Why must New Delhi build a national doctrine for grey zone conflict? Modern conflicts increasingly unfold without formal declarations or traditional battlefields.
By Lt Gen A B Shivane (R) | For The News Analytics Herald
3 mins read.
War no longer announces itself. For generations, conflict had a recognisable shape—mobilisation, border crossings and declarations signalling that nations were at war. That certainty has faded. Today, competition frequently remains below the threshold of open conflict, employing cyber intrusion, information manipulation, economic pressure, proxy violence and international mechanisms as instruments of coercion.
This is the grey zone—the space between war and peace—and it has become an important arena of strategic competition for India. Pakistan recognised its utility decades ago. Proxy terrorism demonstrated how costs could be imposed under layers of deniability without necessarily inviting the response associated with conventional aggression. China employs a broader approach. Along the Line of Actual Control, infrastructure development, expanded presence and calibrated actions can alter realities while remaining below thresholds likely to trigger full-scale confrontation.
Neither resembles traditional warfare, yet both pursue outcomes historically associated with war: strategic advantage, political pressure and erosion of an opponent’s options.
Grey zone conflicts seek the outcomes of war without its declarations, using ambiguity as a weapon of strategic competition.
The strength of grey zone operations lies precisely in this ambiguity. A cyber intrusion, disinformation campaign, trade restriction or legal challenge may appear isolated. Combined over time, however, such actions can weaken national resilience without providing a clear trigger for conventional retaliation.
India confronts several dimensions simultaneously. Proxy threats persist from Pakistan, while competition with China encompasses territorial pressure, economic influence and information operations. Financial systems, defence networks and critical infrastructure face persistent cyber threats, while coordinated narratives can exploit social divisions and shape international perceptions. Lawfare—the strategic use of legal and multilateral mechanisms—adds another dimension. The battlefield has expanded far beyond national borders.
TECHNOLOGY AS MULTIPLIER
Artificial intelligence has accelerated the grey zone threat. Capabilities once requiring sophisticated resources are increasingly accessible. Synthetic video, manipulated audio and automated influence campaigns can be created rapidly and distributed at scale.
A fabricated video released during an election, border crisis or period of social tension can circulate faster than institutions can establish the truth. The challenge is therefore no longer simply identifying misinformation, but responding at the speed at which digital narratives evolve.
Artificial intelligence has industrialised information warfare, allowing narratives to be manufactured and amplified before truth can respond effectively.
Economic coercion has similarly become more sophisticated. Dependence on limited suppliers for critical minerals, pharmaceutical ingredients, electronics or strategic technologies creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited during geopolitical tensions.
Supply chains are consequently instruments of national power. Countries unable to understand and diversify critical dependencies risk allowing commercial relationships to become sources of strategic leverage.
NATIONAL RESPONSE ARCHITECTURE
India’s first requirement is doctrinal clarity. Individual institutions already address different dimensions of hybrid threats, but grey zone competition requires a comprehensive framework integrating the armed forces, intelligence agencies, diplomatic establishment, economic ministries and private sector.
A permanent coordination mechanism close to national security decision-making could identify emerging threats and enable whole-of-government responses before individual incidents develop into larger strategic challenges.
India’s armed forces must similarly regard grey zone capabilities as complementary to conventional deterrence. Future conflicts may begin long before tanks cross borders or aircraft enter hostile airspace.
Cyber defence, information operations and counter-proxy capabilities require deeper operational integration. Intelligence systems must recognise early indicators ranging from coordinated digital activity and economic coercion to unusual diplomatic or military behaviour. Modern deterrence increasingly requires recognising conflict before it formally begins.
RESILIENT POWER SYSTEMS
India must reduce critical vulnerabilities across sectors including rare earths, semiconductors, energy and pharmaceuticals. This does not require economic isolation. The objective should be diversification and redundancy, ensuring that no single external actor can convert dependence into strategic leverage. Industrial policy and national security are therefore increasingly interconnected.
Citizens, too, have become participants in the information battlespace. India’s digitally connected population is a major national strength but simultaneously creates exposure to manipulation. Stronger digital literacy involving educational institutions, civil society, technology platforms and public outreach can strengthen societal resilience.
Rapid-response mechanisms are equally necessary for identifying and countering fabricated content. In the information domain, delayed truth often struggles against early misinformation. Speed itself has become a strategic capability.
Future national security will depend not only on military strength, but also on information resilience, economic security and societal preparedness.
EXPANDING SECURITY FRONTIERS
International forums, legal institutions and regulatory mechanisms have also become arenas of competition. India needs stronger specialised capabilities combining international law with national-security expertise to anticipate challenges, defend its positions and expose adversarial grey zone activities.
The private sector must become a deeper security partner as well. Much of the infrastructure vulnerable to future campaigns—including financial networks, communications, digital platforms and critical technologies—is privately operated. Technology companies, financial institutions and infrastructure providers therefore need greater integration into national resilience planning.
None of this diminishes the importance of conventional military power. India must continue strengthening its Army, Navy and Air Force given its security environment. But military strength alone cannot address every dimension of modern competition.
A country can possess formidable armed forces while remaining vulnerable through its information environment, economic dependencies, digital infrastructure or institutional preparedness.
Grey zone competition deliberately exploits precisely these spaces—areas where attribution is difficult, responses are complicated and escalation thresholds remain unclear.
The character of conflict has changed. Grey zone competition rewards anticipation, coordination and resilience rather than waiting for formal declarations or visible crises. India therefore needs more than stronger defences. It requires a broader understanding of what defence itself means in the modern strategic environment. The battlefield has expanded. India’s response must expand with it.
(Lt Gen A B Shivane (R), Former DG Mechanised Forces, Indian Army. TEDx Speaker, Strategic Defence Consultant, Analyst & Corporate Mentor. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Herald.)
