Tomorrow's Intelligent Wars, Today's Unfinished Battles

I sometimes wonder whether we are becoming a little too fascinated with the future of warfare.

Autonomous drones, AI-powered command centres, robotic soldiers, intelligent weapons and machines making decisions faster than humans can comprehend. It's quite a picture. One that defence technologists, military planners and, of course, PowerPoint presentations seem particularly fond of.

Meanwhile, somewhere along our borders, a soldier is dealing with unreliable communications, difficult terrain, unpredictable weather and an adversary who is not particularly concerned about our technological ambitions.

He has a job to do. Today.

And that makes me wonder whether, in our enthusiasm for tomorrow's wars, we sometimes overlook the battles that still need to be fought today.

Having spent much of my professional life in uniform, and now heading a business that develops drones for the Armed Forces, I find myself looking at this rather differently than I might have a few years ago. The soldier in me wants equipment that works, preferably yesterday. The manufacturer in me knows why that isn't always as simple as it sounds.

The two have some interesting arguments.

The battlefield isn't waiting for us

I recently read KPMG's Battlefield of the Future: How AI Is Transforming Warfare. One observation caught my attention. Military advantage is increasingly moving from having superior platforms to being able to make better decisions, faster.

For years, military modernisation was largely about acquiring better tanks, aircraft, artillery and missiles. All of these remain essential, but the ability to see first, understand what you're seeing and act before the adversary may increasingly decide the outcome.

The familiar OODA loop, Observe, Orient, Decide and Act, is getting considerably shorter. AI is already helping with surveillance, intelligence analysis, autonomous navigation and counter-drone systems. We don't have to wait for some futuristic battlefield to see its usefulness.

Ukraine has demonstrated another uncomfortable reality. A relatively inexpensive drone can threaten equipment costing millions. Of course, the equation isn't quite that simple. Drones need operators, batteries, spares, communications and maintenance. And electronic warfare can render even sophisticated systems ineffective. A thousand drones without the ability to employ and sustain them are just a thousand items on an inventory.

I suspect we sometimes confuse acquiring technology with acquiring capability.

What does the soldier actually need?

Imagine an infantry soldier deployed somewhere in the mountains. He wants to know what's beyond the next ridge. Whether there's movement in the valley. Whether he can observe an approach without unnecessarily exposing his men.

A reliable surveillance drone could answer some of these questions immediately.

Naturally, commanders also want GPS-denied navigation, autonomous swarms, beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations and increasingly sophisticated sensors. They should. These are capabilities worth pursuing. But while we work towards them, there is plenty we can do with technology already available. I see this from the manufacturing side now.

A drone that flies beautifully during a demonstration can behave quite differently at 16,000 feet. Batteries struggle, payload margins shrink, winds become unpredictable and communications are not always cooperative.

The temptation in our industry is to promise increasingly impressive capabilities. The harder task is delivering something that works consistently in the conditions for which it was purchased. I'd rather see a soldier equipped with a dependable drone that does its job than one waiting indefinitely for a technological marvel.

This doesn't mean settling for yesterday's technology. It means improving today's capability while developing tomorrow's. And, importantly, training soldiers to get the best out of what they already have.

When industry goes to war

There is a scene in Ford v Ferrari that has stayed with me.

Henry Ford II reminds Carroll Shelby that during the Second World War, three out of every five American bombers came from Ford's production line.

He then says:

"This isn't the first time Ford Motor's gone to war in Europe."

The line hits differently now than it did in 2019.

We naturally associate war with soldiers, commanders and military equipment. But wars also depend upon factories, engineers, workers, supply chains and the ability to keep producing when the demand becomes extraordinary.

As a soldier, I expected equipment to work. I wasn't particularly interested in the manufacturer's difficulties. Frankly, why should I have been? Today, I find myself dealing with component sourcing, software, testing, production schedules, repairs and the occasionally frustrating business of making everything work together. It has given me a different appreciation of what defence manufacturing actually involves.

A prototype that performs well is encouraging. Manufacturing hundreds of identical systems that perform equally well is another matter altogether. And being able to increase production rapidly during a national emergency is an entirely different level of capability.

It's wonderful to see indigenous defence products being developed. But can we manufacture them in meaningful numbers? Can we repair them close to the operational area? Can we replace critical components if imports stop? Can we modify the software when the adversary changes tactics?

These questions are rather less glamorous than product launches, but probably more important. Industry also needs to become comfortable admitting what its products cannot do. No single manufacturer can address every military requirement. A system designed for one environment may be completely unsuitable for another.

I believe the Armed Forces also deserve more from manufacturers who understand operational problems and remain engaged in solving them than from vendors who disappear after delivering equipment.

Buying technology is the easy part. Absorbing it is harder.

The Indian Army is already modernising. Unmanned systems, integrated surveillance, better sensors and increasingly sophisticated technologies are finding their way into operational formations. But an Army cannot reinvent itself every eighteen months like a technology company. It has borders to defend, formations to maintain, soldiers to train and equipment that must remain serviceable every day.

Introducing a new system raises questions that rarely feature prominently in product brochures. Who operates it? Who repairs it? Where does the information go? Who analyses it? How does it help the commander? And what happens when the network goes down?

A drone sending excellent video to a screen is useful. A formation that can interpret that video and act upon it quickly is considerably more useful. This is where training, doctrine and organisational adaptability matter. It also calls for a closer relationship between operational units and industry.

A soldier flying a drone in extreme cold may discover something that months of laboratory testing missed. That feedback should find its way back to the engineers, who should be able to improve the system without waiting years for an entirely new procurement cycle.

Perhaps the real advantage in future warfare won't belong to whoever possesses the most sophisticated technology. It may belong to whoever can adapt it the fastest.

Tomorrow cannot come at today's expense

I don't think the Indian Army has the luxury of choosing between preparing for tomorrow and meeting today's operational requirements. It has to do both.

A dependable drone in the hands of a trained infantry soldier today may provide more immediate value than a sophisticated autonomous system that is still five years away. But that same drone, connected over time to better sensors, secure communications and intelligent command systems, could become part of a much more capable battlefield network. That seems like a possible path forward. Improve what we can today, experiment with what comes next and build the institutional ability to absorb new technologies as they mature.

Industry has an equally important part to play. Not merely developing impressive equipment, but building the manufacturing capacity, technical competence and responsiveness that the Armed Forces can depend upon.

Armies cannot become so preoccupied with tomorrow's battlefield that they neglect today's operational realities. Equally, today's commitments cannot become an excuse for postponing tomorrow's transformation.

The objective, surely, is to make today's soldier more effective while progressively making tomorrow's Army more intelligent, integrated and lethal. And perhaps we should stop measuring military modernisation only by how advanced our newest equipment is.

I'd be more interested in knowing how quickly we can train people to use it, how reliably it works, how easily we can improve it and how rapidly we can manufacture more when required. Because the next war may not be won by the military with the most impressive technology. It may be won by the one that learns, adapts and produces faster than its adversary.

The future battlefield will reward innovation. But it will be sustained by industrial strength and won through operational competence.

For those of us working in defence technology, that's a useful distinction to keep in mind.

After all, there's a world of difference between building something that looks ready for war and building a country that actually is.

Digital Pacifiers

I travel a lot. One of the necessary evils of this arrangement is waiting at airport boarding gates. An exercise designed to test human patience, particularly after the airline has triumphantly announced that the flight is on time, only to discover that the aircraft didn't quite agree.

Today, waiting at Delhi airport, I found the boarding gate nearly full. Families returning home, professionals travelling for work, children running around, and those particularly irritating people boarding the next flight to Goa.

I have always believed that people travelling to Goa while I am travelling for work are unnecessarily provocative. There ought to be a law against displaying such happiness in public.

Jealousy aside, something caught my attention.

Nobody was looking up.  

Everyone was immersed in a personal device. Mostly smartphones, a few laptops. Heads bent, fingers moving, eyes fixed.

(Reminder to self: Invest in chiropractor businesses. The future looks exceptionally promising, even if humanity doesn't)

What fascinated me was that even people travelling together were busy in their individual digital universes. A family of four sat opposite me. Four people, four screens, zero conversations.

Apparently, family holidays now involve changing the geographical coordinates from which everyone accesses the internet.

Even infants weren't spared. One toddler was being pacified by a mobile phone playing animated nonsense at a volume that would embarrass an artillery battery.

A digital pacifier. No sterilisation required. Just a charger.

Now, I am not against technology. Far from it. But something about this collective surrender to little glowing rectangles is fascinating.

We have become the first generation capable of communicating instantly with almost anyone on the planet, yet increasingly incapable of talking to the person sitting next to us.

And my prognosis on the why is this: Human beings love appreciation. Psychologists call it positive reinforcement. I call it our universal weakness for being told we are right.

Tech companies have understood this brilliantly.

The platforms learn what we like, dislike, believe and fear. Every scroll, pause, search and click helps build a remarkably accurate psychological profile. The algorithms then serve us more of what keeps us engaged.

Believe something strongly? Here are a thousand people who agree.

Dislike someone? Here's enough material to establish that your dislike is practically a public service.

Think the Earth is flat? Congratulations! There's an entire community waiting to appreciate your courage in challenging conventional geography.

Of course, algorithms don't always agree with us. Sometimes they deliberately provoke us. Outrage, after all, is excellent for engagement. The objective remains the same. Keep the user hooked.  

Incidentally, isn't 'user' an interesting word? As far as I know, only two industries routinely call their customers users: narcotics and technology.

Pure coincidence, I am sure.

As a result, we increasingly live inside personalised echo chambers, surrounded by opinions that reinforce our own.

And this is where things become worrying. Real people are terribly inconvenient.

They disagree. They interrupt. They ask uncomfortable questions. Occasionally, they even produce facts that challenge our convictions.

You cannot log out an uncle discussing politics at a family dinner. Muting your spouse during an argument is technically possible but carries consequences considerably more serious than an account suspension.

So we retreat into digital environments where disagreement can be blocked, uncomfortable opinions dismissed, and validation obtained almost instantly.

We are slowly losing the patience to disagree.  

There was a time when friends argued about cricket selections for hours, families debated politics over dinner, and college students discussed everything under the sun with very little knowledge and enormous confidence.

Nobody expected agreement. That was the fun.

Today, disagreement is often interpreted as hostility. A different opinion becomes an attack. A debate becomes a competition to establish moral superiority.

Everyone has something to say. Very few want to listen.

Even boredom has become unacceptable.

Waiting for a lift? Scroll.

Standing in a queue? Scroll.

Sitting at a traffic signal? Scroll.

We have outsourced the responsibility of entertaining ourselves to devices that are now better at it than we are.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Newton had possessed a smartphone while sitting under that apple tree.

He would probably have posted a reel of the falling apple, received seventeen likes and spent the afternoon arguing with someone about whether gravity was a conspiracy.

Physics would have had to wait.

Back at the boarding gate, I looked around again.

An elderly gentleman was helping his wife with her handbag. A little girl was excitedly pointing towards an aircraft. A tired father carried a sleeping child. An airport employee was managing three impatient passengers with the expression of a man who had long ago given up on humanity.

Outside, aircraft taxied, baggage carts hurried around, and ground crews went about their work.

The chaos had a method, the noise had a rhythm, and somewhere between the boarding announcements and hurried footsteps, life was putting on a rather interesting performance.

All one had to do was look up. But hardly anyone did.

Perhaps the real luxury today isn't a faster phone or unlimited data. Perhaps it is simply the ability to sit somewhere, observe the world and enjoy one's own thoughts without an algorithm deciding what we should think next.

As I write this, I am sitting in a café waiting for my coffee.

Everyone around me is staring at a screen. Two friends at the next table haven't exchanged a word. A gentleman is scrolling through videos with extraordinary concentration.

And here I am, typing on my device about people spending too much time on their devices. The irony isn't lost on me.

Perhaps I am the odd one out because I occasionally look around. Or perhaps I am exactly like everyone else, only with a more elaborate justification for staring at my screen.

Either way, humanity seems to have discovered a new interpretation of an old expression.

We bow our heads to thee.  

Not to a flag, a deity or an ideal.

To a five-inch screen with excellent resolution and questionable battery life.

Data Protection: Incentivising a Culture of Compliance

As a risk professional, I have been interacting with a lot of peers on the pending implementation of the new Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. While a lot of conversation gravitates to the impact on the way business is conducted & costs of compliance, the tone of the exchanges is inclined towards avoiding penalties of non-compliance.

In the world of creating regulations, the typical thought has often been to create rules, impose penalties, and hope that entities will comply. That is often reasonable in vital & incremental policy formulations. However, sweeping changes like the DPDP Act require more than just a check-the-box approach. To protect sovereign data, the implementation process needs to foster a culture of compliance rather than just superficial adherence.

Why the punitive-only models fail

Regulations that mainly focus on punishment often lead to minimal compliance. Compliance teams tend to do only what is necessary to avoid penalties, creating a superficial culture of data protection. This is particularly true in the fintech sector, where innovation, speed, and data flow are vital. Superficial compliance can result in higher costs due to constant control adjustments or ongoing vulnerabilities caused by workarounds. The DPDP Act aims higher by granting rights to individuals and outlining obligations for data fiduciaries, while also imposing serious penalties. However, unless companies see data protection as a way to add business value, they will only achieve checkbox compliance instead of true resilience.

Fintech – a sector that illustrates the challenge

Fintech firms serve as a clear example. They rely heavily on data, use complex technology, and operate under multiple regulations, such as Reserve Bank of India rules, NPCI guidelines and KYC/AML requirements. Many are finding that the costs of adopting new technology and shifting processes are a barrier to meaningful compliance. For instance, legal experts point out that granular consent for each transaction, a requirement of the DPDP Act, is being seen as a significant process obstacle for digital payments platforms. Tech-Ops experts feel that while fintechs are accustomed to handling data, they are less developed in privacy governance, needing system revamp, staff training, and integration of consent management.

Incentivising the right behaviour

Internal incentives: Companies should establish internal KPIs related to data protection that connect to business outcomes, such as customer trust, brand loyalty, fewer breaches, and faster onboarding with secure data flows. They can reward teams for "privacy by design" rather than just for completing compliance tasks.

Regulator/business incentives: Instead of focusing solely on fines, regulators should offer positive incentives. This could include recognising or certifying strong data protection frameworks, providing faster regulatory approvals to firms with mature data governance, or offering regulatory sandboxes for new data-driven services built on solid privacy foundations.

Habit formation: The classic "habit-curve" applies to any change:

Awareness -> early adoption -> routinization -> automatic behaviour.

It shows that until automatic behaviour is reached, changes remain delicate. For fintech companies, embedding data protection requires more than policy changes; it means integrating it into daily routines like having a data privacy checkpoint at every product meeting, including fiduciary obligations in vendor contracts, and making consent layers a default part of user interfaces. Over time, these practices need to become part of normal behaviour instead of just procedures.

Sector-specific tempo: The speed of the habit curve varies across sectors. A fintech startup that pivots monthly faces a different curve and risks compared to a legacy bank with mature cycles. On the flip side, costs of changing habits, such as trainer time, system redesign, and vendor alignment, are higher for established firms. Thus, incentives and support need to match these nuances: smaller fintechs could benefit from regulatory guidance, technology vouchers, or sharing best practices, while larger firms may focus on automation, dashboards, and self-service consent platforms.

Technology cost vs benefit: The biggest barrier to adoption is the upfront cost of technology, such as consent engines, data traceability, audit trails, and deletion workflows. Some firms may implement technology superficially, but not fully, like capturing consent without establishing the routine for deletion upon request. If companies understand that investing in technology is not just a compliance cost, but a competitive edge, the view changes. If users trust a platform with their data, companies can offer better services and lower breach protection costs. Regulators can encourage this view by indicating that mature frameworks may reduce future regulatory burdens and inspection frequency, or even provide safe harbours.

So…

As DPDP Act establishes the regulatory landscape for data protection in India’s digital economy. Relying solely on punishment, fines, and audits will only lead to nominal compliance. Actual benefits will be accrued when organisations make data protection a habit and integrate it into their routines while being supported by regulatory incentives.

In fintechs, where technology, data, and trust intersect, the challenge is significant, but so is the opportunity. Firms that can transform data privacy from a cost centre to a value centre will display sustainable growth. The sooner the culture changes, the faster companies will move from "we must comply" to "we choose to excel."

Decentralized National Digital Identity on Blockchain: Bhutan's Case

Few nations demonstrate foresight and adaptability as well as Bhutan. The Himalayan kingdom, long admired for its commitment to Gross National Happiness, is now taking a bold step into the digital future, blending political maturity with technological ambition.

From Monarchy to Modern Governance

Bhutan’s democratic journey remains one of the most peaceful transitions in modern history. In the early 2000s, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck voluntarily devolved power to an elected government, culminating in the first democratic elections in 2008. This rare, deliberate shift from monarchy to democracy built a foundation of trust, accountability, and continuity qualities now reflected in Bhutan’s digital policy framework.

Blockchain and National Identity

Building on that legacy, Bhutan’s National Digital Identity (NDI) initiative, led by Druk Holding & Investments (DHI), is set to anchor its architecture on the Ethereum blockchain by 2026. This will enable citizens to hold self-sovereign, verifiable digital identities, providing secure access to public and financial services while maintaining their privacy. By leveraging Ethereum’s global interoperability and decentralised trust, Bhutan positions itself as a digital-first democracy capable of engaging seamlessly with international systems.

Crypto Reserves and Economic Diversification

Bhutan’s digital evolution extends beyond identity. Its sovereign fund, DHI, has quietly built significant Bitcoin reserves through sustainable, hydropower-driven mining, a strategy that converts green energy into digital capital. This positions Bhutan as a clean crypto hub, aligning technology with sustainability, and attracting fintech investments and blockchain startups.

Reversing Brain Drain and Driving Growth

The move toward a digital economy could help reverse Bhutan’s emigration trends, particularly among young professionals who left in search of better opportunities after COVID-19. As blockchain, AI, and fintech ecosystems expand, Bhutan stands to create high-tech, high-value employment, nurturing both local talent and diaspora returnees.

Balancing Innovation with Risk

Yet, the journey is not without risk. Anchoring national identity and financial data to public blockchains introduces new vectors of cyber exposure. While personal data will remain off-chain, metadata, cryptographic keys, and system governance must be rigorously protected. Moreover, legal, judicial, and institutional frameworks must evolve to validate blockchain-based proofs, ensure data sovereignty, and mitigate systemic vulnerabilities. For a nation digitising at scale, cyber resilience, privacy regulation, and sovereign control will define long-term success.

Digital Sovereignty….

Bhutan’s transformation from monarchy to democracy, from hydropower to blockchain, is more than a policy; it’s a vision in action. By aligning governance, sustainability, and innovation, Bhutan is quietly crafting a blueprint for responsible digital sovereignty. In a world often torn between speed and stability, Bhutan shows that it’s possible to pursue both with trust as the anchor, and technology as the bridge.

Different take on Kashmir

    A very broad understanding of Relativity is that Point of View depends on Point of Viewing. It is more complicated than that, but it does explain how we interpret things.

    Travelling to Kashmir for work, was always normal and it felt the same this time. The trip was planned in detail, the daily schedule was aligned, contingencies were appreciated and I collected as much data as I could on the intended places of visit & had questions ready. Out on the first flight of the day, the window seat too supported the old routine of terrain analysis & searching for familiar areas from above. Change hit while traversing the Srinagar terminal since now, as someone out of uniform, appreciation of normalcy took centre stage. I had last flown out of SXR in 2016 and security at the airport was more than at any other place. This time, the place still felt secure, yet the security was not visible. 

    On the drive to the city, one saw new cafes, retail outlets, malls & of course, traffic. Suddenly the comparison with other state capitals that I had recently visited brought out the positives of development being afforded to citizens. Though tagged along were the issues of rapid urbanization, guess that is universal.

    Day 1 afternoon the agenda was visiting a business site in Badgam about 25 km away. I last remembered the place as a semi-rural community which we had crossed in a heavily armed convoy. This time, a newly launched store was giving people the opportunity of experiencing organized retail. Out of habit, work started with a structured set of briefings loaded with questions. As we progressed from the ground to the second floor & professional matters covered, the focus shifted to digging deeper into the feel of the store. I am still learning the trade, but I strongly feel that retail is more about people than merchandise. 

    The people echoed a sense of pride & ownership. They were all keen to learn. The team was cohesive & discussions were targeted at becoming better. Dashboards aside, it was evident that the place was in good hands. The best proof came from customers I saw, who came with curious eyes & checked out with bags of clothes. This was not what I had seen in the last work visit to Kashmir & certainly very different from what was read in mainstream media. 

    Back in the room, the night was spent answering emails & questioning my belief system. Was Kashmir back to normal? What is normal? Are a few hours of learning this time enough to negate a few years of learning last time?

    Day 2 started with breakfast surrounded by Gujarati tourists whose volume was directly proportional to their excitement of feeling cold. It was too early for snow, but Jignes bhai (name changed) was optimistic about Pahalgam and the smiles on the family were telling.

    An early start for Anantnag took us through the fog at Pampore. The highway showed exits to places like Tral & Pulwama which were always associated with violence. Again, the drive felt safe but security was hardly visible. 

    The workplace at Anantnag was again reassuring as the scope for improvement was matched by the willingness for improvement. After a few hours of thrashing processes, the discussion over tea, loaded with milk & sugar (could not hurt the intent of hospitality so just drank it) shifted towards the benefits of more, better-paying jobs that were coming into the valley. Organized businesses were slowly becoming a career option as the elimination of 'Bandhs' meant that people could work & get paid throughout the year. A luxury that was only available to government employees earlier. 

    It made a special impact when people discussed the security forces without realizing my past in uniform. Two statements stood out; first, a store owner commented that sales to uniformed persons are a substantial part of his turnover and second the hotel guard, who was from Uri, answering as to why there is no security force on the streets said." How can it be normal, if it doesn't look normal?"

    I was even more comfortable on the ride back to the airport with the driver playing Punjabi rap numbers. The saffron plantations & effect of autumn on Chinar trees did make for good sights but as I took off from Kashmir, the question lingered, is 'normal' back?

    Once home, I searched for recent analyses on Kashmir. Political, Economic, Military & Social. While they all made sense, their vector sum did not align with the reality I saw on the ground. That is the beauty of truth, it does not need to make sense. People may define their own 'normal', but if I just take the set of people of Kashmir that I met, the aspirational Kashmiri is seeking his/her version of Kashmir. For years they have borne the social costs of economic stagnation & the economic costs of social stagnation. Upliftment now is a human right. 

    Listening to people discuss growth possibilities in Bandipore, Kupwara & Baramulla was very heartening. In my last experience, just crossing these areas required reconnaissance & planning. After years of turmoil, someone managing the affairs is doing the right things as the major event in the city was an investor summit instead of a procession or call for a strike at Lal Chowk.

    One may question whether opening organized retail is more important than say a hospital or a school, but where we stand as a nation, all of the above need parallel processing. The space program needs to co-exist with the food distribution to the poor. 

    I saw a Kashmir that is breaking the chains of an uncomfortable past. It is aspirational. It does not want to do the same things that were done earlier and it is ready to take control. This time the feel of Kashmir was different. What impressed me more than the beauty of the place was the determination of this generation to build a better future.

Restarting Bhutan: The Policy Factor

 

    The South Asian region is seeing nations tripping over poor economic decisions made over the past few years. In the Indian neighbourhood, Pakistan is living from bailout to bailout, Sri Lanka is in major turmoil, Bangladesh fears the worst, Nepal is showing cracks & Afghanistan has not had a chance to even look at the economy. Most of these countries have faltered by applying policies that have worked in other countries without (or with) realizing the extreme differences in fiscal realities. As a common factor, Pakistan & Sri Lanka have gone down the Chinese debt trap and Bangladesh & Nepal are on a similar path. The abode of peace, Bhutan was seen as the wise one, biting only as much as it could and pursuing happiness. But of late it has been taking decisions that might put its people on the path of discomfort.

    The Bhutanese economy is largely dependent on Hydropower & Tourism. Hydropower plants financed by India export electricity back to the power-hungry neighbour and generate vital cash flow. Add to this large Indian assistance money & defence support create a major chunk of Bhutan’s money bucket. The country has also been prudent in spending this wealth in ways that protect ecological & economical needs, however, it is walking a tight rope in trying to balance sustainable development & aspiration of people who seek a better life.

    Two years of COVID were met by a predictable government response, isolation. In absence of vital medical facilities & complete dependence on vaccine supplies led to people being made to confine in their communities. This had a major impact on small businesses & trade which was the mainstay of the growing middle class. Even when the world eased lockdowns, Bhutan kept the people confined & only opened institutional trade enabling the government to sustain the population. So, while the numbers showed healthy economic activity, the benefits were only doled out as Kidu. The simplest lay interpretation of kidu is that, in the Bhutanese system, the King personally takes care of the well-being of the people. It is a unique and humane social security system to ensure necessities and livelihood as well as any other aspect of a Bhutanese citizen's life when necessary. The greatness of the gesture is accepted, however, this support while sustaining is not a tool for development.

    A total absence of tourists meant that no hotels, taxis & related businesses had any income. Most connections were lost, skilled manpower reverse-migrated & infrastructure suffered decay of disuse. Small traders who used to import goods from the land ports of Phuentsholing in the South West & Samdrup Jonkar in the South East had to scale down due to reduced demand & difficulty in sourcing. One of the biggest strengths of Indo-Bhutan trade was always the people-to-people relations that integrated commercial lines in both countries & facilitated people-driven growth & exchanges. Economic hubs of Siliguri & Guwahati were always social melting pots hosting mutually beneficial convergence.

    The decline in COVID threat came as good news to people who had prayed for the restoration of normalcy. However, recent policies announced by the Bhutanese government hint at an inclination towards the proclamation of openness with retention of control. The free movement of people across the borders, up to a certain distance for Indians in Bhutan & unrestricted for Bhutanese in India is being changed. Indians can now only venture inside this limited area for 24 hours & will need to undergo certain processing. This limits the flow of casual tourists, labour, traders & others who may not have the luxury of paying for the processes. While India has not given the reciprocal web for the Bhutanese, locals on the Indian side feel that their generous hospitality is being replied to with paper policy tilting the deep relations of equality cherished by people from both sides.

    In search of high-value-low-volume tourism, Bhutan has announced an increased visitor fee for all tourists. This again will end up affecting the budget traveller & the affordable hotel businesses in Bhutan. While Bhutan may assume a larger per-person spend from the tourists, the high-end tourist infrastructure is very limited & does not match the service standards offered in a similar process, globally.

    These two decisions appear to be influenced by similar policies in other nations. Japan has a "sayonara tax". The 1,000 Yen ($9.25) fee, is paid by international visitors as they leave the country. This is reasonable as tourists on average get the value for money in return. Bhutan charging about $200 each from international tourists & Rs 1200 for Indian tourists may end up stunting its own travel industry. While the bigger players & government may see larger revenue, it is the smaller businesses that will end up suffering. Similarly, the travel restrictions are most likely to create a situation of reduced interactions. This is strange as for decades it was this free cultural exchange that created the unique social blend of Bhutan.

    These decisions have an eerie similarity with actions in the neighbourhood. Sri Lanka had suddenly decided that they will go pure organic farming without giving time for the logistics chain & related ecosystem to develop. Unfortunately, it was the people in the lowest part of the pyramid who suffered and had to face the brunt of an economic collapse. Leaderships seeking control always prefer to control the flow of men & materials and then deciding distribution of welfare. 

    The people of Bhutan are free to choose the type of aspirations they want to be materialized through development. However, textbook policies, in their original form, have a limited place in the real world. Despite a large hydropower setup, & exports, Bhutan still needs to import power in the off-season. The delays in developing new projects & absence of other streams like Solar / Wind still keep Bhutan energy insecure. I am certain that it is understood that smaller businesses keep the household income up and directly impact the happiness index so cherished by the country. Income from institutional trade does add to the government revenue, but only has a median impact on household growth. Policies that isolate people and impede collaboration mostly go against basic social constructs. Bhutan may need to diversify its revenue streams, address grassroot realities and focus on the skill development of its population to offer people choices to decide their future. Choices that can be exercised & materialized & not just traded for happiness. 

Chinese Information Influence in Bhutan

    We can choose our friends but not neighbours. Bhutan is wedged between the two Asian giants, India & China. Historically, the Himalayan nation has sought peace & maintained focus on Gross National Happiness (GNH), but as China continues expansionism & India unwilling to buckle, this precarious situation of the Drukpas remains a critical challenge.

    Three attributes mainly dictate national relations: Geography, Culture & Trade. With gradual plains in the south & steep peaks towards the north, even before the enthronement of the Wangchucks in 1907, the flow of people & trade was mostly from the Indian side. Chumbi Valley route did offer access to Tibet, but years of Mongol-Tibetan Invaders kept faith low on promises of riches from the north. Buddhism came to Bhutan in 747 AD, but unlike the Gelugpa (Yellow Hats) sect from Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet the Bhutanese majority follows Nyingmapa (Red hats) sect with important monasteries located at Paro, Bumthang (in Bhutan) & Tawang (in India). Even the Kolkata-Malbazaar-Sikkim Silk route that had trade tributaries integrated from Bhutan, was mostly a South to North flow of merchandise. Thus, Bhutan organically aligned with the southern side on historical fundamentals & not on post-colonial ideals.

    The 2019 boundary deal between Bhutan & China, did produce a steam let-off in the relations, but with imagery of Chinese settlements in isolated border areas of Bhutan, their promises look to be as reliable as their products. With ‘control’ as the aim, China intends to go for the bigger prize in Bhutan, ‘influence.’ The toolkit is already in motion.

    In targeted Influence Operations, the slight, imperceptible, incremental change in behaviour is the objective. The strongest play in this game is ‘habituation’. If a person develops a habit of accessing information, in a particular way, his habit can be exploited to implant perceptions. Chinese activism seeks to exploit: weak state institutions, fragile civil societies, or countries where “elite capture” is a feature of the political landscape. With a GINI Index of 37.4 & GNH a priority, Bhutan is not an easy target, but the fragile stability does offer opportunities in three ways:

• Chinese influence that shapes or constrains choices and opinions of local political and economic elites.
• Chinese activities that influence or constrain the parameters of local media and public opinion.
• China’s impact on local civil society and academia.

    With the onboarding of democracy & cultural opening-up in Bhutan, communication platforms were the first inroad targeted by the Chinese. The Bhutan InfoCom & Media Authority lists many active newspapers, with the major ones being Kuensel & The Bhutanese publishing in English & Dzongkha. A scan of these will indicate perceived freedom for journalists to comment on local issues, Indian issues & global news but a minimal critique on the state. While not much is picked up by these papers from the Chinese media, Indian discourse seems to find editorial interest. This undertow of highlighting the noisy Indian democracy seems to be the first straw in managing information flow for the Chinese operatives.

    On the internet front, the majority of Bhutanese took to WeChat as the community messaging service (I don’t call it social media). Only a small group that needed to communicate with contacts in India adopted Whatsapp. The WeChat ecosystem has provided easy opportunities to proliferate anti-India sentiments and sometimes even anti-west information. On social media too, the Bhutanese access broadband information, including Chinese Social media, which at any level is just state propaganda because these platforms are banned for the Chinese public. In major population centres like Phuentsholing, Thimphu & Paro, discussion boards on Facebook reveal sharing & commenting on common threads like issues with infrastructure developed by Indian organisations, aspirations of elite-tourism (high paying travellers only), and social issues in India. While people should be free to discuss anything they like, everything comes with a context & a budgetary reality. If not accorded the correct perspective, these discussions are certain to get mainstreamed. Unwillingly influencing free choice.

    Armed with spare cash accumulated from trade excesses with the world, China offered $10 Billion to Bhutan in 2017, during the peak of the Doklam crisis. Now, this was symbolic against what India integrates with Bhutan, but was clearly vectored towards a debt trap since it far exceeded the absorptive capacity of the Bhutanese economy. While India offers assistance & sustainable hydropower investments, Chinese financial help to countries is mostly turning into long-term headaches, Sri Lanka being the latest victim.

    Anyone who has travelled there will agree that Bhutan is a peaceful abode. It is not perfect but the general aspiration is to live in this imperfect harmony. However, this balance is as dynamic as the definition of happiness. People today are exposed to luxuries & they continue to climb Maslow’s pyramid, with time. Carbon Negative & GNH concepts are getting redefined. Today, Beautiful valleys aside, Ferro-Silicon Industries in Pasakha on the Indian border spew effluents that have continuously degraded the quality of tea from the gardens on the Indian side. The Barsa river water bears the ill effects of these industries as it flows into India and the effects from factories at Samste, Gelephu is the same. COVID induced tourism ban has shattered the low/middle-end tourism industry dependent on tourists from the nearby Indian States. This impacted a large number of Bhutanese livelihoods and speaks of the robustness of medical facilities available. The Lhotshompa expulsion issue may be suppressed now, but it will always be a chapter of Bhutanese history. Ideals are easy, civilisation is costly.

View of Pasakha Industrial Area (Bhutan) From Central Dooars Tea Estate (India)

    It may have faults, but the Bhutanese people do deserve ‘Sovereignty’. Of land, of choice & of their way of life. The influence of media may just be the next step towards continued expansion by China inside the Land of Thunder Dragon. Sometimes, the worst part for Bhutan seems to be the need for choosing between things it does not want.

Damaged Goods Left Behind in Afghanistan

We all like to get new gadgets, buy new vehicles & collect implements that make our lives easier. The shine of a new phone, the smell of a new car & the sound of a new machine always lifts us. However, as someone who spent the last few decades maintaining, repairing & restoring stuff, I am a firm believer that something that doesn’t work when needed, is as good as not there.

After overtaking Afghanistan, the Taliban were delighted to discover the spoils of war. Billions of dollars worth of military equipment left behind by the Americans & allies. From a sheer scale point of view, this made the Taliban the best-equipped terror group in the world. Reality hit when they realized that most of the higher-tech equipment like aircraft, helicopters & other weapon systems were rendered unserviceable before discarding them into the hands of the Taliban. 

While rudimentary small weapons like the Russian AKs hardly need any care, to keep a helicopter air-worthy or a radar/radio mission reliable is a technical & logistical ballet, pretty hard to master. 

One may wonder why anyone will leave such expensive & sophisticated war machinery on their way out of the battle zone, knowing fully well that it will find its way into the hands of the enemy? It all boils down to time & cost. While it took two decades to accumulate the equipment in Afghanistan, the decision to withdraw gave the allies just months to extricate soldiers, material & even afghans who were embedded into the operations. Pakistan had reaped many benefits extracting transit fees from over-land convoys supporting IASF till 2014 & the Americans thereafter, the same routes were not prudent for going back. Faced with the high cost & limited lift capacities of aircraft, it made more sense to leave the equipment behind than to haul it back.

While managing the lifecycle of any equipment, the decision to discard is quantified in terms of the economics of sustainment. Once inducted in the battlefield, the equipment value depreciates with use and if the cost of maintaining the system exceeds half of its residual value, it makes less sense to sustain the system. Media reports are full of coverage on damaged hardware left over by the American forces and how the Taliban must be regretting their premature celebrations on inheriting the latest war toys. As of now, it appears that the Taliban has limited capacity to make these weapon systems fit-for-use, but I would not disregard the ingenuity of self-taught technicians in innovating repairs. They may not be Tony Stark, but the influence of places like Darra Adam Khel is always lurking.

The disintegration of the USSR taught us that weapon stockpiles coupled with crippled economies make perfect targets for weapons trafficking. The situation in Afghanistan & the unfastened control of various Taliban warlords gives a direct pipeline for Pakistan to do what it does best. Export terror. 

At a very broad level, military logistics is a system of activities, capabilities & processes that connect a nation’s economy to the battlefield. The outcome of this process is the establishment of a ‘well’ from which the forces draw their combat potential. It is certainly an expensive well.  Obsessed with ruling through the barrel of a gun, the Taliban leadership will dedicate substantial resources to operationalize the military equipment & infrastructure sidelining national needs expected from governments. It remains to be seen who moves into this business with the Taliban since the real value of any conflict is the debt that it produces. 

The Americans may have lost a big stockpile of hardware, but from a simple cost-benefit, they gained a trouble-free exit while their opposite side was rejoicing the illusion of gains. Smaller weapons that were taken over do not pose any major threat to the west and a peaceful Afghanistan is far too complicated a game. But in the optics of it all, the US not only displaced Russians as the last empire to retreat from Afghanistan but also changed the image of terror from a traditionally dressed man holding an AK-47 to a Taliban in modern combat gear holding an M4. Sometimes we are collateral damage in our war against ourselves.

What is 'not' being said on Afghanistan

For thousands of years, life in Afghanistan flourished. Geography dictated lifestyles with vast valleys and barren stretches, grouping tribes with different takes on living. The imposition of modern social constructs started with this collection of tribal identities being defined in the boundary of the nation-state of Afghanistan. Empires thereafter tried their best to ‘manage’ this landlocked place, only to add entropy and leave. Today, the world is live-viewing a human calamity with the Afghans having the illusion of freedom as a choice.  

In a very cold and callous way, countries are doing in / for Afghanistan whatever is necessary (for them). It may be an over-simplification, but this simple statement can be injected with reality when we start defining ‘necessary’. Certainly, Peru is not in the field, but the customary suspects of the ‘perpetual great game’, are. The US, et al left because they did not want to focus on winning a game that will soon become irrelevant to domestic politics. Russia played the silent watch game, waiting for someone to remove them from the unwanted position of the last empire buried in Afghanistan. Pakistan gained from war profiteering in its Strategic Depth & its master China is now looking at an unavoidable involvement, even if just to prove that it is a superpower. 

It seems to be a checklist of superpower-ship; amassed wealth, powerful military, interventionist policies & involvement in Afghanistan. The Chinese hope not to repeat the mistakes of the Greeks, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets, and finally the Americans and their allies, but new mistakes will still be mistakes. If Afghanistan sinks into chaos, it could become a serious obstacle on the way to a stable and secure "Silk Road", China’s global infrastructure development strategy. Beyond serving as a sanctuary for anti-Western terrorists, unruly Muslim fundamentalists in power in Kabul might be eager to support the Uighur cause in China.

Stakeholders like United States, China, India, and Russia articulate two interests that justify allocating resources to stabilize Afghanistan:

• Preventing terrorist groups from establishing secure bases

• Promoting the economic rise of continental South Asia by securing investments in connectivity and integrating Afghanistan into those networks. (BRI, Rare-earths etc)

The best way to realize both of these objectives is to establish an effective state in Afghanistan, which raises the question of who will build it, pay for it, and fight for it. Taliban doesn’t seem to emerge as an answer to these questions. Even historically, No Afghan ruler or government has been able to build and sustain a state within its territory using solely domestic resources. The presence of foreign donors or security providers, as well as economic cooperation with some neighbours, can threaten other regional players.  While the stabilization of Afghanistan produces a partial public good for the international community, the actors who establish such stability eventually exploit the position they acquire in their own interest. Both the Soviets in the 1980s and the US since 2001 intended to “stabilize” Afghanistan in ways consistent with their interests. But rivals and adversaries such as Pakistan and Iran, the United States (against the Soviets), China (likewise), and Russia (versus the United States), perceived their efforts as threatening, even when those states also benefited from the limited stability imposed by the foreign presence.

Given Afghanistan’s economic and demographic profile as well as its linguistic, religious, ethnic, and economic links to neighbouring countries, virtually any neighbour or great power can destabilize the country at minimal cost by offering benefits to clients willing to fight. So how do you find common ground when the vector sum of individual interests is zero? Should the world let the Afghans find their path? 

It is too early to conclude the analysis. For now, away from the news, one might like to focus on what is ‘not’ being said on Afghanistan:

• China’s diplomatic dealings with Taliban

• Race for the Lithium deposits

• How the Taliban allowed all western (enemy)  military personnel to leave, unharmed.

• Should UNAMA now consider peacekeeping 

• Indo-Afghanistan trade through Chabahar

• Will the Taliban remain contended with Afghanistan or will they……

And finally, Pakistan. What new play does that bewilderment of a nation have to ensure that it continues to extort rent threatening its own collapse?

To Be Contd.....

Messaging in Troubled Times

The second wave amplified the lessons of the first. Some were learned. Some were not. Most were forgotten. There might be a shortage of medical supplies & many other things, but information overdose is a reality.

 Earlier, information sources were in the custody of a few then web 2.0 made everyone a ‘seeder & a leacher’ of information online. This democratized information but skewed data-to-noise ratio. There is a certain alienation in digital communication. Not being fact to face, delayed feedback, devoid of non-verbal aspects and easy anonymity are a few of the parts that take the feel away.

 Groups on community messaging services like WhatsApp, following on social media platforms like Instagram & Twitter etc make joining any conversation possible. The urge is understood but not bereft of responsibility. Platforms are full of false info, tangential conclusions and utter noise masking the critical factual data. The ‘Pandemic’ is now accompanied by the ‘Infodemic’.

 In the pandemic, people have been marked, stereotyped, discriminated against, viewed negatively, and suffered status loss due to a perceived contact with a disease. In addition, high levels of stress and anxiety was experienced by people due to significant changes in their day-to-day life, social structures and movements. To top that, information professing helplessness & fear might be a good ploy to sell products or modify offline behaviour, but is certainly not aligned to a nationally beneficial perspective.

 Did we get hit again? Yes! Is someone at fault? Yes! But purely in the realm of information management, the most important factor is to empower the people with the right information. Sadly, it is complex to be simple.

 Effective communication is proactive, polite, imaginative, innovative, creative, constructive, professional, progressive, energetic, enabling, transparent and technology-friendly. However, there are multiple factors playing a key role in accepting information, like social and cultural characteristics. Gender, generational contrasts, language inclinations, strict convictions, religious beliefs, and varying literacy influence the action of the masses. To package information in a way that it presents the needed facts, in time & conveyed in a way that it gets accepted and acted upon is the big win. This is the integral job of all the official Twitter handles, Facebook pages etc and they need to be manned by specialists who can keep up with technology & calamity.

 Information on oxygen shortage clutters information on oxygen availability. It would be prudent to have a setup informing the reality of medical support availability and even availability of first-care information on how to approach symptoms. Today, it is crowdsourcing that is the real source of info, a simple analytic tool can converge feeds, mine info and make user data available.

 Communicating responsibly is everyone’s job. Highlighting ills is important but so is selling hope. And somewhere in between lies the need of plain information away from all the padding of politics, marketing, greed & sometimes just habits. Crisis response communication setups are the need of the hour. They need not necessarily be government-run. The setup will encompass manpower, hardware, technology and cross-departmental chain-linking. Private players can add value, incorporate innovation & be commercially viable for long-term sustenance & growth. Data integrity & security can always be imposed based on law-of-the-land info governance.

 Deaths due to covid are human statistics & not just numbers. The narrative controls have blurred all responsibilities. From the originators, the spreaders, the faulty planners & opportunity grabbers to everyone who has been an accomplice in “forwarded as received” acts. The need for a specialist information dissemination mechanism is as critical as the spread of the virus.

Hope feels that this pandemic will be over soon, but it might not be our last. There are many things that we need to get right, information management is vital as it will always be the common thread, whatever the next wave or type of calamity be.

 

 

 

 

Force Preservation in the Online Social Domain – A Digital Camouflage

In this age of digital socialization, the digital realm increasingly becomes a significant dimension of the contemporary battle space. Much has been said and done about cyber threats; however, very limited attention is paid to the challenges arising from the malicious use of openly available digital information related to military organizations.

Today, adversaries do not require significant resources or advanced cyber capabilities to pose a threat. Social media and connected technologies are easily accessible, providing information and infrastructure that can be exploited by anyone with access to an internet-enabled computer.

Social media is a mix of human psychology—specifically social behavior—and the Internet of Things. While this assessment is largely accurate, it's essential to note that the human element accounts for approximately 70% of this dynamic, while the network comprises the remaining 30%. The personal internet was available even in the early 1990s, but it was the synthesis of the human urge to communicate—with a person (a face) rather than an IP address—that spurred the explosive growth of social media platforms. The arrival of the smartphone, a handheld connected computer, further placed the world in our palms. While this convergence brings numerous benefits, it also raises concerns. As devices—from phones to watches—become computers, they simultaneously transform into potential surveillance tools.

The survival of any military force is a primary concern in strategic planning and decision-making. This consideration extends well beyond military operations and involves issues such as public support and political cohesion. It is evident daily how the nation's military protects its members. Recently, the media highlighted steps taken by the Army to safeguard soldiers against the coronavirus, in addition to measures implemented by the government. We have also seen security efforts surrounding various bases and ports, which are vital military functions. Similar to physical security, digital security is another aspect that keeps military planners vigilant.

We have heard about measures such as app bans, smartphone bans, and wearable device bans mentioned in various reports concerning the military. While these measures can be effective, there is no silver bullet solution. With such pervasive technology, apps like Facebook and devices like smartphones and smartwatches have become integral to our daily lives. Their functionality has become a necessity, especially with e-banking, e-commerce, and crucial contact tracing platforms. Therefore, a completely non-implementable digital isolation as a protective measure offers limited value.

Separating mobile phones from defense personnel in official areas or during exercises and operations may be critical for operational security; however, it does not address the complex threats in the digital domain. An individual’s digital footprint is established over time, and the accumulated data points are collected through years of internet activity. These data points are processed through machine learning and artificial intelligence-based computational processes, creating an online profile. Leaving a smartphone outside a particular office five days a week simply indicates that an individual works inside that office. Subroutines transmitting location data from devices are embedded in basic map applications, and one does not need covert surveillance infrastructure to access this information. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of any other interfaced app. Services like Flightradar24 provide information on Air Force C-17 flights, while geotagged selfies can reveal even isolated border locations. It does not matter whether the photo is shared on Facebook, WhatsApp, or emailed; the location metadata is embedded within the image and is independent of the app used.

While the military may isolate individuals, open, crowd-sourced information has become a simpler method for obtaining critical inputs. Recently, a Twitter handle posted an old photograph featuring officers from an elite unit. Although many individuals in the image may have retired, comments on the tweet from people eager to engage in discussion or seek recognition revealed the identities of several individuals in the photograph. Cases of people identifying areas and commenting on their military significance are common and cannot simply be ignored. Information about military capabilities, such as personnel and equipment numbers, can even be gathered from civilian and commercial sensors, including footage captured by publicly available or misconfigured traffic and CCTV cameras. It is not one event that poses a security risk; rather, it is the long-term information matrix that can be woven from such data points that raises concerns.

Defeating an adversary, by whatever mechanism, is a cognitive outcome. It is the accumulated stresses of combat and perceptions of the situation that lead to fear, flight, and other psychological responses.

Active, adaptive digital camouflage may be a viable option in modern military operations.

Camouflage is often confused with concealment. To camouflage means to blend in with the surroundings, making one undetectable to an observer, while concealment is simply protecting something from view. Digital camouflage aims to integrate military digital information with various types of 'noise data,' thereby preventing the enemy from honing in on specific information and interpreting it as intelligence. For this strategy to be effective, it must be both pre-emptive and adaptive.

Implementing pre-emptive measures that establish systemic resilience against the malicious use of digital information is crucial. Raising awareness about the adversarial risks associated with the social media information environment is an essential first step, but this general awareness should be complemented by specific educational initiatives, internal communication strategies, and evolving regulations. Militaries are likely to favor these countermeasures as they rely on fundamental deception tactics. 

Effective measures should protect critical information in several ways: by minimizing predictable online behavior patterns and by camouflaging indicators that cannot be avoided, pairing them with meaningless changes that provide alternative interpretations. Once military commanders incorporate these elements into their mission plans, technical specialists can take on the responsibility of implementing them.

Extracting information from the open internet, especially given the abundance of social media posts, presents an opportunity where a small investment can yield significant returns. To counter an adversary effectively, keeping them occupied within the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop is essential. A strategically planned denial of opportunities should be integrated into the operational philosophy; this approach represents a significant advancement on the horizon. Camouflage serves a functional role in concealment, but it should not be seen as a substitute for offensive capabilities. Preserving forces in the digital realm must be a core part of our strategic communication plan.