National Security Advisor Ajit Doval recently emphasized the strategic importance of military victories in shaping peace negotiations. Speaking at a book launch in New Delhi, he articulated that "when you defeat them on the battleground, the nation is prepared to have peace with you on your terms." This statement underscores a belief that military success is crucial for establishing favourable peace conditions, not only in the context of historical conflicts but also in contemporary situations like the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.

Doval elaborated on this point by stating that achieving military objectives involves breaking the will of the adversary. He noted that defeating an enemy's army is pivotal as it undermines their national resolve. He referenced historical examples to illustrate how military strategy and national will have played significant roles in past conflicts, including India's swift victory in the Bangladesh War of 1971, which he described as a case where strategic military action led to a decisive outcome and subsequent peace.

Furthermore, Doval discussed the role of social media in modern warfare, advocating for proactive measures to counter misinformation that could undermine national morale. He highlighted the need for credible narratives to emerge swiftly in response to incidents affecting public perception of the armed forces.

Doval's remarks reflect a broader strategic philosophy where military dominance is seen as a precursor to achieving peace on one's own terms, reinforcing the notion that strength and resolve are integral to effective diplomacy and conflict resolution.

Ajit Doval's perspective on breaking the enemy's will aligns with and diverges from the views of historical strategic thinkers like Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli in significant ways.

Comparison of Strategic Thinkers

Ajit Doval

Doval posits that military victories are essential for establishing favourable peace terms. He emphasizes that defeating an enemy on the battlefield diminishes their resolve, making them more amenable to negotiations on your terms. This reflects a belief in the necessity of demonstrating military strength to achieve political objectives.

Sun Tzu

In contrast, Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, advocates for subduing the enemy without fighting as the highest form of victory. His strategy emphasizes deception, intelligence, and psychological warfare over direct confrontation. He suggests that the best approach is to attack the enemy's strategy and alliances rather than their forces directly. This highlights a more nuanced understanding of conflict where breaking an enemy's will can be achieved through indirect means rather than outright military defeat.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli shares some similarities with Doval, particularly in his pragmatic approach to power and statecraft. He argues that the ends justify the means, suggesting that a ruler must be willing to use force or cruelty if it serves the state's stability and power. Like Doval, Machiavelli sees military strength as essential for maintaining authority and achieving political goals. However, he also emphasizes the importance of maintaining public support and legitimacy, which can sometimes require restraint in the use of force.

Key Differences

Doval focuses on decisive military victories as a precursor to peace, while Sun Tzu promotes strategic manoeuvring and psychological tactics to achieve victory without direct conflict.

Both Doval and Machiavelli endorse the use of force when necessary; however, Machiavelli also stresses the importance of public perception and moral considerations in governance, which is less emphasized in Doval's statements.

Sun Tzu’s philosophy is rooted in a more holistic view of conflict that values intelligence and strategy over brute force, whereas Doval’s view is more aligned with a realist perspective that prioritizes military success as a means to political ends.