In his compelling editorial “The reality of the changing dimensions of warfare”, M.K. Narayanan, former National Security Adviser and one of India’s foremost security thinkers, presents a stark and timely analysis of how warfare has changed in the 21st century. Drawing from both historical precedent and current global trends, Narayanan asserts that warfare is no longer confined to battlefields or conventional military doctrines; instead, it has become a complex interplay of physical, psychological, technological, and economic elements.
Narayanan begins by challenging the once-optimistic belief, held by “many celebrated thinkers in politics, war and philosophy,” that large-scale war was a relic of the past. After the Cold War, it was widely hoped that diplomacy, deterrence, and economic integration would render full-scale conflict obsolete. Yet, this illusion was shattered dramatically on September 11, 2001, which Narayanan refers to as “a new beginning in global affairs.” The attacks, he argues, were not just acts of terrorism but signalled a “new kind of conflict”, one that was asymmetric, psychological, and global in scope.
The author contends that the nature of warfare has changed irreversibly. Traditional notions of conflict such as clear declarations of war, battlefield engagements, and visible military aggression no longer define the way war is waged. Instead, we now inhabit a world shaped by hybrid warfare, where military strategies are increasingly supplemented or even replaced by cyberattacks, economic coercion, narrative warfare, and the weaponization of information. Conflict, as he puts it, has “moved from the physical to the psychological, from the conventional to the irregular.”
This shift, Narayanan notes, was not immediately understood or accepted by global powers. The early signs of this transformation were “ignored or misread,” and the initial reactions to 9/11 failed to appreciate its long-term strategic implications. The problem was not just tactical oversight, but a deeper failure to reassess how war itself was evolving. The result has been a growing vulnerability to new forms of aggression that do not follow the rules of traditional warfare.
Narayanan draws particular attention to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, calling it a “new paradigm of war.” Here, conventional combat operations were integrated with cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, economic sanctions, and the strategic use of energy supply disruptions. Russia’s deployment of “drones, electronic jamming, and information warfare” underscores how modern conflicts aim not just to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, but to paralyze its systems and shake public morale.
He applies these lessons to India’s strategic environment, where a similar evolution is underway. Narayanan references “Operation Sindoora Tilak,” a recent Indian military exercise, as a commendable example of “jointness and synergy among the services,” particularly in planning and war-gaming scenarios. However, he cautions that India remains underprepared for the full spectrum of modern conflict, especially in emerging domains such as cyber and space. While traditional capabilities remain essential, they must now be embedded within a larger framework of multi-domain preparedness.
In a striking illustration, Narayanan constructs a hypothetical India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, characterized not by traditional troop movements but by “loitering munitions, drone swarms, air-to-air missiles, and precision strikes.” This speculative scenario is not intended as prediction, but as a blueprint for how future warfare might unfold—swift, stealthy, high-tech, and deeply destabilizing. Wars, he warns, may no longer be formally declared; instead, they may erupt without warning, through “non-contact engagements that cause disproportionate damage.”
A critical concern raised in the article is India’s dependence on foreign military platforms, such as the Rafale jets from France or the Russian S-400 missile systems. Narayanan cautions that “strategic autonomy cannot be achieved” if India continues to rely on imported hardware for its key defence needs. In a scenario where supply lines are cut or geopolitical alignments shift, such dependence becomes a strategic liability. Therefore, he calls for a renewed emphasis on “self-reliance in both capability and hardware”, echoing the government’s Atmanirbhar Bharat vision.
The battlefield, he suggests, is now everywhere. Cyber networks, financial systems, public discourse, and even space-based infrastructure are now legitimate targets. Narayanan argues that “war is no longer linear”, and nations must prepare for a reality in which “the grammar of warfare” involves misinformation, economic pressure, cyber sabotage, and psychological manipulation. The new theatre of conflict includes “communications networks, satellite systems, digital infrastructure, and mass media”—all of which are vulnerable and weaponizable.
To counter these threats, Narayanan proposes a complete reorientation of India’s security architecture. This involves rethinking doctrines, ensuring better coordination between services, investing in AI and cybersecurity, and involving the private sector in critical defence innovations. He suggests that India needs not only modern weapons but a “future-ready national security doctrine” that incorporates resilience, redundancy, and foresight.
In conclusion, M.K. Narayanan’s editorial is not simply an academic reflection but a powerful strategic warning. The phrase “India needs to adapt” serves as both a theme and a call to action. The threats of the future will not resemble the wars of the past, and preparedness will depend not only on strength, but on speed, sophistication, and strategic imagination. India must move beyond the comfort of conventional definitions and embrace a vision of security that matches the complexity of the modern world.
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/