OPINION | Contours of Confrontation (Part-III): The India–China Rivalry and Its Global Implications

Part III: The New Architecture of Deterrence: India’s Readiness and Asia’s Balance

By Ashu Mann

Asia’s current security architecture is an inheritance of the 1962 Sino-Indian War, a conflict that revealed China’s expansionist instinct and forced India to transform. Six decades later, the region’s stability depends on how India’s professional, modern, and disciplined armed forces counterbalance the People’s Liberation Army’s coercive doctrine. This transformation not only secures the Himalayas but also contributes to the balance of power from the Indian Ocean to Europe’s eastern frontier.

The mountain that still shapes Asia

The 1962 war may seem distant in time, but it remains central to Asia’s security order. It defined the boundaries of trust in the region, creating what might be called the “architecture of suspicion.” Every subsequent Chinese incursion, from the 1979 invasion of Vietnam to the 2020 Galwan clash, follows the same blueprint: expansion justified as defense, coercion masked as dialogue.

For India, however, the legacy of 1962 has been transformation through vigilance. The defeat that once symbolized unpreparedness now anchors a military posture rooted in professionalism and deterrence. In that sense, the Indian Army has turned a moment of betrayal into a long-term strategic advantage: experience, adaptation, and credibility.

From reactive defense to credible deterrence

The reorientation of India’s military posture after 1962 was not cosmetic but structural. Over the decades, India built a network of mountain divisions, forward airbases, and logistical corridors capable of sustaining long deployments in extreme conditions. The creation of the Mountain Strike Corps, integration of high-altitude air transport, and emphasis on indigenous weapons manufacturing reflect a self-sustaining doctrine.

Recent infrastructure achievements, the Atal Tunnel, Sela Pass Tunnel, and the Darbuk–Shyok–Daulat Beg Oldi (DSDBO) road, symbolize not militarization but preparedness. They ensure that Indian forces can mobilize swiftly, defend effectively, and maintain equilibrium along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The Indian Army’s adaptability is matched by the Air Force’s enhanced readiness. Rafale fighters, C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift aircraft, and advanced surveillance drones now form part of a layered deterrence system. Unlike the PLA’s opaque deployments, India’s capabilities are defensive yet visible, the essence of credible deterrence.

The contrast of doctrines

At the heart of the India–China dynamic lies a clash of doctrines. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), subordinated to the Chinese Communist Party, operates under the logic of coercion. Its goal is to reshape regional hierarchies by manipulating thresholds of violence. Its doctrine of “active defense” is, in practice, a strategy of calculated aggression.

The Indian Army, by contrast, embodies the principles of professionalism, legality, and restraint. It answers to a constitutional order, not a political ideology. Its discipline is institutional, not imposed. This difference explains why India’s deterrence posture enhances regional stability, whereas China’s military assertiveness generates insecurity even among its partners.

The Indian Army’s conduct during the Galwan Valley clash in 2020 illustrates this ethos. Despite extreme provocation, Indian soldiers adhered to engagement protocols, displaying courage without recklessness. Their restraint prevented escalation; their tenacity prevented defeat. This balance of firmness and responsibility distinguishes professional militaries from coercive ones, a distinction Europe knows well from its own history.

Deterrence by capability, credibility, and coalition

India’s evolving defense strategy rests on three pillars:

Capability: Building material and technological strength across the northern and maritime frontiers. This includes infrastructure development, defense modernization, and integration of advanced surveillance and communication systems.

Credibility: Demonstrating resolve through consistent policy. India has made it clear that normal relations with Beijing cannot resume until peace and tranquility return to the LAC. This position, articulated by the Ministry of External Affairs, reinforces deterrence by signaling that violations will carry political costs.

Coalition: Expanding partnerships without sacrificing autonomy. The Quad (India, France, Japan, and the United States) and deepening ties with European democracies, particularly France, provide India with multidimensional leverage, technological, maritime, and diplomatic.

This triad converts deterrence from posture into policy.

India–Europe convergence: a strategic complementarity

Europe’s growing focus on the Indo-Pacific recognizes what 1962 had already revealed: regional stability in Asia is inseparable from global security. France, with territories in the Indian Ocean and a strong maritime tradition, is increasingly aligned with India’s view that peace requires preparedness.

Joint exercises such as Garuda, Varuna, and Shakti demonstrate operational synergy between Indian and French forces. Beyond defense, cooperation in cybersecurity, space situational awareness, and critical technology is expanding. This partnership embodies a shared belief in rules-based order, transparency, and professional ethics in the conduct of military power.

For Europe, India represents both a stabilizing partner and a moral counterweight to authoritarian coercion. Where the PLA enforces loyalty through fear, the Indian Army commands it through respect, a distinction that underwrites international trust.

The wider Indo-Pacific equation

India’s deterrence posture extends beyond the Himalayas into the maritime domain. The Indian Navy’s growing presence in the Andaman and Nicobar Command, joint patrols in the South China Sea, and leadership in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) missions contribute to the security of sea lanes vital to Europe’s economy.

The Indo-Pacific, once viewed as a distant theater, is now a single strategic continuum. The same coercive instincts that drove Beijing’s invasion of India in 1962 drive its maritime assertiveness today. The difference is that India’s partnerships and capabilities now impose real constraints on unilateralism.

The Indian Army as a pillar of global stability

India’s armed forces today embody a blend of tradition and transformation. Their professional conduct in United Nations peacekeeping operations, counter-insurgency missions, and humanitarian deployments has earned them respect beyond Asia. This credibility matters. In an era where military power is often equated with intimidation, the Indian Army represents a model of ethical strength, deterrence without domination.

The modernization of India’s defense ecosystem, from indigenous missile systems to advanced battlefield management software, enhances operational autonomy. At the same time, adherence to international norms reinforces legitimacy. This combination of power and principle defines India’s contribution to the new global balance.

Why 1962 still matters

China’s 1962 invasion was the original fault line of the Asian century. It demonstrated that power without principle corrodes order and that peace without preparation invites aggression. Those lessons remain relevant not only to Asia but to Europe, which faces its own challenges from revisionist powers.

India’s recovery from that betrayal, through endurance, adaptation, and professionalism, offers an alternative narrative: that democracies can combine restraint with strength. The Indian Army’s evolution from under-resourced units in 1962 to technologically empowered formations today encapsulates that journey. It is a transformation born of necessity but sustained by discipline.

The architecture of vigilance

The Himalayas are more than a geographic divide; they are the moral frontier between coercion and conviction. China’s actions in 1962 created a permanent architecture of mistrust across Asia. India’s response, professional, lawful, and prepared, has gradually rebalanced that architecture into one of vigilance.

The Indian Army’s readiness today stands as both a deterrent and a reassurance: deterrence to those who seek revision, reassurance to those who seek order. In an era of renewed great-power rivalry, that balance is the cornerstone of stability.

For Europe, the enduring lesson is this: the defense of rules-based order begins not only in Brussels or Paris but also in the mountain passes of Ladakh. The vigilance born from betrayal in 1962 remains Asia’s shield and, increasingly, the world’s.

---

About Author

Ashu Mann is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.