtain-raiser, or even indicative, of the fundamental changes about to take place in the future. What 9/11, perhaps, did was to give the U.S. and certain other nations an opportunity to invade other states based on their perception of what was right and wrong. It was not yet obvious, however, whether the basic fundamentals of conflict would undergo any radical change, and the implications it could have for future generations. The evidence for this is only now beginning to unfold. Even so, the catastrophic consequences of the change are yet to be fully understood or comprehended.
For this, perhaps, one needs to go to the early 1990s, and more specifically to 1991, to the impact which the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm caused at the time, and also its impact on future wars. It was in effect the first modern-era war which would mark a 'dramatic acceleration of warfare and the transformative synthesis of its operative, tactical and strategic elements', and possibly transforming the nature of war and battlefield doctrines itself. It was also, perhaps, the first instance of three-dimensional strikes on a 'preferred' enemy. Even then, it is only very recently that strategists and military planners have become aware of how transformative it was and the impact it would have in the years to come.
Ukraine, West Asia and Operation Sindoor
At the time, the world was only riveted on the unrivalled power, economic, political and military, of the U.S. It has taken the war (since 2022) between Russia and a Ukraine backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to fundamentally revise the thinking of war planners and get them to realise how the nature of war itself had changed beyond anything seen in the past. The war in Ukraine and in West Asia have propounded many new doctrines that are very different from those seen previously in the annals of warfare. The very nature of war, it would seem, as also the conduct of warfare had changed, or is changing. Today's wars bear little resemblance to what was seen in the past. Automation has become an essential feature of modern conflicts. The extensive use of drones (with several variations such as drones to gather intelligence and conduct precision strikes; drones able to operate semi-autonomously employing image recognition algorithms to identify high-priority targets, together with 'loitering munitions') have altered the nature of warfare beyond recognition.
The India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025 helped provide some glimpses of the fundamental changes seen in modern warfare. Unlike the earlier India-Pakistan conflicts, the conflict this time featured fixed wing and several other kinds of drones, together with 'loitering munitions'. Fighter aircraft were a critical element to ensure air superiority and carry out precision strikes. Also, seen were advanced 'air-to-air missiles', supplemented and complemented with highly accurate GPS-guided and laser-guided bombs. The BrahMos missile was in place and reportedly also used on at least one occasion. Pakistan, for its part, made use of China-supplied PL-15 missiles and also Turkish-supplied Songar drones.
Modern warfare, however, entails much more than the mere use of highly sophisticated weaponry. It extends to tactics as well. Militaries are moving beyond traditional hierarchies, to advanced network-centric warfare. The advent of cyber and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has seen battlefields morph into complex multi-domain conflict zones, involving advanced technologies, AI and cyber warfare methodologies. The use of hypersonic weapons capable of travelling at speeds greater than Mach-5 also adds a further critical dimension to the current arms race and to the new forms of warfare. All told, digital strategies and autonomous systems are tending to make traditional concepts of how battles are won, viz., through use of overwhelming physical force, outdated. Future warfare is increasingly set to become digitally autonomous and interconnected.
India needs to adapt
Hence, the message is loud and clear — and should be to one and all. We are entering a new era of technological warfare. India must adapt rapidly to keep pace with the changes taking place. Incidentally, it also raises questions about India's existing and established military modernisation plans. These may need to be completely revised and revamped. Perhaps the relevance of many existing tenders for certain categories of weapons may require to be reconsidered.
Overall, there is considerable room for a rethink about India's future defence procurement plans. China has already produced, and has in place, huge volumes of indigenously manufactured platforms (fighter jets, the J-10 and the J-20 as well as the fifth generation fighter). China is now poised to produce its sixth generation fighter.
Available information suggests that India is putting its faith in existing indigenous manufacture and continuing to procure more Rafale fighter jets from France. Clearly, the indigenous development and manufacture of missiles and aircraft are way behind schedule.
What is pertinent is that with the emergence of high-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned aerial vehicles that are essential for modern warfare, there is an overwhelming need for India to rethink its defence modernisation plans. Diversification of India's military hardware has become critically important. This does have a direct impact on India's capability to fight future wars, including against Pakistan or China, or worse, a two-front war.
M.K. Narayanan is a former Director, Intelligence Bureau, a former National Security Adviser, and a former Governor of West Bengal