Was Nirmala Sitharaman selective with facts in her press conference? The Quint 06 Jun 18
Article Read Time
The aim of this article is not to degrade the government nor to deride the defence ministry as it has attempted to produce the best with limited resources. I have immense respect for the leadership of the nation and believe that it can still deliver, though elections are around the corner. However, the press conference by the defence minister, Nirmala Sitharaman on 05 Jun, in which she projected her government’s progress in the last four years was, in some cases, a classic example of twisting facts and details to justify her ministry’s mistakes.
While there were few instances projected by the minister, that are indisputable, there are others that sound incredulous. Her statement that there were no scams in the Rafale deal is correct and should be respected, despite all claims by the opposition. The approach adopted by the government in all defence deals being inter-government deal is a lesson for all future governments.
Her statement that talks with Pakistan cannot be considered till they continue to export terror and support terror groups, a comment made by Sushama Swaraj, is noteworthy. It indicates unanimity between ministries. Her other noteworthy comment for which the government deserves praise is its decision to move ahead with the S-400 Triumf missile deal, despite the US clause under CAATSA. It indicates that India is willing to challenge the US’s illegal sanctions procedures. Her remarks that Indian forces would respond to Pak misadventures and relations with China are on track were expected.
On the assessment of NICO (Non-Initiation of Combat Operations) in the valley, she stated that the responsibility of the same if that of the Home Ministry. She claimed to support their decision of imposing the same. Surprisingly, two days before the Home Ministry announced NICO, in a press conference the defence minister had stated, ‘Indian army has to firmly handle any terrorism which threatens the peace and harmony of J and K. The army’s position is that it has to be firm on terrorism.’ She had clearly rejected Mehbooba’s call for ceasefire then but was forced to change her stand once the home ministry made its announcement. Thus, probably, the army was not consulted when the initial decision was made.
Two issues where her comments twisted details and facts and sought to project a wrong picture need clarification. The first has been her comments on the opening of cantonment roads. In her statement, she read out multiple dates of meetings held between the MoD and army officials, apart from those held between political representatives and vice presidents of cantonment boards, seeking to arrive at a consensus, before the final directions were given. Therefore, she sought to project that the final decision arrived at was a collective decision, not a unilateral one by the ministry, as is being projected in the media.
She even gave figures of closed roads to prove her point, stating that out of the 850 roads which were closed, only 119 were done without following due rules and regulations. Of these 119, 80 have been opened, 15 partially and 24 remain closed. She claimed that her insistence has been that due procedures be followed prior to closure. Her final comment was that it would be the Local Military Authority which would take a final decision.
If her claims above are to be believed, then why did her ministry issue a letter on 28th May, stating that sanction for closure of roads in the future would rest with the MoD. Did it want to send a message that senior military officers who are capable of security decisions at the national level are incapable to take a decision at local levels. The letter also indicates that the decision must have been pushed down the army’s throat, solely to appease vote banks, rather than being a joint one, as projected.
It further directed the army to issue a letter removing all barriers and check posts and passing instructions that no vehicles will be stopped or checked. This absurd letter was issued on 31st of May and is against even the basic tenets of security. This letter released to the press led to the biggest divide between the army and civil authorities.
Her own party, the BJP, celebrated by distributing sweets and taking convoys of hundreds of vehicles with party flags inside cantonments, symbolizing the leading political party’s victory over its own army. Ironically, it was an insult to the army, that its own populace, whom it has always supported are celebrating a victory over its increased vulnerabilities. There were no comments against it by any political bigwig including the defence minister in her press conference.
This haphazard, so-termed joint decision has led to the army facing the brunt on grounds of its own security. Her comments on protecting the security of army families living alone is already being challenged with reports of miscreants targeting residential accommodation in Khadki and locals demanding opening of roads moving through separated family accommodation in Secunderabad.
She has broken the fabric which bound the military to civil society. Such a deep civil military divide had never existed in India’s seventy-year history as has now been created. The title of an article in the Deccan Chronicle of 06 Jun reads, ‘Army defiance of def min exposed’. Is this what she had desired and now defends as a joint decision.
The other aspect where her statements were incorrect was on the issue of shortage of funds and ammunition stocks of the army. She quoted figures to justify her ministry’s stand. The previous Vice Chief of the Army, General Sarath Chand had stated to the parliamentary standing committee, ‘The 2018-19 budget dashed our hopes. The marginal increase barely accounts for inflation and does not even cater for taxes.’
Even Maj Gen BC Khanduri, the head of the parliamentary committee of defence stated, ‘We are aghast to note this dismal scenario where the representatives of services have themselves frankly explained the negative repercussions on our defence preparedness due to inadequate fund allocations.’ I wonder, if she terms the statements of both, General Sarath Chand and Khanduri, misleading.
In latest reports, the army is already planning to cut down demands of its assault rifles to 250,000 from 800,000, solely due to shortfall of funds. I would accept words of army officers, who call a spade a spade, rather than just a quote of figures to indicate that there is no shortfall. The budget amount may have increased, but not when inflation and other commitments have been factored in.
Shortfall of ammunition had been inherited by this government. It was such that Manohar Parrikar had to revise the holdings of ammunition from 30 days to 10, solely to enable the government to meet this requirement. Her claim that presently there is no shortfall may again be just a quote on figures. Press reports in April stated that the army has identified ‘certain types of expensive ammunition which it will not be procuring even though their stocks would not be sufficient.’
Make in India was supposed to be a take-off point for manufacture of ammunition. MoS Defence, Subash Bhamre had stated in a presentation to the PMO in Nov last year, ‘It continues to languish at the alter of procedural delays and has failed to demonstrate its true potential.’ He added, ‘of the 144 schemes contracted in the last three years only 8-10% have fructified. The average time taken was 52 months, which was twice the laid down time’. I had hoped she would address this issue, but it was left to the defence secretary, who is part of the delay process to justify.
In the overall context, major irritants were ignored or appeared to be brushed aside, while known issues were given excessive importance. I do hope that the MoD would take time to gloss over the gaps in its press conference and issue a rejoinder on its erroneous comments.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army