In the premiere episode of the BharatShakti Dialogues, Rear Admiral Sudarshan Shrikhande (Retd) offers a compelling examination of a problem that has shadowed militaries for centuries: their chronic struggle to embrace change. Moderated by Editor-in-Chief Nitin A Gokhale, the dialogue centres on a pivotal warning— “the next war will not wait.” The discussion is timely, rich in historical analogy, and disturbingly relevant.
‘Past Perfectedness’ vs. Future Readiness
One of Shrikhande’s most potent critiques is the concept he calls “past perfectedness.” It’s a phrase that captures a troubling paradox—militaries often prioritize what has worked in the past, mistaking legacy for readiness. This inertia is not mere conservatism; it is structural and cognitive. Militaries are trained to fight today’s wars with today’s tools. Yet, as Shrikhande points out, true strategic leadership involves preparing for wars that have not yet occurred, in domains that may not even fully exist.
This mindset is not new. As he traces through military history, revolutions in warfare—from tanks to airpower to satellites—were frequently resisted by those who could not see past the paradigms of their era. A general’s fidelity to cavalry in the age of caterpillar tracks mirrors today’s skepticism toward autonomous systems and cyber dominance.
Revolutions in Military Affairs: More Than Just Tech
Another sharp insight emerges when Shrikhande reframes the idea of Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMA). He cautions against seeing RMAs as mere technological leaps. Instead, they are the product of a revolutionary blend of people, ideas, and technology. RMAs occur when human innovation aligns with technological possibility, supported by the political will to break convention.
Thus, failure to adapt is not a technological problem but a human one. Institutional rigidity, careerist caution, and hierarchical echo chambers all contribute to delayed adaptation. Senior leadership often lacks the exposure or will to engage deeply with emerging domains—space, cyber, AI—as these domains redraw the battle maps.
The Agility Gap
Shrikhande warns of a widening agility gap between the pace of technological change and the speed at which military minds can absorb and apply that change. He cites historical examples: the reluctance of the Soviet and U.S. Air Forces to initially embrace satellite-based reconnaissance or the slow integration of unmanned systems despite their clear strategic value.
In a telling metaphor, he observes that while platforms and ordnance have become faster, military thought hasn’t kept pace. “Our minds also have to be nearly as agile,” he says, pinpointing the intellectual lag that persists despite technical advances.
The Paradox of the Present
A core tension runs throughout the dialogue: the paradox between operational imperatives and long-term transformation. Militaries must be effective today, even as they prepare for an uncertain tomorrow. This creates a dilemma—how to innovate without compromising current readiness?
Shrikhande proposes a dual focus: First, institutionalize the space for younger officers and external talent to challenge orthodoxy. Second, simulate the cognitive overload of modern warfare in exercises—training commanders not just in kinetic strategy but also in processing, interpreting, and acting on massive volumes of fast-changing data.
Lessons from the Indian Navy
Interestingly, Shrikhande highlights the Indian Navy as an example of institutional adaptability. Through early partnerships with civilian scientific bodies, integration of dual-use technology, and organizational innovations like the Naval Armament Inspectorate, the Navy has remained comparatively agile in embracing newer domains like space and cyber.
This model suggests a path forward: collaboration beyond silos, acceptance of cross-domain expertise, and an openness to decentralize innovation.
Clausewitz in the 21st Century
Quoting Clausewitz— “Every age has its kind of war”—Shrikhande underscores that modern conflict, shaped by AI, space, and information dominance, demands an entirely new conception of readiness. Today’s leaders must be willing to act amid ambiguity, to prepare not for specific scenarios but for the unknown. It demands courage, flexibility, and a willingness to let go of “perfected” past models.
General Carl von Clausewitz (1989), a Prussian general and military theorist, famously stated, “Every age has its kind of war, its limiting conditions, and its peculiar preconceptions”. This quote emphasizes that warfare is not static; it evolves alongside societal and technological changes, influencing the nature of conflict and the strategies employed.
Conclusion: Readiness Requires Risk
The dialogue ends with a sober but essential insight: no military can ever be truly “ready” for the future. Readiness is not a destination but a continuous, often uncomfortable process. It requires risk-taking, agility of thought, and a culture that values the speculative as much as the operational.
Shrikhande’s message is clear—militaries that cling to the comfort of legacy will find themselves irrelevant in wars that arrive unannounced, unfold in unfamiliar domains, and demand decisions at the speed of light. The next war won’t wait. Neither should the thinking.
