The harder courage of peace over war
Chris Burden, Shoot (1971) (Via Normandy Gite Holidays)
War, however satisfying it may seem in the angry immediacy of provocation, is a cure far worse than the disease of terrorism. It is a temptation we must resist for the sake of our future and our values.
War was once cloaked in an aura of glory; today the world knows better. The facile notion that military vengeance will bring lasting peace is as dangerous as it is alluring. Certainly, decisive action is needed against those who harm a country's citizens – but war is not that solution. Even the world's military veterans acknowledge this truth: those who have seen battle with their own eyes emphasize that 'war is not a solution, they want a political solution.' The real cost of conflict – in soldiers, civilians, and society's psyche – far outweighs any momentary sense of retribution. What feels like strength in the short run may actually weaken us in the long run. This is the paradox any country faces: to be strong enough to avoid war, not eager enough to start it.
The false glory: Myths of war vs reality
War's advocates often invoke old myths of honor and heroism. For centuries, young minds were fed the idea that battlefield glory is the ultimate proof of 'manhood' and patriotism. But these myths have been shattered repeatedly by those who have experienced war's reality. It is time to demystify the false glory of war and recognize these myths for what they are – pernicious illusions that lead nations astray. Consider a few of the most enduring falsehoods about war, and the truths that history and literature have revealed:
● Myth: 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' – It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.
Reality: As World War I poet Wilfred Owen showed in searing detail, this is the 'old Lie.' In the trenches, death is neither sweet nor fitting, but ugly and senseless. Owen's famous poem Dulce et Decorum Est graphically recounts soldiers choking on gas and the nightmare of a comrade's agony, shattering the enduring myth that war is glorious. The supposed honor of war collapses into horror when seen up close. No parent and no widow who has received a flag-draped coffin finds glory in that moment – only grief.
Guernica, 1937 by Pablo Picasso (Via https://www.pablopicasso.org/)
Myth: War is the ultimate test of righteousness – might makes right.
Reality: War determines who is left, not who is right. In other words, victory in war often has no correlation with moral superiority. Philosopher Bertrand Russell put it bluntly: 'War does not determine who is right — only who is left.' The outcome of war is decided by firepower and chance, not justice or truth. We must reject the notion that military triumph = moral truth. Real heroism lies in preventing war, not in prevailing by war.
● Myth: War is a quick, decisive solution to our problems.
Reality: Wars are easy to begin, and nearly impossible to end on one's terms. Once unleashed, war opens Pandora's box – cycles of retaliation, economic devastation, and regional instability that can persist for generations. Each conflict leaves wounds and grudges that never fully heal, sowing seeds for the next confrontation. In the nuclear age, any war carries the terrifying risk of escalation beyond control, a point echoed in the historic Russell–Einstein Manifesto which starkly warned: 'Here, then, is the problem… Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?' When weapons can annihilate entire cities in moments, war is not a rational policy tool – it is collective suicide.
These realities are not conjecture but lessons paid for in blood. They echo in the diaries of soldiers, the dispatches of war correspondents, and the sobering statistics of conflicts past. The glory is gone; the gore remains. We must not allow vivid movies or nationalist rhetoric to lull us into believing war is anything other than hell, to borrow the famous adage. True patriotism today means protecting people from the hell of war, not throwing them into it.
The Scream, 1893 by Edvard Munch (Via https://www.edvardmunch.org/the-scream.jsp)
Lessons from poets, philosophers, and peacemakers
The futility of war has been a consistent theme from the early 20th century to the present, voiced by poets, philosophers, and statesmen alike. After the colossal tragedies of the World Wars, an arc of anti-war thought developed that forever changed how we view armed conflict.
More than a hundred years ago, amid the smoke and mud of Flanders, Wilfred Owen and his fellow soldier-poets began turning the tide of public opinion against war with their unflinching verses. The romantic patriotism of the 19th century gave way to the
disillusionment of the Lost Generation, who exposed war's reality. Their message was clear: the old romanticism of war is dead, slain by machine guns and mustard gas. In Owen's words, if one could witness the horrors he saw, 'you would not tell with such high
zest / To children ardent for some desperate glory, / The old Lie…' that dying for one's country is sweet. This was a literary tipping point – never again could war be easily sold as an adventure.
Menashe Kadishman, Shalekhet (Fallen Leaves) 2001 (Via My Modern Med)
Philosophers like Bertrand Russell carried the anti-war torch further. Russell, who was jailed for his pacifism during World War I, devoted his life to warning humanity against the senselessness of war. He condemned not only the physical destruction but the spiritual decay that war brings: 'Of all evils of war the greatest is the purely spiritual evil: the hatred, the injustice, the repudiation of truth…' he wrote. War breeds lies and dehumanization; it corrodes the moral fabric of societies. In one poignant observation, Russell noted how easily leaders choose war: 'all this madness, all this rage, all this flaming death of our civilization… has been brought about because a set of official gentlemen… have chosen that it should occur, rather than that any one of them should suffer some infinitesimal rebuff to his country's pride.' This century-old rebuke rings just as true today.
And then there is the timeless voice of Mahatma Gandhi, whose philosophy of ahimsa (non-violence) offers perhaps the most profound rejection of war. Gandhi taught that means and ends are inseparable: using the poison of violence can never yield the nectar of peace. He famously warned, 'An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.' This wisdom is painfully relevant: if we trade terror for terror, bomb for bomb, whose eyes will be left to see a better tomorrow? On the eve of the United Nations' founding in 1945, as the world surveyed the smoldering ruins of WWII, Gandhi implored the victors to turn away from the war-path forever. 'There will be no peace for the world unless they shed their belief in the efficacy of war and its accompanying terrible deception and fraud,' he wrote. Peace, he argued, must be just and shared by all sides; it cannot be achieved by humiliating the defeated or nursing vengeful grudges. These are not just high-minded ideals, but practical guidelines for lasting peace.
Claes Oldenburg, Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks (1969–74) (Via Yale University Art Gallery)
Around the world, media and intellectuals have consistently raised their voices to champion peace over war. From the pages of leading global dailies to the platforms of Nobel Peace laureates, the refrain has been the same: war is a defeat for humanity; diplomacy is the path of hope. After every major conflict, sober reflections in newspapers worldwide underline how futile the bloodshed was. It is striking that whenever the specter of a new war looms, be it in the Middle East, Europe or South Asia, ordinary citizens rally in massive numbers to say 'No.' Recall that in early 2003, on the eve of the Iraq War, millions of people marched in cities across the globe in the largest anti-war protests in history. They spoke different tongues but voiced one common human desire: give peace a chance. This global anti-war sentiment is not naïveté – it is hard-earned wisdom from centuries of conflict.
War in the nuclear age: A path to nowhere
The Russell–Einstein Manifesto of 1955, signed by the greatest minds of the age, framed the dilemma we face in stark terms: humanity must 'renounce war' or risk annihilation. That is not hyperbole; it is scientific and moral truth. This path requires patience and precision, not the theatrical drama of invading armies. It is less viscerally satisfying in the short term, but far more effective in the long term.
The heroism of peace and restraint
It takes little courage to fan the flames of war when a nation's blood is boiling. The true courage lies in dousing those flames, in absorbing the anger and channeling it into resolve for a peaceful solution. This is a difficult message to deliver in times of high emotion. Yet it is precisely in such times that we need clarity of thought and firmness of principle. Peace is not passivity. Choosing diplomacy over war is an active, often demanding strategy that
requires just as much bravery as combat – perhaps more. A soldier shows courage in charging up a hill; a statesman shows courage in holding back when every impulse cries out to strike. We must recognize peace-making as a form of heroism in its own right. It is the heroism of Satyagraha, of Martin Luther King Jr., of Nelson Mandela emerging from 27 years in prison preaching reconciliation instead of revenge. It is heroism that saves lives rather than taking
them.
Over time, peace builds; war destroys. Today's generation can grow up without fresh traumas of war if we break the cycle now. They can focus on education, innovation, and prosperity instead of air-raid drills and militaristic fervor. Is that not a victory worth striving for? The psychological aspect cannot be ignored. War feeds into the false machismo of quick retaliation, but restraint emanates from a deeper confidence.
A call to conscience
Justice is not the same as war. Justice is targeted, principled, and measured. War is blind, brutish, and breeds injustice of its own. The true mark of national heroism in the 21st century is the ability to keep peace when war seems easy. Nations can double down on
fortifying their internal security and intelligence, so that the enemies of peace find no purchase inside them. Nations can engage the world community with evidence and reason, building pressure such that violence is internationally condemned and contained. All these
avenues are far more fruitful than a burst of destructive warfare.
In the epic Mahabharata, Lord Krishna extols the value of peace and tries to mediate to prevent war, giving the Kauravas every chance to avoid the devastating conflict of Kurukshetra. That war, when it finally came, brought victory – but at the cost of an entire
generation. In the Hindu scriptures, the message is consistent: peace is Shanti, a supreme value; war is a last resort, a failure of dharma (duty) if rushed into recklessly. As Russell and Einstein pleaded in their manifesto, remember humanity above all.Let us choose the path that uplifts humanity, not one that revels in its capacity to destroy. Peace is not appeasement; it is the bravest exertion of the human spirit. In honoring peace, we honor the best in ourselves and deny the worst in our foes.
To the people and leaders of the world: we urge you to see that the strongest response to provocation is not an immediate war, but an unyielding commitment to eventual peace. The heroism of peace demands patience, tolerance of heated voices. Be heroes who conquer our own anger, rather than be conquered by it.
The message is simple and timeless: Reject the false heroism of war. Embrace the true heroism of peace. In doing so, lead the world into an era defined by prosperity and human development – rather than conflict. That is the future the world's children deserve. That is the future the world must fight for – not a war, but a just and lasting peace.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
UK Military Rhetoric Doesn't Match Fiscal Reality
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Not long before World War I, HMS Dreadnought, a battleship that made all existing vessels obsolete, was launched at Portsmouth in the presence of the King-Emperor Edward VII. Fire-breathing patriots soon took up the cry, 'We want eight and we won't wait.' Winston Churchill, then a young home secretary in a government committed to spending more on welfare, wryly noted of the popular clamor for a naval race with Germany: 'The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight.' British debates about defense spending follow a familiar trajectory, although this time it's politicians, rather than civilians, insisting that more should be spent on firepower. A military revolution in warfare is underway, too. Drones, off-the-shelf technology far cheaper than Dreadnoughts, are being deployed to lethal effect on the battlefields of Ukraine and further afield - the daring 'Spider Web' raid last weekend destroyed as much as a third of Russia's strategic bombing force based thousands of miles away from Europe. But the UK needs to replace expensive military hardware too, and make good shortages of munitions. Economists fear the government can't afford the outlay without large tax increases. Who will prevail? In a speech prior to the publication of his government's Strategic Defence Review (SDR) this week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer sounded eerily reminiscent of an old-fashioned jingoist, circa 1914. Britain, he said, faces a threat 'more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War.' The UK needs to move to 'war-fighting readiness.' Alas, reality and rhetoric don't match. UK defense spending is planned to rise to only 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027, with a notional ambition to reach 3% by the mid-2030s. In the 1980s, at the end of the Cold War, it stood at almost 4%. When the dogged Defence Secretary John Healey attempted to impose a fixed timeline for a bigger military budget, he was immediately slapped down by the Treasury. Within days, however, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization trumped Starmer. The Western Alliance has reached near consensus on a 5% commitment, with 3.5% going directly on the armed services and a further 1.5% on related spending. On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, ordered Starmer to saddle up, saying 'it is important that the UK gets there.' On Tuesday, German Defense Secretary Boris Pistorius talked of raising expenditure by annual increments to reach 5% of GDP, aimed at creating the strongest conventional army in Europe. At home, the popular hue and cry is not for an arms race with Russia, which remains a niche preoccupation at Westminster and in security circles, but for reversing cuts to pensioners' winter-fuel allowances. Labour's backbenchers oppose projected welfare reductions. Meanwhile, the economists warn that the bond market won't countenance more borrowing to pay for guns or butter - gilt yields remain elevated amid jitters over the Trump administration's ballooning deficit. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves rules out raising taxes in the autumn — though few believe her. Something's got to give. UK prime ministers have a habit of over-promising and under-delivering on military commitments. Starmer's Conservative predecessors squandered the Cold War peace dividend for over a decade even as Russia rearmed and attacked its neighbors. Wishful thinking can also lead to embarrassment. Starmer recently proclaimed 'a coalition of the willing' ready to take the place of the US in policing a ceasefire in Ukraine by dispatching a 'reassurance force.' Washington, however, refused to offer air cover — and in any case the British army has shrunk to 70,000, levels last seen before the war with Napoleon — so the UK can no longer assemble an expeditionary force. The best it can offer Ukraine is a support mission. As for crippling the Russian war effort, the UK, like other European nations, sanctioned Russian oil and gas after its invasion of Ukraine. But according to a new study by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), the value of Russian crude oil and liquid natural gas shipped under British ownership or insurance since the war began tops £200 billion ($270 billion). A dark fleet of ships working for the Russians supplements the trade. The government is wary of severing these links for fear of triggering another energy price rise spiral and a round of the ruinous inflation and cost of living crisis that sank its Tory predecessor. To be fair, the SDR has met a mostly warm reception from military specialists. At least it puts the focus back on the European theater — previous reviews suggested fanciful scenarios in which British aircraft carriers, without a full complement of aircraft and naval escorts, might be deployed to Asia. With commendable honesty, the authors of this week's report also own up to 'the hollowing out of the Armed Forces warfighting capability' and cite inadequate stockpiles of munitions after years of 'underinvestment.' Without a rapid improvement in military housing and in the absence of conscription, army numbers are unlikely to rise. With its suggestion that the UK should build up its maritime forces — namely the Trident nuclear deterrent and the commissioning of 12 new attack submarines — the SDR implies the UK is set on going back to a strategic stance familiar to Churchill and his contemporaries in 1914, known to historians as the British Way of Warfare, avoiding a continental military commitment at scale. Today, however, the Royal Navy no longer rules the waves as it did in 1914. That means cutting back on the rhetoric and working closely with allies to deploy the few troops available for land-based conflict. 'This is a once-in-a-generation inflection point for collective security in Europe,' concludes the SDR. Unless British public opinion changes, however, the UK's neglect of its military needs and obligations looks set to continue. More from Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. More stories like this are available on
India Today
3 days ago
- India Today
A 140-year-old dream gets fulfilled with Kashmir-Kanyakumari rail link
It was 1884 and Maharaja Pratap Singh of the Jammu and Kashmir state asked his Prime Minister, Diwan Anant Ram, to write a letter to the Government of British India. In the letter he would propose a vision to connect his state to the Raj's rail network in the subcontinent. One of his dreams was fulfilled but was lost to the Partition. Another never moved beyond paper. But the third rail route the Maharaja proposed and even started initial surveys on, has finally come to life today, 141 years Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the Chenab and Anji Khad bridges, the long-isolated Kashmir rail line was finally integrated into India's national railway network. It also completed the Maharaja's century-old Singh, the great-grandnephew of Maharaja Pratap Singh and grandson of Maharaja Hari Singh, says, "The railway line project was first envisaged and drawn up during Maharaja Pratap Singh's rule. It is a matter of great pride not only for the people of Jammu and Kashmir but for the entire nation that this dream will be realised by our Prime Minister." The journey to this milestone was arduous, delayed by political upheavals, financial constraints, and formidable geographical challenges. Despite the Maharaja's foresight, colonial hesitations, two world wars, the Partition, stalled much progress on this route, until serious efforts were made in the 1980s under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. advertisementTHE MAHARAJA'S PLAN TO CONNECT KASHMIR BY RAILAlong with his proposal to the British through the Diwan, Maharaja Pratap Singh commissioned British engineers to survey the rugged terrain for a railway route to the Kashmir Valley in the early three routes the Maharaja had proposed were: Abbottabad to Srinagar, which never happened, a Jammu to Srinagar route powered by electric traction, and a Jammu to Sialkot route, which has been lying dysfunctional since Partition and line to Jammu was an extension of the North Western Railway (NWR) from Suchetgarh in Sialkot District (now in Pakistan), unlike the Northern Railways' route used now, via Ludhiana and Pathankot. The Sialkot-Jammu route was declared open in March 1890. But five decades later in 1947, the state of Jammu and Kashmir's first railway line was the momentum of the independence movement picked up, then World War I struck, and before the project could progress, Maharaja Pratap Singh passed the remaining projects, including the Jammu-Srinagar railway line, were put on the back burner, partially also due to financial constraints. Maharaja Pratap Singh, determined to connect Kashmir with the broader Indian railway network, backed multiple ambitious proposals, from a light railway between Jammu and Srinagar to a mono-steel-cableway stretching to Doru Shahabad. However, only the Jammu-Sialkot line materialised in 1890. REVIVING A CENTURY-OLD VISION: THE JAMMU-UDHAMPUR-SRINAGAR RAILWAY PROJECTThe idea was revived nearly nine decades later, when the then prime minister Indira Gandhi laid the foundation stone for the Jammu-Udhampur-Srinagar railway line in 1983. By then, Jammu had been reconnected to the Indian Railways through Ludhiana and Pathankot, ending the Indian state's isolation after the Sialkot line was lost to Pakistan following 1983, the project was estimated to cost Rs 50 crore and was expected to be completed in five years. However, in 13 years, only 11 km of the rail line could be constructed, comprising 19 tunnels and 11 bridges, at a cost of Rs 300 the Udhampur-Katra-Baramulla railway project, estimated at Rs 2,500 crore, was taken up under prime ministers HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral. The construction began in 1997 but faced repeated delays due to challenging geological, topographical, and weather the strategic importance of a railway line to the Valley, it was declared a national project in 2005, the 55-km Jammu-Udhampur section, the first major push into the Himalayan foothills, beyond the Jammu plains, was thrown open. Encircled by the towering Himalayas, the Kashmir Valley has long remained an isolated pocket on India's railway map, with its own standalone rail network disconnected from the national grid. (Image: IndiaRailInfo) Meanwhile, work on the Kashmir Valley railway started in isolation, like an island network disconnected from the rest of the Indian 119-km Baramulla-Srinagar-Anantnag-Qazigund section was completed and made operational in 2009, providing intra-Valley connectivity. However, integration with the broader Indian Railways grid remained elusive as the challenging Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Railway Line (USBRL) project progressed July 2014, the Udhampur-Katra section was inaugurated, providing direct rail access to Vaishno Devi pilgrims and marking another crucial step toward linking Kashmir with the rest of wasn't until August 2023, with the opening of the Banihal-Sangaldan section, and then 2024, with the completion of the final Katra-Sangaldan stretch, closing the gap in the Valley's railway with the completion of the engineering marvels -- the Chenab and Anji Khad bridges -- the missing links in the Himalayan route were finally bridged, making the complete integration of the Kashmir rail line with the national network FEATS, CHALLENGES: HOW KASHMIR WAS CONNECTED TO INDIAN RAILWAY NETWORKThe railway line to Kashmir features as many as 38 tunnels and 927 bridges, with the crown jewel being the Chenab Bridge, soaring 359 metres above the riverbed. It stands 35 metres taller than the Eiffel Tower, earning the title of the world's highest railway arch bridge, officials of the Northern Railways told news agency 215 km of approach roads were built through rugged, terrorism-hit terrain, opening up areas once reachable only by foot or boat. The Anji Bridge is India's first cable-stayed railway bridge, while the Chenab Bridge is the world's highest railway arch bridge, soaring 359 metres above the riverbed. Terrorism also posed serious hurdles to the Kashmir railway project, with several attacks targeting construction sites and workers. In 2004, terrorists attacked a construction site near Anantnag, injuring several such threats, work continued under tight security. The Banihal-Qazigund tunnel, completed in 2013, passed through some of the most sensitive areas, yet the engineers and workers of the Indian Railway Construction International Limited (Ircon) the railway now stretching beyond Srinagar to Baramulla, the much-invoked "duri from Delhi to Kashmir" has finally been bridged with love, and quite literally, by steel and Watch
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
Best of Both Sides: Operation Sindoor, Spider's Web make it clear — the infantry needs and upgrade
The technological shock of World War I was the machine gun, which could cut down rows and rows of infantrymen from a distance in the battlefield. Combined with barbed wire and mines, it made movement across open land difficult and dangerous. The 21st-century equivalent of the machine gun seems to be drones, small and large, which have caused more casualties in the Ukraine war than any other weapon. Their widespread use spans reconnaissance, strikes, and logistics. Drones have not only altered the tactical battlefield but have had a strategic impact as well. This was demonstrated by Operation Spider's Web, through which Ukraine launched an attack across the geographic spread of Russia, destroying some dozen aircraft including strategic bombers. The real impact of the operation has been psychological. The calls in Russia for nuclear retaliation are a measure of the shock. Spider's Web can be compared to an earlier operation when Ukraine sank the Russian guided missile cruiser Moskva in the Black Sea in 2022. The ship was sunk by anti-ship missiles. But a Bayraktar TB2 drone played a key role as a spotter to aid the Ukrainian effort. Subsequently, the Ukrainians have used aerial and maritime drones to push Russian naval power out of much of the Black Sea. Just as the machine gun was used in combination with artillery, trenches, mines and barbed wire in WWI, so too are drones being used in combination with other elements like armour, artillery, air power and information as force multipliers. First Person View (FPV) drones, which give the operator a driver's view from the camera, have made the battlefront more transparent. The movement of infantrymen and armour across the battlefield has become very difficult. The use of drones and associated loitering munitions in the recent 80-hour conflict between India and Pakistan marks a new beginning for the Subcontinent. Their employment was nowhere as extensive as in the Ukraine war, but it certainly is a pointer to their future use in the region. FPV drones enable a concentration of fire with the use of swarms, even while your own forces remain decentralised. Their effectiveness is due to their low cost and enormous accuracy, and their ranges, which can be anywhere from 10 to 30 kilometres. This has made an area of 20 km on either side of the battlefront a zone of death. Movement, whether by tanks or individuals, is hazardous. A new and deadly innovation has been the use of fibre optic cables to guide the drones without being jammed. It can only be taken out if you kill the operator. But detecting him or her is a monumental task. All this has led to greater emphasis on concealment, dispersed formations and anti-drone measures like jamming, smoke screens, or netting. Infantrymen have now begun operating in small teams, which try to penetrate deeper across the battlefront with greater stealth and discipline. Clustering in open areas and using insecure communications can lead to needless casualties. It is, therefore, firepower that seeks to aid the push. This in turn means that the defenders must fight from prepared defences, ideally from deep or underground bunkers. None of this should suggest that the infantry is obsolete. It remains critical to execute close-quarters combat and execute manoeuvres that drones cannot replicate. FPVs have been used for precision strikes, reconnaissance and artillery spotting, but infantry units are still needed to seize and hold the ground. FPVs should be seen as tools that enhance infantry capabilities, not replace them. The idea of using the infantry en masse to charge across the battlefield was killed by the machine gun. Now, the FPV drones have made infantry hugely vulnerable through precise low-cost strikes, requiring greater emphasis on concealment and dispersal. The infantry needs to operate as part of a cohesive combined arms team, integrating armour, artillery, engineers and air support to maximise their effectiveness. There may also be a need to integrate anti-drone systems, including handheld weaponry like longer-range pellet guns so that the infantry can deal with the FPV threat. Drone operators need to be integrated into these forces at the platoon level and trained in the use of drones and counter-measures. Constructing effective fortifications and defending them need to become an essential part of drone-led warfare. Small-unit tactics, initiative and adaptability are crucial. High-quality junior and non-commissioned officers are, therefore, essential. In fact, the arrival of FPV drones should encourage the Army to reduce the size of the infantry, but make it more effective through higher training levels. The future of drone warfare needs to be seen along with the advances in autonomous systems, which will integrate the infantry more closely with robotics and AI. Human soldiers, however, will still be needed to hold the terrain, make decisions and deal with complex situations that machines won't know how to engage with. The writer is distinguished fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
