Its more about strategy then the tactics of asymmetric warfare. Now that its moved it will get bogged down in tactics of how to go about doing it.
The question that no one has asked yet -- why would India need asymmetric war fare capabilities ? I.e. what are our potential adversaries that we expect that an open warfare would not work against.
Even if they could win in open war one would prefer asymmetric warfare, by hitting an opponent where they least expect in order to ensure certain victory for in war victory is what matters.
Malcolm Gladwell has new book "David and Goliath" which is really about asymmetric warfare in all spheres and not just battlefields.He has an interesting statistic.
In about 70% of the encounters the side with larger numbers won i.e. in about 30% the 'underdog' won!
Now if one examined of the 30% how many times the side not expected to win adopted asymmetric tactics and won?
It comes to about 2/3 of the time the side adopting asymmetric tactics won.
So just being an underdog is not enough but one has to embrace asymmetry and fight.
If you recall Chanakya won against the Nandas by asymmetric tactics.
The mighty Mughals were ground to stalemate and dust by Maratha asymmetric tactics.
East Pakistan was won by asymmetric tactics of bypassing the static formations of the Pakis and driving on to Dhaka.
In Assal Uttar Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh flooded the plains and bogged down the Patton advance.
However on grand scale the next one I see is a non-state hacker group tyeing up state powers in a cyber war and defeat occurring without blood shed.