War as an Option

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) FS LODI discusses this important alternative.

War is the province of violence, of physical exertion and extreme suffering. The resort to arms is often justified by national honour or in keeping with the time honoured principles of international law and morality, as perceived by nations in pursuit of their own ambitions and national agenda.

Feodor de Martens, a professor of law put it rather well when he said in 1901. “Instead of calming their conscience with the thought that war is God’s judgement and that its origins are divine nations aught increasingly to realize that war is really the outcome of their own ambitions, passions and mistakes, their virtues and their crimes”.

The history of human conflict is long and arduous. It is covered by death and destruction and the greatest of human suffering inflicted by man himself against his fellow-men. This is done with deliberation and some degree of social sanction.

The law formulated for armed conflict has been an effort by various nations to reduce the carnage and mitigate the suffering of the people involved and to regulate to some extent the conduct of warfare. It was taken for granted that an armed conflict could not be prevented and nations would continue to use force as an instrument of their foreign policy to further their national goals and strategic aims.

Virtually every civilization of which we have record, placed some limitations on the conduct of its own warfare. As early as the Egyptian and Sumerian Wars of the second millennium BC there were rules defining the circumstances under which war might be initiated. Among the Hitties of the 14 Century BC a formal exchange of letters and demands generally preceded hostilities.

The Babylonians of the 7th Century BC treated both prisoners and captured peoples with restraint in accordance with well-established rules. In “The Art of War” written in the 4th Century BC, Sun Tzu noted that it was forbidden to injure an enemy previously wounded or to strike elderly men. The captives were to be treated well and taken care of.

In Greek and Roman civilizations, the values of peace and harmony came to the fore and countered the pressure towards total war. Their laws specified that an enemy nation could be attacked only if it violates a treaty, injured an ambassador, desecrated holy places, or attacked an ally. Not only was a just cause required but a formal demand for redress and a declaration of war was necessary.

With the spread of Christianity, the laws of war took a new turn. The principles of pacifism and non-resistance preached by the religion were completely ignored, and aggression justified by a new doctrine of a “Just War”. For the need to spread the religion and then to protect it, the use of force was essential and employed in a ruthless manner. The crusades were an early example where religious sanction was provided by the Pope prior to the armed conflict for atrocities to be committed in battle.

The Hindus apply the dictum of Koutillaya, “Power is the ultimate truth and the main aim of an organised state should be to obtain power”. Koutillaya was the Prime Minister of Chandra Gupta and applied his treacherous diplomacy to subdue and annex other states. This Hindu pandit politician was responsible for the expansion of the Mourya Empire. He wrote a book Arthshastra (Economy) between 321 and 300 BC to explain his methods and laid down the following guidelines:-

a.         When your country is weak, pursue the policy of peace.

b.         When your country becomes militarily strong follow the policy of war.

c.         When another state seeks your help, apply double standards.

d.         The power of the state should be enhanced by expanding military preparedness.

e.         War should be pursued through relentless attacks on the enemy.

How India has been following the principles formulated by Koutillaya over 2000 years ago, since gaining independence in 1947, will be explained in a subsequent chapter.

With the advent of Islam a new phase in the conduct of armed conflict came into being, where valour and dignity in war took on a new meaning. Prisoners and the civil population of occupied territories were treated humanely. Their properties were not damaged or confiscated. They had freedom of religion and were entrusted with responsible positions in the new administration. The non-Muslims were not even required to take up arms in defence of the country but were expected to pay a small tax only. This attitude contributed immensely to the rapid rise and spread of Islam in a considerably short period.

The period of colonisation of Africa, South and East Asia and the Americas by the Christian nations of Western Europe was a brutal and sordid period in the history of armed conflict. It was reminiscent of the ruthless tactics employed by Ghengis Khan’s hordes in their march from Mongolia to Eastern Europe. The European colonists employed methods and tactics that would be considered barbaric these days. These included wholesale capture and deportation of slaves, under appalling conditions across the Atlantic to work in their new colonies in America.

The efforts to formulate and specify some laws for the conduct of war go back to about 350 years. Some writers on the subject focussed attention on these requirements and highlighted the problems. One of them was Hugo Grotius of Netherlands (1583-1645). Grotius wrote three books on the subject, “De Jure Belli ac Pacis” (the law of war and peace) in 1625. The first book examined the question of whether war was ever lawful (Grotius concluded that it was) and the second book determined the causes of war. In the third book Grotius explored the actual conduct of war.

In his discussion of prisoners and civilian population Grotius was extremely harsh in keeping with the European practice of the time. He saw nothing wrong in inflicting injury on prisoners and in making all captives into slaves. But his abiding legacy to the conduct of war is his emphasis on moderation in war. Useless fighting he wrote, should be avoided. He also gives all the restraints that should be exercised. Many of these suggestions were later on written into international law as part of The Hague and Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions cater for relief to the sick, wounded and prisoners of war belonging to the Armed Forces of the belligerents during armed conflicts. The civilian population in the combat zone has now also been provided some relief. The Hague Conventions on the other hand call for the pacific settlement of international disputes and limit the use of weapons which cause unnecessary casualties. Both are now often referred to as International Humanitarian law.

In 1914 the first world war started which in four years caused 20 million casualties. To prevent such a conflict The League of Nations was set up and in 1928 the Treaty of Paris was signed, which is also known as the Kellogg-Briand pact, names of the foreign ministers of the USA and France who initiated this treaty.

Many government leaders and international lawyers thought that the time had come to abandon all attempts to codify the rules of war and instead to establish that the waging of war itself was a crime. This sentiment led to a 15-nation agreement banning war as an instrument of policy. The Kellogg-Briand pact signed in Paris on August 27, 1928 was supposed to do away with the need for detailed rules of war since war itself was declared illegal. The legal effect of this pact was to be an important issue in the war crimes trial at Nuremberg following World War II.

The League of Nations and the Treaty of Paris were unable to prevent the second World War which started in 1939 and was the most destructive in history. It caused the death of about 60 million people before it came to an end in 1945. As wars have become more destruction the civilian casualties have increased.

In 1945 the United Nations was set up by 50 nations with the firm resolve:-

a.         To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

b.         To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small.

The purposes and principles of the United Nations as enunciated in Articles 1 and 2 of the charter states unequivocally as under.

Article 1

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of International disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

Article 2

All members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were able to prevent war in Western Europe which had been devastated twice in the first half of the 20th Century. But in the second half of the Century conflicts in other areas continued. The UN estimates that from 1945 to 1992, one hundred major armed conflicts have taken place, resulting in the death of about 20 million people.

In South Asia which is our primary concern, armed conflicts continue. Barely a few months after the British left India in August 1947, and two new dominions of India and Pakistan emerged as independent states, war clouds gathered and troops were on the march. In October 1947 India sent her forces into the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. A month earlier Patiala State forces had entered Kashmir although by 15 August these troops had merged with the Indian Army as the princely State of Patiala had acceded to the Indian Union. In April 1948 Pakistan Army units moved into Kashmir on the recommendation of the British C-in-C of the Army General Sir Douglas Gracy and both armies have remained there eversince, in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation.

India was later on to send troops into Junagarh, Manawader, and Hyderabad. The Portuguese territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were forcibly captured and incorporated into India in 1961. India also sent her troops into the tiny Himalayan Kingdom of Sikkim and absorbed it by force. India also sent her armies into the former East Pakistan to create Bangladesh. She was to send troops into Sri Lanka and Maldives. She blockaded Nepal to change her government. India and Pakistan have fought three wars, in 1948, 1965 and 1971. Also two border conflicts short of war in the Rann of Kutch and the Siachin Glacier.

In December 1962 India had an armed conflict with China. It was on India’s initiative when her Prime Minister the late Jawaharlal Nehru had ordered his troops to “throw out of Chinese”. It was the first and only time that India was to face an adversary of comparable size and strength. The result was a humiliating defeat for the Indian Army.

It will be seen that India after gaining independence from British colonial rule has consistently and repeatedly used force as an instrument of her foreign policy to further her strategic goals and national objectives. This policy is being followed, despite the fact that India was amongst the original 50 countries who signed the UN Charter in 1945.

Why is India’s policy so consistently aggressive that she repeatedly chooses war as an option in her bilateral relations with her small neighbours in South Asia. Is it her desire to dominate the region and mould it to her will, before expanding her influence and economic interests beyond the region. North to the Central Asian States and North West to the Middle East and its oil. She would also like to expand her influence Southwards to the Indian Ocean and Control trade with its littoral states. The make up and future induction plans of its Armed Forces do indicate a move in that direction.

In 1974 India detonated a nuclear device and the World accepted her explanation of a “peaceful nuclear explosion”— whatever that means. In May 1998 India undertook further underground nuclear tests. Pakistan followed, with nuclear tests of her own. These tests were to change the defence potential of both the countries. As nuclear weapons armed states, their potential for mutual destruction had increased enormously and in many ways beyond human imagination. Has war been left out as an option in South Asia, is now the moot question.

India has recently raised her defence budget by a hefty 28.2 per cent, when there is obviously no apparent danger to her security from her small neighbours. The present budget starting from April 1, 2000 is Rs. 586 billion ($ 13.5 billion) an increase of Rs. 130 billion ($ 3 billion). The increase is equal to the entire defence budget of Pakistan.

India has been increasing her defence budget for sometime now. In 1994 it was increased by 20 per cent. In 1997 by 24.4 per cent from Rs. 364.9 billion in 1996 to Rs. 454.2 billion. The Indian Army getting the biggest increase of Rs.195 billion or 45.9 per cent increase over its allocation of the previous year.

In between the major increases of 20 per cent in 1994, 24.4 per cent in 1997 and 28.2 per cent in 2000, there have been increases of between 11 to 15 per cent. Therefore a constant pattern is visible which seems to cater for a long-term plan of action, where the defence forces would be expected to play a major role.

Why is India arming and expanding her forces at an alarming pace when she already has the third largest Army in the World, supported by a strong Air Force and Navy. Her intentions in South Asia do not seem to be honourable and are suspect in the eyes of her neighbours.

It seems evident even to a prudent and non-military expert that the motives for building this large military machine, which is certainly well beyond India’s legitimate defence and security requirements, can be found in India’s aggressive aims and strategic objectives in the region and beyond. These cannot be fulfilled without resort to force.

Previously India’s military power was designed to fulfil two aims. The first being to subjugate the region to her well and secondly to project her power for economic gains beyond the region. Part two could not start until the first part was completed, where only Pakistan remained to be cowed down. Consequently it has been India’s constant effort to weaken Pakistan militarily by all the means at her disposal — military, political and diplomatic.

But in a nuclear armed South Asia India’s former aims and objectives seem out of place, by ignoring the ground realities. When the late General Sunder Jee a former Indian Army Chief was asked, would the Indian Army have attacked East Pakistan if Pakistan was a nuclear state. ‘No’ was his prompt reply.

There is considerable talk of a limited war by India. A limited war would have limited objectives, employ limited number of troops and try to prevent a larger military configuration, that could lead to a nuclear exchange. There are some in India who are forcefully advocating this option as they feel it is the most opportune time, when the West and particularly the United States are backing India. Pakistan having been isolated would not receive any military or diplomatic support.

It must be appreciated that India certainly has the option to start a limited war. Having started one, it loses the ability to keep it limited. Any side that was losing the conflict or was in danger of doing so would certainly employ the nuclear option.

Inspite of the rhetoric by Indian political leadership and the confidence building statements by the Indian Army Chief, General Malik, there are indications that India will not resort to war as a viable option. India at present has too many security forces employed in Kashmir, over 700,000. India’s line of communications to Kashmir are still vulnerable passing through the Sikh heartland. She has done her best to drive a wedge between the Muslims and Sikhs by the killing of 40 Sikhs in Kashmir during President Clinton’s visit to Delhi, but the Sikhs have not forgotten the attack on their holiest shrine at Amritsar and are still a deterrent to an Indian attack across the international border.

A UN-sponsored report released in September last year says. “When the most basic social services are missing in both India and Pakistan, the rising defence burdens in these countries continue to impose prohibitive social and economic costs on their people”. The report goes on to say that, “There are more people living in poverty in South Asia than the combined population in poverty in sub-Sahara Africa, the Arab States, East Asia and the Pacific (excluding China ) and Latin America and the Caribbean.

“India allocated $ 9.9 billion on defence this year (1999) and Pakistan $ 3.3 billion. Both countries are spending one third on defence. If the immense costs of conventional weapons and large armies are not already enough, new estimates for maintaining full-scale nuclear arsenals are expected to run, in India and Pakistan each at a bare minimum of $ 750 million a year”, said the report. India’s defence budget has been increased from $ 9.9 billion in 1999 to $ 13.5 billion this year. An increase of $ 3.6 billion, according to the above estimates.

The condition of the vast majority of poor in India and Pakistan should itself be a deterrent to an armed conflict leading to a full-scale war. The leadership in both the countries should move towards the negotiating table for a peaceful dialogue, Pakistan has taken the initiative but India is not responding. Pakistan should ask all those Western countries who are trying to isolate her to help India and Pakistan towards a dialogue for peace. This is the desire of people in both the countries and should be taken note of by the governments at present in power in New Delhi and Islamabad.