Media CoverageMAY 18, 2024

Interview of Lt. Gen Vinod G. Khandare (PVSM, AVSM, SM) Principle Advisor, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India

Team Red Lantern Analytica

Directorate of Intelligence

Question: How does enhancing border infrastructure along the border align with India’s broader strategic goals and national security objectives? How do you assess the current state of border infrastructure development along the India-Tibet border, and what areas do you believe require further attention and investment?

Answer: Under the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961, the External boundary is to be handled by MEA. And under the Transaction of Business Rules, the Ministry of Home Affairs takes care of the security of borders. And only when there is an unsettled border, the Armed Forces are deployed to secure the same. After 2020, It was impossible to solve the border issues for armed forces or security forces, hence diplomates are dealing with it.

Both countries understand that going to war will not benefit anyone, except those who aim to see them regress in terms of economy and development. This is because both countries are currently developing and a war will only set them back by 20 years.

The PRC uses the three warfare tactics which are Legal, Psychological and Media Warfare. An example of Legal Warfare can be Tibet where Chinese villages have been settled around the border known as Border Villages. By doing this, the PRC is trying to claim its ancestral connection in Tibet. Another example is the South China dispute, the construction of Artificial Islands in the 9-dash line which was earlier 11-dash line and around the areas close to the mainland. The motive is to take over the jurisdiction of the acquired land and its resources.

The PRC is increasing the infrastructure around the border like the road and the railway line like G-318. Some 20 years back, Chinese infrastructure at the border was not good but now it has increased. They have built airfields near the northern and Eastern sectors and the heliports near the Central sector.

Question: There came the recent move by the Indian Army to transform the Uttar Bharat (UB) Area, based in Bareilly, into a fully operational corps. Looking ahead, what would be the strategic objectives and priorities for the 18 Corps, and how do you envision its role evolving in response to emerging security dynamics?

Answer: Due to the operational void in the independent Brigades of Pitroda and Garhwal, their status is now converted from static to operational. The number of troops are same and the addition made is to give them the authority to fight and protect the area, earlier the troops were in the static formation just to take care of the logistics of the area. They have been given the ‘RESERVE STATUS’.

The Chinese reaction to this decision is that the Chinese are worried.

Question: How can technological advancements in drones, UAVs, satellite imagery, etc. be leveraged to enhance border security and monitoring along the India-China border?

Answer: Mountain Surveillance is a nightmare for civilians as well as for protectors. Fighting at these heights is time-consuming and troops-intensive. It is intense and tough, hence, technology is required for surveillance, Mobility, Communication and Protection. Americans gave us the concept of ISR- Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance but it should be first Surveillance, then Reconnaissance of the Stations, roads, etc, and finally Intelligence i.e., SRI. For surveillance Drones, Towers with Cameras and ground-based sensors are used.

For Infrastructure, to build roads and convert Bridges into tunnels, tech is required. In any war or conflict bridges and roads are the first casualty. Currently, the roads of the village are built under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and the Public Works Department and the Border Roads Organization build roads near the border areas, however, the construction of Roads near the border area should come under one Central agency for quick advancements.

Technology is also needed for Weather Forecasting as Bad weather brings bad days and types of equipment are required to penetrate through fog and fight efficiently.

Also, Engine Tech for Warfighting Military Hardware for all the different sectors of India. As India’s border has varied border conditions, hence, the hardware should be conditioned for the northern border to work efficiently in the extreme cold weather conditions.

Another area where technology plays an important role is Digital Connectivity which should be available around the border for better connectivity. It is important to keep the better flow of information from higher leadership to the ground soldiers.

Our PM Narender Modi said, “Border Village will be called as First Village instead of Last Village”. Then it should be treated as one. Commercial satellite communication would help these areas where communication is a challenge. People who live around the border area should be trained to protect their area. Niti Ayog mentioned that the districts with poor connectivity must be the priority to provide better connectivity. Also, technology plays a part in miniaturization, i.e., to reduce the size of antennas for easy transportation and installation at these high-altitude areas.

Secondly, in India, we follow a system called L1 i.e., Lowest Bidder. But to suit the ever-changing nature of technology and requirements of the armed forces, it should be the ‘Lowest Bidder – Latest Tech – Secured Source’ (L1-T1-S1).

Lastly, it is important to use technology that is clean from security threats, i.e., any technology coming from China or having any traces from China will be a security issue for us, so we should not use such technology. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology have removed all such hardware or technology that had traces of being produced in China.

Also, we need technology in firepower- artillery, guns, fighter jets. One area where India can improve is that there are no Private players that can complement Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in the production of Tejas. The Tejas has demand but only one facility manufactures the same. The supply of Tejas is less than its demand due to manufacturing constraints.

In the Maritime domain, we need technology for better preparation. India’s Shipyard building companies can complement each other in manufacturing best-in-class vessels and not just fight each other for tenders. China has integrated Shipyard which complements each other, this is not even present in the USA. The PLA Navy is the fastest-growing navy due to its integrated method of shipyards. They don’t compete internally. PRC’s Military is the biggest. The submarine fleet is also growing. Whereas India wasn’t able to figure out the course of action for the internal competition which caused delay.

In Space, the PRC has placed all kinds of satellites, their satellites orbit in the lower, middle and higher orbits of the Earth. However, since the Indian government has opened the Space sector for Private players, there has been good progress.

One major area that India lacks is that it is not able to manufacture chips or sensors. Europe, China, Israel, Taiwan and the USA are the major players in sensor manufacturing and chip manufacturing and we are lagging behind in the same.

Another lacking area is jet engine manufacturing. No fighter aircraft, tanks or artillery guns have engines made in India. This is due to a lack of research and development in material science and metallurgy. The technology in metallurgy lacks fulfil the requirements of the armed forces.

Question: What diplomatic strategies do you believe are effective in managing tensions and resolving disputes along the India-China border, particularly in light of recent geopolitical developments?

Answer: India’s national vision has been ‘Conflict avoidance without compromising National Sovereignty’ and ‘Prevent superpower traps’. We now focus beyond the five-year plans. Focus on growing the Comprehensive National Power and Comprehensive National Security to close the gap with the adversary.

Another strategy that India can focus on is building a Strategic Culture and Civil Defence. The implementation of NEP 2020 is to provide vocational training and to upskill the youth to become the Human Capital. We need to build the National Resilience. Every citizen has payback time to their nation.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee.

Interview Taken By:
Kritika Rajput (Research Associate, Red Lantern Analytica), and

Gurjot Kaur, (Intern, Red Lantern Analytica)

Related Intelligence

MEDIA COVERAGEAUGUST 20, 2026

India’s Call for Transparency in UNSC Terror Listings Deserves Global Support

20th August 2026 Red Lantern Analytica welcomes and fully endorses India’s plea for increased UN Security Council transparency, objectivity, and accountability while addressing the challenge of listing and delisting terrorism-related persons and entities. India has brought a legitimate concern to the UN that has eroded the international community’s confidence in its counter-terrorism efforts. The member states of the UN cannot decide on terrorism through geopolitical convenience or the interpretation and consideration of terrorism in a selective manner. India also does not appreciate the fact that certain U.N. member states consider certain political individuals and groups as useful. The reality is that a terrorist who is a threat to one country cannot be treated differently from the terrorist who is a threat to another country. India has good reason to question the UN’s ability to respond to the threats it faces given India’s efforts to bring international sanctions against terrorists based in Pakistan and related to attacks on India. The obstructive behaviour of the UN Security Council has, on several occasions, created barriers to India’s efforts to respond to terrorism. China has used technical holds to obstruct proposals targeting Pakistan-based terrorists, including the head of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, Masood Azhar. This demonstrates that the international community cannot demand collective efforts to meet counter-terrorism goals while also ensuring that obstruction and opacity characterize the most important of the international community’s security efforts. The counter-terrorism efforts of the international community are not possible while countries continue to employ political considerations that are incompatible with counter-terrorism to provide indirect protection for terrorists, their financiers, and their supporters. The objections, requests for delisting, and holds must each be substantiated with reasons. The Security Council should never become a political arm of efforts to protect terrorists and those who support them financially. Red Lantern Analytica additionally advocates for comprehensive reform of the Security Council pertaining to the demands of the Indian government. The security structures and systems created post-World War II will not last forever. The UN has continued to grow, and there are now more emerging markets and centres. The Global South is also more important than ever before. This all further demonstrates the need for multi-faceted reform. India’s position for all categories, permanent and non-permanent, of expansion, as well as representation for developing nations and progress through negotiations, is legitimate and should be recognized internationally. The Security Council must focus on the present day and thus respond to the needs of the time and offer accountability and representation, as legitimate structures of the modern world order. India continues to support UN peacekeeping and international counter-terrorism efforts. It is therefore important for India that the Security Council responds to the challenges of the 21st century, and not just meet India’s request for representation. It is about the integrity of the UN as a whole. There can be no double standards on terrorism. Political expediency must never provide a shield for terrorists or their support networks. A strengthened UN should defeat terrorism and protect the people of the world.

Team Red Lantern AnalyticaAnalyst

arrow_outward

MEDIA COVERAGEAUGUST 3, 2026

Red Lantern Analytica Releases Report on Chinese Cyber-Enabled Narrative Operations

New Delhi, August 2, 2026: Red Lantern Analytica organised a discussion and report-release event titled “Chinese Cyber-Enabled Narrative Operations”, bringing together experts in China studies, cybersecurity, information warfare and strategic affairs to examine the growing use of digital platforms for influencing public opinion and weakening confidence in democratic institutions. The event also marked the release of Red Lantern Analytica’s report, “Chinese Cyber-Enabled Narrative Operations Around India’s 2026 Student Protest.” The study examines how domestic protests and public grievances in India were reframed across Chinese-language and international digital platforms as evidence of governance failure, institutional decline and political instability. The discussion featured Professor Sriparna Pathak, Professor of China Studies and Founding Director of the Centre for Northeast Asian Studies at O.P. Jindal Global University; Dr Madhukar Shyam, Assistant Professor in the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR; and Mohit Vashish, Founder and Executive Director of Intelligence at the Centre for New Age Warfare Studies. Opening the discussion, Professor Sriparna Pathak said Chinese narrative operations extend beyond attempts to influence elections or promote favourable perceptions of China. Their wider objective, she observed, is to polarise societies, amplify existing grievances and gradually undermine public trust in democratic institutions. She explained that such campaigns frequently rely on inauthentic social-media accounts, artificial intelligence-generated content, state-media proxies and fabricated digital personas. Open democratic information systems are particularly vulnerable because foreign narratives can circulate with relatively few restrictions, while China maintains a highly controlled domestic information environment. Professor Pathak noted that India has emerged as both a strategic target and a testing ground for these operations, particularly since the June 2020 Galwan Valley clash. Narratives linked to Chinese digital ecosystems have sought to question India’s military preparedness, intensify ethnic and regional tensions and portray democratic disagreements as evidence of political instability. Referring to campaigns concerning Northeast India, she highlighted attempts to exploit developments in Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese-origin content, sometimes translated or adapted using artificial intelligence tools, has been circulated to amplify separatist claims, distort local grievances and complicate India’s border-management challenges. She also referred to bot-like accounts that sought to undermine confidence in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections by raising doubts about national security, governance and defence capabilities. Professor Pathak called for faster official responses, greater platform transparency, improved public-reporting mechanisms and media-literacy programmes in Indian languages. Dr Madhukar Shyam distinguished conventional cyberattacks from cyber-enabled narrative operations. While technical cyberattacks are designed to penetrate, disrupt or damage computer systems, narrative operations use the digital environment to shape emotions, attitudes and political perceptions. He referred to earlier cyber-espionage campaigns, including the 2009 GhostNet operation, which compromised computer systems across several countries and reportedly targeted institutions connected with the Tibetan community. He also discussed the Shadow in the Cloud investigation and cyberattacks against Tibetan institutions, illustrating the relationship between technical espionage and long-term information warfare. Dr Shyam further examined how Chinese messaging sought to exploit India’s 2024 National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test controversy. Comparisons between China’s Gaokao examination and India’s NEET system were used to present protests and administrative disputes as evidence of systemic democratic failure. Such narratives, he said, deliberately misinterpret public protests, which are a normal feature of democratic accountability, as signs of political collapse and institutional instability. He also drew attention to attempts to manipulate cultural and civilisational narratives, including efforts to weaken India’s historical association with Buddhism and create differences between India and neighbouring countries. Mohit Vashish explained the operational structure of contemporary Chinese information warfare, describing it as a systems-based approach in which intelligence gathering, psychological profiling, content creation, social-media amplification and influencer engagement operate in coordination. According to Vashish, intelligence agencies and associated organisations first identify societal “fault lines”—issues capable of dividing communities—and then use psychological techniques to intensify those divisions. Anonymous posts may initially be amplified through bot networks and subsequently repeated by influencers, media platforms or political commentators, giving manufactured narratives an appearance of credibility and organic public support. He also warned that foreign-linked entities may approach students, researchers and young professionals through professional networking platforms such as LinkedIn. Individuals studying defence, international relations, security and political science may be offered unusually high payments for reports or research assignments. Vashish advised students and researchers to verify email addresses, carefully examine domain-name spellings, check the organisation’s official website and remain cautious about unsolicited financial offers. He also recommended reviewing suspicious accounts’ biographies, posting histories and interaction patterns, tracing the earliest appearance of particular phrases and conducting reverse-image searches before sharing sensational content. Presenting the findings of the report, Daney Antonio Martin of Red Lantern Analytica said the research examined content circulated through Chinese and international platforms, including WeChat, Weibo, Guancha and X. The report found no evidence that China initiated India’s 2026 student protests. It nevertheless identified strong evidence that Chinese digital ecosystems exploited and amplified the protests to advance broader geopolitical narratives about India. The study distinguishes between direct instigation and narrative exploitation. It assesses the evidence for coordinated amplification as substantially stronger than any claim of centrally directed technical interference in the protests. The speakers agreed that foreign narrative operations cannot be addressed solely through government regulation or technical cybersecurity measures. They called for a whole-of-society approach involving government agencies, digital platforms, researchers, educational institutions, journalists, civil-society organisations and citizens. The discussion underlined the need for rapid public communication, transparent platform practices, stronger verification systems and greater digital awareness among users. Participants also emphasised that democratic openness should not become a vulnerability that foreign actors can repeatedly exploit. The session concluded with a vote of thanks to the speakers, moderator, participants and organising team for contributing to the discussion on safeguarding India’s information environment. About Red Lantern Analytica Red Lantern Analytica is a New Delhi-based international observers and research organisation working on China, Tibet, the Indo-Pacific, cybersecurity, disinformation, strategic affairs and emerging geopolitical challenges. Through research reports, expert dialogues and public engagement, it seeks to promote informed debate and policy-oriented analysis.

Team Red Lantern AnalyticaAnalyst

arrow_outward

MEDIA COVERAGEMARCH 14, 2026

Press Release: Strategic Dialogue Examining Shifting Power Dynamics

Strategic Dialogue Examining Shifting Power Dynamics in the Indo-Pacific Red Lantern Analytica, in collaboration with Hegemoniq, convened a strategic dialogue on “Strategic Shifts in the Indo-Pacific: Connectivity, Coalitions and Great Power Competition” on 14th March 2026 (Saturday). The discussion brought together distinguished experts to examine the evolving geopolitical architecture of the Indo-Pacific and the implications of growing strategic competition, emerging partnerships, and regional security dynamics. The panel featured Col. Nalin Herath RSP (Retd.) , Amb. Tom Armbruster (Retd.) , Dr. Dattesh Parulekar, and Dr. Rahul Mishra, each offering perspectives on how regional states and major powers are navigating the rapidly changing strategic environment. Speaking from a Sri Lankan perspective, Col. Nalin Herath RSP (Retd.), Amry Veteran & Former Military Spokesperson, Sri Lanka, highlighted the growing importance of the Indian Ocean within the broader Indo-Pacific framework. He emphasized Sri Lanka’s strategic location along critical maritime trade routes connecting East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. This positioning provides both opportunities and challenges for smaller states. While infrastructure development and connectivity initiatives—particularly port development and maritime logistics—offer avenues for economic growth, they also place Sri Lanka at the intersection of competing geopolitical interests. Col. Herath stressed the importance of balanced diplomacy and Sri Lanka’s traditional policy of non-alignment in navigating great power competition. Maintaining neutrality while engaging multiple partners, he noted, remains essential for ensuring stability and safeguarding national interests. Amb. Tom Armbruster (Retd.), Former US Ambassador to Marshall Islands focused on the role of Pacific Island states within the Indo-Pacific strategic landscape. He challenged the conventional perception of these countries as “small island states,” noting that they instead consider themselves “large ocean countries” due to their vast maritime territories. Despite relatively small populations, these nations wield significant diplomatic influence, particularly in global forums such as the United Nations. Amb. Armbruster highlighted that the primary concerns of Pacific Island states are not great power rivalry but rather climate change, sea-level rise, disaster preparedness, and sustainable development. He also pointed to the growing competition between the United States and China in the Pacific region, while emphasizing that meaningful engagement with island states must prioritize development partnerships, environmental resilience, and long-term economic cooperation. Dr. Dattesh Parulekar, Assistant Professor, School of International & Area Studies, Goa University examined China’s evolving maritime strategy and its impact on Southeast Asia, particularly in the South China Sea. He traced the evolution of China’s maritime ambitions from its 2012 declaration to become a maritime power to its current efforts to assert comprehensive national power in its near seas. Dr. Parulekar argued that China is attempting to redefine maritime norms by combining military capabilities with industrial, technological, and economic instruments. Through infrastructure projects, maritime development initiatives, and blue economy frameworks, Beijing is reshaping regional connectivity and strategic influence. At the same time, Southeast Asian states are adopting different strategies to manage China’s rise. Countries such as Vietnam pursue proactive balancing, Indonesia follows a calibrated approach combining economic engagement with strategic caution, while the Philippines has taken a more assertive stance in defending its maritime claims. These diverse responses illustrate the complex regional dynamics shaping the South China Sea. Providing a broader geopolitical assessment, Dr. Rahul Mishra, Associate Professor, Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, SIS, JNU, discussed the structural shifts taking place within the Indo-Pacific order. He noted that the Indo-Pacific has firmly emerged as a central theater of global geopolitics, reflecting the growing strategic convergence between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. China’s rise as a revisionist power, he argued, has compelled many countries to reconsider their strategic alignments. This has contributed to the rise of flexible partnerships and minilateral groupings such as the Quad, which seek to address regional challenges ranging from maritime security to supply chain resilience.Dr. Mishra also emphasized that recent global crises—including conflicts in Europe and West Asia—demonstrate that the Indo-Pacific cannot be viewed as an isolated strategic space. Developments in other regions continue to influence the balance of power and security dynamics within the Indo-Pacific. In this context, he highlighted India’s approach of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment as a pragmatic framework for navigating complex geopolitical realities while maintaining constructive partnerships across multiple regions. The dialogue underscored that the Indo-Pacific is undergoing a profound transformation driven by shifting power balances, new connectivity initiatives, and evolving security partnerships. As the region becomes increasingly central to global politics, experts emphasized the need for sustained dialogue, cooperative frameworks, and balanced strategies to ensure stability, economic development, and a rules-based regional order.

AdminAnalyst

arrow_outward