Failure of Strategic Thinking

When the Americans attacked Afghanistan, it was to send a message 'don't mess with us'. This was the first time after Pearl Harbor that American mainland was attacked, the response had to disproportionate. But post the collapse of the Soviet Union, the sole super-power also suffered from the belief in 'infinite ability' and, the consequence followed in Iraq attack. The two key strategic fronts of Russia and China weakened, allowing Russians to recover and Chinese used this time to gain in their near neighbor-hood and develop their area denial, space and cyber capabilities undeterred. The American actions significantly deteriorated the balance of power in the Middle-East, Syria is a consequence. Inability to punish Syria for crossing the line, is betrayal of this weakness. Americans are now trying to re-establish the balance of power structure they tore apart, re-balancing forces in the Pacific (to contain China) and play the fine balance in Syria for the fear of a further breakdown.

Here the chess player who played from a position of 'infinite' strength forgot that strategic moves are always limited, never infinite. Machiavelli writes in the Prince - "A Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." The Americans forgot the art of war and managing the politics (unilateralism) in this period post the Soviet collapse. It displayed a clear lack of strategic thinking.

I write the above to make a case on how a nation meandered, de-focused from its goals a little bit in the context of its history and its consequences. 

In the context of this minor deviation and its consequence, let's evaluate India's overall strategic imperatives and have we kept sight of them since independence:

• Control the Indo-gangetic plain - The Indo-gangetic plain is the core of India encompassing one of the most fertile lands in the world. The ruler of this patch has always been the most powerful force in the sub-continent and its center of gravity. Even today UP demonstrates its strength in the Indian parliament and setting the national agenda. 

• Protection of the the north western border - This has been the key access point for most attacks on India's except when the Europeans came by sea. The border continues to push with multiple wars being fought with Pakistan. The Chinese surely understand the geopolitics of the region and will continue to maintain a strong relationship with Pakistan. It is incumbent on India to break the mold, something it has not done for almost 2,000 years. 

• Ensure that the Center holds - The vast divisions in India driven by regionalism, myriad castes, cultures, languages etc have always driven localized systems that have not allowed themselves to be governed by a strong Center. The regions have had changing political systems which have partnered with others to ensure their relative independence. Recall the various Indian princes during the Mughal and British era which were happy to collaborate as long as their interests were served. Look now how the regional political parties work to ensure their interests are maintained while the Center does not gain adequate strength to subdue regionalism. We have had only four periods in Indian history when the Center was strong - Mauryan, Mughal (post Akbar), British, 40 years post independence and to some extent the Gupta period. The rest have seen mean reversion to age old 'regionalism'.

• Once the above key pieces were in place build a strategic vision for South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Curzon wrote - "The central position of India, its magnificent resources, its teeming multitude of men, its great trading harbors,... all these assets are of precious value. On the West, India must exert a dominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan; on the north it can veto any rival in Tibet; on the north-east it can exert pressure on China, and it is the guardians of the autonomous existence of Siam (Thailand)." To this extent, maintain peace in South Asia through opening its markets to ensure strong interests of its neighbors and build a strong navy to project power in the Indian Ocean.

India caught in its regionalism and balancing the needs of its large population has continued to struggle in achieving these over-arching national strategic goals. Our politicians have deeply lacked vision. The Americans will likely come back and play the game to their strategy, the 'real' game of chess never started for the Indian elite, they are still figuring out who to play with...