1. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is the oldest treatise known to exist, which throws some light on ancient India’s strategic culture. The ‘principles of war’ as known today can be traced back to Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’, written over 2000 years ago. Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian General who is well known for his work ‘On war’ wrote a memorandum for the military instruction of the Prussian Crown prince during 1810 – 1812 which was published as ‘The Most Important Principles for the Conduct Of War’. Thereafter, we have Marshal Foch who held forth that a theory of war starts from a number of principles and then went on to enunciate a few principles (of war). After the First World War, Major General JFC Fuller enunciated a set of eight principles and these were accepted and included in the British Field Service Regulations 1920. These eight principles remained in vogue through the intervening years and during World War II. In 1946, Field Marshal Montgomery added two more principles, morale and administration. ‘Political Mobilisation’ is a principle of war enunciated by China and no other country. After Independence, ten ‘principles of war’ came to be accepted by the Indian Armed Forces and continue to be so till today. These are: Selection and Maintenance of Aim, Offensive Action, Concentration of Force, Economy of Effort, Flexibility, Cooperation, Security, Surprise, Administration and Maintenance of Morale.

2. The ‘principles of war’ as generally accepted today were evolved as a result of the experience gained by the commanders during the First and the Second World Wars. The second World War involved manoeuvres by large forces and was spread across many countries and even continents. In terms of the size of the forces involved, the spaces over which battles were fought, technologies used and the intensity of operations, the Second World War was a major landmark in the history of conventional warfare. In recent years, the nature of conflict has undergone transformation. Asymmetric wars have become common. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon are classic examples of this change. Nuclear weapons have added yet another dimension to warfare. The spectrum of conflict today ranges from sub-conventional to conventional and to conventional with a nuclear overhang.

3. Since Independence, Indian Armed Forces have been involved in a number of wars and conflicts, in defence of India’s sovereignty and integrity. There have been exceptions like the Sri Lankan experience and the operation undertaken in support of the Maldives Government in 1995. In addition to conventional wars, Indian Army has been constantly engaged in low intensity conflicts since the early 1960s. All these wars and conflicts have generated a wealth of experience, which is still to be properly evaluated.

4. Notwithstanding the ‘timeless’ nature of war, the guiding principles and considerations for waging war may merit re-evaluation due to new doctrines, technological developments, capabilities and above all the complex global security environment. Is there a need to re-evaluate in the Indian context, the principles of war, as we know them today, against the following parameters :-
 

(a)   How effective has been the application of these ‘principles of war’ in India’s major wars since Independence; viz, 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 Kargil War? The Sri Lankan experience may also merit consideration.

(b)   Applicability to the changed nature and full spectrum of conflict, including low intensity conflicts/proxy wars and a conventional war with a nuclear overhang.
 

5.  Keeping in view the nature of wars and conflicts that India may face in the foreseeable future, what changes if any, to the set of ten principles, as accepted today, are recommended? Do we need a separate or an additional set of principles for low intensity conflicts? In the Indian context, are there any principles, which should have an overarching importance over the rest?

1.  In the recent past, there have been a number of cases of suicides and fratricide in the Indian Army. These cases would indicate that the level of stress went beyond the individual’s threshold and he/she felt that the extreme step was the only course open. Two points emerge from such incidents. Firstly, the unit did not become aware or take note of the indicators that may have been forthcoming. Secondly, the individual did not feel confident that he/she could share his/her concerns with colleagues or those in authority before taking the extreme step. Both causes require introspection by the System.

2.  Stress as a phenomenon is inherent in any individual’s life and work environment. Degrees may vary. Life in the Armed Forces, due to the nature of work and hazardous environment would seem to be more stressful as compared to other professions or walks of life. Prolonged employment in counter insurgency operations, deployment in isolated posts and inhospitable terrain, frequent moves resulting in unsettled family life, separation from family for long periods are just some of the factors which act as stress multipliers. Then there are stresses caused by the pyramidal structure of the Armed forces, i.e., promotions and peer competition.

3.  There are societal factors as well, which also generate stress. The joint family system has broken down. As a result, the families of military personnel have to live by themselves quite frequently during service. Individual aspirations have risen. There is an understandable desire to provide good education to children and for material acquisitions to improve quality of life. From the career point of view and to sustain improved quality of life, wives are increasingly taking up jobs, which leaves little time for the family and in some cases, due to the nature of employment; the families are split in different locations. To this must be added the generally unsympathetic attitude of the civil administration in resolving the problems faced by the Armed Forces personnel.

4.  An environment totally free from stress does not exist anywhere. The individual needs organisational support to overcome stress related problems, as and when they occur. An organisation like the Armed Forces must evolve institutional mechanisms to minimise or mitigate stress related issues amongst its rank and file.

(a)  Impact of the socio-economic changes in society upon the Armed Forces personnel.

(b)  What changes, including institutional measures, can be brought about in the work environment, without diluting values, ethos and efficiency, to reduce stress in Service life.

(c)  Role of leadership at various levels in mitigating or coping with stress in the Armed Forces.

(d)  Also, suggest measures required to be taken by the government and its institutions down to the district / block / panchayat levels to ameliorate the condition of the Armed Forces personnel and their families which would reduce stress due to societal factors.