What India can learn from Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ as tensions with Pakistan rise

India has hit back after the Pahalgam terrorist strike of April 22. As this column goes to press, there are reports of at least nine targets hit across the border in the wee hours of May 7. Quite significantly, India’s manoeuvre has been named “Operation Sindoor.” Sindoor refers to the vermillion mark on a married women’s forehead, which was wiped out tragically when their husbands were gunned down in front of their eyes.

What next? I hope there is little or no escalation of hostilities between the two sub-continental nuclear-armed powers, which were one country before August 1947. As I argued in my last column, war, in any civilised society, is the option of last resort. The costs of war are too high for countries such as India and Pakistan, which have a long way to go to improve the basic living conditions of their large populations. Those who are baying for blood on both sides of the border are sure to rue the deadly costs of war when they themselves or their own near and dear ones are hurt.

Only death cults prefer wars; the rest of humanity loathes them.

Let us cut through the spin and come to the main point. I hope that Pakistan will refrain from a senseless and precipitous tit-for-tat. As to Indians, especially the strategically-minded ones fond of quoting Kautilya, better known as Chanakya, we also have much to learn from his classical Chinese predecessor, Sun Tzu.

Chanakya’s Arthashastra, the 2,000-year-old Indian masterly treatise on governance, statecraft, political economy, and strategic affairs, has left a global footprint for its pragmatic and practical advise on how to rule both ethically and effectively. When it comes to subduing an adversary, Kautilya advocates the tetralemma of sama (conciliation), dana (gifts), bheda (division), and danda (force). Or an astute blend of diplomacy, economic leverage, divide the enemy, and military might. This is excellent advice indeed, a playbook that India can well adopt as the clouds of war loom large across the Indian sub-continent.

What if India can achieve its remaining objectives without fighting a bloody and protracted war? What if justice can be served and the perpetrators of the ghastly terror attack on Pahalgam of April 22 be punished without an all-out offensive? What, furthermore, if the ideology and terror infrastructure itself can be dealt a deadly blow without an all-out offensive?

Yes, I am referring to Sun Tzu’s fifth century BCE classic, The Art of War. What distinguishes The Art of War is that it prioritises winning without fighting, using deception, psychological advantage, and strategic preparation to secure victory before battle is joined.

As I understand it, Sun Tzu teaches us how to ensure victory before fighting the war, a subtler and less resource-intensive approach than most modern multifaceted but confrontational strategies. At a time when the Indian subcontinent stands at an inflection point, with war clouds casting their long and gloomy shadows on the populace on both sides of the border, Sun Tzu’s timeless wisdom offers a path to strategic success without resorting to excessive and unnecessary bloodshed.

Why go to war when you can win without firing a single shot? Metaphorically speaking, of course. Many shots are — and will be — fired from both sides of the border as tensions flare up. But Sun Tzu’s philosophy will help India to minimise damage to itself while maximising its advantages.

Sun Tzu emphasises winning through preparation, deception, and psychological advantage rather than brute force. For India, facing complex geopolitical challenges, or navigating great power rivalries, Sun Tzu’s teachings can provide a blueprint for achieving national objectives without escalating to open conflict.

One of Sun Tzu’s core tenets is that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. This is not about pacifism but about creating conditions where victory is inevitable before the battle begins. For India, this means leveraging its economic growth, diplomatic influence, and cultural soft power to shape the regional and global environment in its favour.

Sun Tzu also stresses the importance of knowing both yourself and your enemy. India must deepen its understanding of its adversaries’ motivations, capabilities, and vulnerabilities.

Another critical lesson is adaptability. Sun Tzu advises that just as water shapes itself to the terrain, a wise general must adapt to circumstances. India’s strategic culture, often reactive and bureaucratic, could benefit from this fluidity. India has, indeed, made water key to its current standoff with Pakistan.

In addition, a broader approach combining military modernisation with cyber capabilities, intelligence operations, and economic measures will keep the adversary off balance. Flexibility also means seizing opportunities. Such as using India’s digital economy and space programme to project power in non-traditional domains.

Of course, the counter-question arises, “What happens when your adversary is also studying and following these principles?” The answer is simple. The cleverer general and the stronger army will win.

India, the victim of repeated terror attacks, has every right not only to defend itself but also to strike back. But at the time, place, and manner of its own choosing. India’s democratic values, diverse society, and growing global stature give it a moral edge over authoritarian regimes.

Materially, India’s economy, projected to be the world’s third-largest by 2030, and its young, skilled workforce provide the resources to sustain long-term strategies. Sun Tzu would approve of India’s potential to blend moral legitimacy with material strength, provided it acts with foresight and discipline.

By mastering the art of winning without fighting, India can secure its interests, deter aggression, and emerge as a leading power. The Indian subcontinent may be at an inflection point, but with Sun Tzu’s wisdom, India can navigate this moment not with fear of battle, but with the confidence of a nation that has already won the war.