WAR ON THE HUMAN MIND: IS IT THE SIXTH DOMAIN OF WARFARE?

Introduction

A saying from the scriptures that has been oft quoted is, “Yad bhavam, tad bhavati,” which means “You are what you believe,” or “You become what you believe.” Human beings’ beliefs are what drive them to take decisions and form perceptions; these are the same beliefs that may make a person take erroneous decisions.²

What if your adversary is capable of making you take wrong decisions in his favour, by influencing your brain, by making you believe something that is not true? What if devices implanted in your body hand over the control of your brain to your adversary? These may have been considered science fiction a few years ago, but activities are on today by adversaries to gain control of the human brain, or mind, in a structured manner, with a scope and scale that is, of course, unprecedented. This is a true, clear and present danger.

The domains of warfare had been classically confined to the realms of land, air and the sea. With the advent of space-based capabilities, a new domain emerged in addition to the other three. In addition to this, the cyber domain connects the other domains. Therefore, till recently, emphasis was laid only on these five domains: land, air, sea (maritime), space and cyber. With the realisation that the human mind is connected digitally on a global scale, and that events concerning human cognition have upset the geopolitical balance, operations meant to influence the human brain are being called ‘cognitive operations,’ or operations that are waged on the mind.³

The concept of using an adversary’s mind for gaining advantage is an age-old one. The ancient Indian strategist Kautilya (375–283 BC) advocates in his book, the Arthashastra, the use of tushnim yudh, or silent war, which has been interpreted to refer to silent warfare through secret practices and instigations.⁴ The advocacy of similar principles can be seen in the Nitisara of Kamandaki in the third century BC.⁵ However, in historical literature, the act of trying to influence the human mind had been broadly covered only under the ambit of psychological operations.

Influencing the Brain

The primary question that needs to be answered is: is this concept a new one, or is it old wine in a new bottle? Most importantly, is a war on or for the brain a sixth dimension of warfare? For that to be established, it is important to understand that we have gained a better understanding of the brain in an unprecedented manner, and this has led to opportunities and methods meant to specifically target various weaknesses of the human brain in a structured and focused manner.

Cognition has been defined as ‘the mental process by which external or internal input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered and used. As such, it involves a variety of functions such as perception, attention, memory coding, retention and recall, decision-making, reasoning, problem-solving, imaging, planning and executing actions.’⁶ In relation to this, a widely accepted theory of how the human brain processes information is information-processing theory. In this theory, human cognitive function is considered similar to the operation of a computer.⁷ The human brain takes deliberate decisions and carries out higher-order functions; the brain also responds quickly in certain circumstances.

Executive function, or executive control, refers to the cognitive functions needed for the deliberate control of thought, emotion and action, such as goal-directed behaviour. These control processes are particularly required in those situations that mandate planning and organised, goal-directed thought.⁸

The second type of response by the brain is quick, because in a given situation the brain expects or believes that a certain outcome is bound to happen, and based on these expectations it responds. These beliefs are known as ‘expectancies.’ These are beliefs about a future state of affairs, from merely possible to virtually certain.⁹ The expectancies are considered to be both conscious and unconscious. Unconscious expectancies happen through conditioning, and conscious expectancies are those which happen on the basis of various inputs which lead one to expect that an event will turn out in a particular manner.¹⁰

Therefore, it can be surmised that cognitive influence could be achieved through certain methods that affect the higher-order functions.¹¹ It may also be achieved by targeting the quick-response character of the brain, otherwise known as heuristics.¹² Some of the methods that are employed to exert cognitive influence are collated in Table 1.

Table 1: Methods of Exercising Cognitive Influence. (Author’s work)

Emotions. Another method that can affect both executive-control functions and expectancies is the manipulation of emotions. This is because emotions affect both deliberate thinking and also lead to the formation of biases. The emotions of fear, hope and humiliation, which reflect the confidence and trust that individuals have in themselves, the society and the nation, go on to define intra- and international relations.¹⁴ Hope is also related to optimism and human will.¹⁵ The Communist Party of China concentrates on the narrative of ‘a century of humiliation’ and uses this emotion to galvanise the nation. The emotion of fear is a cognitive tool used by terrorists to bend the will of people to do their bidding.

Operations Related to Cognitive Operations

At this juncture we could examine three fields related to cognitive operations. These are information operations, psychological operations and cyber operations, before delving into cognitive operations themselves.

Information operations. It can be argued that every type of influence is based on information. However, if information is considered at a functional level, the distinction can be drawn out more noticeably. Information operations are considered a broad concept incorporating information assistance, information security, information superiority and information dominance. The aim is to exercise control over the generation, transmission, termination and manipulation of information towards achieving a desired objective.¹⁶ The difference between information operations and cognitive operations is that, while information operations are concerned with controlling the information media and mass-communication techniques, cognitive operations go beyond information operations by using this information specifically and scientifically to influence the cognitive domain and gain advantage over the adversary.

Psychological operations. The mission of psychological operations is understood broadly as influencing the behaviour of target audiences by feeding such information so as to influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately the behaviour of the target audience. It also aims to sow dissidence and encourage non-cooperation and disaffection in organisations and society. The final desired effect is to reduce the will to fight, lessen overall morale and lower efficiency.¹⁷ An example of successful psychological operations is where Genghis Khan spread rumours and adopted tactics to make his army appear much larger and more ferocious than it actually was, and successfully created psychological weakness in the enemy’s mind.¹⁸ On the other hand, the Americans failed in psychological operations in Vietnam. The United States tried to influence the fundamental beliefs of the Vietnamese through Operation Wandering Soul, and tried to exaggerate the strength of the South Vietnamese army through the Chieu Hoi (Open Arms) campaign, amongst other attempts. However, incorrect application of the principles, and a lack of coordination and understanding amongst field personnel, led to its failure.¹⁹

How cognitive operations go beyond psychological operations is that, while the latter are concerned with the psychological facet of the brain, cognitive operations, in addition to concentrating on the psychological aspects, use advanced technology to alter or manage the brain and also leverage the capability of cyberspace to achieve the desired effects. The advanced technologies that have the capability of advancing cognitive operations beyond the realm of classical psychological operations are artificial intelligence and neuroscience technology.

Cyber operations. US Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-12 on cyber operations defines cyberspace as a global domain within the information environment, consisting of interdependent networks of information technology and resident data, including the internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, embedded processors and controllers. Cyberspace operations are described as the employment of capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve objectives in or through cyberspace.²⁰ The National Cyber Security Policy of India, 2013, states that its mission is ‘to protect information and information infrastructure in cyberspace, build capabilities to prevent and respond to cyber threats, reduce vulnerabilities and minimise damage from cyber incidents through a combination of institutional structures, people, processes, technology and cooperation.’²¹

This clearly enunciates that operations in the cyber domain are about utilising extant capabilities in the cyber domain to achieve one’s end, or using these capabilities to prevent anyone else gaining control of one’s cyberspace. So the use of cyberspace, which is ‘omnipresent’ in today’s connected world, facilitates the enabling of cognitive operations, because cyberspace transcends multiple domains and boundaries.

Cognitive Operations

Cognitive operations are understood to be those activities that are taken to influence human cognition using cyberspace, information operations and other means of influence. A more specific definition is that cognitive warfare is a type of ‘psychological-social-technical warfare,’ combined with a form of ‘influence warfare’ using ‘cyber means.’²²

It is at this juncture that the attempt must be made to answer whether ‘cognitive operations’ is a concept that should be termed the ‘sixth domain of warfare,’ especially since many elements of information, psychological and cyber operations are common to cognitive operations and have been employed since times immemorial. What is being brought out is that, though this is the case, since we have gained a better understanding of the cognitive processing of the brain, and technologies have emerged that can specifically target the vulnerabilities of the mind, a structured attempt integrating and leveraging the relevant elements of those operations, coupled with cutting-edge technology, has steered the process of influencing the mind to an unprecedented level.

Based on the study carried out, a ‘battle for the brain,’ or cognitive operations, is not the sixth domain of warfare, but it may be termed or considered the ‘first domain,’ or the ‘primary domain of warfare.’ This has not been done earlier, and only the domains of land, sea, space, air and cyber were considered as domains that need to be influenced. This is because any type of conflict or competition originates from the human brain, with the ultimate aim of conquering the adversary’s brain. There is no domain — whether land, sea, air, space or cyber — where the human brain is not involved. All operations in these domains are meant finally to affect or influence the human mind, human will and human spirit, signifying the final victory. This has been told to us around two thousand years ago by Kautilya, two hundred years ago by Clausewitz, and twenty years ago by Milan Vego.²³ Cognitive operation, therefore, is a very old bottle of wine whose importance and value have been rediscovered, and which has now regained its rightful prominence because of demonstrated prowess that has had a global impact. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig 1: Brain – The Primary Domain of Warfare (Author’s Work)

Springboarding to prominence

The reasons why cognitive operations have gained renewed significance are due to the cogent demonstration of their impact in exerting influence over global events and interfering in the affairs of nations. For example:

• Influencing political events in the Czech Republic, interference in elections of the United States of America, and influencing the Brexit vote.24 The operations in the Czech Republic could be considered distinct from classical psychological operations in that they employed not only those operations but also information and cyber operations in a structured manner. The aim was to influence governmental, media and societal levels. At the government level, the former president Miloš Zeman is reported to have been so influenced by Russians that he is alleged to have made a large number of pro-Russia statements. In addition, the Czech government’s Ministry of the Interior defence audit intentionally downplayed Russian influence and misinformation as minor threats, and a number of politicians have systematically spread the Russian narrative. Similarly, the media was systematically used to spread disinformation, and the cyber domain was used to influence society.25 Similarly, the Russians are alleged to have used data collected innocuously to influence the American presidential elections and the Brexit vote. What is significant is that the actions carried out fall according to the tenets described by Russia in the ‘mind warfare’ concept, which covers seven tenets — informational, psychological, cybernetic, political, economic, financial and hybrid tools — to achieve non-kinetic means of victory.²⁶ So what emerges here is the use of multiple tools in a coherent manner to influence the mind, unlike disjointed efforts that were employed earlier, say in the Second World War or in Vietnam by the United States.
• Collusive actions undertaken by China, Pakistan and Turkey against India, with the intent to influence, mislead, sow dissent, and create internal instability and fissures.²⁷ Here again it can be seen that multiple tools are used for a coordinated effect on the mind. For example:
  • Creation of a network of fake media outlets, journalists and paid actors, nurtured by the Inter-Services Public Relations directorate of Pakistan, to spread disinformation supporting Pakistan’s government and military.²⁸
  • Pakistan’s collusion with Turkey to create a cyber capability, and to spread its narrative through television serials and media houses.²⁹ Turkey, as a supporter of Pakistan, carries out selective funding of selected non-governmental organisations, and supports certain students and clerics with extremist views so as to push its agenda. The President of Turkey has supported Pakistan on Kashmir to spread the narrative.³⁰ Obviously, the assessment of the effects is difficult to measure. What is clear, though, is that the Government of India has taken a very serious view of these incursions and has banned a large number of mobile apps, YouTube channels, fake Twitter accounts, websites and other social-media accounts and platforms spreading misinformation.

Once again one would be justified in asking what is here to justify these being called cognitive operations. What is new is that, though Pakistan or Turkey may not call these operations by that name, by virtue of the fact that operations are being carried out by various extant organisations in silos, these actions put together, and aided by modern tools and technology, follow a structured approach that ultimately leads to influencing the cognitive domain in a very effective manner, which had not happened in that manner before.

Actions have also been carried out by China in the cognitive domain, supported by economic leverage on nations such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, that laid the ground to foster anti-India feelings so that China could gain strategic advantage.³¹ In addition, China also carries out multipronged approaches, using various tools and resources to affect the cognitive domain of Indians, through shell companies, networks of activists’ groups and non-profit organisations, as has been revealed through a New York Times investigation.³² The Chinese are also known to have targeted the intellectuals, political parties, and the entertainment, education and technology sectors.³³

Therefore, it is apparent that cognitive operations are targeted not only at individuals but at societies and the nation as a whole. What makes cognitive operations very potent presently is the employment of structured and targeted techniques on the brain, facilitated through information and cyber operations, combined with the manipulative potential of psychological operations, and also the integration of cutting-edge technology associated with them. What makes cognitive operations worthy of a somewhat separated consideration from psychological operations is that they seek to harness capabilities in various adjunct domains to achieve the end in a more scientific and structured manner. Whether they need to be called the ‘primary’ or the ‘sixth’ domain may be subject to interpretation, but what needs to be noted is that a comprehensive attempt needs to be taken by us, by integrating defensive tools available in various domains, in a structured manner, to counter this threat.

The cutting-edge technologies that are propelling cognitive operations to prominence are neuroscience technology and information technology. Neuroscience technology could be considered a confluence of all those technologies that are meant to assess, affect, modify, enhance and even manipulate the functions of the nervous system. Therefore, all the adjunct fields related to enabling this aim — such as neuroscience, biotechnology, nanotechnology, psychology, physiology and even various branches of information technology — may be included here.³⁴ While information technology deals with the technology and advancements concerned with computers and networking, the specific fields that have boosted cognitive operations are the advancements in cyberspace and cognitive technology.

Impact of neuroscience technology on Cog Ops. Neuroscience technology is the integration of cutting-edge technology with neuroscience. Neuroscience covers a wide range of subfields: neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, neurophysiology, behavioural neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience.³⁵ The field of neuroscience technology primarily focuses on the development of brain–machine interfaces that map neural impulses and send them to a computer, so as to study, influence and even manipulate all the subdomains of neuroscience.

The use of neuroscience technology by agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity of the United States, or the military brain-science focus of the Chinese, aims at using the brain and even modifying it to redefine the modern battlefield.³⁶ This is where cognitive operations have taken an altogether new form. The attempt is to gain superiority in the cognitive domain by advanced research in neuroscience, artificial intelligence and biotechnology as part of the ‘intelligentisation warfare’ concept. For example, one of the aims that has been brought out is to develop a form of human–machine hybrid intelligence, incorporating the human brain and artificial intelligence, leading to the highest form of future intelligence.³⁷

While many of the claims by companies and nations may be intended to sow doubts in the minds of competitors and adversaries, as part of cognitive operations, some ideas that may have sounded like science fiction earlier are becoming a reality today. For example, if one were to broach the idea of implanting a chip in the brain which would control a machine, a robot or a drone wirelessly, it would have fallen in the realm of science fiction, but it is possible today, as Elon Musk has recently demonstrated through Neuralink. In January 2024, Neuralink inserted an implantable brain–computer interface into a human’s brain, with the aim of controlling computers by thought alone.³⁸ With the availability of technologies such as these, neuroscience technology is expected to change the character of the modern battlefield. This can be achieved, for example, through a brain–machine interface wherein predictive artificial intelligence may be utilised to assist in assessing the adversary’s next move by profiling behaviour, resulting in faster decision-making. Another example is where the adversary’s OODA loop can be disrupted by influencing the executive controls and cognitive biases of commanders’ minds.

Impact of information technology and cognitive technology on Cog Ops.  Technology has leapfrogged in this domain, especially in the cyber domain and in artificial intelligence. The internet has connected individuals across the globe, and with the introduction of the internet of things the capabilities of using networked devices have increased manifold. As the capabilities grow, so do the risks. The concept of the metaverse, which uses artificial intelligence for providing an immersive experience, and the high level of global information dissemination associated with it, will influence human actions on a global scale.

A single remark with malicious intent, posted on a social-media platform, reaches millions of users in a very short time all over the world as it is shared wantonly. This ‘snowballing’ effect happens because of either willing or unwilling participation. In effect, one who becomes part of this cyber network becomes party to this ‘participatory propaganda.’³⁹ One of the best examples is how various social-media platforms were very effectively used by Islamic State’s Al-Hayat Media Centre. This propaganda arm of Daesh used platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to share a large amount of content in order to generate fear amongst opponents and lower morale amongst adversaries, garner the support of Western Islamic groups, and legitimise the claims of ISIS. By the very virtue of sharing the information generated by that centre, either intentionally or inadvertently, one promoted a cause with malintent and became party to participatory propaganda.⁴⁰ On the other hand, the Czechs, taking note of the attempts by the Russians to exert cognitive influence by leveraging the cyber and information domains, started the FakeScape project and formed associations such as NELEŽ, supported by the telecommunication companies, to identify fake news and to prevent disinformation.⁴¹

Cognitive technology, especially in the psychological domain, is what actually aids the unprecedented effectiveness of cognitive operations. In cognitive technology, systems process unstructured data using highly complex neural networks and learn to form hypotheses and interact with humans naturally.⁴² Systems such as these that predict human behaviour can be used to manipulate human cognition too.

By-products of artificial intelligence, such as large language models — for example ChatGPT — text-to-image models such as Stable Diffusion that generate photorealistic images, deepfakes, and various advanced data-mining techniques, can be used to manipulate the cognitive domain.⁴³ Artificial intelligence, and especially pervasive artificial intelligence, is taking over households and societies. Every move and every action by people can be monitored, profiled and, if need be, altered and manipulated to affect cognition.

Immediate Threats and Concerns

Huge advancements in technology have facilitated both a quantitative and a qualitative shift: quantitative because of the large number of technology-enabled tools that can affect cognition, and qualitative because of the efficacy and precision of emerging technologies that can achieve this aim. The primary threat expected is from non-state actors, and the primary concern is from the activities of China, which has defined a structured approach towards cognitive operations.⁴⁴

Non-state actors. With the availability of cyberspace within one’s reach, and also access to low-cost technology, non-state actors exploit cognitive operations with or without state support. An example of the former case is China using the ‘50 Cent Army.’⁴⁵ The next case is when non-state actors carry out cognitive operations at a low cost and with denial of attributability. For example, social-media platforms such as Twitter have been utilised by jihadists to affect the cognitive domain, not only to carry out recruitment but also to carry out propaganda by exploiting the ‘echo-chamber effect,’ or the ‘virtual-bubble effect,’ that relies on constant echoing and amplifying of specific ideological narratives.⁴⁶

Cognitive operations by China. China’s defence white paper, China’s National Defense in the New Era, brings out the concept of ‘intelligentised warfare.’ This can be considered a response to the Third Offset initiative of the United States. The People’s Liberation Army’s National Defense University defines intelligentised warfare as integrated warfare waged in the land, sea, air, space, electromagnetic, cyber and cognitive domains, using intelligent weaponry and equipment and their associated operational methods, underpinned by the internet-of-things information system.⁴⁷ To be noted is that this particular policy contains the initiatives proposed by the United States and has, in addition, concentrated on actions to influence the cognitive domain in a comprehensive manner. This move by China may have catapulted operations to influence human cognition to the forefront and has garnered the present level of attention.

The scope of this paper does not allow a deep study of Chinese cognitive operations, but it is necessary to understand that China has not only embarked on a journey to influence the human brain through cognitive operations, but intends to go much farther in the cognitive domain by gaining advantage in concepts such as ‘brain–machine fusion,’ ‘brain-control weaponry’ and ‘brain networking.’⁴⁸

Chinese cognitive operations have also defined ‘military brain science’ as the cutting-edge technological innovation that adopts a multi-domain approach. The aim is to bring in fundamental changes to the concept of combat methods.⁴⁹ Broadly, the concept of Chinese cognitive operations, as brought out based on the works of China’s Academy of Military Sciences on cognitive-domain operations, focuses on eight operational characteristics.⁵⁰ These eight characteristics focus on using various measures to target the cognitive domain so that kinetic victories can be transformed into permanent victories by subjugating the mind; to influence perceptions of both the domestic and the international population so as to support China’s narrative in every action it takes and also justify it; to support military, or kinetic, actions through the use of cognitive influence; and to use advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and neuroscience to influence the brain of the adversary as well as to leverage benefits for one’s own personnel.

Defence against Cognitive Operations

It has been remarked that ‘failing to thwart the cognitive efforts of NATO’s opponents would condemn Western liberal societies to lose the next war without a fight.’⁵¹ This is considered true for all societies. It is also absolutely justified if one were to ask, ‘Haven’t all these actions, in some form, been in use for thousands of years?’ The answer is yes, they have. But the counter-question would be: did we have an understanding of the human mind, as we now have, thousands of years ago? Do we now know how to better and specifically target vulnerabilities of the mind? Haven’t coordinated and systematic actions taken in the psychological, information and cyber domains to influence the cognitive domain yielded better results? Haven’t artificial intelligence and neuroscience technology propelled available techniques to the next level, so as to manipulate the brain?

The aim is to think aloud that a war on the brain as the sixth domain of warfare is perhaps unnecessary, because targeting the brain has always been part of warfare. The inference that is being sought is that, while technology has leapfrogged in developing various weapons in the kinetic domain, the most important domain on which war is waged was being pushed to the background. The latest developments in understanding the brain, and other technological innovations, have again brought this domain — arguably the primary domain — to the fore. The most important aspect is that, while activities are being taken in silos to counter influences on the mind, what is required is a whole-of-nation approach that is coordinated and leverages the resources of multiple organisations. Since this understanding is there with us now, is it not incumbent on us to take necessary action? This thought process, to counter elements that influence cognition, has even been recommended by the Group of Ministers’ report, Reforming the National Security System.⁵² However, requisite steps have not yet been taken. A case in point is that the Cyber Security Policy of India is of 2013 vintage and has not been officially revised and published as yet, to ensure a whole-of-nation approach. So should we rest by saying that we know of all these things, and be lulled into a disaster like 26/11, when we chose to ignore recommendations such as those by the Group of Ministers after Kargil? This is especially true for India, with a very vulnerable population base, as is brought out below.

India has approximately 75 crore social-media users, with a person having an average of 11.5 social-media accounts.⁵³ What is most worrisome is that, as per an Oxford University report, 54 per cent of Indians turn to social media to check for facts, with 80 per cent of them believing that the information is true.⁵⁴ These alarming numbers are enablers for the promotion of a large number of malicious activities. Multiple Indian organisations and societal structures have been targeted frequently.⁵⁵

• Funding and sponsoring of various institutions, such as cinema, technology, fintech and education, to shape public opinion in China’s favour.
• Collection of voice samples from various regions of Jammu and Kashmir.
• Organisation of funded trips for journalists to shape the narrative, which has been an old measure.
• Operation of multiple accounts on social media in various languages.
• Intensification of cyber attacks into various critical Indian sectors.
• Use of deepfakes and other artificial-intelligence-related technology to ensure subversion and deception.

The mounting effects on the cognitive domain by various state and non-state actors re-emphasise the need to be aware of cognitive operations and to be prepared to counter them.

Collective Awareness and a Whole-of-nation Approach. The most important factor that will enable a nation to counter cognitive operations is to make everyone aware of this danger, because they affect many, civilians and military personnel alike. It has, due to undefined laws, affected and transgressed into multiple domains of human functioning.

Various steps have been taken by India in order to ensure cyber security, and these are being coordinated under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and the Cyber and Information Security division of the Ministry of Home Affairs.⁵⁶ This, of course, is a step in the right direction. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, in 2023, brought in amendments to the Information Technology Rules of 2021, aiming for a safer internet; this again is a step in the correct direction.⁵⁷ However, it is observed that actions are being taken in silos by various departments and organisations. Similarly, while there seems to be a focus on information technology and cyberspace, all the other factors that have an equally important role in cognitive operations do not appear to be addressed adequately.

The awareness of the threat of cognitive operations must be made known to individuals, societies and governments. A whole-of-nation approach must be implemented to address the issue at every level. It would mean that, ideally, all the ministries should be a part of this effort. This is because cognitive operations are pervasive and multi-domain in nature.

Training. Specific training on countering cognitive operations is an inescapable requirement. Since this affects everyone, children included, awareness must be created and training must be carried out from school level to the highest academic institutions, irrespective of the professional skill or academic area that these institutions focus on, because cognitive operations affect the human brain across the board. This training can be carried out at a basic level to bring in awareness and prevent ‘snowballing’ and ‘echo-chamber’ effects. This must be a part of the curriculum. Further, specific training must be conducted for people who are obvious targets, such as military personnel, media people, policymakers and so on. For example, a sample cognitive-resilience model that may be considered for implementation in schools and colleges, based on the National Education Policy and linking it to the psychosocial development stages where differing influences come into being, is suggested in Figure 2.

Fig 2: Proposed Cognitive Resilience Training Model for Schools and Colleges (Author’s Work)

Research and Studies. There is no substitute for studies and research. Every effort must be made to better understand the methods of preventing unwanted influence on the brain by adversaries. Research must also be carried out to counter and resist the non-kinetic effects directed against the brain. The technological advances that are made in the interlinking domains of artificial intelligence, psychology, neuroscience and biotechnology must be garnered to formulate plans and devise resilience mechanisms to thwart cognitive operations.

Firewalling of Cyberspace. The domains of our country’s cyberspace and information space must be fiercely guarded, keeping national interests at the forefront. The latest technologies must be implemented to prevent unwanted intrusion into the personal and official cognitive spaces of individuals. Policies must be redrafted, and stricter norms and punitive measures must be implemented to bring in deterrence, responsibility and accountability.

Cooperation. One of the most important aspects of countering cognitive operations is cooperation. To start with, international cooperation in this field will ensure that a global approach can be made. The latest technology in this field must be shared amongst nations to have the desired effect. With its superior software skills and human capital, India could partner with countries such as the United States, which are leaders in research.

Giving out an exact methodology for implementation of each of the proposed areas is beyond the scope of this paper. This is because developing a specific and focused methodology in each of the areas mentioned needs the inputs and involvement of subject-matter experts. The aim is to bring to the fore the areas that are considered critical, so that immediate attention may be given to coordinating efforts and ensuring a whole-of-nation approach.

Conclusion

Various experiences faced by countries across the world give a clear indication that the human brain is being targeted by adversaries to achieve superiority over human will and to influence the cognitive domain. While kinetic operations can lead to tactical and operational victories, it is the conquest of the human will that leads to the final victory.

In order to achieve influence over the human brain in a manner that serves one’s interest, countries, societies, organisations and individuals are employing various methods across multiple domains. The most dangerous of these are when states and non-state actors employ methods to subvert the cognitive abilities of individuals and societies, with the ultimate aim of targeting national will. It is, therefore, imperative that a whole-of-nation approach, which focuses on all levels, starting from the grassroots to the highest echelons of decision-making, is made aware of this danger. Actions must be taken to engage every citizen to be a part of this process that is meant to thwart cognitive operations against our country. It is also equally important to establish a cooperative engagement network amongst countries to jointly counter this problem, which at present transcends domains and international boundaries without restraint.