By: Harshit Tokas, Research Analyst, GSDN

War, with its very real human cost, also brings with it serious economic implications. Beyond the devastation of infrastructure and the decline in the working population, war unleashes a wave of economic consequences that resonate for years to come. This includes inflation, shortages of essential goods, heightened uncertainty, increased public debt, and severe disruption to normal economic activities. Examining the economic effects of war reveals a complex interplay of gains and losses, ultimately making the case for peace and diplomacy even more compelling.

While some may argue that war can stimulate economic activity by creating demand, employment opportunities, fostering innovation, and boosting business profits, it’s essential to consider the concept of the ‘broken window fallacy.’ This fallacy illustrates that spending money on war does create demand, but it represents a massive opportunity cost. Resources spent on war could instead have been directed towards investments in education or healthcare, promoting long-term economic growth. The Iraq War, for instance, was estimated to have an opportunity cost of $860 billion by the end of 2009, highlighting the potential for alternative uses of these resources.

In many cases, war contributes to inflation, which erodes people’s savings, increases economic uncertainty, and undermines confidence in the financial system. For instance, during the US Civil War, the Confederacy struggled to finance its war efforts. To meet its financial obligations, they resorted to printing money to pay soldiers’ salaries. However, the increased money supply led to the devaluation of currency, particularly affecting middle-income savers who saw their savings dwindle.

Similarly, the World War II saw inflationary pressures in the United States due to a booming economy operating at near full capacity. High government spending, labor shortages, and a scarcity of goods and services contributed to this inflation. Additionally, war can lead to cost-push inflation, driven by shortages of essential goods and services and increasing prices of raw materials such as oil. It is worth noting that during the World War II, inflation was mitigated by price controls and rationing measures.

In cases where war devastates a country’s ability to produce goods, hyperinflation can occur. Governments, grappling with economic turmoil, resort to printing money to manage the scarcity of goods, as witnessed in Hungary and Austria in 1946.

Major conflicts can disrupt global oil supplies, causing oil prices to surge. For example, the Gulf War in 1990 led to a sharp rise in oil prices. Prices increased from US$ 21 a barrel in July to a post-invasion peak of US$ 46 in mid-October, although they subsequently fell. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine also led to increased oil and gas prices, resulting in higher global fuel costs. With Russia being a significant oil and gas supplier, economic sanctions against Russia further strained global energy markets, leading to higher gas prices.

War frequently results in a rapid escalation of public sector debt. Governments are more willing to borrow heavily during wartime, benefiting from patriotic support for war efforts. Both World Wars caused a substantial increase in the United Kingdom’s national debt. By the end of World War II, UK national debt stood at 150%, eventually rising to 240% in the early 1950s. The US, while not engaged in the war during its initial years, also saw its national debt rise. It was ultimately sustained by selling arms and equipment to the UK on generous lend-lease terms. These loans took many decades to repay.

Although war can provide a temporary boost to domestic demand and some sectors of the economy, the broader economic costs are substantial. The opportunity cost of military spending, the human toll of lives lost, and the post-war reconstruction costs are significant factors. The impact of war also depends on the nature and duration of the conflict, its location, and how it is fought. For instance, while the US experienced economic growth during the World Wars, the most significant destruction occurred in Asia and Europe.

Civil wars can have a devastating impact on a country’s economic development. They often result in a collapse of tourism, foreign and domestic investment. Civil wars also lead to a decrease in life expectancy and a reduction in GDP. In Africa, the cost of war is estimated to be equivalent to the amount of international aid. Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo have borne a substantial economic cost due to prolonged conflicts, including a loss of around 29% of its GDP and millions of lives. These conflicts also increase armed violence and organized crime rates.

The consequences of war are not always uniformly positive or negative. The post-war period following major conflicts can differ significantly. After World War II, despite a substantial debt, the UK experienced a prolonged period of economic expansion. The US, which didn’t participate in the early years of the conflict, saw a less pronounced increase in national debt. The post-World War II era was marked by extensive US aid to Western Europe, facilitating the region’s remarkable economic recovery, particularly in Germany.

In contrast, after the World War I, the UK struggled with prolonged unemployment, and returning soldiers faced limited job prospects. However, after the World War II, the US and Europe enjoyed a period of full employment.

The aftermath of war can yield both positive and negative economic outcomes. Successful recovery depends on a variety of factors, including post-conflict government policies and international support.

Beyond the economic toll, war exacts a profound psychological cost, encompassing the pain of death, suffering, fear, and disability. War leaves soldiers and civilians traumatized, often with lifelong psychological scars. Estimating the economic value of the psychological costs of war is complex, making it difficult to assess the full extent of war’s impact.

While war may seem to offer potential economic advantages, it’s crucial to recognize that most of these benefits could be achieved without resorting to conflict. Such advantages include achieving full employment, higher economic growth, increased innovation through government investments in technology, and changing social attitudes. For example, the participation of women in the labor market increased after the World War I.

It is noteworthy that in the 1950s and 1960s, the US’s involvement in conflicts like the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Cambodia generated high military spending, fostering strong domestic demand and economic growth. Companies involved in arms production witnessed increased demand and profitability. However, we must not forget that these wars occurred outside the US, with the most significant devastation concentrated in Asia and Europe.

Historically, there was a time when war could bring about economic benefits. In an era of limited trade, countries could improve their economies by plundering wealth and land from others. For example, Viking invasions likely increased the wealth of Scandinavia. While there were casualties in the fighting, the gains in wealth, slaves, and booty outweighed the losses. Wars during this time were relatively inexpensive as armies were self-sufficient.

However, modern warfare significantly differs. It is costly, technologically advanced, and highly interconnected in a globalized world. Today, a nation’s economic well-being relies heavily on international trade, making wars risky due to potential economic sanctions. Moreover, the resurgence of nationalism and resistance to foreign occupation makes occupying armies susceptible to local opposition.

In 1909, British author Norman Angell published “The Great Illusion,” arguing that war in the twentieth century would result in a net economic cost rather than economic gain. While countries may still be willing to engage in war for various reasons, such as political objectives, economic consequences often prove detrimental. The economic benefits of peaceful diplomacy and cooperation far outweigh the gains from warfare.

In conclusion, war’s economic impact is multifaceted, encompassing inflation, increased debt, and potential benefits such as short-term demand and employment. Nevertheless, the long-term costs, the opportunity cost of military spending, and the immense human suffering far outweigh these benefits. History shows that war can result in hyperinflation, significant loss of life, and economic devastation. Moreover, economic costs extend to the psychological toll on individuals and societies. Modern warfare is marked by its complexity, high costs, and the interconnectedness of the global economy. Ultimately, this underscores the importance of seeking peaceful alternatives to conflict and fostering international cooperation to address global challenges.

By: Krishnendu R, Research Analyst, GSDN

The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia was started as a long-standing territorial dispute over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. This dispute has deep roots in history. Nagorno-Karabakh, also known as Artsakh is a mountainous region in the southern Caucasus Mountain. The region was internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, but it was predominantly occupied by ethnic Armenians.

Karabakh had its own government, which is close to Armenia, but it has not been recognised   internationally or by other countries. This region is vital for both Azerbaijan and Armenia because their historical ties lie in the region where Armenia is a Christian majority, where they have occupied this region. Azerbaijanians, a predominantly dominated Muslim majority who originally were from Turkey, Persia and Russia, also have historical sentiments with this region.

The dispute was centred around the political, social and cultural future of the area. On September 19-20, 2023, war broke out in the mountainous region of Nagorno Karabakh, where Azerbaijani forces conquered the territory held by the defenders in a short military operation. The history of the clash between the two nations began in 1905, and it continued after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which resulted in the two states becoming independent.

In 1988-1994 war broke out between Armenia and their Azeri neighbours, ending up in control of Nagorno Karabakh by the Armenians. This became the First Karabakh war. In 2020, Azerbaijan started military operations with the use of weapons and drones from Turkey and Israel, which was cited as the main reason for Azerbaijan’s victory. This war lasted up to 44 days and ended up in taking back the seven districts and the control over Nagorno Karabakh. About 6500 people were killed in this war.

Background of the Conflict

The history behind the conflict started in 1905 when the first significant clash occurred between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the city of Baku. After the First World War, both countries became independent, and the complex demography of Transcaucasia made it challenging to separate them into ethnic homogenous states. Later, the conflict shifted to Nagorno-Karabakh. At the time, Armenians were the predominant majority in the area, having migrated from Turkey and Iran.

After the soviet rule was established, the new government decided to place Nagorno Karabakh under the Armenian administration. In 1921, they changed this decision and placed Nagorno-Karabakh under Azerbaijan. In 1923, Nagorno Karabakh became Nagorno Karabakh Oblast (NKAO) of Azerbaijan SSR. The reasons for this change were unclear, but maybe because of the influence of Turkish relations with the Soviet Union. This decision completely dissatisfied the Armenians.

Armenians made several attempts to make Nagorno-Karabakh a part of it in the 1960s and 1970s. They made several appeals to Moscow, but they didn’t get any positive response. In the 1980s, the Armenians met senior party officials several times to discuss the status of NKAO. However, Azerbaijan showed that they would not agree to their demands regarding NKAO.

On 26 February 1988, around one million people gathered on the streets of Yerevan. Gorbachev promised to listen to the concerns of Armenian activists, and he promised that a solution would take after one month. Armenians stopped their protests for a while, but in Azerbaijan, violence occurred in Sumgait.

By the end of March 1988, the authorities decided not to change the status of NKAO. To avoid further disturbances, Armenians were arrested and taken into custody. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1999, both states became independent and formed into new states, which led again to the fighting for Nagorno-Karabakh, which ended up conquering Armenia, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was ruled by a separatist government which is closely connected with Armenia.  

In 2020, war again erupted in the borders. In this period, Azerbaijan gained military assistance from Turkey and Ankara, and after 44 days of war, Azerbaijan gained its victory by recapturing Nagorno Karabakh and seven neighbouring districts.

What Happened Recently

Last week, Azerbaijan launched an anti-terror campaign in Nagorno Karabakh, protesting against the illegal mining in the area, which caused the death of six Azerbaijanians. Azerbaijani activists occupied the Lachin corridor and blocked the national highway except for Red Cross and Russian convoys. Russian peacekeepers were unable to reopen the highway, resulting in the shortage of supply of food and medicine to Nagorno Karabakh coming from Yerevan. This was seen as genocide making the people hungry, and whenever they opened the highway, people had to flee from their place. Then, they started a checkpoint to deter the military shipments from Armenia, and later, they ended the protests, claiming that the true objective of the government was to block the Armenian passage. Armenian leaders stated that Azerbaijan is trying to isolate the ethnic Armenians in Karabakh.

Peace talks were initiated by Russia, the US, and the European Union to rebuild peace in the borders and protect ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh, where the Armenian President Pashinyan accepted the victory of Azerbaijan.

Again, Azerbaijan tightened the tensions by closing the Lachin corridor, where Red Cross convoys were also prohibited. Medical evacuations were suspended, and several people, including children, died when this humanitarian crisis turned critical. Azerbaijan offered medical help, but the regional administration rejected it by saying that we do not need help from the ones who are responsible for this crisis.

After a few days, the Lachin corridor reopened, which gave hope to regain the peace in the borders. Azerbaijan gained complete power over Nagorno Karabakh while protests started in the streets of Yerevan against the government, accusing it of failing to protect the ethnic Armenians and demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Around 12000 people live in the disputed territory. Thousands of people migrated from there because of the fear of persecution. The administrators demanded the protection of the people who remained there.

Diplomacy and Involvement of International Actors

Azerbaijan and Armenia, a part of the Soviet Union, have close connections with Russia. The deployment of Russian troops at the borders was a move Russia took to ease the tensions near the borders. However, the invasion of Russia into Ukraine in 2022 made it unable to control both countries going into a conflict.

Other countries like Turkey, Iran and Israel took this as a chance to fuel up the conflict for implementing their agendas in this region.

Both countries are important for Russia as Russia is the arms supplier of both nations. Armenia is a member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, and Azerbaijan is a significant market for Russian arms exports.

Turkey is also involved in the conflict by supporting Azerbaijan through providing military assistance. It also has the support of Ankara, where its close partners are Pakistan and Qatar. Moscow and Ankara tried to keep the Western involvement minimal in the Karabakh conflict. They found a way around in the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by Iran, Russia and the US, which was established in the 1990s to find a peaceful solution to Nagorno Karabakh.

Another regional actor was Iran, where 15 to 19 million Azeris live in Iran as compared to 10 million in Azerbaijan. Tehran was afraid of the possible overflow of Azeris in Iran. They were also concerned about Baku’s ambition to build an overland transport corridor in Armenia that connects Azerbaijan to the Nakhichevan enclave, which would cut off Iran’s access to Yerevan. Hence Iran maintained a neutral position between the two conflicting parties, though with a slight tilt towards Armenia.

Iran’s leaning towards Armenia was why Israel was backing Azerbaijan, and it is the major arms supplier to Baku, including drone ammunition and Barak 8 missiles.

Conclusion

With a long bitter dispute spanning over a hundred years finally coming to an end, one hopes that peace and prosperity reigns supreme in the region and no more bloodshed or destruction of property is witnessed in the times ahead.

By: Kashif Anwar, Research Analyst, GSDN

Background

With an era of rapprochement in the Middle East in the form of the Abraham Accords in 2020, the Iran-Saudi Arabia peace deal and the Saudi Arabia-Israel normalisation (which has now been put on ice), a deadly attack by Hamas in Southern Israel, took place 50 years after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, on October 7, 2023, which was code-named Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This attack and Israel’s subsequent military action in the Gaza Strip, impacted the peace developments in the Middle East and has raised many questions. While Hamas is championed as a freedom fighter group among many Arab countries, the West and Israel view it as a terrorist group.

The ongoing war in the Middle East

To understand the ongoing conflict between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces, which resulted from a deadly attack by the Hamas group in Southern Israel on October 7, 2023 the attack, though highlighted the effectiveness of Hamas in taking on the Israeli Defence Forces. The attack brought to fore once again the importance of Two-State solution and put the Saudi Arabia-Israel normalisation process on hold. The attack gave the Netanyahu’s government a free hand to organise and proceed with a retaliatory military operation, code-named Operation Swords of Iron, against Hamas which has adversely impacted the innocent civilians residing in the Gaza Strip. The United Nations has questioned and asked Israel to rescind the evacuation of 1 million people from North Gaza, considering its impact on the people who will be pushed to migrate to the Sinai peninsula, a movement opposed by Egypt.

Considering the history of conflict between Israel and Palestine, the trauma of Nakba Day and the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a Jewish Israeli to stop the peace process under the Oslo Accord on November 4, 1995, and clashes over the years has made the peace process and Two-State solution complicated. Since the 1990s, Israel’s policy towards Palestine has changed, and despite differences among various parties, groups and lobbies, from the left wing to peace camp to the right wing in Israel, they all agree with the continuation of occupation of the Palestine territory. Such events make all conflicts and wars in the region unjust and uncalled for, including the ongoing Hamas-Israel war.

Comparing with the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Hamas attack of October 07, 2023 in Southern Israel happened 50 years after the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The attack highlighted the ineffectiveness of Israel’s Iron Dome System and the failure of Israel’s intelligence network. With Hamas firing rockets numbering about 5000 by its Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigade, it exposed the myth and might of such a weapon system. The attack and intelligence failure have become a point of worry and contention for Israel and many worldwide. As Egypt provided inputs of such an attack three days before to Israel, no actions were taken, highlighting the ignorance and incompliance from Israel’s end. Meanwhile, it also raises serious questions about whether such an attack was allowed to took place to push forward the nationalist sentiment, militarism and fear in Israel. The timing of such attack will subdue the ongoing protest against the Netanyahu government’s attempt to weaken the nation’s judiciary or otherwise it happened because of Israel’s overconfidence, the exact contours of which will be known only in the times ahead.

However, with such an attack, a comparison has begun between the Hamas-Israel war and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Looking into the actions the Israeli government took in Gaza, Russian President Vladimir Putin has cautioned Israel to stop using Nazi tactics like the siege of Leningrad in Gaza and he sees no difference in Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, which according to the Russian President is unacceptable. On the other hand, the Ukraine President Zelensky sees and compares the Hamas attack on Israel to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and argues that the world should unite against such aggression. However, a recent standing ovation for a 98-year-old Ukrainian Nazi Yaroslay Hunka, from the SS 14^th Waffen Division, following President Zelensky’s speech in the Canadian Parliament, reflects the West’s selectiveness and insensitiveness towards the Jewish community. Considering Russia’s Nazi claims and its presence in Ukraine, the West sees it as a Russian common political ploy to spread fake news. On the other hand, the West’s silence and support of Israel’s military response and official statement to cut off all supplies to Gaza has become a genocidal act, worsening the condition of people, thus projecting the West’s double-standards.

The recent Hamas attack is viewed by the Arab countries as a counter-response to atrocities committed by the Israelis on Palestinians in recent years, which has pushed Russia and the West into a delicate situation. The attack happened at a time when Russia and the West are engaged in a conflict in Ukraine, and the continuation of the Hamas-Israel war will open a new frontier in the West’s geopolitical conflict with Russia, including Iran. Lack of West’s strong critique of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and indiscriminate bombing in the region contradicts the West’s stand when they openly criticised and questioned the Russian army besieging the city of Mariupol, Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has become a NATO vs Russia conflict, with money and military aid poured into the conflict to enforce dominance and highlight power. Such a contrast in the West’s response to the Hamas-Israel war highlights their contradiction in its stand to promote peace, prosperity and stability worldwide.

West’s double-standards exposed

In the case of the Palestine-Israel conflict over the rightful owner of the region, fear and trauma of innocent peoples have been played over the decades. Britain hasn’t taken measures of moral responsibility, including symbolic for what they did to the Palestinians to defeat the Ottoman Empire as is given in the ten letters which form part of the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence of 1914-15. Such treatment of Palestinians continued, and the West’s silence and ignorance of the voice of Palestinian statehood is subdued on the social media platform, which impacts the scope and hopes for a two-state. To understand it better, the lack of a strong response and stand from the global leaders of the West on attacks, clashes, interference, and incursion in the Al-Aqsa compound in 2022, by the Israelis has widened the wedge between the Israelis and Palestinians.

A clear distinction is visible in how the West has responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. When Ukraine’s counter-attack began, the West celebrated such a move to end the Russian invasion. On the other hand, when the Palestinian nationals are doing the same thing over the years against the Israeli occupation, the West strongly condemns such an act. In contrast, it does not mean the crimes committed by Hamas in Israel are right, but such blame games and selective responses have emerged due to the West’s selective responses and move to secure its interest in the Middle East region. As the West, including its powerful media, questioned the Russian ruthlessness in Ukraine, a contrast was seen in their stand and support of Israel’s military response to Hamas Gaza, with innocent civilians facing the major brunt, yet again highlighted the West’s hypocrisy.

Post-Hamas attack, the European Union response, like freezing of aid to Palestine, was viewed as a botched response and faced criticism from Spain, Luxemburg and Ireland, who stated such a decision wasn’t approved by the EU member states. Further, a statement from the EU President Von der Leyen showing sympathy towards Israel and stating Israel has a right to defend itself without highlighting or ensuring that Israel follows the Geneva Convention of 1949 in its military operation in Gaza, has drawn criticism from within the EU. Such a swift response to ensure the rights and safety of Israelis are protected and secured was missing in the case of Palestine over the years, and the West’s measures to stop and withhold any pro-Palestine rally speaks volumes today of West following double standards.

As many developed nations are taking measures to curb pro-Palestinian protests, rallies and marches, like in the case of Australia, police authorities were given a special power ‘stop-and-search’ invoked after two decades to ensure and keep an eye on the pro-Palestinian rally. On the other hand, in France, the government has banned pro-Palestinian rallies in the name of public order, which critics have argued is an attack on freedom of speech and civil liberties as no such restrictions were imposed in the case of events supporting Israel. Such biased responses and double standards from the West are growing visible. As a moment of silence was observed in the EU Parliament, Brussels, on October 11, 2023, for people killed in the Hamas attack IN Israe, the EU leaders failed to mention about Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli Defence Forces, highlighting the West’s narrow viewpoint. Furthermore, the Netherlands and Germany’s halting of any rally and march in solidarity with the Palestinian cause pushed many civil society and human rights groups across Europe to decry such restrictions and see it as an attack on the freedom of expression and assembly in Europe.

Conclusion

The ongoing Hamas-Israel war can potentially worsen the crisis situation within the European Institutions. The presence of a significant difference in positions on Israel’s military operation in the Gaza Strip, a lack of coordination and conflicting statements by senior officials could make the situation difficult for the EU. It could be amplified by Israel’s non-compliance with the rules of war and international humanitarian law. With the EU and US response to Israel’s action remain mild, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and now the Hamas-Israel war highlight West’s stand and projects their double-standards. With pro-Palestine rallies and protests growing the world over, the voice against Israel’s war crimes in Gaza rising in Israel, the West should ensure the war doesn’t spill over and become a regional war.

The West’s quick response to stand and sympathise with Israel and support its blockade of Gaza, many dissents in Israel, like Gideon Levy, an Israeli senior and respected journalist, argues that such a move highlights that the voice of the Palestinian cause has been forgotten while Israel has gained sympathy. With pro-Palestinian rallies being watched and put under heavy restrictions in the West, the support for the Palestine cause has increased in the Middle East and Global South. The Saudi Arabia-Israel normalisation process has been put on hold, worrying the West about its Middle East project to keep Russia and China away from the region. In such a scenario, the West should instead take a firm stand to ensure Israel complies with the international laws and secures a ceasefire at the earliest to avoid another humanitarian catastrophe.

By: Brig KGK Nair, SM (Retd)

I don’t know how we are all so surprised by civilian deaths. In any conflict, civilians die, but naturally. They are helpless, shelterless and most vulnerable.

Even when we operate with utmost care in the Counter Insurgency Operations, civilians die. In one particular operation, a small girl almost lost her life when she was caught in the crossfire with two terrorists in the jungles of Shalnar in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Despite best practices that we followed in the battalion that I was serving in, I thought she was gone. But during the search for bodies, we found her safe in the corn field adjoining her home and I just took her in my arms and hugged her till eternity.

Besides there’s collateral damage to property which is unavoidable because they get into civilian houses and govt property. So, civilians dying is as much collateral damage as damage to any property.

In conventional wars the damage and death increase manifolds. In the World War II, the total civilian deaths could easily cross 50 million, if not more. Germany and Japan alone would have lost 2 million if not more, in my opinion. Where were the human rights then? So why the bleeding hearts now? When civilians remain mute spectators and do not stand up to stupid regimes, even if of their own race and religion, death is surely to follow. The Gazans and Palestinians have supported Hamas, willingly or tacitly just like the Germans supported Hitler during his reign. A few good souls here or there is immaterial. They’ll all face the wrath of the War! While the terrorists and non-state actors do it openly, the states and it’s military and covert organs may do it either unwittingly or deliberately, and then deny it.

War is ugly. War is however necessary, and there’s nothing to repent.

There’s no white, no black, there’s just grey!

About the Author

Commissioned in 1991, Brig KGK Nair, SM (Retd) is an alumnus of IMA, Dehradun. He has commanded an Artillery Brigade in eastern Arunachal Pradesh as well as a Corps Artillery Brigade in Punjab. He has extensive field experience, having served in Siachen, Jammu & Kashmir as well as in North East. He specialised in Precise Intelligence based Operations during his tenure with the Rashtriya Rifles and was also twice awarded for Gallantry including a Sena Medal. The views expressed are personal. He tweets at @KrishnarajNair6

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

Indian Army’s Eastern Command organised a spectacular and splendid display of the might of the Indian Military Industrial Complex through the East Tech 2023 in Guwahati, the capital of the Indian state of Assam on October 10-11, 2023.

East Tech 2023 was inaugurated by Mr Bimal Bora, the Minister of Industries and Commerce, Government of Assam in the presence of Lieutenant General RP Kalita, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SM, VSM, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, apart from a host of civilian and military dignitaries.

The motto of East Tech 2023 was “Soldering Through Self Reliance”, which was an apt and appropriate motto keeping in view the strides that India has made in the field of indigenous defence manufacturing as per the vision of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who gave the iconic slogans of Atmanirbhar Bharat and Make in India in 2014 and 2020 respectively.

Lieutenant General RP Kalita, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SM, VSM, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command in his welcome address stated that the Eastern Command is the largest operational command of the Indian Army and it operates in all kinds of terrain. The Eastern Command has been hand-holding and supporting all the ventures of the indigenous defence manufacturers which will propel India to further make the latest and the best defence weapon systems. He also said that 200 firms are taking part in displaying their military hardware in East Tech 2023. The General Officer also added that East Tech 2022 which was held in Kolkata last year, was a resounding success and after that event, 37 products have been identified for use in the Eastern Command and the process is being taken forward.

Mr Bimal Bora, Industries and Commerce Minister, Government of Assam in his inauguration speech said that Assam is a conducive state for startups and MSMEs, where the domestic manufacturers of defence equipment should establish their manufacturing bases.

East Tech 2023 was a very well organised exhibition which saw large numbers of public witnessing the grand event which showcased the success of the Indian military industrial complex. On display were many latest weapon systems, some of which have yet to be inducted in the Indian Armed Forces.

Later in the day, a media interaction was held in which Lieutenant General RP Kalita, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SM, VSM, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command answered various questions posed by the press. On a question by the author of this article, on whether the Indian Armed Forces are planning to open up the manufacturing of ammunition to the private sector as the manufacturing of hardware by the private sector has proved to be a success, the Army Commander said that the process is already on and certain trials are going on in the field formations.

East Tech 2023 was a great platform for the Army and the Industry to interact which will go a long way to enhance the combat potential of the Indian Army, which is rated as one of the finest armies of the world. The event conducted from October 10-11, 2023 was a resounding success and should pave the way for more collaborations. The Red Horns Division under the Eastern Command, which was the organising formation of East Tech 2023 did a fabulous and fantastic job in organising the exhibition and every minute detail was very well looked into, thereby showing the might of the Indian Army in every field that they partake a task in.

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

Three major terrorist attacks in the Rajouri and Poonch districts of Jammu & Kashmir have shown that the new battleground for the Indian Army’s war on terror on the Jihadis operating in Jammu & Kashmir with the aid of Pakistan, has shifted from the traditional hotbeds of Baramulla and Sopore in the North of Pir Panjal range (NPPR) to the South of Pir Panjal Range (SPPR).

The three major terror attacks were the attack of April 20, 2023 in which five Indian Army soldiers of a Rashtriya Rifles battalion were killed in a vehicular ambush in Bhata Durian in Poonch. The second attack was on May 05, 2023 in which five Parachute Commandos of the elite Special Forces of the Indian Army were killed in Kesari hills of Thanamandi in Rajouri and the third one was on October 03, 2023 in which three soldiers of the Indian Army were injured in a counter insurgency operation in the dense Kalakote forests in Rajouri.

Clearly, the peace that the Rajouri and Poonch districts saw in the last 15 years has been shattered and the Indian Army finds itself in thicker counter insurgency with its troops combating the terrorists in the entire Jammu & Kashmir apart from its deployment against Pakistan on the Line of Control (LOC) and against China on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Indian union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

The reasons for the shifting landscape of terrorism from NPPR to SPPR can be enumerated as follows-

Geographical Factors – The Rajouri and Poonch regions, situated along the LOC offer a strategic advantage for terrorist activities due to their proximity to the LOC with Pakistan. The rugged terrain and dense forests provide cover and facilitation for infiltrations and terrorist operations.

Security Measures in Kashmir Valley – The enhanced security apparatus and successful counter-terrorism operations in the Kashmir Valley have forced the terrorist networks to seek alternative bases of operation. The Rajouri and Poonch regions present a comparatively softer target, making them attractive for terrorist outfits.

Closing of Passes – All the traditional routes of crossing over to the Kashmir valley from the SPPR are snow covered during the months of December to March. It is a major obstacle in the path of the terrorists to the Kashmir Valley located in NPPR. With the shift in dynamics of SPPR and change in tactics of the terrorists, it is highly likely that the terrorists choose not to cross over to the Kashmir Valley and carry out strikes in the SPPR.

Upcoming General Elections of 2024 – Terrorists often use violence, intimidation and threats to deter candidates, voters, and election officials from participating in the electoral process. This can include targeted attacks on political rallies, party offices and individuals associated with the electoral process. As and when the elections will happen there will be attempts made by the terrorists to further disrupt the peace in the region, which will include increase in terrorist activities.

Changed tactics of terrorists – The traditional form of terrorism is no more in vogue. Changed dynamics has resulted in a changed terrorist who is suave, technically oriented and merges with the crowd and remains unidentifiable by looks and conduct.

Interference with Civilian Life – Terrorism seeks to disrupt the daily lives of civilians and create an atmosphere of fear. Shifting the focus to regions like Rajouri and Poonch allows terrorists to achieve this objective while avoiding heavily guarded areas.

Implications of terrorists shifting base to SPPR

Increased Threat to Civilian Population –      The shift places a higher risk on civilian populations in the Rajouri and Poonch regions. These areas are less accustomed to the regular presence of terrorism, potentially making them more vulnerable to attacks.

Challenges for Security Forces – The changing dynamics pose new challenges for security forces. They have to adapt their strategies and operations to effectively counter the rising threat in these areas while maintaining stability in the Kashmir Valley.

Economic Impact – Terrorism negatively impacts local economies by deterring investment and disrupting trade. The shift of terrorism to new regions may hamper economic development in Rajouri and Poonch, hindering progress and prosperity.

The shift of terrorism from the Kashmir Valley to the Rajouri and Poonch regions reflects the adaptability and resilience of terrorist networks. Addressing this shift requires a multi-faceted approach involving not only security measures but also community engagement, intelligence enhancement, and socio-economic development. Every year 50,000-60,000 Indian Army personnel retire. They should be given land at extremely cheap rates so that majority of them settle down in Jammu & Kashmir. This will bring down terrorism significantly as Veterans will aid in a more conducive demography for peace and prosperity. This method has been successfully tried by China and Israel. By understanding the changing dynamics and taking proactive measures, a more secure and prosperous Jammu and Kashmir region can be worked towards to.

The Northern Command and the White Knight Corps of the Indian Army are doing a phenomenal task in curbing and controlling terrorism in the SPPR. Though faced with immense challenges and complexities, the Northern Command and the White Knight Corps are working day and night to ensure that peace and prosperity reigns supreme once again in SPPR.