![](https://bharatshakti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LT-BSI-Defence.gif")
On the first anniversary of the Pahalgam attack, it is sobering to remind ourselves of the emotions that surrounded drawing rooms across the Indian household. Apart from the sheer scale and nature of the cowardly attack, it also brought unnerving memories of the first decade of the 21st century that saw multiple terror attacks across the breadth of Indian territory. It is not to say there were no terror attacks thereafter.
However, the targets were predominantly members of the armed forces. It allowed the general populace to return to normalcy, or, to say, become a little complacent. The aftermath and operation Sindoor have been discussed in as much detail as any national action in the last two decades. What has gone amiss in much of this discussion is the non-insulation of the general population from these terror attacks, in particular, and any warfare in general.
The piece aims to assess whether the days of frontiers and borders as secluded conflict zones are over, and whether the Indian population is as insulated as we all think it is.
While the article is titled “Return of the total war,” such a close engagement with violence is a distant memory for the Indian population at large. Classically, the concept of total war is one in which there is no distinction between front lines and civilian rear areas. For most of the present generation, it is something that happened on TV sets during the Gulf Wars, which saw attacks on industrial capacity, urban centres, and entire populations.
For those with a little academic inkling, these tales were read from stories of the world wars they would have come across. However, for most Indians, their imaginations are at best defined by the visuals of the Kargil War, which was limited and distant in the Himalayan heights. The idea is not to sensationalise the situation in any manner but to point out that the boundary between the battlefront and home is eroding once again, albeit in a very different manner from the world wars.
The assertion is not based solely on kinetic actions. It is stressed that the character of war is changing rapidly, and the new domains of warfare are rapidly moving the means of warfare away from those traditionally trained to conduct it. Be it cyber, information, cognitive, narrative, or increasingly space, the capability and capacity to engage the adversary lies beyond uniformed personnel. The worry is that the scenario doesn’t augur well for the intended economic trajectory that Viksit Bharat 2047 has laid down.
The violence has been brought to our doorstep, and the worry is that we are not ready. We scroll past it on our phones, but we have not yet adjusted our mechanisms, drills, or, for that matter, civic habits to living in a contested cyber and information space. Some examples of such complacency were reported during the air-raid siren drills and during Operation Sindoor, when many citizens treated serious preparedness measures as either a theatre or an inconvenience, rather than a rehearsal for real disruption.
Though the kinetic action was largely confined to border states, the reach of social media meant that the visuals were being played out in real time.
Another buzzword in strategic circles is the ‘Whole of Nation Approach.’ Israel is often cited as an example, but the geopolitical realities of our two countries are very different. It is not required for us to turn every citizen into a soldier. What is required is recognition that non-kinetic fields like cyber, information, space and the security of critical infrastructure need resilience backed by civil institutions, private industry, and social discipline as much as by the armed forces.
The government of the day rightly bears the responsibility for the security and welfare of the population at large; however, that does not take away every citizen’s responsibility for their own security and the security of their fellow countrymen. Yes, the clarion call is for the government to act, but also to recognise the value that every individual carries in this modern battlefield.
US President John F. Kennedy famously said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.’ The choice before us is simple: either we continue to bury our heads in the sand, treating war as a distant spectacle, or else accept the responsibility because, in this scenario, citizen indifference itself is a vulnerability.
As we step into this new form of total war, it is imperative for those mandated to ensure security to create institutional space for citizen participation. The armed forces must acknowledge the civilian capability and capacity to successfully plug into and engage in this total war. They need to understand that within the civilian population lies not only vulnerability but also capacity in terms of technical expertise, infrastructure, and national resilience that strengthen and augment national defence.
Hence, the task for the politico-military system is as much to protect society from war as to identify how this society can contribute to resilience and, possibly, deterrence in structured and responsible ways.
However, this cannot be left to sentiment or improvisation. It must be facilitated through policy, coordination and trust-building. The government’s job is to recognise this, organise it, and build frameworks that allow for such engagement across the whole nation. Patriotism may be the sentiment that underlies such an effort, but in an era where the homefront is part of the battlespace, patriotism must express itself through preparedness, civic discipline, and the willingness to be part of a wider national security ecosystem.
Wg Cdr Akash Godbole (Author is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Aerospace Power and Strategic Studies, New Delhi)
Wing Commander Akash Godbole is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Aerospace Power and Strategic Studies, New Delhi. He is an alumnus of National Defence Academy and Military Institute of Technology, Pune. He is a Fighter pilot, Qualified Flying Instructor and Instrument Rating Instructor and examiner. He has held key field appointments including Fight Commander of a fighter squadron and Chief Operations Officer of a fighter base. He is presently pursuing research in the field of Air Power in Indo-Pacific as Senior fellow at CAPSS. His research areas include Indian military history, emerging technologies and application of air power.
