India’s government leaders were visibly perturbed when, on February 27, 2019, the Pakistan Air Force managed to shoot down the IAF’s MiG-21 that had ventured into Pakistan’s airspace. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s exact words were, “Had the [Dassault] Rafale been there, things would have been different.” In less than 8 months the French defense firm, Dassault Aviation delivered 36 Rafale fighter jets to the Indian Air Force.
Reports in Indian media indicate that the Indian government has earmarked another $200 billion for defense acquisitions for the next two decades. India’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) — the highest decision-making body on defense procurement approved INR2.3 trillion (US$26.8 billion) in December 2023 to purchase light combat helicopters (LCH), munitions and towed guns for the Indian Army, as well as LCHs and Tejas Mk1A light combat aircraft for the Air Force, and medium range anti-ship missiles (MRAShM) for Indian Navy (IN) ships.
Russia, US, France and Israel are the main suppliers of military hardware to India. According to reports, 60% of all weapons and equipment in the Indian military’s inventory is of Russian origin. Due to the Ukraine War, weapons deliveries from Russia were delayed for a while and the Indian government was under pressure from their military leaders to diversify the sources of military hardware. Between 2008 and 2023, India contracted $20 billion worth of weapons deals from the US armament industry. These are not simply business deals; the US has political objectives in mind in the process of arming New Delhi. According to international military experts, successive US administrations since 2008 have put in considerable political and bureaucratic investment to make India a regional military power as a counter to China. Consider this: the US administration-imposed sanctions on China for importing armament from Russia, but never bothered to impose similar sanctions on India.
The end of the Cold War has seen the relentless use of military power against countries with minor military status or those which are military non-entities.
The end of the Cold War has seen the relentless use of military power against countries with minor military status or those which are military non-entities. The US has spearheaded this trend in international politics—Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and then Iraq were clear indicators that Washington would use its exceptional military strength to dominate the world in a unipolar environment. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and of its smaller neighbors could also be counted as an adventure by a militarily powerful state to dominate its immediate surroundings.
Two factors are common between what Americans did with Afghanistan and Iraq and what Russians are doing with Ukraine—in both cases militarily powerful states were emboldened by the absence of potent military forces to attack countries or states where these powerful states wanted to achieve some political objectives. In 2023, the world has seen another imitator of this trend, Israel—a country, which is militarily powerful in the region, and which was emboldened by the absence of any powerful and potent military force to attack unarmed and innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip in occupied Palestine.
India is fast emerging as another imitator of this same trend—it is at least trying to reach a position where it can imitate other aggressors and military bullies of this world. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not an ordinary political leader; international military experts have long predicted BJP to be a natural home of military aggressive and jingoistic ideologies. Modi is arming the Indian military with a clear aim in mind. His efforts have been reinforced by the US and the western world’s plans to arm India to the teeth. Modi’s efforts were further reinforced by a consensus among the western political and military elite to use India as a regional power that can counter Chinese dominance in Asia. However, in India, the situation is completely different from the situation other military bullies had been facing in their respective regions: India is faced by two very powerful militaries, which in the case of China is more powerful than India’s military and which in the case of the Pakistan military, could inflict an unacceptable level of damage. Therefore, India would never be able to create a Gaza in South Asia. But this is no reason to be complacent.
In the case of major military crises between Pakistan and India, standoffs or conflicts come immediately after one or the other side embarks on a major military acquisition spree.
Two factors are noteworthy in predicting the Indian military’s behavior in the coming years. Firstly, in the 77 years since independence, six to ten years is the longest period that Pakistan and India’s military relations have remained crisis-free. Every six to ten years, we come face to face with a major military crisis, standoff or a conflict in our political and military relations. Remember we are about to complete six years since India launched a cross-border strike at Balakot in February 2019. This, however, did not happen out of the blue.
In the case of major military crises between Pakistan and India, standoffs or conflicts come immediately after one or the other side embarks on a major military acquisition spree. 1965 came after Pakistan had acquired major weapon systems from Washington. The 1987 Brass Tacks crisis came after India mechanized its infantry with the help of western weapons systems.
India will be spending $200 billion on defense acquisitions over the next decade. How will India behave this time? It is difficult to say whether the jingoism of Indian military and civilian leaders could be accepted as an indicator of India’s actual military behavior in future. Two mutually conflicting indicators make it difficult to reach a definite conclusion in this regard. On the one hand, India could see the Pakistani state is at its weakest in seven decades. Pakistan’s economy is in shambles— on occasions, we are unable to foot the bill for two weeks of oil imports. Remember, modern wars are inconceivable without gasoline. Pakistan remains a divided and fractured society. But on the other hand, the Indians are smart enough to understand war will be immensely destructive even for the victor. What would become of India’s economy? Not very difficult to discern.
Nevertheless, the events of the past one decade clearly point out that the world is fast dividing into two kinds of states. On the one hand are the states with immense firepower and the latest state-of-the-art military machines. These states could use military might at their disposal against their political or religious opponents at will on extremely flimsy grounds.
We must openly campaign against the American decision to arm India to teeth as a threat to regional security and peace. Our problem is that we are famous around the world as a military-led state and no one takes us seriously when we engage in anti-war advocacy.
On the other hand are the states which are militarily weak or are military non-entities relative to the military strength of the first types of states. These states are extremely vulnerable. Russia and China could act as a counter to the military hegemony of the first kind of states. China in this game is undoubtedly the power of the future—as it is a new superpower with not a lot of demonstrated interest in military hegemony. Most of its diplomacy and interstate relations are dominated by economics. Russia on the other hand is playing a dubious role. It is one of the major players in the international armaments market. And it doesn’t bother to play politics when it comes to selling its military products at lucrative prices. Therefore, it is least concerned by the fact that the US, its main rival, wants to make India a regional military hegemon by selling India modern military equipment. If India does really become a regional hegemon by way of acquiring weapons from Russia as well, it doesn’t matter to Moscow.
What are the options for Pakistan? Pakistan will have to put its house in order before it can start pondering what to do next. Having said that, I would suggest that Pakistan should make anti-war and anti-military hegemony part of the country’s official diplomacy. The Pakistani foreign office should openly and forcefully campaign against the use of military force as a tool to achieve political objectives. And in this vein, we should make the Gaza and Ukraine wars case studies in seeking partners among international players, be they states or non-governmental organizations, who are themselves campaigning against wars.
We must openly campaign against the American decision to arm India to teeth as a threat to regional security and peace. Our problem is that we are famous around the world as a military-led state and no one takes us seriously when we engage in anti-war advocacy. Our social and cultural trends portray a very negative image of Pakistani society to the world outside. People see us unfit to talk against war.
Whenever a Pakistani introduces themselves somewhere in the world, the response most often garnered is, “oh, that is a very dangerous place.” Nobody seems to realize that we as a society are victims of war, not perpetrators.