A range of actors are working to undermine India’s unity and integrity. These forces include foreign governments and organizations that support separatist movements, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote minority rights designed to create divisions between different religious and ethnic groups, Western academics who are critical of India’s Hindu-majority government and its policies on religious freedom and Indian leftists who are opposed to the Hindu nationalist movement and its agenda of Hindutva.

Anti-India forces would like to work together to fragment India into a thousand pieces. Pakistan has been following a policy of “death by a thousand cuts” against India, employing terrorists and subversive activities. China uses the “Three Warfares” during peacetime.

There is no denying that there are a number of domestic factors that could help to these “Breaking India” forces, which include economic inequality, separatism and myriad of political institutions.

Soros Network

The Soros network funded by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations is active in over 120 countries around the world, and its work supposedly focuses on promoting democracy, human rights, and open societies. It is a dangerous attempt to undermine national sovereignty and traditional values, in disguise.

The Soros network has been accused of supporting a number of controversial causes, including the Black Lives Matter movement, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. The network has also been criticized for its hidden agenda and support of organizations that promote secularism and religious freedom in countries with sizeable-Muslim populations.

A number organizations are part of the Soros network, like Open Society Foundations, Open Society Justice Initiative, Open Society Foundations-India, Open Society Foundations-Europe and Open Society Foundations-Africa.

The Open Society Foundations (OSF) has funded a number of organizations in India, including:

•             Human Rights Law Network (HRLN)

•             People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

•             Centre for Equity Studies

•             Navsarjan Trust

•             Satyagraha Foundation

•             Sabrang Trust

•             Sherpa

•             Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)

The OSF has also funded a number of smaller organizations and projects in India, such as the Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and the Centre for Policy Research.

The OSF’s funding in India has been controversial, with some critics accusing the organization of trying to undermine the Indian government. The OSF is one of the largest funders of civil society in India.

International NGOs

There are a number of other organizations that have been accused of working against India’s interests. These organizations include:

•             Ford Foundation

•             MacArthur Foundation

•             Rockefeller Foundation

•             Asia Foundation

•             German Marshall Fund

•             National Endowment for Democracy

These organizations are all based in the United States, and they have all been accused of funding organizations in India that are critical of the Indian government. The critics of these organizations argue that they are trying to undermine India’s sovereignty and that they are working to promote Western values in India.

Other organizations have been accused of funding agitations in India. These organizations include:

•             Greenpeace

•             Amnesty International

•             ActionAid

•             People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

•             Human Rights Law Network (HRLN)

•             Satyagraha Foundation

•             Sabrang Trust

•             Sherpa

These organizations have been accused of funding protests against government projects, such as nuclear power plants and coal mines. They have also been accused of funding protests against government policies, such as the Land Acquisition Act and the Forest Rights Act.

Greenpeace. Greenpeace India was expelled from India in 2015 after being accused of financial fraud and violating foreign funding laws. It was accused of lying about its sources of funding (it claimed that it was funded by Indian donors when it was actually funded by foreign donors), falsifying documents including its annual reports and its financial statements, misusing foreign funds and Undermining India’s national security (working to promote environmental extremis).

Amnesty International. Amnesty International was asked to close it operations in India in 2020, following investigations, for the same reasons. It was also accused of working to promote separatism and terrorism in India.

In 2018, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), India’s financial crimes investigation agency, raided Amnesty International’s offices in Bangalore and seized documents. The ED alleged that Amnesty International had violated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), which regulates foreign funding to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in India.

Amnesty International has challenged the MHA’s decision in court, and the case is ongoing.

ActionAid. ActionAid also came under the ED’s radar in 2015, when it raided its offices in Bangalore and seized documents for violation of the FCRA. In 2017, the MHA ordered ActionAid India to close its operations in India. ActionAid India has challenged the MHA’s decision in court, and the case is ongoing.

ActionAid India has been criticized for its work on the Right to Food Act, the Land Acquisition Act and the Forest Rights Act, all of which undermined the government’s efforts to implement the Acts.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties. The PUCL is a human rights organization in India that has been accused of breaking the law on a number of occasions. The most serious accusations against PUCL include its work on the Gujarat riots, the Kashmir conflict and on the Naxalite insurgency. All these have undermined the government’s efforts. PUCL’s work on the Naxalite insurgency has been too sympathetic to the Naxalites, and worked against suppressing the insurgency.

In 2009, the ED, seized documents from PUCL’s offices on FCRA funding. In 2016, the MHA ordered PUCL to close its operations in India. PUCL has challenged the MHA’s decision in court, and the case is ongoing.

Human Rights Law Network. The Indian government has objected to the political agenda of the HRLN alleging financial irregularities, supporting anti-national activities, promoting separatism and being biased against the government. HRLN has been forced to close some of its offices in India.

Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation has been accused of funding organizations that are critical of the Indian government including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, promoting Western values which are incompatible with Indian culture and tradition and interfering in India’s internal affairs by funding organizations that have been involved in protests against government projects.

Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation has been accused of activities similar to Ford Foundation’s. The Rockefeller Foundation has funded the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) besides others critical of the government. The Foundation has also been criticized for its work on the Green Revolution, which it funded and for its work on family planning and their coercive methods and their impact on women’s rights.

Big Tech

Big Tech companies (meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter) have been accused of working against India’s interests through Monopolization of the market for digital services in India, collecting and using data from Indian users without their consent, censoring content that is critical of the Indian government or offensive to Hindu religious sensibilities and Tax avoidance.

The Indian government has introduced new laws that regulate the data collection and use practices of Big Tech companies. It is important to note that not all of the accusations against Big Tech companies are accurate. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that these companies have the potential to work against India’s interests. It is important to be aware of these concerns and to hold Big Tech companies accountable for their actions.

China’s Three Warfares

China’s is using its “Three Warfares” military strategy which comprises of psychological warfare, legal warfare, and media warfare. Psychological warfare uses propaganda, disinformation, and other means to influence the thoughts and emotions of the enemy. Legal warfare challenges the enemy’s actions through international law and other legal instruments to gain a strategic advantage. Media warfare influences and shapes the narrative of a conflict.

The Three Warfares were used in the 2008 Doklam standoff between China and India, and the 2020 Galwan Valley clash.

Cognitive warfare is simply psychological manipulation to influence the minds of individuals and groups. China uses it against India in a number of ways, including spreading disinformation, infiltrating Indian institutions and through cyberattacks.

China has used lawfare against India in a number of ways. For example, it used domestic laws to target Indian companies. In 2020, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed a ban on imports of cotton from India, citing concerns about quality. The ban was actually aimed at pressuring India to withdraw its support for the US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). In 2021, China filed a lawsuit against India at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, challenging India’s decision to build a road in the Ladakh region. The PCA has not yet ruled on the case, but it has delayed the construction of the road.

Chinese influence operations in India have increased since the Galwan Valley clash of June 2020. China has been using social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok to spread disinformation and propaganda about India and sow discord.

Tool Kit Against India

There are a number of indications that a “toll kit” has been prepared and shared with people who are against India. The toolkit was found on the laptop of climate activist Disha Ravi, who was arrested by the Delhi Police on February 13, 2021. The toolkit contained a number of instructions on how to spread disinformation and propaganda about India, as well as how to organize protests and demonstrations against the government.

The toolkit was also shared by a number of other activists on social media, including Greta Thunberg. These activists have been accused of being part of a larger campaign to spread anti-India sentiment.

The post Anti-India Forces at Work appeared first on IMR.

The Chinese military has adopted a strategy known as the “Three Warfares,” which includes psychological warfare, media warfare, and legal warfare. This strategy aims to shape perceptions, control the narrative and use legal means to gain an advantage over its adversaries.

Psychological warfare, also known as “mind warfare,” involves the use of propaganda and disinformation to influence the attitudes and behaviour of an opponent.

Media warfare involves the use of traditional and social media to shape public opinion and control the narrative. This can include the use of state-controlled media to disseminate propaganda and disinformation, as well as the use of cyberattacks to disrupt or manipulate the flow of information.

Legal warfare involves the use of international law and legal means to gain an advantage over an adversary. This can include the use of legal challenges and diplomatic pressure to achieve strategic goals.

The Chinese government has denied any use of Three Warfares and said it is a western conspiracy theory, but it is widely acknowledged that the Chinese government and military actively use these tactics.

Examples of Legal Warfare

Legal warfare includes the use of international legal challenges and diplomatic pressure to achieve strategic goals. Some specific examples of legal warfare include using:

International arbitration and legal challenges to challenge territorial claims and disputes in the South China Sea.

Diplomatic pressure to prevent other countries from recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state.

Trade agreements and economic incentives to gain access to resources and markets in other countries.

Legal means to challenge the actions of other countries, such as the Chinese government’s legal challenges to the U.S. government’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods.

Legal means to challenge the actions of international organizations, such as the Chinese government’s legal challenges to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in disputes in the South China Sea.

Legal means to challenge the actions of foreign companies, such as the Chinese government’s legal challenges to the actions of foreign companies operating in China.

Examples of Media Warfare

Media warfare includes the use of traditional and social media to shape public opinion and control the narrative. Some specific examples include using:

State-controlled media outlets to disseminate propaganda and disinformation, and to promote the government’s views and policies.

Social media platforms to spread disinformation and influence public opinion, such as through the use of bots and fake accounts.

Cyberattacks to disrupt or manipulate the flow of information, such as by hacking into news organizations’ websites and social media accounts.

Legal means to restrict or control access to certain types of information, such as through censorship and the use of strict laws to control the media.

Media outlets to promote a positive image of China and its government, while downplaying or criticizing other countries and their governments.

Media outlets to shape the narrative around China’s territorial claims and disputes in the South China Sea and to challenge the actions of other countries in the region.

Examples of Psychological Warfare

Psychological warfare includes the use of propaganda and disinformation to influence the attitudes and behaviours of an opponent and to create confusion and sow discord among an opponent’s population. Some specific examples of psychological warfare include using:

Propaganda and disinformation to shape public opinion and influence the attitudes and behaviours of military personnel and civilians in other countries, behaviours of people in other countries with regard to China’s territorial claims and disputes and China’s economic and strategic interests, political system and government.

Unrestricted Warfare

In the book “Unrestricted Warfare” written by two Chinese colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, published in 1999, a strategy for China has been proposed to use in a potential conflict with a more powerful enemy, such as the United States.

Although not an official Chinese strategy, it is based on the idea of using unconventional methods, such as cyber warfare and economic tactics, to circumvent the enemy’s strengths and exploit their weaknesses. The authors argue that China must adapt to new forms of warfare in order to defend itself.

The authors apropose a variety of unconventional methods that China can use in a potential conflict with a more powerful enemy. Some of these methods include:

Cyber warfare: Using computer attacks to disrupt the enemy’s military and civilian infrastructure, as well as to steal sensitive information.

Economic warfare: Using economic means to weaken the enemy’s economy, such as through currency manipulataion, trade embargoes, and investment restrictions.

Psychological warfare: Using propaganda and other means to influence the enemy’s public opinion and undermine their morale.

Terrorism: Using terrorist attacks to create chaos and fear among the enemy population.

Asymmetric warfare: Using unconventional tactics and weapons to exploit the enemy’s vulnerabilities and avoid their strengths.

Lawfare: Using legal means to challenge the enemy’s actions and justify one’s own actions.

China has been investing heavily in cyber warfare capabilities, and have been known for cyber espionage and cyber attacks against other countries. It has also been using economic means to exert influence, such as through its Belt and Road Initiative and its Made in China 2025 plan. Additionally, China has been investing in psychological warfare and has been actively working to shape global perceptions of itself and its actions.

The post Three Warfares Strategy appeared first on IMR.

China’s Three Warfares Need to to be Countered

The changing character of war and its emerging dimensions which are often referred to as grey zone, non-contact, cyber, and information warfare, are fueling some serious debates/actions across the world and these aspects are now a part of every country’s war preparedness roadmaps.

War is essentially an offensive operation, waged upon the physical, political or psychological sovereignty of the enemy, through kinetic or non-kinetic means. The idea of warfare, as an art and science both is a constantly evolving domain but the pace of change that we are witnessing now is unprecedented in many ways.

While discussing information warfare, it is a sort of a formal practice to start with China and its popular ‘Three Warfares’ doctrine (an official political and information pre-kinetic warfare strategy of the PLA) published in 2003. But at the same time, we cannot afford to ignore what the former US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis indicated in 2009 when he said: “We need a new Strategic Concept that reconciles war’s grim realities with the human aspirations of our people and the global audience” and “capturing perceptions is the new high ground in today’s conflicts, as the moral is to the material as three is to one.” In 2018, it was under his command, the United States included ‘Information’ as the seventh joint function in its Joint Operations Doctrine (JP 3-0).

India’s National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval often talks about these global trends and shifts when he says that: “Civil society is the new frontier of warfare,” and it is “the common people, their thinking, their perceptions, their sense of well being and their perception of their own governments,” and everything that can impact the “will of the nation,” is under attack, in this new age of information revolution.

In the last few months, what India has witnessed what seems like a climax of information and psychological warfare! For the first time, we saw how a decision (Agriculture Reforms) passed through the democratic process, through elected representatives, was forced to roll back, after a massive misinformation/disinformation campaign against the ‘intent’ of the lawmakers. From money to ‘tool kit’ to support from foreign sources, everything was open done, yet the democratic mechanisms seemed ineffective to tackle that.

For the first time, we are watching Chinese propaganda video/pictures streaming through the social media handle of the leaders of the biggest Opposition party of the county and for the first time, an animated conspiracy to target the prime minister (operated from foreign lands) has flashed openly before our eyes, too. This is, by far, the most alarming phase of ongoing information warfare! And this encourages us to see where the root of the problem lies.

Information as a Weapon

Improvisations to shape, influence, control and manipulate information, in wartime are not new! From the invention of the World Wide Web, several parallel types of research were initiated, in the same bloc, to leverage the potential of information as a weapon, capable of targeting human minds, which once launched, no jammer can ever intercept.

The idea that information itself is not only a ‘potent weapon’ but a ‘lucrative target’ as well, dominated the US military literature/ discussions for decades. Several ideas/ research reports/ doctrines published during that time validate this fact, where the use of models ranging from historical case studies to futuristic scenarios on how information warfare has impacted or will impact the future of conflicts was elaborately explained. One such thesis “Information as a Weapon – Reality versus Promises,” published in 1999, mentioned that: “One characteristic of the US military and its way of war is its fascination with technology and the associated search for the high-tech silver bullet that will allow quick victories with minimal collateral damage.”

Since then the process of the search for ‘high tech silver bullet,’ went through several phases of evolution/ interaction and information exchange, an overview of which is therefore crucial!

Information, Communication, Feedback and Control

The concepts of ‘information’, ‘message’, ‘feedback’ and ‘control’, the foundational block of modern communication innovations, are the products of an in-depth research on the human and his biological, psychological, social, and behavioral aspects. But that research itself was not done under normal circumstances of human discovery, they were all initiated during the phase of Great Wars, either in pre-, middle-, or post-World War I & II period.

In his book ‘Cybernetics,’ Norbert Wiener classified communication and control together and the reason for this he gave was that “when I communicate with another person, I impart a message to him and when he communicates back with me he returns a related message, which contains information primarily accessible to him and not to me,” and “When I control the actions of another person, I communicate a message to him,” and “furthermore, if my control is to be effective I must take cognizance of any messages from him which may indicate that the order is understood and has been obeyed.” Thus, his thesis was that a “society can only be understood through a study of the messages and the communication facilities which belong to it.”

By looking at the history and background of present-day information technologies, one can say that the idea of ‘warfare’ is in-built, since its origin, in the very core of these systems, and the possibilities to exploit these capabilities for strategic objectives, were always there!

When an idea is capable of reaching the masses, influencing their perceptions and, in some cases, regulating their consciousness too, confining it to the battlefield, is an impossible task and most certainly a fake claim too!

In a 1997 interview, Dr. Daniel Kuehl, professor of military strategy, School of Information Warfare and Strategy, US National Defense University said, “The computer, telecoms systems, etc, are hardware; the instructions that guide the computer, i.e., Windows 95, is the software; the human brain is the wetware, and it’s the most important element in Information Warfare (IW). Until and unless we get truly intelligence agents and AI, all the hard/ software won’t matter, because the final decision point is the brain – the wetware.”

Here the word ‘wetware’ refers to the new battlefield’s focus area, which is also called the “grey matter” of the brain in which opinions/ perceptions are formed and decisions are made.

9/11- A Turning Point

In many ways, September 2001 attacks gave a major push to US IW efforts. This realization that the time gap between the two aircrafts crashing into the twin towers of the World Trade Center was wide enough (18 minutes) to allow for live TV coverage of the second crash, cannot be a mere coincidence. It fueled a new debate about asymmetrical warfare, where the speed and reach of information technology can be exploited to attain the core objectives of IW.

It is important here to note that IW, as a concept, is technology independent and its operations can be conducted via any form of media, not just cyberspace. After all, it all started with leaflets dropping campaigns (Airborne leaflet propaganda or letter-bombs), radio broadcast, and printed propaganda in World War I and II.

But what has changed now is that the hallmarks of the information revolution, i.e., transparency, immediacy, reach, scale and element of exactitude that internet technologies provide, have accelerated the impact of Information operations to a different level! As Dr. Daniel Kuehl explained, “The new medium of cyberspace offers a particularly rich environment through which we can reach those elusive targets, the enemy’s will and capability, via the various entryways and connecting points in the information environment, whether they be hardware, software or wetware.”

Post 2010 – Shift From ‘Platforms’ to ‘Cyber’

With a shift from “computer as a platform” (systems and networks) to present day “cyberspace,” technology’s role in measuring, monitoring, predicting and deciding the trends and perceptions, a critical aspect of information warfare, is moving toward a different level.

‘Cyberspace’ made the nations awaken to the reality that information, as an element of power, is the most cost-effective and useful force at all levels. Some believe that the explosion in computers, telecoms and media technology changed the traditional notion of Power itself.

For over a decade, a different kind of proliferation of Information assets is going on and it is not the USA alone, defence experts from China and Russia, studying this new warfare area at a feverish pace as they were also on a similar search for the “perfect weapon” in information warfare, are also participating in it.

Russia

In Russian military doctrine, IW is considered as an integrated whole-of-systems working together that includes, intelligence and counter-intelligence gathering, Maskirovka and disinformation, Electronic Warfare (EW) systems, psychological pressure, etc. Their contemporary research and published works on this subject highlight exploring the Information-psychological component of IW. Information-psychological impact (IPI) is “the informational influence on people’s minds, which alters their perception of the reality, behavioral functions and, in some cases, even the functioning of their inner organs and body systems,” as mentioned in “Modeling the Information-Psychological Impact in Social Networks” research paper, published by some Russian scholars, in 2019. The paper highlights the diffusion process of IPI in social media platforms.

Russia started well, gained some momentum on some points as well but a lack of an overall edge, in the world of the Wide Web, is quite apparent!

Technology suits the psyche of another big player, who traditionally prefers ‘stratagem’ over real war and valor and whose strategists are often quoted as the founding fathers of IW.

China – From ‘Three Warfares’ to ‘Intelligentized Warfare’

In 2003, China revised its “Political Work Guidelines of the People’s Liberation Army,” to include its ‘Three Warfares’ strategy, in which public opinion or use of media, psychological means and legal warfare, kind of ideas were highlighted. There are views that all three dimensions come under China’s larger ‘political warfare’ strategy, which has been in play for quite a long time.

In an opinion article “Why is Congress hiding its MoU with China’s Communists?” published in New Indian Express in August 2020, A. Surya Prakash, former chairperson Prasar Bharati wrote, “The news about the MoU entered into by the Congress party with the Communist Party of China (CCP) in 2008 has now become a matter of concern because of two pertinent reasons. Firstly, the Congress is just not willing to disclose the contents of this MoU with the CCP, which not only controls the Chinese government but runs that country in every sense of the word. Secondly, there is the news about donations received by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF) from the Chinese Government.”

From 2008 to 2018, the entire approach to political warfare has undergone a major shift and in this change, technology is a leading factor! Similar kind of psychological blows that mainstream activities and media headlines used to create before is now possible through a mere tweet, post or video circulated live on the Big Tech platforms, and whose response/ reactions data/ analytics are available in a real-time manner. One can say that these self-learning algorithms and their ‘general intelligence’ are the most lethal weapon in this new age of IW!

In recently released US Department of Defense’s annual report on Chinese Military Power, China’s growing focus on developing the next generation warfare capabilities that include the use of more “mechanized, informatized, and intelligentized” systems with the help of specific emerging tech including AI and the use of AI for social media analysis and propaganda are highlighted too.

Post 2017 – Alpha GO’s win

Dr. Kai Fu Lee, the author of the book “AI Superpower”, writes that the AlphaGo’s victory over Chinese Go champion “lit a fire under the Chinese technology community that has been burning ever since.” AlphaGO is a Google DeepMind lab product, that plays the board game Go. In May 2017, in a well-orchestrated and widely covered event, AlphaGo won against Chinese Go champion Ke Jie, in all three rounds.

From 2017, China has accelerated the pace of AI investment and R&D activities on a historic scale. It is interesting to note that in less than two months of Ke Jie’s defeat by AlphaGo, the State Council of China launched the vision “A Next-Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan.” It describes AI as a “strategic technology” that has become a “focus of international competition” and projected that “by 2030 China would become the center of global innovation in artificial intelligence, leading in theory, technology and application.”

With this, a new kind of information warfare race started between the USA and China, in which China appears to be leading. In October 2021, a senior Pentagon official resigned with a warning to his fraternity that “the US could not compete with China on AI.”

Both sides have not just Big Tech and Big Data but Big Ambitions as well and, backed by intelligent systems, their maneouvres can accelerate this new age warfare to a different level.

The Case of Bharat

Now the question is where does Bharat stand on this? And do we have the emerging patterns and changing character of warfare in sight?

In a recently delivered “33rd IB Centenary Endowment Lecture on Redefining Security,” External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, perfectly summarized the need to reimagine the security scenario and approach to protect national interests, due to the reasons he tweeted as:

1. Possibility of unrestricted political warfare involving more capabilities and their greater exercise. Also linkaging of autonomous sectors for political messaging.

2. Growing challenge of borderless politics, played for the benefit of few, in the name of many. Is shaping narratives and perceptions impacting security.

3. Securitizing of the routine through a web of technologies, activities, and instruments, often without user awareness.

4. Factor in surveillance capitalism and enterprises with mega-interests.

And he said: “It is important to be clear-eyed about the world we live in and confident about what we want. Must bear in mind we are an open society. Our values must always come out stronger.”

Clarity about the present and future trends of warfare is very much there in our current system. But we will be able to better analyze the issues when we will see them with a multi-dimensional, open-minded perspective.

Power is a reality and information becoming a new dimension of power is a reality too! At this moment, our focus is more on the Chinese side but we must be cautious about the fact that somewhere our incapability to not see the full picture can itself be a part of the strategic calculations of others.

We live in a complex world, where the nature of alliance/ partnership is becoming more and more ad-hoc, open-minded and issue-based. When analyzing the information warfare scenarios, we must have to adopt an eyesight that views all players, be it the USA, Russia, China, France, Germany, UK or any other active participant of global politics, on the same level.

In Arthashastra, Kautilya says: “of the three acquirements – enthusiasm, power and skill for intrigue, he who possesses more of the quality mentioned later than the one mentioned first (in the order of enumeration) will be successful in over-reaching others.”

To craft the strategy in this new warfare, the more we will look inward, the better we will perform.

The post Information Warfare is Now a Potent Weapon appeared first on IMR.