It’s time India frame a National Security Doctrine

In an era marked by multidimensional threats ranging from state-sponsored terrorism to cyber warfare, and from border incursions to grey-zone tactics, the need for a coherent and codified National Security Doctrine (NSD) has never been more urgent for India. Despite being a nuclear power and having one of the world’s largest militaries, India lacks a formal national security doctrine. As K. Subrahmanyam, the architect of India’s nuclear doctrine, had once asserted, “No nation can pursue effective security policy without doctrinal clarity.”
India, situated between two nuclear-armed adversaries—China and Pakistan—faces continuous threats. The Kargil War (1999), Uri Attack (2016), Pulwama-Balakot Crisis (2019), and the Galwan Valley clash (2020) highlight the recurring security threats. While India’s response has been measured and increasingly assertive, the absence of a formally articulated doctrine limits strategic foresight and long-term planning.

What is a National Security Doctrine?

A National Security Doctrine is a comprehensive framework of guiding principles, strategic beliefs, and operational postures that shape a nation’s military, diplomatic, and internal security responses. It goes beyond reactive tactics, providing predictability, strategic clarity, and inter-agency coordination. It serves as:

• A blueprint for defense and foreign policy.
• A guide to modern warfare readiness.
• A communication tool for deterrence.
• A confidence-building measure for both citizens and allies.

India’s only formal doctrinal articulation is the 2003 Nuclear Doctrine, which emphasizes “credible minimum deterrence” and a “No First Use” policy. However, in the absence of a broader doctrine, India’s responses to terrorism, cyber threats, or asymmetric warfare lack cohesive strategy.

Why Does India Require a Formal National Security Doctrine?

1. Complex Geopolitical Neighborhood: India is flanked by two nuclear-armed adversaries—China and Pakistan—with a history of war and incursions. As per Kautilya’s Mandala Theory, “the immediate neighbor will be your enemy.” Doklam (2017) and Galwan (2020) underscore the volatility of India’s borders.
2. Reactive vs. Proactive Posture: Most Indian responses have been post-incident. A doctrine would help in shifting from reactionary to preventive security, as in the case of China’s preemptive planning under the doctrine of “Active Defence”.
3. Inadequate Civil-Military Integration: India lacks a unified command structure. While Integrated Theatre Commands are being developed, a doctrine would guide civil-military synergy, as seen in the U.S. with its National Security Strategy (NSS).
4. Institutional Coordination: Multiple agencies (defense, home, intelligence, MEA) operate in silos. A doctrine provides the Command, Control and Communication (C3) structure vital for “inter-agency coordination”.
5. Ambiguity in Nuclear Posture: Although the 2003 nuclear doctrine exists, ambiguity persists. Manohar Parrikar’s 2016 remarks questioning ‘No First Use’ led to controversy. A revised doctrine would clarify India’s nuclear red lines and strengthen deterrence.
6. Asymmetry in Strategic Signaling: China’s actions are informed by a Sun Tzu-inspired doctrine—”subdue the enemy without fighting.” India lacks equivalent psychological and strategic messaging, which hampers geopolitical signaling.
7. Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare: Despite Balakot and surgical strikes, cross-border terror persists. India needs a doctrine that allows proportionate and preemptive retaliation, in line with the concept of “massive but non-escalatory response.”
8. Lack of Comprehensive Internal Security Vision: Issues like Left-wing extremism, communal violence, and insurgencies are addressed ad hoc. A doctrine could integrate these concerns under comprehensive internal security architecture.
9. Alignment of Foreign and Defence Policy: Diplomacy and defence often operate in silos. A doctrine could ensure foreign policy synergy, akin to the Nixon-Kissinger model, where diplomacy was guided by a realist security doctrine.
10. Persistent Multidimensional Threats: India faces hybrid threats from China and Pakistan, including cross-border terrorism, cyber-attacks, information warfare, and territorial aggression (e.g., China’s salami-slicing tactics in Ladakh). A doctrine provides pre-emptive clarity.

What is the Significance and Potential Impact of a National Security Doctrine?

1. Strategic Clarity: A doctrine institutionalizes India’s long-term national security vision, enabling structured threat assessment and resource allocation.
2. Inter-agency Coordination: By delineating responsibilities, it fosters synergy between the armed forces, Air Force, Strategic Forces Command, and space/cyber domains intelligence, home ministry, MEA, and scientific establishments like DRDO.
3. Strengthens Deterrence and Diplomatic Leverage: It sends a clear message to adversaries regarding red lines and probable response thresholds—enhancing deterrence, especially in nuclear posturing.  Helps create red lines. For example, the U.S. “Pivot to Asia” doctrine gave coherence to its Indo-Pacific strategy, influencing allies like Japan and Australia.
4. Boosts Defence Reforms: It helps prioritize reforms in line with strategic objectives—e.g., pushing theatre commands, indigenization via Atmanirbhar Bharat, and cyber defence.
5. Improved Defence Budgeting: The doctrine helps align defence allocations (~₹6.2 lakh crore in Union Budget 2024-25) with strategic priorities—e.g., cybersecurity, drone warfare, mountain warfare readiness.
6. Counter-Terrorism Coherence: A doctrine can embed principles for counter-insurgency (COIN), intelligence-led policing, and technology deployment in areas like J&K and the Northeast.
7. Predictable Global Partnerships: It enables partners like the U.S., France, Japan, Australia to understand India’s strategic thinking—bolstering frameworks like QUAD and IAF joint exercises.
8. Better Crisis Management: Codified escalation ladders and decision matrices enhance India’s ability to respond swiftly in crises—e.g., post-26/11 confusion could have been averted.
9. Informed Public Debate: A published doctrine strengthens democratic accountability and informed citizenry, countering misinformation and war hysteria.
10. Security Beyond Borders: It allows strategic outreach through defence diplomacy, maritime domain awareness (e.g., SAGAR policy), and regional leadership.

Indian Initiatives and Global Collaborations:

1. 2003 Nuclear Doctrine – The only formal doctrine, emphasizing NFU and massive retaliation.
2. Defence Planning Committee (DPC) – Set up in 2018 to draft national security strategy.
3. Theatre Command Model – India is transitioning to integrated theatre commands, aligning with doctrinal frameworks.
4. National Cyber Security Strategy (NCSS) – Drafted but pending clearance; would fit within an NSD.
5. QUAD Cooperation – Enhances Indo-Pacific security matrix; doctrinal clarity will improve engagement.
6. India-France Roadmap on Defence – Includes joint doctrine planning, naval cooperation.
7. U.S. Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) – Real-time geospatial intel sharing for targeted operations.
8. Strategic Partnerships in Indo-Pacific: QUAD, I2U2, Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) signal intent to build strategic depth.

Challenges in Framing a National Security Doctrine:

1. Political Reluctance and Lack of Consensus: Doctrinal clarity may bind political options or be misread as aggression. Inter-ministerial coordination is weak; lack of NSC (National Security Council) empowerment.
2. Civil-Military Divide: Unlike the U.S. or Israel, India has historically maintained a separation between political and military decision-making.
3. Siloed Institutions: Ministries, armed forces, and intelligence often operate without unified planning.
4. Doctrinal Rigidity vs Flexibility: Balancing permanence of core principles with changing tactical needs is difficult.
5. Technological Lag and Dependence: Rapid tech advancements (AI, drones, hypersonic) make doctrines quickly outdated. Overdependence on imports for key defense technologies (e.g., jet engines, high-end semiconductors) undermines doctrinal self-sufficiency.
6. Absence of a National Security Strategy Document: India has no declassified strategy akin to the U.S. National Security Strategy (updated every 4 years).
7. Hybrid and Gray-Zone Warfare: Blurred lines between war and peace (e.g., standoff without shots at LAC) challenge doctrinal responses.
8. Lack of Strategic Culture – As observed by George Tanham (RAND), India lacks long-term strategic thinking.

Way Forward:

1. Institutionalize a Periodic National Security Strategy (NSS): A periodic National Security Strategy (NSS) ensures a regular assessment of threats, evolving strategic priorities, and coordinated responses. Such a document provides strategic continuity, even amid changing governments, and strengthens civil-military coherence. Example: The Kargil Review Committee Report (1999) recommended such a strategy for India. However, India has yet to adopt a formal, institutionalized periodic NSS.
2. Adopt a Tiered Doctrine Model: A tiered model enables the development of sub-doctrines under a unified framework — covering military defense, internal security, cybersecurity, intelligence, and diplomacy. This structure promotes inter-agency alignment, efficient crisis management, and clarity of roles. Example: The UK’s Integrated Review (2021) integrates military, diplomatic, development, and tech security into one overarching policy.
3. Publish an Unclassified Summary for Strategic Communication: A publicly available summary of the national security doctrine ensures transparency, shapes strategic communication, and acts as a tool for international signaling. It also builds public and global awareness of India’s red lines and policy priorities. Example: NATO’s Strategic Concept (2022) is an open document identifying adversaries (like Russia and China) and guiding collective defense.
4. Legislate the NSD through Parliament: Legislating the National Security Doctrine through Parliament will provide it with democratic legitimacy, institutional permanence, and ensure continuity across governments. It would also formalize the roles of agencies and improve oversight. Example: The Goldwater-Nichols Act (1986) in the U.S. reformed military command structure and legislated national defense planning, enhancing inter-service cooperation.
5. Institutionalize Strategic Education: Embedding strategic studies and national security thinking in civil services, foreign services, police academies, and military training is vital. It fosters a shared understanding of India’s national interests across institutions. Example: Israel’s National Security College trains senior officials in integrated security and foreign policy thinking.
6. Integrate NSD with Budgeting and R&D Prioritization: The NSD must guide defense budgeting, capital procurement, and R&D efforts (e.g., DRDO, iDEX, DPSUs). This ensures funding supports doctrinal priorities like space, cyber, or missile defense, avoiding ad hoc resource allocation. Example: The U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) aligns strategy with defense budgets and capability development cycles.
7. Embed Cyber and AI Security in the Doctrine: Next-generation threats like cyber warfare, AI-driven disinformation, and digital infrastructure sabotage must be explicitly addressed in the doctrine. This prepares India for hybrid warfare and emerging asymmetric threats. Example: NATO’s Cyber Defence Centre.
8. Link Foreign Policy with National Security Doctrine: Foreign policy must support national security aims — through strategic partnerships, economic corridors, and global influence operations. A doctrinal linkage ensures India’s diplomatic efforts reinforce its security architecture. Example: India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), QUAD, and India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) are natural fits for alignment with a national security doctrine.

Conclusion:
India’s rising economic and geopolitical profile demands strategic maturity anchored in a clear national security doctrine. As Chanakya warned, “A kingdom is only as safe as its farthest borders.” Security today is not just about weapons but about resilience, perception, and preemption. A National Security Doctrine is not a war plan; it is a peace architecture rooted in strength, vision, and strategic foresight. As Sun Tzu said, “The acme of skill is to win without fighting.” For India, framing a doctrine is the first step in ensuring that there are no wars to win in the first place.