India internal

India internal

Government mustn’t abandon the soldier The Statesman 21 Aug 18

Recent reports have stated that over 350 officers and men of the army, have approached the supreme court together to challenge the way one of its benches has begun pressurizing the CBI to speed up its investigation of the alleged Manipur extra-judicial encounters filed by the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association. The court had summoned the CBI director and given him a specific timeframe to act. Subsequently, a charge sheet has been filed against a serving army officer.

There have been cases of army personnel approaching courts in individual capacities on personal issues, whether they be against court martial verdicts or promotion cases, but not as a large body. The most recent case was filed by Col Karamveer in support of his son, Major Aditya, against whom Mehbooba Mufti had ordered the lodging of a FIR in the Shopian incident where three youth, pelting stones against an army convoy, had died in retaliatory firing.

This hearing is still in progress, with the discussion moving towards the legality of filing a FIR without seeking the consent of the centre. In Aditya’s case, the central government stated that the state cannot lodge a FIR against army personnel under section 7 of J and K AFSPA, without prior sanction. The state government is contending that it can.

Thus, while one bench of the same court discusses if a FIR can be filed without central government permission, another bench orders the filing of charge sheets, without prior sanction.

In another judgement, in a case pertaining to a civil servant, the J and K high Court stated on 5th Aug this year, that government sanction for the prosecution of a civil servant is a must. The bureaucracy and armed forces are protected by similar laws. Apart from the common statute, armed forces personnel are also protected by AFSPA in specific regions.

The present petition filed by the officers and men states that the court’s action is ‘resulting in an indirect influence to investigating agencies’. Those who have filed the case had served in Manipur during the peak of insurgency. These personnel had been sent as part of the army’s deployment, on orders of the government to subdue the rising insurgency in Manipur.

Since the case, presently in the courts, challenges government directives passed to the army, including implementing AFSPA to bring the insurgency under control, then the government should have been involved in challenging the directions of the court. After all the court has questioned the power of the legislative. The government inducted the army, gave it requisite powers as also the end state which must be achieved, which was to terminate the insurgency, establish control of the state and restore normalcy.

The government, now dumping those whom the army deployed to fulfil its task, is a sad reflection on its attitude. The central government challenged the FIR against Major Aditya, claiming sanction of the centre had not been taken, then why is it silent at this moment. Army HQs cannot directly challenge court orders in support of its personnel without government sanction, which possibly is not forthcoming.

Manoj Joshi writing on the case stated in the TOI last week that for this court action the army is to be blamed for multiple reasons, including not acting against those guilty. The army has punished many, whom the courts have subsequently given relief. The court ignored internal investigations conducted by the army on each human rights and fake encounter case by directing the CBI to do its own, thus indicating that it does not trust the army. This is a sad reflection on the most trusted and dependable institution in the country.

Joshi also claims that the army personnel have begun feeling victimized. It is not the army alone, any service, which is not provided its dues, either in terms of equipment, recognition, rights and respect, would feel the same. The army more so, since it is always at the forefront, handling crises after crises, caused by government apathy or failings. If those who acted in good faith and in national interest, face the court’s fury, while the government remains silent, then they are justified in feeling victimized.

Joshi also blames poor civil-mil relations for this impasse. The MoD comprising only civilians without basic military knowledge makes it the only such defunct organization in the developing and developed world. It results in the army being controlled by the bureaucracy, not political leadership, as is the constitutional mandate. Fears of a coup has compelled the government to maintain status quo. Thus, the atmosphere itself leads to distrust which can only be removed by the political leadership, if it so desires, over which it shows no signs.

Joshi claims the most successful counterinsurgency campaign in history was of the British in North Ireland. He may have forgotten the ‘Black Sunday’ incident in Derry on 30th Jan 1972, where 28 innocent civilians were targeted during a peaceful protest march by the elite British para-commando’s. David Cameroon apologized for it in 2011. Any insurgency which concludes is a success, while those which continue are a failure. India too has had its share of successes, Mizo and Punjab being examples, with the Naga likely to join this list soon.

Ignoring the present court case, without challenging it, would impact the nation in multiple ways in the future. It would weaken national security as the provisions under which the army operates in difficult conditions, AFSPA, is eroded for eternity. Such an action by the court would automatically impose caution and restrict the pace of operations being presently undertaken.

The government cannot be a bystander when those whom it ordered to restore normalcy are being treated as murderers ignoring the very provisions under which they were tasked to operate. The approaching of the court by serving and veterans, in their personal capacity, is evidently not a good sign.

It is an indication of an increasing level of distrust between army personnel and the present government. It also reflects poorly on the attitude of the government towards the soldier, on whose performance it seeks votes. It is time the government acts, not watches the proceedings from the side lines.

Kashmir unites the nation (English Version) Rakshak News 16 aug 18

The last rites of four army brave hearts who sacrificed their lives in recent encounter in Gurez, in Kashmir, Major Kaustubh Rane, SM, Riflemen Hameer Singh and Mandeep Singh Rawat and Gunner Vikramjeet Singh, were an indicator of the nation’s support to the army and its sacrifices. Cities came to a standstill, population poured onto the streets, flowers and garlands were showered on the vehicles carrying their remains.

In Mumbai the street on which the remains were to arrive, was filled with flowers by the community, as a sign of respect to its own Major Kaustubh Rane. The out pouring of grief and support only proved that the common Indian stands by the armed forces.

The question being asked across all the country is whether it is right for a nation to be sacrificing so many young lives, leaving behind their families for a cause which the government should have resolved with dialogue over the years. Failures in national policies by multiple governments is well known, however the cursory approach being adopted by every government only adds to pressures on security forces.

Some governments appointed interlocutors, some held round table conferences, but the end results were nil. The situation neither changed nor improved nor was any solution visible. Documents prepared rotted in cupboards, never to witness the light of day, while political parties blamed one another. Money was poured into the valley, with no returns, yet demands for ‘azadi’ continue.

There have been multiple occasions when security forces working in tandem have brought the situation under reasonable control in Kashmir enabling the launching of a political initiative, but lack of forward movement by the government has pushed the environment back to where it was. Talks including international pressure has failed to deter Pak from its misadventures. The surgical strike claimed as a strong action by the government had limited impact. Permitting the anti-national Hurriyat leadership to continue remaining within the state, igniting young minds, is only increasing casualties to both, locals and security forces.

While security forces operations have continued unabated, successive governments only their predecessors for the current atmosphere. Distrust, lack of a second rung of leadership in the valley which can be engaged and an unchanging approach by Pak, employing cannon fodder militants leads to loss of valuable lives. It appears that nothing will change soon, and India will continue to dance to Pak’s tune.

The government must change tack, evaluate its strategy for the valley and determine a suitable approach. It may need to think out of the box, contemplating pulling instigators and financers of violence away from the region and forcing Pak to pull back. It cannot remain a bystander letting violence levels grow leading to loss of lives. If the present government does not act, then like all others before it, it would also have failed.

Soldiers who operate in the region, whether the army or other security forces including the J and K police, at great risk to their lives, are doing so on the faith and trust that the government has in its mind a solution to the crises. By maintaining a stalemate and not moving forward, the government is letting its own security forces down.

The nation has shown that it cares for its warriors and realizes that they have sacrificed their lives to ensure a better future for the nation. The government must prove this trust by seeking to find a solution for the valley, rather than only making statements criticizing Pak and misguided youth.

Manipur judgement and its aftermath (English Version) Rakshak News 09 Aug 18

The supreme court has for the last few years been hearing a petition filed by the Extra-Judicial Execution of Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) on the supposed extra-judicial killings in Manipur. The case pertains to a possible 1528 incidents of deaths. In Apr last year, EEVFAM culled out 655 cases from this figure, of which the court is hearing 265 cases.

Manipur had witnessed intense insurgency since the early eighties till recently. AFSPA was in force and the army alongside other security forces including the Assam Rifles and Manipur Police and Commandoes were deployed. Presently, AFSPA remains in force throughout the state, less the Imphal Urban Area.

In end Jul, the Supreme Court had summoned the Director of CBI, who was investigating 62 cases and sought to push him to speed up the investigation. The court, ignoring the imposition of AFSPA, ordered the CBI to file charge sheets and proceed against those accused.

In its operations in Manipur, security personnel lost over 1900 soldiers and had over 3100 wounded. In retaliation they eliminated 4900 insurgents and over 5100 surrendered. There is no denying the fact that there may have been a few extra-judicial killings, however there were no cases of massacres or revenge or any case for personnel gains. Neither did the forces employ any heavy weapons of mass destruction.

When compared to Kashmir, Manipur faced an insurgency, which implied complete support to insurgents from the local population. Kashmir on the other hand is a proxy war fuelled by Pak, with most militants leading the movement being Pak nationals. Hence, being an insurgency, insurgents in Manipur would melt into the local population, making their discovery difficult. Many killed would also be labelled as innocents.

Further, in any area where the army is deployed to restore normalcy, after the writ of the state is lost, it is never welcomed. It is termed as an occupying force since it is brought in from outside and means business. Its actions would always be questioned, and every effort made to lower its morale and functioning. It had happened in Nagaland, Manipur and now in Kashmir.

Battling insurgency is difficult, every time a soldier leaves base, he never knows whether he would return. Ambushes, hit and run incidents and snipers deployed in terrain suiting the insurgents could await around a corner. In 2015, an army convoy was targeted leading to the death of 18 soldiers.

Mr YJ Singh, the present Dy CM and former chief of Manipur Police stated, ‘There may have been a few cases of extra-judicial killings, but I don’t think the numbers being quoted are that many. If 1500 people had been illegally killed, there would have been more protests in the state.’

It is easy to conduct a post mortem, after normalcy has been restored and accuse security forces, as they were never accepted in the state and would never be. Filing charge sheets and prosecuting them would be against national interest as it would impact caution in their functioning, which would provide insurgents and militants an upper hand. Most cases would have locals as witness and irrespective of the agency which investigates, the bias would be against them.

Government laws which ensure their protection should be respected as it provides soldiers the confidence that they are protected as they conduct their tasks. Ignoring it and targeting them solely because courts have the power to do so, would in the long term be harmful for the nation, as the army remains the ultimate source of power. It does make mistakes, which can be corrected, but seeking vengeance would impact its functioning, an action the nation can ill afford. The nation is secure solely because the army has fought all anti-national elements, leading to peace in many locations, while ensuring adverse situations are localized in some cases. They need support, not witch hunting.

What Supreme Court needs to know before deciding on Manipur encounter cases Daily O 07 Aug 18

In 1994, as a young officer, I led a column of soldiers into the Allahabad High Court, which had been the target of goons belonging to a political party. The call did not come from the District Magistrate, but the Chief Justice himself, as he feared for the safety of himself and his staff. Even his office had been ransacked by the mob. It was the arrival of the column which restored confidence in the staff and advocates present in the court.

Last month, the Himachal High Court had ordered that the army be involved in assisting the state government in evicting encroachments in five villages of Shimla district as the police and local authorities had failed. The Uttarakhand High Court charged the state last week, that in case it fails in its task of protecting tigers, it may be compelled to seek the assistance of the ministry of defence and deploy the ecological task force.

The army has been involved in every major incident which the nation faces, whether it be a natural or man-made calamity or an uprising. As a force, it has never let the nation down, despite all odds. Post the Sikkim earthquake of 2011, the army left its own damaged camps and went out to rescue those affected. In Srinagar during the floods of 2014, the army moved out, ignoring its own families impacted by the same and rescued those who were pelting stones on it a day before and would repeat the same, the next day.

In every insurgency and proxy war which the country has faced, it has been the army which has fought back to restore the situation, whether it be Nagaland, Manipur, Punjab or now in Kashmir. In each case it has suffered losses it has operated with hands tied, accepting casualties, but seeking to protect locals. In 2015, a column of the army was ambushed in Manipur, leading to the death of 18 soldiers. There have been similar incidents in the past in both Nagaland and Manipur, yet the army has never retaliated in kind against those who supported the insurgents. Army personnel are also humans and have made mistakes, some fatal. None has sought to gain personally in such areas.

In Oct 2016, the parents of Lt ET Joseph, finally got an opportunity to visit his grave in Nagaland, where he was buried after being killed in an encounter in 1992. His remains were shifted back to his home town after 24 years. Most of whom were martyred in remote locations in the early days of the insurgencies in Manipur and Nagaland had their last rites done there itself, as there were almost no means of conveying the remains.

It has been the relentless pursuit of anti-national elements which has led to the state being able to resolve the insurgency and commence dialogue with multiple factions and restore peace. The peace which reigns in Nagaland and Manipur is a result of the army’s relentless pursuit of anti-nationals. In every case, the insurgent groups have targeted only the army, as it was the one force which they feared.

Thus, for their supporters (locals) too, the army is the enemy, as it has maintained distance, operated with impartiality and broken the will of the insurgents, whom the locals have supported. It has applied pressure on locals, as for an insurgency to survive, local support is essential. There may have been occasions when the quantum of pressure applied could be excessive and impacted the populace, however it has been for a cause, not for personal gains.

No insurgency or militancy can ever be resolved with a soft approach. Hence, to protect those who are deployed to implement a hard stance, the government had enacted AFSPA. Post the resolution of the crises, seeking to conduct a post mortem, check the methodology adopted, review cases based on claims, some genuine and some false, against those who risked their lives may not be in the right national spirit.

Many of those who fought have suffered trauma and stress because of strain and pressures of insurgencies. Many have witnessed the death of their close friends. To question them now, for their actions a decade or more ago is inhuman as it would bring to fore the sufferings they had undergone and possibly gotten over with time.

There are many organizations within the nation, some financed by inimical forces and some with vested interests, which would seek to ensure that the morale of the nation’s ultimate source of power, the army, is impacted. They would challenge the army’s involvement in every operation, blaming it even if it is right, seeking to hurt its reputation and standing.

The hearing in the Supreme Court against the army’s operations in Manipur, presently underway, should not become a witch hunt against those who operated there, restored government control and brought forth peace. It should be aimed at modifying existing rules of engagement, to reduce undesired casualties.

The witch hunt would not bring back those who became casualties to life, but only force army personnel who still battle anti-nationals to slow down in operations, permitting those whom it had subdued to regain the initiative. Such an action would be detrimental to the nation, its freedom and growth.

The army has over the years become the easiest target of all who seek to discredit it, as it hardly responds to criticism. For the learned who sit in the seat of judgement in the supreme court, it is an earnest and humble prayer that prior to making them a scapegoat, a visit to the areas where it operates and witnessing first hand the tensions and pressures under which it does, would go a long way in understanding their point of view. It would then level the playing field and give them more confidence to act, as after all, they risk their life daily for our freedom.

National register of citizens is commendable The Excelsior 08 Aug 18

The release of the final National Register of Citizens (NRC) of Assam has been rocking parliament for the past few days. The opposition led by the Congress and Mamta’s TMC have been up in arms on the issue. Though sensing national view, the Congress is showing a change in stance. The draft NRC was initially released on 01 Jan 18. The final NRC had a list of 1.9 crore out of a total applicant pool of 3.29 crore. It however left out 40.07 Lakhs as from the 3.29 crore, 2.89 crores were initially found eligible.

The process was done on the orders of the supreme court, issued in 2013. It was not a political initiative. The system followed the citizenship act of 1955 and rules framed in the Assam accord. Its aim was to flush out illegal migration from Bangladesh and other regions. The initial updating process was conducted from May to Aug 2015, in which 3.29 crore applied.

Subsequently, the verification process was launched. This involved house to house verification, determination of authenticity of documents etc, all aimed to rule out bogus claims. Even now, there are over 2.47 Lakhs, within those left out, whose cases remain under scrutiny. However, those left out are not labelled foreigners nor being sent to camps, pending deportation. Claims and objections can be filed, and their cases would be reconsidered. In some cases, verification has been held up because of lack of confirmation by different states, the largest being West Bengal.

The creation of the NRC for Assam has been a bold step and needs to be complemented. The Congress, the most vocal of all parties on the NRC was forced to commence the process on orders of the court, had turned a blind eye when large scale illegal migration took place into the state.

The Congress formulated the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) (IMDT) act in 1983, which was skewed in favour of illegal migrants. Fearful of changing demography, Lt Gen Sinha, the then Governor of Assam wrote to the President in Nov 1998, “Large scale illegal migration from East Pakistan/Bangladesh over several decades has been altering the demographic complexion of this state. It poses a grave threat both to the identity of the Assamese people and to our national security.” There was no reaction of the centre.

In 2005, striking down the IMDT, the Supreme Court observed, ‘The dangerous consequences of large scale migration from Bangladesh, both for the people of Assam and for the nation, need to be emphatically stressed. The silent and invidious demographic invasion of Assam may result in a loss of geo-strategically vital districts of lower Assam. The influx of illegal migrants is turning these districts into a Muslim majority region. It will be a matter of time before they demand merger with Bangladesh.’ The militancy in Assam is the result of these faulty vote bank policies of the Congress.

In 2005, while being a member of the opposition in the centre, Mamta Banerjee as an MP had lashed out against state and central governments against illegal migration in West Bengal. She had then stated, ‘Illegal migrants from Bangladesh are also part of the voter list in West Bengal. The state government has done nothing about it’. Since becoming the CM, understanding the impact of votes, she has changed her tune. For her, it is votes and power first, impact of changing demography resulting in security issues is last.

In Bengal, all border districts with Bangladesh are major law and order issues, solely because of a skewed demography, created by massive influx of Bangladeshi illegal migrants. There are regular reports of anti-national activities including bomb and weapon manufacturing units. Since they support the TMC, there is no action being taken to declare them as illegal migrants. Reports of violence, which are a regular feature in this region are suppressed and visits by the media and other political parties banned.

The Rohingya illegal migrants occupying sensitive pockets even in cities as far north as Jammu, alongside hordes of Bangladeshi migrants, which if not checked would result in a changed demography. The Valley based political parties have never accepted these migrants into the valley but are supporting them to continue in Jammu, knowing it would change demography and end up as their vote banks.

National political parties have made major blunders earlier and would continue doing so only to garner a few additional votes. All political parties were silent when Kashmiri Pundits were hounded out of the valley, changing demography in the region for eternity. None even worked to evaluate means to move them back. This debacle and lack of counter measures would haunt India for a long time to come. The nation cannot let its own regions be overrun by illegal migrant population, impacting demography.

The government rightly stated in the Supreme Court when questioned on the Rohingya issue, ‘India is already saddled with a very serious problem of illegal migrants.’ It added that it is attempting to address this problem keeping national resources of the country, requirements of our own population and national security in mind.

India cannot afford to accept illegal migrants, when its own nationals are unable to gain the benefits of development and resources. While India grows economically, the benefits should belong to the Indian citizen, not illegal migrants. This is an era of realpolitik; no longer can India remain a nation of Buddha and Gandhi, accepting all and sundry who find entry into the country by illegal means. We need to consider our own nationals first, irrespective of religion, caste or creed, before considering illegal migrants.

The NRC may have errors, there may be names missed or maybe some wrongly added. This would be rectified, and amendments done. This is after all the first time this exercise has been done in India. Declaring the complete system to be flawed, desiring it be scrapped, illegals permitted to stay changing demography for a handful of votes is clearly not seeking the best for the nation.

This exercise also needs to be conducted in regions like Jammu where demography is rapidly undergoing a change and could impact national security in a very short time.

Soldiers need support in insurgency hit areas The Statesman 07 Aug 18

The Supreme Court is presently hearing a PIL on supposed extra-judicial killings during the peak of insurgency in Manipur. It has been pressurizing the CBI, presently investigating some of the cases, to speed up its processes. In the last hearing on 30th July the court summoned the head of CBI and left him with the option of arresting those security personnel against whom investigations were complete and charge sheets filed.

Manipur had been the hotbed of insurgency since the early eighties. The difference between insurgency and proxy war, as is being played out in Kashmir, is that in an insurgency, insurgents are locals, whereas in a proxy war, militants are from across the border. The only way an insurgency can sustain itself, as against a proxy war, which is funded and fuelled from across, is by support from the local population.

Without local support, an insurgent is a fish out of water. Insurgents melt into local populace making detection difficult. Strategically security forces would attempt to isolate the insurgent from his support base, while insurgents with their supporters would seek to impact the success of security forces. This jigsaw battle results in an adverse local-security forces relationship. Since insurgents are locals, their elimination would, on occasions, be presented as innocents.

Insurgent groups had declared parts of Manipur in the eighties as liberated zones, where government writ did not exist. The army alongside other security forces moved in, clearing area by area, in jungle terrain which favours the insurgent, rather than security forces. AFSPA was invoked with the deployment of the army. The Manipur Government commented even as late as Dec 2017, that it was only by deploying the army, that the situation could be brought under control. Currently, AFSPA continues throughout the state less the Imphal urban area.

Security forces have lost over 1900 personnel in Manipur and more than 3100 have been injured. Sustained pressure resulted in eliminating over 4900 militants and surrenders of over 5100. Between 1979 and 2012, 1528 cases of extra-judicial encounters have been reported against security forces, based on individual testimonies, written complaints and commission of enquiries.

Mr YJ Singh, the present Dy CM and former chief of Manipur Police stated, ‘There may have been a few cases of extra-judicial killings, but I don’t think the numbers being quoted are that many. If 1500 people had been illegally killed, there would have been more protests in the state.’ 62 cases are currently under investigation by the CBI’s Special Investigation Team (SIT). It is evident that eyewitness records and testimonies would be biased against security forces.

Most insurgent groups do not fear any local force except when it operates alongside the army. Hence, insurgent groups would employ all means to discredit the army, seeking a drop in its morale, to rebound back to power.

Security forces operating in insurgency areas are doing so under orders of the government, never their free will. They face a hostile population supporting insurgency. Security forces are compelled to act on flow of information, which at times may be misleading. The atmosphere for security forces in an insurgency is frustrating and tense as differentiating between an insurgent and local is difficult, at times leading to errors.

Many cases under investigation pertain to over a decade ago. Most now being questioned may be senior citizens who had then performed their tasks as per directions of the government and in good faith. None of the cases involve security personnel acting for personal gains, but for seeking to eradicate a movement, threatening the fabric of the nation.

There have neither been reports of mass murders or use of weapons of mass destruction nor of forces acting in anger or revenge, as the trend the world over in battling insurgencies would indicate. Neither had the government created an ‘Ikwan’ type force in Manipur, which dealt its own brand of justice.

By reigniting the cases, seeking to bring those involved to justice, including legally charging them, ignoring the provisions of the government enacted AFSPA, the courts would impact the morale and functioning of security forces in difficult regions, where the writ of the state has ceased.

A humble suggestion to the courts would be to adopt a mature approach, setting in motion procedures to prevent such incidents from reoccurring in the future. This may include revisiting laws and regulations.

A witch hunt against those presently considered accused but had then served with honour would never resurrect the dead. It would indicate to be an act of vengeance by the judiciary, against those who acted in good faith, which is not the philosophy of a democratic state nor a mature judiciary.

Many Manipuri’s battling cases on extra-judicial encounters state that they are doing so to remove the stigma of the individual killed being an insurgent, as crimes and misdemeanours of family members can taint all born within it. Ideally, the state should seek to compensate families of those who cases are proved to be genuine and render an apology to those whose near and dear one’s were killed inadvertently.

The nation could consider the example of the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre of Northern Ireland in 1972, denied by the British for forty years, after which their Prime Minister Cameroon apologized in parliament in 2010.

Manipur is neither the first region where an anti-national environment existed, nor would it be the last. Every time the nation faces a crisis, it is the army and other security forces which are pushed forward to regain the writ of the state. If post every resolution of conflict, those involved are questioned, then the future would be bleak for the nation.

It is an established fact that in insurgency or proxy war regions, security forces presence is always resented, as is evident presently in the valley. They are targeted from all directions, locals, insurgents, politicians during their deployment and now post resolution even the judiciary. A similar case as Manipur may happen tomorrow in Kashmir, when post the resolution of militancy, accusations suddenly rise.

It is for the learned of this nation to consider whether it should support the soldier who battles for the nation, ignoring his own life and comforts, or accuse him as soon as he brings an area back to normalcy. We need to look ahead and seek solutions to prevent such recurrences, rather than adopt a policy of vengeance. A nation which only remembers its soldiers in times of trouble and dumps them thereafter would never have a clear conscience.

As elections draw close defence deals raise their ugly head (English Version) Rakshak News 01 Aug 18

Whenever elections appear close, political parties seek to subdue or discredit the opposition by re-raising corruption cases. With the announcement of results, the cases again move into the cupboard to be extracted when fresh elections are due. In recent times, defence deals have increasingly come under the scanner. For years it was the Bofors, which was exploited to the hilt against the Congress. It still irks the Congress whenever it is raised.

For the Congress, the clause governing the disclosure of details of the Rafale aircraft purchase has come as a godsend and is being exploited. The fact that there was no deal pushed by the previous government matters little. What matters is that the government being bound by the clause remains silent, enables the Congress to continue harping on the same. The other excuse is the offset clause. The strategic community is aware of the truth but for the common voter it appears as a scam, denting the clean image of the BJP.

The BJP on the other hand has been utilizing the Agusta Westland deal similarly. It first raised its head in May 2016, when elections for Puducherry, West Bengal, Assam and Tamil Nadu were approaching. Throughout the election process the BJP harped on the scam in multiple election rallies, forcing the Congress to defend itself. Post the elections, the scam vanished from the radar, while supposedly the CBI probed deeper and routinely questioned the Tyagi’s.

It re-emerged in Dec 2016, when elections for UP, Uttarakhand and Manipur were announced. The CBI became active and Air Chief Marshall Tyagi was again summoned and even arrested. Exploitation of the scam continued, impacting the Congress reputation and standing. With elections in 2019 drawing close, the case appears to be re-emerging, more as a counter to the Rafale rather than as one where a final decision would be made.

The key players in the scam have yet to be questioned, while Tyagi appears as the fall guy. Factually the investigation has yet to proceed beyond him. Tyagi has been accused of lowering the ceiling height permitting the entry of Agusta into the bidding process. It is also an established fact that no single individual can make radical changes by himself. The entire process is documented and processed on file, hence the investigation, if serious, must move beyond the Tyagi’s.

Since the helicopter was meant for transportation of VVIPs, other ministries would also have been involved. None appear to have been investigated or those involved questioned till date. Procurement procedures in India are long drawn and none has been completed during the tenure of one service chief. The major part involving negotiations and placement of orders ignores service HQs. Thus, there would be many more characters in the deal than meets the eye. The main characters including the then defence secretary and NSA have yet to be questioned.

As election draws close, the enquiry would move forward, some more minor characters would be summoned. Charge sheets against a few would be filed. There would be regular hearings. The case would re-emerge into the limelight. When the Congress would raise Rafale, the counter would be Agusta Westland. A few arrests could also be made.

Dubai would be approached to either repatriate Christian Michel, the main accused, or he would be asked to join the probe, of which none is likely to succeed. Post May 2019, the CBI would push the files back into the cupboard to re-withdraw them once the next round of elections draws close.

This process causes more harm than good to the system. Faith and trust on investigations and role of government interference in investigative agencies becomes more pronounced. Governments also hesitate to push defence deals. Finally, justice alludes the system.

Over pricing of Tejas is not the first such case (English Version) Rakshak News 18 Jul 18

Nirmala Sitharaman, the defence minister announced over the weekend, in a press conference, the setting up of a commercial negotiations committee to inquire into the high price quoted by HAL for the manufacture of Tejas 1A fighter aircraft. The HAL is seeking Rs 463 Crores for each fighter aircraft, which is almost 100 Crore over the cost of the present Tejas 1 aircraft. It is even costlier than the Sukhoi aircraft, assembled in Nashik, for which it charges 415 Crores, which if imported from Russia would cost 330 Crores.

The internationally acclaimed Swedish SAAB Grippen aircraft costs 465 Crores and the F-16, 380 Crore when produced in India. In addition to the pricing is also the low rate of supply of the aircraft. In the last three years the HAL has only been able to supply nine Tejas 1 aircraft against an order of 20. The original plan was for the HAL to produce 18 aircraft per year.

Most government run ordnance factories too have been following the same model. Overpricing for products manufactured by them, without concern for quality of output. An example is the Vehicle Factory Jabalpur, which was earlier producing the Shaktiman carrier vehicle and the Jonga. Once these two were discarded, the factory became redundant. Ideally the government should have either considered its closure or sale to the private sector. However, the impact of the unions prevented the government from moving ahead.

Thus, the vehicle factory became an assembly line for the Ashok Leyland vehicles being inducted into the armed forces. The vehicles would be manufactured in the Ashok Leyland plant in Hossur Bangalore, packed in containers, shipped to Jabalpur and put through the assembly line of the vehicle factory. These vehicles would then carry an insignia stating assembled in Vehicle Factory Jabalpur. The costs were definitely exorbitant as the vehicle was manufactured in Bangalore and assembled in Jabalpur.

The decision of the army to permit its soldiers to buy their uniforms from the open market and cancelling of its orders from ordnance factories is due to two reasons, unreasonable cost and low quality. For defence manufacturing Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), there is a fixed customer, who has no option but to procure. The PSUs are also keen to indicate profit. The easiest manner is to charge as per their own calculations, as all payments are book transfer. The impact remains on the armed forces budget.

There have also been reports of prolonged delays in the conduct of regular servicing of helicopters at HAL. The normal time for servicing in the civil is a few days while in HAL the helicopter is kept for months on end. It is even worse with the Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadhi. Armoured fighting vehicles and tanks which are meant to be upgraded and serviced remain for months. It is always years behind its schedule. The reasons are lack of availability of imported parts. Such delays only increase cost and reduce efficiency of the fighting force.

Enhanced costs with detailed worksheets are acceptable with dockyards as ship manufacture is a lengthy process and is labour intensive. In all other cases, high costs should be unacceptable. The maintenance of the armed forces is from contribution of the tax payer. Hence, in every case the aim should be to obtain ‘bang for the buck’. The MoD should check all cost working from PSUs, prior to signing any contract. In addition, the tax payer should seek data on RTI, forcing the MoD to carefully monitor the costing pattern of defence PSUs.

Cantonments can be converted to military stations only on a case by case basis CENJOWS 18 July 18

As per press reports, the army is mulling the closure of cantonments and converting military areas within them into military stations. It has presently ordered a study into the same expected to be completed by the end of the year, though the MoD has denied any immediate actions in a tweet.

The first cantonment was established by the British in the late 18th century in Barrackpore. It subsequently spread across the country. Presently there are 62 military cantonments and over 200 military stations in the country. The intention of the Britishers in establishing cantonments was to locate the army away from towns in open country, where they could reside and train and possibly be away from the influence of the freedom struggle. It must be remembered that the British employed the army in supressing the freedom struggle.

Cantonments thus were open, green and well protected areas for the military to reside. They possessed within them small pockets of civil areas which had shops providing basic amenities and some residences. With passage of time, towns grew close to cantonments for provision of services essential to maintain them as also for additional security.

Post-Independence and economic growth, builder lobbies sought the advantage of clean and green cantonments to build colonies in open grounds around them. An essential part of many cantonments were military farms created for providing fresh produce for soldiers residing in these cantonments, which are presently on the verge of closure.

To run cantonments, the British had enacted the Cantonment Act of 1924, which was reviewed, and a fresh act issued in 2006. To ensure smooth running of the cantonments, the British created the Military Lands and Cantonment Service in 1926. This service is presently known as the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES). The service is headed by the Director General Defence Estates (DGDE). The initial aim behind creating this service was to hire professionals to manage land and services within the cantonment, thus relieving soldiers from this responsibility.

Management of cantonment lands has three aspects. The land is owned by the MoD, utilized by the army and managed by the DGDE, a complete state of confusion. Defence lands also include a multitude of defunct ordnance factories which should be closed at the earliest. Over the years the DGDE discarded its primary aim and became a law by itself. Its involvement in land scams went to such an extreme level that in 2010, the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) in a report recommended its disbandment.

The report held the DGDE responsible for failures in all its four charters, audit, accounting, acquisition of lands and fiscal management. It is blamed for piling up 13,000 land dispute cases, now in courts, which would cost the government 5,000 crore to settle. Salary to its staff alone costs the exchequer 200 crores annually.

In cantonments, the DGDE is responsible for all aspects of provision of facilities for its civilian populace akin to municipal authorities in cities. It runs hospitals, schools, provides facilities including power, water and sanitation. It collects taxes and rentals as also charges all heavy vehicles transiting on its roads. However, its income remains well below its expenditure which needs to be offset by grants from the centre upto the tune of over 450 crores. Since they function as separate entities, they are ignored by the state from central grants allocated for development.

Post the Adarsh scam the MoD issued ‘Guidelines for grant of no-objection Certificates for building construction’ in Jun 2011. Under these guidelines the army is to provide sanction for any civilian construction within 100 meters and for four storey buildings and beyond within 500 meters of military establishments. This is to be given by the station commander after satisfying himself that the building does not impinge on security concerns. These rules have led to anger within the builders’ community, many of whose projects have been stalled during construction and are presently battling these directives in court. However, for the armed forces, these guidelines add to its security.

Military stations on the contrary were established post-independence and remain under the control of military authority. There are no civilian pockets within them. The DGDE has minimum role in its functioning and maintenance, except being responsible for the land. These have over the years become ideal townships, with facilities which no municipality can ever dream to provide. Bangalore is an excellent example of multiple military establishments spread across the city, separated by large civilian localities.

Considering the above, the closure of cantonments need to be viewed. Cantonments have largely been failures as the DGDE has failed to care for its civilian population. Civilian pockets remain the most neglected, while areas under the army remain clean, green and well maintained.

In some cantonments there are civilian pockets which are segregated and can be easily handed over to local municipal authorities. Some examples are Gopinath and Sadar Bazar in Delhi, Sadar bazar in Lucknow and the Deolali market and residential areas. There would be many more. However, this is not the situation in every cantonment.

If it is attempted across the board akin to the MoD directive of opening roads, then small army pockets would remain isolated and become a security hazard. Hence it would need to be done on a case by case basis. The easiest would be handing civilian townships outside military dominated areas to municipalities along with the infrastructure created.

Further, if the government is desirous of closing cantonments, then it needs to undertake the following steps. Firstly, convert the MoD guidelines into a government statute thereby ensuring cantonments/ future military stations are protected from unwarranted constructions which become a security hazard.

Secondly, hand over civil townships within cantonments to local municipal corporations. This would save over 450 crores available to the army for modernization. The remaining areas, even with limited civilian population be converted to military stations.

Thirdly, commence the disbandment of the DGDE on similar lines as military farms as areas are handed over. Maintaining them would only be a financial drain. They should be offered alternate posts/ early retirement. Only a core group would need to be maintained. It would save the exchequer 200 crores.

Fourthly, all open grounds within cantonments/ under the charge of cantonments, including parade grounds become part of military stations. Fifthly, close defunct ordnance factories and dispose their lands.

Finally and most importantly the MoD should not consider cantonment lands as commercial lands available for sale to builders or select relatives and friends of the political hierarchy, as this would be closely monitored by the press and the military lobby.

The proposal of closing cantonments does sound logical as managing them including its growing civilian population is becoming prohibitive in costs, eating into the defence budget and restricting modernization of the armed forces. However, the same should be done in a sequential manner. Enactment of laws to ensure security and sanctity of military stations emerging from present cantonments is absolutely essential.

Opening of cantonment roads must be reviewed The Statesman 03 Jul 18

On 20th May, Nirmala Sitharaman issued directions for the opening of all cantonment roads across the country. Her claims of the army being taken on board appear to have been misleading as despite the army chief defending her statement, all roads have not been opened, as reports from Secunderabad indicate. Had the army been taken into confidence and agreed with her decision, such a state would never have arisen.

This decision infuriated the serving, veteran and well-wishers concerned with security of army families. It led to the greatest divide between the army and civilians residing around the cantonments, who had taken cantonment roads for personal use as a right. It also opened doors for builders to construct more colonies around cantonments and enhance their rates as cantonments are always the cleanest and least polluted regions in cities, and colonies around them, prime properties.

The decision ignored rulings on the same by the Hyderabad High Court which had ruled in the army’s favour and directed local municipal authorities to evolve a solution. Rather than questioning municipal authorities and insisting they act, Nirmala ordered the army to open all roads. The decision was taken to appease residents and possibly gain additional votes, ignoring the army’s desperate calls for loss of security. Even post meeting a delegation of army wife’s Nirmala failed to act.

The order categorically stated removal of all barriers and checks at entry points. Thus, cantonments became freeways and laxer than even hotels and multiplexes. The political implications of the decision were evident when BJP workers celebrated outside cantonments and drove huge vehicle columns with party flags prominently displayed.

Based on her orders, in many places temporary structures created to ensure security were removed and monitoring stopped. Locals, who had earlier stayed away from cantonments fearing armed security personnel deployed at multiple places, entered, argued and even challenged those on duty. The army, which is the instrument of last resort, lives in cantonments segregated from local public and meant to be aloof as its nature of employment is such, is now no longer a force which would be feared or respected.

Her directions that further closure of roads would be decided by her ministry has clearly sent a message that she has no faith in her own army generals, who are supposed to be responsible for all those residing in the cantonments and serve under them. They can launch soldiers into battle which lead to loss of lives, direct forces capable of mass destruction, but are incapable of deciding on security within their own regions. The biggest joke of the year in decision making at the national level.

Her directions indicate her preference to bureaucrats, either officials in her ministry or members of defence estates, which is widely viewed as the most corrupt central government service and recommended for disbandment by Anthony and the CAG. Those involved in taking the decision have no clue on issues concerning security and are least concerned as it is not their responsibility.

Over familiarization of the army has reduced the fear of the force within Kashmiri’s and they have begun to challenge its presence by throwing stones. It has also been termed as an occupier in the valley. The same would be the state in most cities where cantonment boards exist, and roads have been opened for public use. In Haryana during the last riots, the army flag marched carrying placards indicating army, now in areas where public fear has been removed by open movement and no restrictions, their impact during maintenance of law and order would be reduced.

In places where all roads have not yet been opened, the public has begun to protest and complain to the MoD and other local military authorities. In these cantonments the army has begun being viewed as anti-public and hatred for it is on the rise. Non-opening of all roads has added to the army-civil divide which never existed in the last seventy years.

At the time of implementation of the order, Nirmala had promised a review of the roads after a month, based on data of usage and security issues. It is now over a month since she took the decision. The flooding of social media against her decision as also anger within the serving community should have by now woken her to the fact that her decision has caused more harm than good. She faced wrath across the board, other than from the few which it benefitted, including local politicians and builder lobbies.

The data which she would have desired would now be available to her ministry. Further actions would be dependent on what her perceptions are. If she has taken the decision to help builder lobbies or gain a few votes, then like the Reddy Commission report, which remains under study for almost two years, so would this data. She would continue repeating in every press conference that the data is under study or she has desired more details.

If she decides to continue with her present decision and does not authorise senior army authorities to consider and implement at local levels, then the message being conveyed is clear. It is that for her, the government and the BJP, army family’s security and preservation of cantonment means nothing. It could also imply that this is the first stage of encroaching on defence land and more would follow. Cantonments would in the future no longer be the preserve of the military and prime land would be sold for political and financial gains.

Further, growing anger against her decision is only reducing support to her party from those who had openly and wholeheartedly backed them in 2014. With 2019 already being billed as a difficult battle for the party, it would only become more difficult because the government and Nirmala failed to judge national support for the army.

Bureaucratic-military divide CENJOWS 02 Jul 18

The latest in the list of issues enhancing the divide between the bureaucracy and the military and impacting the status of the armed forces is the sanctioning of additional vacancies and improving promotional prospects of the AFHQ-CS (Armed Forces HQ Civil Service) in their cadre review. The cabinet had sanctioned additional posts of seven new Principal Directors (four are already existing) and thirty-six new directors for the AFHQ-CS, to be created in service HQs and not the MoD.

The AFHQ-CS was created as an internal group B secretariat support cadre for the armed forces HQs. Hence additional vacancies allocated in service HQs should have been considered after their approval as they remain the most affected. However, this was not done. There are almost 100 surplus AFHQ-CS cadre officers already existing in service HQs. Additional vacancies will result in creating a 300% surplus cadre, an immense financial drain to the nation.

It was certified in the cadre review that the restructuring does not incur any increase in strength, however the restructuring is based on an enhanced strength of almost 600, which is its present strength. To further justify the review, non- existent posts have been shown as surrendered.

The reason given in the review was acute stagnation, whereas the reality is that their promotions are even faster than the IAS/IPS/IFS, armed forces lagging far behind. As per government orders, post lying vacant for two years cannot be filled, without approval, yet the same have been included in available vacancies, without taking prior approval of the MoF. All rules have been bypassed to have this cadre review pushed. Other rules, including ‘adhoc’ and ‘in-situ’ promotions, which do not exist in the rules of AFHQ-CS, have been implemented on a regular basis.

Immense water has flowed under the bridge since the cadre came into being in 1968. The world over, the mantra is amalgamation of the armed forces into the defence ministry for better functioning and faster decision making. In India it is the reverse. Stumbling blocks are being placed between the force HQs, which are meant to act, and the MoD which is supposed to issue guidelines and policy.

The MoS defence, Subash Bhamre, in a presentation to the PM on functioning of the MoD, in matters related to Make in India stated, “The reason for delays are myriad, ranging from multiple and diffused structures with no single point accountability, multiple decision heads, duplication of processes, avoidable redundant layers, delayed comments, delayed decisions and delayed executions.”

He added, ‘There is the evident lack of synergy between the stakeholders that is among the various departments of the MoD. The departments appear to be working in independent silos driven by policy and procedures.” Creating additional illegal posts would only enhance stumbling pillars.

India is possibly the only country where decision-making and coordination on national security has still to come of age. Military decisions are made by those who neither seek to give the armed forces their due and lack even basic military knowledge. None who are in the precincts of the MoD have ever worn a uniform, faced a bullet, aware of problems faced by the soldier nor are seriously concerned about his welfare.

They only seek the perks and benefits including facilities which the appointment offers including vehicles and canteen facilities. They have also begun moving for appointments within the Armed Forces Tribunal, which is specifically meant to resolve cases related to the armed forces, without possibly even being aware of the charter of duties and the rules and regulations which govern military service.

The army HQs in a letter to multiple government departments including the MoD on the issue of additional vacancies to the AFHQ-CS cadre stated, “Creation of these unwanted/surplus posts is not only a violation of PMOs directive on ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ but also a drain on public funds and a recurring loss to the state.” As per the army, the MoD justified these additional vacancies by surrendering 44 posts of cleaning staff.

The cleaning staff posts were neither part of the AFHQ-CS cadre, nor do they exist, as the task has been outsourced to a private agency. Clearly additional vacancies created were based on half-truths, which surprisingly was pushed through the cabinet by tweaking rules and regulations. It appears that the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) under the PMO, handling the case, was either unaware or taken into confidence.

In India, decisions within the MoD, which would impact the functioning of the armed forces, are never discussed with service chiefs before being projected. The final decision is thrust down their throats, forcing them to project their displeasure subsequently, as has happened in this case. In the government all functioning is strictly as per hierarchy, hence the more the layers, the greater the delay, as each would seek to exert their own brand of delay and justice.

The MoD in response to queries on this issue made a small statement commenting that the financial impact was ‘not much’. This proved that the cadre restructuring of AFHQ-CS was juggled, even though it was not justified. Immediately post the cadre review, postings to appointments within service HQs was issued. These were turned down strongly by the chiefs, only increasing the ongoing tussle for supremacy between multiple cadres existing within the MoD.

Instead of creating a 300% surplus cadre for a non-functional entity (AFHQ-CS), which should have been disbanded decades ago, the aim should have been a steady replacement of the cadre by serving and at lower levels by veterans. This would have changed the work ethos and character of the MoD. Instead of amalgamating the MoD with service HQs, this move will ensure that amalgamation is pushed away.

The government must re-examine the case, check the veracity of claims put forth in the cadre review and then take a final decision. In case the claims are wrong and unjustified, as claimed by the army, then those responsible for pushing the case must be taken to task. It should look towards amalgamating service HQs and MoD, reduce friction between the bureaucracy and the uniformed, rather than adding layers in functioning, increasing battle for appointments and enhance stumbling pillars.

Lateral recruitments in defence ministry The Statesman 19 Jun 18

The government last week issued an advertisement inviting talented and motivated citizens in specific fields to join in direct recruitment as Joint Secretaries (JS) in the government of India. They would be on initial contract for a period of three years, extendable to five. The fields chosen were financial services, economic affairs, agriculture, cooperation and farmers’ welfare, road transport and highways, shipping, environment, forest and climate change, new and renewable energy, civil aviation and commerce.

The fields selected does imply specialization, which is the least of traits of the present system of bureaucracy. Supporting this approach, Shah Faesal, a former IAS officer of the J and K cadre and presently the Edward S Mason Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, writes in The Print, ‘The structure of the UPSC exam is such that people enter the IAS with a variety of educational backgrounds and end up in a system where a potato expert is looking after defence, a veterinary doctor is supervising engineers, a history graduate is dictating health policy and so on.”

He quotes his own experience stating that as a medical science graduate he has served in agriculture, rural development, revenue administration, school education and energy sectors, implying in everything else, but his speciality. In Faesal’s opinion an IAS officer at the JS level only acts as an interpreter between a marginalised technocrat and the politician. Therefore, he opines that domain experts would enter the system as ‘rescue pilots’ to rid the system of mediocrity.

There were essential requirements in terms of qualifications and experience for direct entry domain experts. Educational qualifications indicate minimum a degree with a preference for higher education. Experience stated is minimum 15 years. This has been chosen with a reason, as an IAS officer takes about 16 years to become a JS. Therefore, those who are selected cannot possess lesser service.

The government is seeking domain experts in select fields where they could become game changers. They would provide the expertise which could act as a catalyst for development. A domain expert possesses theoretical and practical knowledge in the field and can bring about immense changes in the system. In most specialities, domain experts are readily available.

This is possibly the first time the government has formally advertised for direct recruitment. However, there have been multiple occasions when individuals have been directly selected because of their expertise and even appointed as secretaries to the government. A few names which come to light are Mantosh Sondhi who was appointed in the department of heavy industry, DV Kapur in the department of power, Dr Verghese Kurien as chairman of the national dairy development board and KPP Nambiar headed the department of electronics.

The most prominent amongst the ministries lacking complete knowledge of the task which they are expected to perform is the Ministry of Defence (MoD). It is packed with civilians, none of whom can even claim to possess the basic knowledge essential for ensuring and monitoring national security. Its senior staff is inducted from various cadres and by the time they even gain basic knowledge, they move ahead. Not a single member of the ministry would have ever worn a uniform nor held a weapon and definitely never faced a bullet. Its multiple branches which deal with defence matters, defence land, finance, ordnance factories, procurement and welfare have those at the helm with no knowledge or understanding of the masses they are required to support.

Thus, it has failed on multiple fronts, whether it be procurement, managing defence, development of R and D, production in ordnance factories, welfare of ex-servicemen amongst others. This has resulted in an increased divide between the uniformed and the MoD. The ministry has therefore come in for criticism on almost every occasion. In multiple cases it has faced the wrath of the parliamentary committee of defence. This is the ministry which desperately needs staff with domain knowledge, if it must fulfil its task of national security.

The armed forces are the only organization in the country, where the rise is always from the bottom’s up. It has and would never have any mid-level inductees. As an officer grows in stature, his knowledge is built on three pillars, institutional training, operational assignments and self-development. Hence, domain knowledge on military matters can only come from those who have donned the uniform.

Enhancing domain knowledge within the MoD implies selecting those in uniform in an equivalent manner as is being done in select ministries. Those nominated would need to shed their uniform, resign from the service and join the MoD. If the government seeks direct entrants at the JS level, then logically those being considered should be at the serving Major General level. They would then function as an integral part of the MoD and would not be considered on deputation, as it could impact service interest. Retired staff should be absorbed in veteran affairs and welfare of ex-servicemen. This would change the outlook and performance of the MoD. It could bring positivity into a system considered unresponsive and ignorant.

Similarly, service HQs too could do with domain experts in specific technical fields. Some which immediately come to mind are cyber security, communications and weapon technology, where market knowledge would be far higher. Some posts within the service, mainly handling recruitment and retirement could become the charter of the IAS at appropriate ranks, rather than being with those in service, as their experience would be greater.

This decision could be considered as a stepping stone for further amalgamation of service HQs with the MoD. The irritants which presently exist, mainly leading to multiple delays as those at the helm lack military domain knowledge, would be removed and the system be more amenable for the future. Hopefully, the government would take this step in the near future.

Did Rawat speak for himself or Sitharaman on Cantonment Roads? The Quint 15 Jun 18

In a press conference two days ago, the army chief General Bipin Rawat supported the opening of cantonment roads. He stated, ‘If a road is being planned for a particular civil area, should we close it and think we are above everyone else’. He quoted two examples. The first example he gave was of walking plaza’s which exist in select cantonments and are open for everyone, including local public.

In the case of walking plazas, the roads are shut for two hours in the morning and evening, to encourage walkers from all over the city. In Lucknow, there are more civilian than army walkers on the road in the morning and evening. Walking plazas are very popular. There has never been any hinderance to those residing on these roads, nor for those visiting. They are always permitted to move but are required to drive slowly, the right of way remains with the walkers and children playing.

The second example he gave was of Pune where there was a communal graveyard, the shortest route for which was through the cantonment. Realizing that it was inconveniencing the local public the road was opened. He concluded his comments while stating, ‘You are irritating people by closing roads. If you have to manage security, then manage it. Right now, you have a false sense of security when you feel you are secured in a closed environment. We can’t put civilians away. People will start becoming hostile.’

These are words which have been welcomed by the public, mainly those residing in Secunderabad. Immediately there were comments from the city that 14 more roads have yet to be opened and demands for opening those roads rose.

Did the chief speak on his own accord or was he requested to do so by the minister, who has been facing flak from every direction on her blanket decision to open all roads. By having the army chief speak, the defence minister would have hoped to offset some flak which she has been facing since then, from both the serving and veteran community. Any statement by the chief was expected to reduce tempers and possibly put the minds of the serving at rest.

Analysing the chief’s comments would clearly indicate that it was not made of his own free will but done at the behest of a beleaguered defence minister. Being a responsible officer, he would never admit, but the comments and examples are clearly indicative. It is also possible that he was asked a specific question, to which for the first time, be gave a generic answer, without directions nor clarity.

No road in Secunderabad has been planned for a ‘particular civil area’ as the chief stated. They are all army roads, made for the army’s use, which are being been exploited as builders have created colonies around the cantonments. Hence the army has not shut any civil road, which has ‘been planned for a particular area’. Hence his words do not imply that the army will open closed roads, since none were planned for ‘a particular area’.

The entire community of Secunderabad, which is fighting for the opening of the roads has never once quoted the high court judgement of 2014, which has legally authorised the army to close roads, which it desires for security purposes, while tasking the municipal authority to construct alternate ones. It has neither been mentioned by the army chief, nor the defence minister.

Walking plazas would and should continue to exist, as they benefit all communities of the city, not the army community. There has been no decision to close any.

Further, the chief is also aware of the problems of families residing alone. He knows that their security cannot be overlooked. Since management of security within a cantonment is the responsibility of the Local Military Authority (LMA), it cannot be overruled. He never stated that all roads must open, despite where they lead and through which areas they transit. That has been left to conjecture and discretion of the LMA.

It is only post the unilateral decision taken by the defence minister to open all cantonments has there been an increase in hostility against the army, as stated by the chief. Opening all roads, without even basic checks, has added to anger within the service, which has been carefully avoided by the army chief in his comments. He gave an example of Pune, clearly avoiding roads which are under dispute or being requested to be opened.

Thus, while local authorities would feel that the army chief has given a blanket direction to open all roads, it is not so. He gave comments which were general, neither binding nor forceful. His examples were also equally generic. This was the least forceful of all his press conferences, in which he always speaks with conviction and clarity. It clearly emerges that the chief spoke, because the defence minister, visualizing a political fallout of her hasty decision, is seeking to deflect some anger, which could impact vote banks away.

Hence, for those hoping that his comments would open all roads, may be expecting too much. Even the defence minister’s belief that the chief’s comments would reduce anger of the serving and veterans may not happen.

Acting against our own army minister? Deccan Herald 15 Jun 18

On a debate on News 18 on 08 Jun, in which I was a participant, the anchor thanked the BJP spokesperson for agreeing to come for the debate. She claimed that many spokespersons of the party whom the channel approached, stated that the topic being very sensitive, they were wary of participating. The topic was the last announcement by the Nirmala Sitharaman on the opening of all roads on the cantonment. The BJP had never expected the strong response this one action received.

Probably the defence ministry neither did its study on the subject nor did it anticipate the outflow of public anger, which followed their action. The root of the problem was Secunderabad, where multiple colonies have mushroomed around the army cantonment and residents of these colonies used army roads for commuting. However, post attacks on army camps in Kaluchak and Sanjuwan, restrictions began being placed, which angered residents. There were no serious concerns with any other cantonment.

The MoD ignored the court order of 2014, which would have impacted its unilateral decision. Two PILs were filed in 2014, PIL No 62 and 82. The Judge gave his decision on 26 Sep 2014. Para 56 of the Judgement read, ‘Ultimately the General Officer Commanding (GOC) is the authority who has to take decisions in the best interest of the army. This court has no expertise to decide on when to impose restrictions and how to impose restrictions.’

Para 62 of the same judgement states, ‘Conscious of the difficulties of commuters, the army authorities have imposed restrictions in a phased manner. Subject to security concerns and training schedules, it is for the GOC to allow civil traffic till alternative road network is developed. It is necessary for the civic administration to take immediate urgent measures so that civilians are not put to inconvenience and hardships.’ The court also ordered the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and its District Collector to submit a report within two months.

If the civil administration has not acted, they should be taken to task, why should the army be made responsible. Praise should go to the army authorities in Secunderabad, who despite the court order permitted limited movement. Similarly, they need to be credited for not opening roads which impact the security of their families.

The defence minister claimed that she had taken the army on board and it was a collective decision. If she as the defence minister had decided, disobeying would imply mutiny, which is not an Indian army ethos, hence was obeyed. The Press Information Bureau release by the MoD on 20 May stated, ‘Based on the review undertaken by Smt Sitharaman the following has been decided. All closed roads in the cantonments to be reopened forthwith. The closure of individual roads would be reviewed de novo.’ Thus, it was not a collective decision. Based on these directions the army issued its orders opening all roads with effect from 22 May.

The MoD letter on 28th May clearly indicated her refusal to trust her own army generals, who may be capable of leading troops in war, countering security threats and taking life/ death decisions in deciding closure of roads. The letter stated that all decisions on closure of roads would be done by the MoD. It implied that either the defence secretary or principal director defence estates, who have no idea of the cantonment concerned, nor knowledge on security would determine if closure of roads. Completely illogical.

The fact that her decision was meant to assuage her party followers was evident when members of her party celebrated in Khadki and Danapur. They celebrated a symbolic victory over its own army, which was neither criticized nor was a statement issued against it, by any party hierarchy. Similar was the comment by Gadkari in Mumbai, when he stated that ‘not an inch of land would be given to the navy’. One does not require rocket science to deduce the BJP’s intentions.

Her meeting families only implies postponing what has already been decided. While officers’ accommodations are fewer and wider spread, those of jawans are closer and in larger clusters, adding to security issues. Therefore, anger flows from across the rank and file of the army. A glance through social media would bare open the anger.

Is she aware that already reports of misbehaviour by locals and damage to property, belonging to families living alone has begun emerging? I wonder if she has met Soumyadip Jana, the fifteen-year old, first victim of the Sanjuwan terror strike, who remains in coma even after five months. His was the first house that terrorists struck. Memories of such incidents would always haunt soldiers serving on the borders, while their families are in peace stations far away.

She would have been briefed that major cantonments arteries have always been open and only minor arteries are closed. Ordering removal of all checks, makes cantonments more vulnerable than malls and hotels. In fact, the logical decision should have been done on a case by case basis, rather than a unilateral one, across the board. Protests outside the cantonment in Secunderabad demanding opening every axis have divided the nation as never before.

The BJP is now in a catch 22 situation. If it unilaterally withdraws its order, those whom it sought to pacify would be up in arms, impacting local vote banks. If it continues with the decision, it would anger the serving and veteran community and impact their votes. The armed forces community is already boiling with the BJP for multiple issues, however this is the icing on the cake.

I do hope the top brass of the government considers the ramifications of this hasty and ill-conceived decision taken by the MoD and seeks to reverse it, before a mishap occurs which will definitely put the ruling party in the dumps and be exploited by every opposition party to full advantage. This decision could then be the catalyst for its downfall in 2019.

Opening roads in cantonments on the request of MPs (English Version) Rakshak news 13 Jun 18

In a report released to the press seeking to justify its decision on opening of roads in cantonments, the defence ministry stated that the decision was influenced by letters to the defence minister by MPs, cutting across party lines, representing multiple states. The MPs sought opening cantonment roads to provide better and easier access to the population residing in its vicinity.

The MoD justified its decision by stating that the roads ordered for opening were closed without following due procedure, including seeking approval of the cantonment boards. Security of cantonments is an army responsibility, hence seeking sanction of cantonment roads does not arise, as claimed by the MoD.

The statement did mention that a delegation of army families met the defence minister and that the MoD’s decision would open access to military areas which were earlier restricted as also enhance security risks, especially for separated families which reside alone in cantonments, while their husbands are posted in insurgency or border regions. The defence ministry reported this meeting but gave no indication of further actions.

Cantonments have existed since pre-Independence. Colonies established around cantonments, did so, assuming access through it would always be available. As security risks began to increase, especially post attacks in Satwari and Sunjuwan army camps, where family quarters were specifically targeted, entry to cantonments began to become restricted.

The civil population had objected to the army’s unilateral decisions and even approached the courts in Hyderabad, as they were most affected in Secunderabad. The Hyderabad High Court ruled in the army’s favour, which would have happened elsewhere too, had the public approached the courts, which the MoD conveniently ignored. It has never mentioned this in its justifications.

Passing a unilateral direction on opening roads and removing all checks and barriers have made the cantonments vulnerable and enhanced security risks. It has led to the greatest divide between the local populace and the army in the history of the nation. The celebrations by a section of the BJP in Pune and Danapur was deplorable and represented the ruling party celebrating a symbolic victory.

The MoD went further and issued directions that further decisions on closing of roads would need their sanction. This was meant to convey a message that the defence minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, does not trust her own army generals, who otherwise can launch troops into battle, take life and death decisions and care for the families of those posted away, to take decisions pertaining to their own security by closing limited arteries. This decision would now be taken by the defence secretary and the principal director defence estates, who have no clue on security matters.

The MoD, seeking to deflect the blame from itself, announced that the army was also consulted on the issue. The reality, which needs to be understood, is that once decided, the army may have objected, but beyond that has no choice but to implement. Disregarding the orders would be against democratic norms. No army chief, especially aware of recent incidents would have openly accepted such orders. He can also neither raise his objections in the public domain. Hence, the claims appear to be more to cover the wrong decision of the ministry.

The MoD has planned a review after a month. It is highly unlikely that it would make any changes, as it has tied its hands and feet by a hasty order.

Hence, the government is now in a bind. If it cancels the orders, it would face the wrath of those whom it sought to help and would lose votes, as the issue would be politically challenged by the opposition. If it continues with its decision, it would enhance the anger within the military community, both serving and veterans and lose their votes and trust. This would also be exploited by the opposition to either split the votes of the military community or push them into voting for NOTA, which would benefit the opposition.

Further, one incident in any station, especially targeting families, even by local miscreants, would be openly exploited by every opposition political party, in the run up to 2019. In any option, the government would lose. A hasty decision, taken to appease vote banks has boomeranged as never before.

Coalition governments and national security The Excelsior 13 Jun 18

India has begun gearing up for 2019. Every nation would await the decision of the world’s largest democracy on who would hold the mantle for the next five years. For India’s enemies or those who have been impacted by the present single government’s hard-line policies, a change at the centre is essential. It would be better with a mixed coalition, with a large representation of regional parties, which could leave the government directionless.

If the recent Karnataka elections and by-polls held across the nation are to become the norm, it would probably be a battle between just two parties, the BJP on one side and all others as a combined force opposing. It is probably the first time that the nation has been so polarised, solely to defeat a single powerful party, led by an orator not seen in India for a long time.

India as a country has witnessed coalition politics only in the last three decades, while Israel has lived with it since its emergence. Choosing Israel as an example has multiple reasons. Both have had a near similar period of independence and face multiple threats and challenges. However, due to size, regional parties dominate in India, not Israel. The growth of Israel, both economically and militarily, would indicate that coalition politics is equally effective and could lead to the growth of the nation, unless the beliefs of the coalition partners are so far apart that national agenda is pulled in different directions. This could happen if regional parties dominate the centre.

If national elections are fought on regional, communal and caste agenda’s, with only two contenders, BJP versus the rest, then regional parties are likely to dominate. Further, if anger against the ruling coalition is amplified by increased NOTA votes, then the impact is the same. If regional parties dominate results in their regions then the bias of the central government would shift inwards, rather than outwards.

The government would be akin to a pot of mixed vegetables. Minister’s from these parties would only look towards their state, rather than the nation. Central Minister’s from regional parties in earlier governments developing new projects only in their own states are examples.

For national security a cohesive government at the centre is imperative.

Each government comes to power with its own beliefs on national security and its implications. Some view national security as essential, while others tend to gloss over it, unless there is a direct threat. It was downplayed by the UPA, because there was no immediate threat facing the nation and there was a strong amalgamation of regional parties within it. Since Doklam and increased tensions with Pak, scenarios have changed. National security can no longer take the back seat. The world has also begun looking at India being a security provider, hence developing capabilities cannot be ignored.

Few governments devoted effort to developing military capabilities, while others have ignored it, aware that threats are still some distance away. Few appointed thinkers and strategists at the helm of national security, seeking to enhance India’s military reach, while others concentrated on economic development, believing economy to have a greater leverage than military power. The background and perception of the leader directed the approach of the government.

Some sought to open dialogue to resolve internal and external issues, while others stuck to their stand, unwilling to budge. Some sought to enhance the military’s outreach by participating in international groupings, while others kept the nation’s military away from the limelight, focussed inwards, rather than outwards.

The difference between a single party dominated government, within a coalition, and a multi-party coalition with regional allies is their outlook to national security. In the present BJP and earlier Congress governments (During the tenures of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi), national security was the prerogative of the head of the government, unaffected by coalition partners. Thus, the government could push its own agenda on national security issues, based on its own beliefs. Pushing the Indian army into Sri Lanka or the present government adopting a hard stance against Pak and sticking to its guns in Doklam are examples.

In case of a coalition government, where partners at the regional level possess enough political clout to impact central decisions, national security is impacted by the quality of leadership of the main political party at the centre. Regional parties seeking control of key ministries including defence, over which it has no genuine interest, except of its importance and budgetary allocations, would impact development of capabilities and enhancement of military power.

Regional parties would demand more funds for development for their own states, rather than on central security projects, as political survival is more important than national security. Hence, the more number of parties which form a part of the coalition including the number of seats which they control, the lesser is the emphasis on national security.

From a national security perspective, the nation may have any government, headed by any political party, however what remains essential is that the main stakeholder party, which in the Indian context is the BJP or Congress, should be strong enough to ensure its agenda on national security remains at the core. If it is almost as weak as its alliance partners, internal political issues would dominate its time, while national security and development of military capabilities would become secondary.

Considering the above, it is evident, that a coalition of almost all parties less the BJP, as is presently emerging, would result in the government being a mix of the ‘good, bad and the ugly’, each having its own local agenda, least concerned with issues at the national level. Most of the parties being local, the desire would remain regaining their hold in respective states. Thus, the nation would lose.

However, for the present set of political leaders, as was on display in Karnataka and earlier in Goa and Meghalaya, it is not who obtains the largest number of seats, but how to keep the main rival away. Shaking hands and playing second fiddle to the devil would be more acceptable than handing over the state to an adversary.

Which way would India vote? Would a single party emerge strong enough to make decisions or would it be controlled by regional parties from the background? The answer may be out in 2019, but before that we need to consider, what would we desire.

Was Nirmala Sitharaman selective with facts in her press conference? The Quint 06 Jun 18

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.

Why opening up of Cantonment roads is a bad idea Newslaundry 04 Jun 18

With one nod of her head, Nirmala Sitharaman has caused the greatest divide between the armed forces and civilian community in the country in the nation’s seventy-year history. Social media is abuzz with the pro-military and anti-military lobby, solely on the closing and subsequent opening of roads within cantonments. An editorial in The Statesman even went on to threaten that opening cantonments would pave the way for more skeletons to fall from the army’s closets. It was signalling a victory over the nation’s army by its own populace.

Initially the battle ground was Secunderabad, which has now spread across the country. A video doing the rounds on social media showed a collection of vehicles with BJP flags forcing their way into Danapur cantonment near Patna, with loud music blaring, celebrating the opening of the cantonment. Similar reports flowed from Pune. The symbolism should not be missed, it was the ruling BJP celebrating a victory over its own army. Is this what Sitharaman wanted? A national insult to the army.

Across the nation, cantonments which were sacred, secure and clean have suddenly become exploitable. Basic checks imposed even in malls and hotels are taboo. Security be damned, anyone and everyone is welcome. Drinking on silent cantonment roads, misbehaving and driving with blaring horns as police visibility is less has increased the vulnerability of residents and made them insecure. Families living alone have suddenly begun feeling threatened and the nation’s secretive equipment is now open for selfies.

Civilians and the military, who had respected one another and understood each other’s concerns have suddenly become enemies, thanks to Nirmala. Demands for access are rising and security has taken a backseat. Cantonments are now becoming a battleground between civil and army authorities and the army being considered as occupiers in their own habitat.

In March 2017, a reporter of the Quint, Poonam Aggarwal, did a sting operation on an innocent jawan in Devlali, leading to him committing suicide. She was booked for illegally entering a prohibited area and abetment to suicide. Now there are no prohibited areas, anyone can go anywhere, do whatever, including click pictures of defence equipment, family accommodation and other installations and post them on all social media sites.

Intelligence agencies apprehending Pak spies possessing photographs of military installations will never be able to obtain conviction in court as cantonments are now open for everyone to walk and click. All this because of a collection of bureaucratic crimes committed by Nirmala.

This article is not to justify the legality of the decision, but the manner adopted and the message it sent across the nation.

Her first bureaucratic crime was that on the advice of her bureaucracy to call a meeting of Vice Presidents of Cantonment Boards across the country and local MPs as also the Principal Director Defence estates. All involved were civilians, whose views were completely one-sided as they had no concern for security, since it remains a military matter. Presidents of cantonment boards, serving army officers and responsible for cantonment security were ignored, nor were their views even sought. This was because she had already planned her decision.

In attendance was a sole army representative, DG LWE, whose role was to issue directions on decisions taken. Claims of having discussed with the army chief makes no sense as the army representatives from the affected regions were not even invited, nor consulted. The army chief, ironically was in Kashmir, reviewing the security situation. If the decision was meant to be unbiased then she should have visited some cantonments to understand the reasons why restrictions had been placed and whether a unilateral decision was essential, or maybe it could have been taken on a case by case basis.

The second major crime was issuing a unilateral order, spread across the nation, opening all roads, irrespective of where they were headed. An unthinkable act, by a ministry and a minister, whose prime responsibility is ensuring national security.

The third crime was to issue a subsequent letter, stating that if any roads are to be closed in future, the MoD was to be the final authority. It clearly implies lack of trust on the military and a decision to be taken by a bureaucrat, who is neither responsible nor accountable for security. Finally, the most heinous of all crimes was that post the meeting with representatives of affected families of serving military personnel, she promised a review after a month, clearly implying, your security means little, local votes mean more.

These four crimes, when looked at in totality would hurt the BJP in forthcoming elections, despite any promises Modi may make or any action his government may take to appease the serving or veteran community. Nirmala is now jammed. Going back on her decision would anger her local politicians whom she jumped up to satisfy. It would also anger the locals, whom she supposedly helped by opening all roads.

If she sticks to her decision, millions of veterans and serving soldiers, families and near and dear one’s are most likely to vote against the government. Further, if there are no new orders within a month, it would amplify that families who met her, meant nothing, only votes did. If she feels that there is no major competition against the BJP, NOTA is strongly doing the rounds amongst all military communities and would only increase as elections draw close.

This one action has caused more hatred against the ruling party, than every other earlier decision including non-implementation of OROP, removal of rations or even no NFU. There are millions within the country who have understood what the armed forces mean to the nation, and this lobby is projecting a very strong anti-BJP bias on social media.

One criminal or militant incident where a separated family is eve teased or molested or attacked even by locals, now openly entering cantonment, would hit the government in the face. She would neither have a face to show the nation’s soldiers nor her government ever be trusted.

With her hasty decision of opening roads without seeking the right advice from those that matter, she has increased vulnerability of cantonments. Her actions have led to the nation celebrating victory over its own army, treating them as the enemy. She has highlighted that the army will be exploited for elections but ignored and dumped thereafter.

This action will boomerang as internal anger, disappointment and loss of trust are creating an anti-BJP environment within the serving, veteran and pro armed forces lobby within the country. It would be exploited by all other political parties.

Is opening army cantonments the right decision? The Excelsior 31 May 18

The recent unilateral decision by the defence minister in opening army cantonments across the nation, without taking the views of the army hierarchy, solely based on inputs from the Defence Estates Officer (DEO) and MPs is a major retrograde step. As per press reports this decision was taken unilaterally based on requests from MPs of the concerned areas.

MPs, being politicians are only concerned for votes, rather than on understanding the reasons for the army decisions and national security. For them, any decision which would get them a few additional votes is all that counts. Hence, there were celebrations outside cantonments by political parties, all claiming they had the cantonments opened.

Unilateral orders issued were clearly aimed at appeasing the public and local politicians. The army was told to open all roads, remove their checks and barriers and stop questioning or checking vehicles. It is surprising in the present context when even major hotels and malls insist on security checks, including in cars and two wheelers, that the army was instructed to ignore it, remove all barriers and permit free movement.

This decision resulted in a major backlash not only from veterans Army personnel themselves are bound to maintain silence. Apart from sending a letter to the defence minister, the families decided to meet her and press their demands on the lack of security which would flow from her decision. A report in the Financial Express of 28th May stated that the defence minister was willing to reconsider her decision, based on the backlash of her rushed action.

The issue of movement control in cantonments only commenced post the growth of militancy and increasing attacks on military installations. Despite everything, major roads transiting through cantonments are always open to the public, smaller roads are restricted or blocked. It did create problems for residents, whose colonies had mushroomed around cantonments, but were essentially for security reasons.

Cantonments have existed since pre-independence era, are self-contained entities and managed jointly by the DEO and the army. A tussle always exists between the two as the DEO is placed as an independent authority directly under the control of the MoD. Some responsibilities are demarcated, while some are to be managed jointly. Security is always the army’s responsibility, mainly because the cantonment had multiple establishments spread through it, some small and some large. It also has residential areas widely dispersed and, in many cases, unprotected. Free and unchecked movement is always a security risk.

While the army avoids interacting with politicians, the DEO interacts with them and civilian residents as they are part of his responsibilities. Being a civilian cadre, the DEO is naturally influenced by political authority and pressures. Since security is not their responsibility, they would invariably seek to support the public against the army, rather than processing the army’s viewpoint.

It is to ensure security of smaller garrisons and family accommodation within large cantonments that some roads were not designated for civilians. This made managing security easy, as lesser number of troops were required for monitoring. It is a known fact that militants would always seek easy targets and family accommodation are always the easiest, Nagrota, Jammu, Samba and Satwari are examples. Interestingly the government order excludes Jammu and Srinagar from opening its gates.

In many cantonments, separated family accommodation is occupied by those serving on the border or in insurgency areas. Most families are neither residents of the state nor know the local language. They reside here mainly for education purposes and the fact that their husband’s last served here. Further, within cantonments they feel secure being alone with small children, as also are confident that their basic amenities would be cared for. Any militant strike on families always impacts morale of the soldier.

Blocking or restricting move on roads would be a hinderance to those residing close, but as the Indian public has more concern about themselves than the army or the nation, this issue had been flagged to the MoD. Taking a unilateral decision on opening of roads, implications of which is completely lacking within the MoD is solely aimed at securing vote banks.

Further this unilateral decision conveys a message to the nation, that the government has no care of its soldiers or families but only for those from whom it could obtain a few votes. It is like the government showing its broad chest on surgical strikes, during election campaigns, while denying those who conducted it their rights, including OROP, NFU and even rations.

It has failed to realize that in case crime rates in cantonments go up and families living alone are targeted, either by miscreants or militants, due to lack of checks, then it would impact military morale and adversely affect votes from the military community which has placed its complete trust on the present leadership.

Ideally, the government should have been more mature and asked army authorities to review their decision on closure and seek to close minimum roads after due discussion with local political and residential authorities. It is the commander on the ground who is the best judge, not the MoD in Delhi, acting on the advice of the DEO and requests by MPs. A final call could have been made post such a review.

Its haste in passing instructions has resulted in the entire military community, serving and retired, becoming anti-government. This community accepted a poor OROP, no NFU and even removal of entitled rations in silence, but this is possibly the last straw as it impacts security of families residing in segregated lots. To announce within days of issuing a unilateral order, that it is considering reviewing it, indicates a lack of purpose and perspective on the part of the minister and her bureaucrats. The MoD as usual has proved its fickle mindedness and immaturity in decision making.

Perception management in Indo-Pak firing (English Version) Rakshak News 30 May 18

The IB and the LoC are active, casualties are mounting on both sides, civilians being targeted, posts being destroyed with firing all through the day. There were news reports of Pak Rangers seeking peace, post the destruction of their bunker by the BSF in retaliation, however the next day, tempo from their side increased. This could possibly have been on instructions from the army, which considered their request, projected throughout in the Indian media, as an insult to the nation. Simultaneously information continues to flow of terrorists awaiting induction from Pak, which would only be feasible under cover of firing.

Each year post the harvesting of crops on both sides, the quantum of firing increases. This was also confirmed by the BSF when its spokesperson stated that the current spell of border firing was expected as the harvest season is over. A BSF official added, ‘They resort to such acts the disrupt the atmosphere on the border.’ He went on to add, ‘The suspension of operations in the month of Ramzan pertains to actions against militants in the Kashmir valley. It has no bearing on the IB or LOC.’ Hence in the present context the prevailing situation would continue.

Most of the recent firing is on the Jammu border, which is dominated by Dogra’s whose villages extend almost upto the IB. Arnia, the village most targeted is possibly the largest village in the state. The firing along the IB is more to create fear amongst the locals and enhance pressure on the government to seek talks with Pak. Firing along the LoC, on the other hand, is mostly to support infiltration of militants into the valley as Pak is aware that it is losing the battle for Kashmir, as their trained militants are fast losing ground. The elimination of five militants in the Tangdhar sector over the weekend is ample proof.

Most nominated local militant leaders, especially in South Kashmir, are Kashmiri’s who have recently picked the gun and remain untrained and ill-equipped. Infiltration has become a trickle and those that do manage to infiltrate are being eliminated before they reach the interiors. For increased infiltration, the LoC must remain active.

Since enhanced levels of firing was expected, the local public should have been warned and either advised to remain indoors or move to shelters. The aim should have been to reduce own civilian casualties, as it severely impacts local morale and has peaceniks and local politicians screaming for talks.

Simultaneously, own forces deployed along the border would be retaliating to Pak actions. It would be equal or even more vicious from own side, as both sides seek to dominate the border by fire and maintain ascendency. The Indian forces are better equipped, have a free hand to hit back.

The current situation is also a snide warning to peaceniks and local politicians in the valley, who have been harping on talks with Pak. No nation can ever consider talks when its innocent civilians are being targeted and children being killed, as the foreign minister also stated. Mentioning talks at this stage would be a retrograde step and be from a position of weakness, whereas proposals for talks should be taken from a position of strength.

Indian press emphasis is on own casualties with very few reports of retaliation and impact of the same on Pak posts and villages. Unless counter actions gain more media coverage, the perception of own population would be that of us being victims or being dominated by Pak. Their media, controlled directly by the deep state, has made no reference of firing or casualties on their side, which would also have been equal or even more. This results in a one-sided report of casualties, impacting morale of not only the local population but also of the nation.

This one-sided reporting may enhance national anger and add to hatred against Pak, but also conveys the message that they have the upper hand. Perception management therefore needs to be considered such that the true picture of Indian retaliation and Pak casualties is correctly projected. Spokespersons of the BSF and army should therefore regularly provide details of Indian counter actions.

Whether it be the IB or the LoC, reports of the strong retaliation must be projected in local media in the right earnest. The nation must have the confidence that its forces are effective and ensuring security and would never let Pak dominate the border. The right picture is essential for perception management of the national public.

The battle for cantonment roads: civilian versus army The Quint 27 May 18

It began with Secunderabad, where the Local Military Authority (LMA) shut multiple roads for use by civilians residing in colonies located around the cantonment. In some cases, it led to commuters covering an additional distance of seven Kms. Angered residents created multiple social organizations to challenge the authority of the LMA and the powers of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board.

Requests, commencing from Secunderabad and followed by others, on closure of roads and additional checks being imposed on entry into cantonments, were forwarded to the defence minister. The MoD sought details from all cantonment boards on the subject. Cantonment boards are headed by members of the Defence Estates Organization (DEO), but function under guidelines of the LMA. There is always a tussle between the two. DEO representatives have been at the centre of most land scams in cantonment lands. Their replies were bound to be biased.

Post an analysis the MoD issued directions reversing local orders on 21st May. The directions stated that all roads which were partially/ fully closed, would reopen. Barriers/check posts and road blocks would be removed. Traffic would be monitored for a month and a review done thereafter, implying nothing would be done. There were certain exceptions, based on immediate security threats, mainly in J and K. The directions also restricted authority for emergent closure in the future. Management of traffic would be the responsibility of LMA and civil police assistance could be sought for the same.

In most towns, Secunderabad, Delhi, Pune and Kanpur, residential colonies have grown around the cantonments. Older cantonments have markets and schools within and these are invariably accessible. Residents of colonies around the cantonment have preferred cantonment roads as these are clean, well maintained and lit, as also have limited traffic. When these are closed for prolonged durations, anger sets in and this results in friction.

Therefore, closure of roads had become a flash point between the army and civil society. Videos emerging on social media displayed residents questioning jawans on duty, passing insulting remarks and seeking to divide the rank and file. All this while the jawan on duty stood silent, smiling and firm. In Secunderabad, the organizations created by residents apart from being active on social media, also interacted with local political figures, seeking to convey the message of reopening of roads to the MoD.

Most of the older cantonments have existed since pre-independence. These cantonments are large and have within them multiple military establishments, some large, some small, alongside residential accommodation and schools. These are also spread in penny pockets throughout the cantonment. A few of them house families of military personnel posted along the border or battling insurgencies.

Most of the families who live in this accommodation are neither from the state, nor speak the local language, but are compelled to stay, either for the education of their children or because they have no other place to go. It is nigh impossible to provide all pockets with any reasonable sense of security. One of the methods of enhancing security is to restrict movement of non-military personnel through few avenues, thus limiting areas which need to be covered in strength.

The civil society, simply because of the additional inconvenience was unwilling to accept the fact that the army has adopted this action for the purposes of security, not for pleasure nor to put the local population to inconvenience. There have been questions from many in civil society, why should the army fear civilians, after all we are also Indians and have high regard for the army. What is missed out is that an anti-national element, seeking to strike at army morale also masquerades as a local resident, moves with the masses, plants bombs or strikes a residential colony, which is all open and unprotected.

A militant strike in a cantonment impacts national prestige, hence each LMA has as his responsibility the security of the cantonment. Lack of funds preclude construction of walls and fences with high security gadgets which exist in almost all civil residential colonies. With family accommodation spread across the cantonment, lack of security, lack of checks and free movement within, would increase crime, especially against families who reside alone. Lifting the checks which kept anti-nationals and criminals away as has been ordered by the MoD would only add to risks.

While the army could be justified in its stand that the closure was for security purposes, however it failed to correctly convey its directions and decisions. It could have interacted with members of affected colonies and sought to evolve a workable solution. It may not have comprehended the problems being faced by those residing around the cantonment and could have considered reducing the number of roads which it had decided to close. No matter what option it would have adopted, there would always be disgruntled elements seeking to question the same.

The army also failed to realize that it neither has the support of its own ministry or its own populace, who are more concerned about their distances of travel and the ministry of its votes. By announcing unilaterally, the lifting of all restrictions, the government may have gained a few votes, but lost far more from the serving and veterans, who have only seen their interests ignored by the present regime.

As incidents of crime in cantonments increase or in the event of a terror strike, the same minister and her staff would run to blame the army, rather than assume responsibility for reversing a security decision, without taking considered views from all affected parties.

This direct reversal was also indicative of the lack of trust that the defence minister has on army hierarchy or was she seeking to convey a message that she cares a damn for their rank, authority or power. She took the advice of the DEO but failed to understand the army viewpoint. Logically the MoD should have left the decision to army commanders or the level they consider suitable for review, rather than unilaterally reversing it, without being aware of ground realities.

Tinkering with Tribunals will make them useless The Statesman 22 May 18

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was established as a military tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal act in 2007. This was based on the Law Commission’s 169th report of 1999, which stated that disciplinary and service matters of military personnel required quick resolution and proposed a special tribunal for the same for para military and armed forces. The act was steered through parliament only by the defence ministry, leaving para military, Assam Rifles and Coast Guard out.

The principal bench of the AFT is based in Delhi and it has regional benches at Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kolkata, Guwahati, Chennai, Kochi, Mumbai and Jaipur. Except for Chandigarh and Lucknow, which have three benches each, all others have a single bench. Each bench comprises of a judicial member, who is a retired high court judge, and an administrative member, who is a retired member of the armed forces.

In a democracy, the judiciary by nature is lenient. However, the armed forces because of their role and task must follow a disciplined structure, without which they would fail. Hence, the armed forces are governed by their respective acts and rules which are the army act of 1950, air force act of 1950 and the navy act of 1957 and the Defence Services Regulations. Disciplinary punishments, granted under respective acts, are periodically challenged in AFTs. Unless the circumstances and specific regulations are clarified to the judge, leniency in judgement would impact military discipline.

Further, vagaries and conditions of service are vastly different from any other central government organization, hence AFTs have been liberal in approving disability pensions, which an unrelenting bureaucracy challenges in the supreme court to no avail. To advice the judicial member on service specific issues and apprise him of the conditions of service, an administrative member, who has had decades of service experience is appointed.

Till Jun 2017, the AFT functioned at near full strength and was effective. Post the government issuing unilateral notifications incorporating changes in its composition and functioning, presently challenged in the Supreme Court, there has been no induction of fresh members, resulting in almost non-functional courts. Thus, the very reason for creating the AFT, speedy disposal of cases pertaining to the members of the armed forces, has been lost.

On 01 Jun 2017, the government amended the AFT act, amongst 19 other existing laws, enhancing its powers pertaining to the appointment and removal of members of various tribunals. Amongst the major changes which affect the functioning of the AFT is the appointment of the administrative member.

Earlier rules had stated that the administrative member could be retired major generals and above, however the new rules state any person, ‘of ability, integrity and standing having special knowledge of, and professional experience of not less than 20 years’ in multiple fields not connected with the armed forces but ‘in the opinion of the government is useful to the AFT’ could be appointed. Thus, knowledge of service conditions and military law is not essential, making such an appointment redundant. It opens doors for appointing IAS and other central government service members, who lack even basic military knowledge.

The chairperson of the AFT was appointed by the president, hence was difficult for the government to remove. The changed rules state that he would be appointed by the government in consultation with the chief justice, thereby denuding his appointment. Earlier rules stated only a retired high court or supreme court judge could be the chairperson, whereas the amended rules state ‘any person who is qualified to be a judge of the supreme court’ could be appointed. Thus, an advocate with ten years’ experience can be nominated as a chairperson.

The appointment of the judicial and administrative members was amended to be appointed by a search-cum-selection-committee which would comprise a supreme court judge, chairperson of AFT (appointed by the government), defence secretary and another member of the executive. Thus, majority power would be with the executive. The supreme court has disagreed stating it cannot be tilted towards the executive.

The new rules place the AFTs under the defence ministry, whereas earlier, based on supreme court directions, they were placed under the law ministry. The power to remove members has also been diluted and the MoD can constitute a committee to recommend removal. These powers were earlier with the supreme court.

The new rules have reduced tenure of members from five to three years. It appears, when connected with earlier amendments, at opening doors for ex secretaries of the government, who retire at 62, to be nominated to the AFT, for which they were barred being overage.

These changed amendments, which would alter the functioning of the AFT and make it redundant for the very task for which it was created, angered many veterans who practice in AFTs and they approached the supreme court. The court is itself against this unilateral government action. While it has yet to issue its final judgement, which is slated for Jul, initial inputs indicate it has rejected the government’s notification.

The bureaucracy, smarting from a possible court rebuff, advertised for vacant posts based on its amended rules. It is now projecting to the court to permit it to proceed further on this selection. If it does so, then the AFTs would be redundant and just become just another example of the governments apathy to serving and veteran military personnel.

A fallout of the case has been that unless court orders are finally issued, no fresh appointments can be made. Hence most AFTs are either non-functional or those with multiple benches have just one functional bench. This has impacted clearance of cases, which have begun to pile up.

The sole reason for creating the AFT is now being lost. The government which has denied the forces NFU, OROP, removed entitled rations is now seeking to make the AFTs redundant. It is only a concerted effort by all who support the military to pressurize the government against making a mockery of an institution created to speed up justice.

Why moving the NSG into Kashmir is not a sound solution ORF 10 May 18

There are press reports that the home ministry is considering the deployment of National Security Guard (NSG) teams in the valley. The proposal involves deploying a unit of Black Cat Commandos in the Kashmir valley for highly specialized anti-terror operations particularly to deal with hostage situations. Presently, these tasks are being conducted by the army’s Special Forces (SF), who are equally well trained.

The present army concept of operations is to exhaust the terrorist by continuous engagement and neutralize him with minimum casualties. Most civilian casualties have been either in response to interfering in operations or caught in the cross fire. This is mainly due to them unheeding instructions of staying away from encounter sites. Hostage situations are extremely rare in the region. Instances of family members of trapped terrorists or even the owner of the house where the terrorist is trapped have ventured in seeking his surrender. None have been made hostages.

The home ministry statement went on to add that the NSG would not be deployed for every operation but would be kept standby and only used in specialized operations to counter militants. Routine counter insurgency would be handled by the army and para military forces.

This is again an action being taken by bureaucrats and ministers sitting ensconced in their offices in Lutyens Delhi, based on recommendations being forwarded by the NSG, which assumes it is being left out of operations and desires baptism by fire. While the NSG is trained for specialized operations, however, its employment in the valley would only enhance command and control issues.

The valley already has a plethora of forces operating including the army, CRPF, BSF, Garuds (air force commandos) and MARCOS (naval commandos). The Garuds and MARCOS have had limited success and they do not operate independently. The Garuds operate under the RR and the MARCOS in conjunction with the army, though they are deployed and dominate the Wular Lake. The CRPF, though working in conjunction is not under the army. To add to this confusion are plans for induction of the NSG.

There are questions which the government must consider before it plans the induction of the NSG. Firstly, would they operate independently? Secondly, which agency would decide whether a specific operation should involve the NSG or it should continue being a normal counter insurgency operation? Thirdly, when should this decision be taken, on receiving inputs or on commencement of operations or once contact is established?

Fourthly, if the NSG is to be deployed, which force would secure the area for them? Finally, would the NSG be the agency which would command the operation, once it is employed, and deploy forces for ensuring success or would it operate under the local army commander of the operation? After all, it would be the agency to launch the assault.

In every operation there is a single commander responsible for the deployment and employment of forces, irrespective of which agency they represent. Presently almost all operations are army led and involve employing CRPF and SOG for cordon and crowd control, while the army tackles the terrorists. Multiple commanders with multiple forces, each seeking to pass instructions would only add to confusion. In operations where an error in judgement involves life and death, having no clear directions and chain of command would only enhance confusion.

Militant operations are time sensitive. Delaying and prolonging operations only enhances stone pelting and more confusion. If a decision to launch the NSG is taken, depending on the level at which it is done, there would be delay for the movement of the force, its reconnaissance and final launch. Every force needs time to prepare, plan and then launch.

Such delay could be detrimental to success and would possibly permit the militants to escape. Hence, a decision to deploy the NSG in Kashmir to gain combat experience may appear ideal on paper but would add to the burden and problems of those who are familiar with the terrain, nature of operations and have a laid down operating procedure.

The army also employs SFs, of which it has sufficient forces already existing in the valley for specific operations. These forces apart from being highly trained have deep understanding of the terrain as also are highly motivated, hence all its operations have been a success, despite casualties. Since the RR and the SF are from the same stock, there is no question of any one-up-man-ship. They work as a team. They train and operate together.

In the present scenario, to avoid any false claims of success, post every joint operation, the press conference is conducted jointly, with representatives of the state police, CRPF and army. No one agency seeks credit. Adding a small detachment of the NSG would imply pushing in additional forces under separate leadership channels.

The Pathankot air force terror strike was a classic example of how not to operate. The NSG was pushed in with its own command and control structure, ignoring the GOC of the local formation who was better equipped and possessed the manpower to handle the operations. Though it was a successful operation, but overshot time and led to increased casualties.

The intention is not to doubt the capabilities of an elite and well-trained force like the NSG. It had its specific roles and should confine itself to it. However, deploying it in the valley for specific and limited nature of tasks would only add to confusion in command, control and conduct of operations. The valley has sufficient forces, which have made a difference, as the number of encounters and figures of elimination of militants’ bear evidence. Adding to the forces already deployed would not bring any worthwhile results.

If the ministry’s desire is to enhance their combat experience, then it should adopt the Garud model and place them under command the army’s RR or SF battalions. In this context, they would operate with those aware of the nature of operations and terrain and be an integral part of the operating force, rather than consider itself as an elite force meant only for limited and specific tasks. The recommendations of the army and other forces which operate in the region should be the final deciding factor for its induction, rather than just meeting the needs of the force itself and pushing it into a region where it remains unwanted.

Gifting obsolete armaments (English Version) Rakshak News 03 May 18

The defence ministry has informed service headquarters to compile a list of obsolete military equipment and weapon systems so that they can be refurbished and gifted to friendly nations. The intention of the government appears to be to boost defence cooperation with friendly states. It also has a dual purpose of creating repair, spare parts and ammunition facilities in India, thus enhancing local defence industry.

International relations depend immensely on trust, support and aid. Nations who are gifted equipment must maintain relations with the gifting nation as they would remain dependent on them for maintenance support and in case of guns and tanks for ammunition also. Further, in the present context military cooperation and diplomacy has begun playing a positive role.

Afghanistan and parts of Africa, battling insurgency and militancy need equipment which can support their armed forces. Many of these countries have their members trained in Indian military institutions and are therefore familiar with Indian military ordnance. Insurgent groups lack such equipment hence the balance of power would shift into the hands of security forces and enhance their capabilities. These nations lack funds to purchase modern equipment from the world market, thus gifting equipment being phased out would enhance diplomatic ties.

The Indian armed forces presently have over 68% of their equipment in obsolete state however continue to employ them as they lack funds for modernization. India has exported its INSAS rifles to Nepal and Oman, HAL Druv helicopters to Mauritius, Nepal and Ecuador and gifted MI 24 and 35 helicopters to Afghanistan. There are many other nations who desire Indian manufactured military equipment, including its BrahMos missiles.

Heavy military equipment like tanks, artillery guns and aircraft amongst others, once inducted out of service remain in depots for prolonged durations and are in many cases placed as decorative or motivational pieces in institutions or military camps. Some are sold as scrap and the metal generated reutilized. However, though the equipment is obsolete and has outlived its utility in the current Indian operational scenario, it remains serviceable and fit for employment in many other parts of the globe, where the enemy is either strong insurgent groups or lacks modern firepower.

105 mm artillery guns, tanks and armoured personnel carriers for example are ideal for employment in Afghanistan and many parts of Africa in operations against strong insurgent groups. Gifting them has multiple advantages for the Indian government. It enhances defence cooperation, builds trust, opens doors for India to set up training and maintenance facilities in those countries as also enables India to establish industries to manufacture ammunition and spare parts for their maintenance. While in the present context most equipment is maintained and spares manufactured by Ordnance factories, the government would possibly task the responsibility for production to the private sector, thus supporting the ‘Make in India’ concept.

Equipment once inducted in those countries would also ensure their continuous dependence on India for equipment support and supplies. Thus, as Indo-Russian relations over the decades indicate, the nation cannot afford to downgrade its relations with India or act against our interest, as supplies of spares and ammunition would be impacted.

While the armed forces may be surprised by the government’s announcement, it does appear to be a way of indicating that the government is looking ahead in developing military to military cooperation. However, while obsolete army equipment is cheaper in both maintenance and reliability, airpower and naval equipment become costlier to maintain as they grow older. The ability of the nation being gifted to afford to pay for maintenance and spares must be considered.

If the government promises the donor nation that it would remain responsible for even maintenance, then it would become an expensive proposition, which may not be sustainable in the long term. In such a scenario, the exercise would result in negative outlook rather than a positive one.

How many more raps before MoD wakes up? The Statesman 01 May 18

Twice in the last fortnight the Supreme Court has rapped the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and fined it for appealing against cases pertaining to grant of disability pensions to veterans. The MoD was appealing against the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). In its judgement the Supreme Court remarked that the government must wake up to its duties and responsibilities.

It stated, ‘the couldn’t-care-less and insouciant attitude of the Union of India with regard to litigation, particularly in the Supreme Court has gone a little too far’. It remarked that in this instance 10 lawyers and an additional solicitor general were involved which added to costs. Another aspect which should have been highlighted was the anguish and financial implications on the litigants, who are veterans with limited financial means.

This reflects poorly on the MoD which seeks to challenge judgements pertaining to disability pensions. Ironically the AFT functions under the MoD and its members are appointed by it alongside the law ministry. The AFT comprises of retired judges of the high court advised on military matters by senior veterans. Thus, knowledge of law and complexities of service conditions are both considered before judgements are released, especially where disability is concerned.

Hence, challenging the judgement of the AFT in every case is in poor taste and only intended to harass litigants, delay processing and prove that the bureaucracy dominates the uniformed. This contradicts the first comments made by Nirmala Sitharaman on assuming her appointment as defence minister, when she stated her priority would be veteran affairs.

While decision making in the MoD may have been delegated and the power to appeal in the Supreme Court left to lower levels, however it is evident that strong guidelines have not been laid down by the defence minister, restricting its officials from pursuing the easiest way out, by appealing decisions, rather than adopting a humane approach. The first and strongest action that she should adopt is to make the erring official, who approved the decision to go to the Supreme Court pay not only the court fine but also bear the cost of lawyer fees. It would go a long way in opening eyes and changing attitude within the ministry.

George Fernandes forced an immediate change in approach by threatening to move erring and irresponsible officials to Siachen. It brought him immense praise as it conveyed he was genuinely concerned with soldier welfare. It is only by being forceful can the minister bring about a change in the functioning of the MoD and its projection beyond the corridors of South Block.

The battle for supremacy between the uniformed and civil staff in service HQs continues, despite the withdrawal of contradictory orders of equating civil-military ranks. It is quite possible that due to a strong stand taken by service chiefs in Nov last year, additional vacancies allocated to the Armed Forces HQ civilian cadre have yet to be absorbed. This would have added to the rift, which is being reflected in other spheres. However, this is no reason for the MoD to question directions of courts.

Morale within the serving and veteran community is also the lowest since a long time, solely because of an unresponsive MoD. The veterans continue to protest peacefully at Jantar Mantar for their rightful OROP, which is ignored. The MoD continues to sit on the Reddy Commission report now for over a year and a half, with no announcement. A remark that the MoD is studying the issue leaves no one in doubt, that it has no plans to enforce it or even push it forward to the ministry of finance, at least during the tenure of this government.

There are press reports that over 39,000 officers await the release of an increment due from 2006, most of whom would be veterans. All these fall within the purview of the defence minister and by ignoring them she is proving the ‘couldn’t-care-less attitude’ stated by the Supreme Court.

The Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) case taken up by a serving soldier remains in the Supreme Court with a final hearing fixed for later this year, while the government refuses to pass orders that NFU does not imply a change in grade, which is a reality. This has added to problems at working levels in those government offices where the uniformed and civilians operate jointly. The deputing of military legal fraternity alongside top legal luminaries to challenge the NFU in court, conveys that the MoD is unwilling to accept that armed forces also deserve equality.

Social media is abuzz with this anti-armed force outlook being projected by the government. The trust which the military had on Modi to deliver and meet their aspirations, based on his promises in the Rewari Rally in the run up to the 2014 elections has vanished, leaving instead a bitter taste. With an increased national support base to a military which, ‘has been protecting this nation for seventy years’ only increasing, support to a disdainful government would reduce, solely because of the approach of the MoD.

The present attitude of the MoD appears based on the premise that the serving and veteran community are too divided to present any formidable challenge in vote banks, however failing to realize that for every member of the military community there are many more close family members who would vote for an alternative, alongside true nationalists who love their armed forces. The ruling party is already losing its popular base, as recent byelections have shown, gaining the wrath of the serving and veteran community may be disastrous.

The hypocrisy of this government is evident when it claims successful military operations launched in its tenure to seek votes but fails to grant equality and rightful dues to those who did them. This conveys the message that it would exploit anyone for votes but dump them when the task is done. The faith and trust with which this government was formed is slowly eroding. Modi alone by his oratory may not be able to win the next elections, unless he ropes in his ministries to change their attitudes and project a more people friendly outlook. The first ministry to be targeted should be the MoD.

Re-evaluating the functioning of NCC CENJOWS 17 Apr 18

Genesis of NCC

As per the NCC website, it was formed by the National Cadet Corps Act of 1948 and raised on 15 Jul the same year. During the 1965 and 71 wars, NCC cadets were the second line of defence. They assisted ordnance factories in their production, were involved in supplying arms and ammunition to forward areas and in cases even for patrolling in depth areas to capture enemy paratroopers.

They also worked hand in hand with civil defence employees and took part in rescue work and traffic control. Post the 71 war the NCC syllabus was revised to include development of leadership and officer like qualities. Military training was reduced and emphasis on social service and youth management enhanced. NCC commenced with 20,000 cadets in 1948, which has risen to 13 Lakhs today. This does not include the millions which have graduated through its portals over the years.

Values of NCC

Its motto is ‘Unity and Discipline’. As stated in its website, there are select core values which the NCC aims to instil in its cadets. Some prominent ones include

-Creating a sense of patriotic commitment to encourage cadets to contribute to national development.

-Respect for diversity in religion, language etc, to instil national unity.

-Adhering to norms and values enshrined in the constitution.

-Understanding values of honesty, truthfulness, self-sacrifice, perseverance and hard work.

With these values, the NCC should have been the organization changing the future of youth across the nation, making them disciplined, nationalistic, responsible and tolerant citizens of the country. However, it has been limited due to organizational and financial constraints.

Present state

In an article entitled, ‘NCC- the silent contributor to nation building and national security’, in the USI journal Oct-Dec 17, Lt General Vinod Vashisht, the ex-DG NCC, writes that the organization presently has its presence in 703 of 716 districts of the country, the only exceptions being extreme remote areas or newly carved districts of Manipur and Telangana. He goes on to state that it has a pan-India presence, covering 16,288 institutions with almost 8000 still waitlisted. Most of its cadets, as per Vashisht, flow from ‘government educational institutions and economically modest households’.

The funds for the functioning of NCC are shared between the state and centre, with the centre bearing the larger portion. For the North East and J and K, the complete funding is borne by the centre. The annual budget is to the tune of 15,000 Crores, of which over 11,000 crores is earmarked for salaries.

Should NCC be made compulsory?

NCC is presently both at the school and college level. There have been regular demands for making it compulsory for students. Late President APJ Abdul Kalam was a great advocate of compulsory NCC training at schools and colleges. In his opinion, such an action would lead to elimination of corruption in society, promote discipline and help protect the environment. The ex-governor of West Bengal, MK Narayan was also of the same opinion. Vashisht, in his article states that in 1963, NCC was made compulsory for all college students, however organizational and budgetary compulsions led to its withdrawal in 1968.

The then defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, stated in a debate in parliament in Aug 16, on making NCC compulsory in schools and colleges, ‘Suggestions have been received from various sources for making NCC training compulsory for school and college students. However, it has not been found feasible in terms of requirement of infrastructure, manpower and resources’.

He went on to add that if it is made compulsory, then 4 crore students would have to be trained as against an existing capacity of 13 Lakhs being done now. The NCC establishment held at present is of 1979 vintage, which would be insufficient to enhance its capacity or even absorb the 8000 waitlisted institutions. It therefore seriously needs to be re-visited.

Importance of expanding the role of NCC

The NCC was at one time considered to be a feeder for those seeking to join the armed forces. However, it has not succeeded for multiple reasons. It has however been able to change outlooks, enhance leadership qualities and create an atmosphere of discipline and tolerance amongst those who have been a part of it. Therefore, its scope needs to be expanded.

The nation is presently going through turbulent times. Indiscipline, religious intolerance, corruption and strife dominate headlines daily. These are the very core values which NCC aims to inculcate in its cadets. Thus, considering expanding the scope of NCC to involve maximum youth across the nation into its folds is essential. The intention being to change outlook and enhance self-discipline.

The other aspect is whether NCC is essential at both, school and college or only at the college level. Discipline in school is maintained by multiple means including common uniform, set schedule, compulsory attendance and close monitoring. Further, there are other options at this level including scouts and guides, which inculcate almost similar values as the NCC.

Discipline tends to become lax at the college level. Hence most anti-national protests emanate from college or university students. Recent protests of JNU, Delhi University and Presidency University amongst others are examples. Further, NCC cadets from this level are more inclined to opt for joining the military, as the basic training is geared towards leadership and nation building. Therefore, logically, NCC should be more prominent in colleges.

Maximum participation should be encouraged at this level. Encouragement could involve relaxation in criteria for government jobs, central police forces, armed forces (both at the officer and below levels) and state police forces. This relaxation in criteria is logical as the individual undergoing training successfully, ends up as a disciplined youth imbibed with essential core qualities.

By adopting this methodology, the figure could reduce from the 4-crore mark as mentioned by Parrikar in parliament. Further, it should be compulsory for a year for everyone and additional for volunteers seeking to go for the ‘C’ certificate and gain benefit in various government schemes. Attendance in NCC events should be compulsory and counted towards overall obligatory attendance.

How will the nation gain by making NCC compulsory?

There would be immense gains if youth undergo compulsory NCC training. There would be enhanced respect for the soldier and his commitment to duty. Camaraderie created by attending training and camps would transcend religion, caste, region and education barriers, enhancing nation building. Discipline, desire to remain physically fit and respect for time would become engrained in the youth. This would change work ethos of the future. In the ultimate analysis it would protect the nation from within, while the armed forces ensure protection from external aggression.

How can it be done?

Lt Gen DB Shekatkar committee report submitted in Dec 16 had strong suggestions for the NCC. A paper published by CENJOWS on the report states, ‘The NCC is an excellent organization contributing to nation building and youth development. The growth of the NCC is hampered by lack of resource in terms of instructors and staff. The NCC should expand and the resource requirement can be met by resorting to reemployment of Officers, JCOs and NCOs from the areas where they are to be employed.’ He had further suggested that if this is resorted to, then the NCC could also be considered for transfer to the Ministry of HRD from the MoD.

The armed forces with their existing deficiencies cannot provide any enhancement in manpower. It has thus adopted to post those proceeding on retirement or lack motivation themselves to the NCC. The losers by this approach remain the cadets, who have elevated expectations and hopes when they join, but are at times impacted by the lack of interest of those responsible for their training.

Funds have never been an issue for the government of India, provided there is a will behind a mission or task. The infrastructure exists, it needs to be reoriented and redeployed. Hiring local staff with reduced serving personnel may be an option, however nothing comes without its collection of disadvantages. These could involve favouritism, corruption or even lack of suitable motivational staff as the hunt would be restricted to district levels. In the long term, if correctly pursued, the benefits would far outweigh the negatives.

Conclusion

The prime minister stated during his address to NCC cadets in Jan this year that NCC is ‘known for its discipline and unity. It is not a mechanism but a mission.’ He went on to add that NCC should prepare an outline for growth over the next five years. Growth implies bringing maximum youth into its fold. It therefore needs to re-establish its priorities on which section of youth it needs to absorb.

The centre should reconsider its approach to the NCC. It should push through legislation making it compulsory for minimum a year, essential for all seeking government employment and special opportunities for those willing to even join below officer ranks amongst other incentives. It also needs to reconsider its reorganization, reducing burden of employing serving military manpower, hiring veterans with a desire to influence and motivate youth instead.

As the nation proceeds through turbulent times, the NCC remains a major hope of changing mindset and views of the youth, if correctly harnessed. It remains the largest volunteer organization in the world and could be a game changer for the nation in the years ahead, if correctly nurtured. It could remain mired at its current level if ignored, which would be a loss to the nation.

He spoke for tribal rights The Tribune 16 Apr 18

There are few from the IPS who have earned respect and accolades from the army in the manner former Director General BSF EN Rammohan has. All who crossed the path of this famed handle bar moustachioed individual would have carried fond memories of him. He always came across as calm, ignoring political pressure and doing what was essentially his task, without any fanfare. Fond of a crewcut, he was visible in his uniform and combat boots. He breathed his last on 09 Apr in Delhi. Born in Coimbatore in 1940, he joined the 1965 IPS Assam-Meghalaya cadre.

He rose to become the DG BSF and headed the force from Dec 1997- Nov 2000. Apart from serving at the grassroots level in Assam and Meghalaya, he also served with the CRPF, NSG and ITBP. Very few would have matched his experience and variety in. He therefore gained invaluable knowledge on counter insurgency and its causes, mainly in the North East and Naxal belt.

For anyone seeking to understand the grits of counter insurgency in central India and the North East, should either watch the ‘walk the talk’ of May 2010 or read its transcript, where Rammohan shares his knowledge and suggestions. In simple terms he puts across solutions, based on his vast experience in the field, which governments have tended to ignore. In recent times he has on numerous occasions even commented on why the government’s policy was failing in Kashmir.

Post his retirement he settled in Delhi and was regularly seen on TV channels during security discussions. His only son, Padmanabhan joined the army and was martyred in a helicopter crash in 2010 as a young Major. This incident slowed him down initially, but he soon recovered and was back to his critical self. He was visible most evenings in the India International Centre, sharing his thoughts, based on indepth analysis and experience, with those around him.

The government nominated him to head the fact-finding probe panel which went into the lapses that took place during the Naxal ambush in 2010 and claimed 76 lives. He admitted post his visit that there were lapses. His final analysis changed the methodology by which the force would operate in the future.

In his opinion the Maoist issue is a consequence of a socio-economic conflict but has been looked upon as a security issue. He states that adivasis have been pushed into the forests, deprived of their land, thus resulting in them picking up arms. The land ceiling act, though passed in the 50’s has yet to be implemented in most states. The adivasis, who have been forced into the forest, collect and sell forest produce to middlemen, who cheat them, further adding to their misery. Establishing a cooperative would provide him a fair rate.

The tribals having been denied their rights, have been organized by the Maoists to fight. They feel alienated as the state eyes the mineral wealth in their region without any concern for their welfare. Implementing tribal welfare schemes would wean them away from the influence of the Maoists.

His advice for central para military forces operating in Naxal areas was simple. ‘Their DG is responsible to ensure excellent leadership, have his force trained, motivated and professional. He should see to it that they do nothing dishonourable.’ If they implement these suggestions, they would be respected and succeed. Post the ambush in Apr 2017 in Bastar, when twenty-five CRPF personnel were killed, Rammohan commented, ‘The CRPF has been the most poorly led force for some years. The government must look into it.’

Arunachal: the next frontier (English Version) Rakshak News 11 Apr 18

There have been regular reports of increasing Chinese infrastructure development in Arunachal and India responding with increased deployment in the region. While Doklam was a prolonged standoff, similar incidents of shorter duration are regular in Arunachal and Ladakh. Chinese road infrastructure in Tibet in the area bordering Arunachal has always been far better than ours for multiple reasons, hence his ability to move troops faster has always existed. Improving facilities for troops is an ongoing exercise, which both nations resort to.

In an article in the magazine ‘Force’, Gen Vinod Bhatia, a former Director General Military Operations and GOC 33 Corps, writes, ‘India shied away from constructing roads and building infrastructure along the Tibet border, in a mistaken belief that lack of roads will degrade the Chinese threat and deter deep incursions in the event of another war.’ This led to slow development over decades, while China maintained a steady pace.

Our road construction is only in valleys where we had a strong deployment. The China study group, constituted by the government, had recommended 73 roads which were to be completed by 2012, subsequently revised to 2019-2020. Of these only 30 were completed by Jul 2017. In simplistic terms, while Chinese soldiers arrive by road, Indian soldiers walk. This automatically places us at a disadvantage. Similarly, maintaining soldiers deployed in such standoffs becomes difficult.

Indian defences and troop habitat is continuously developed, and amenities increased for the troops located within. Chinese soldiers in most cases remained deployed in their permanent camps and travelled forward to patrol and visit areas which they claim. They had limited infrastructure close to the border. China, akin to India has now begun constructing similar structures for its soldiers close to Indian positions. This would imply that it either plans to move forces forward or is preparing habitat for future eventualities including periods of tensions.

Infrastructure would never always be habitat alone but also stock other warlike stores including ammunition and supplies, thus reducing time for operations. For any force planning to launch operations, movement of stores and equipment is time consuming. Since Chinese forces were generally deployed well behind, forward movement could be observed and acted upon. By now moving equipment and stores forward, it would reduce time and thus India would need to be more alert.

The reason for China earlier maintaining its forces behind at a distance was because it never envisaged any threat from India in the form of an offensive, as India has no territorial claims in Tibet. It also had very little defensive infrastructure. India, on the other hand had to maintain forces in readiness as it needed to be prepared for a Chinese offensive. Passes, if undefended could be occupied, giving China the advantage.

Thus, Indian troops remain permanently deployed, irrespective of terrain, weather and nature and quality of roads. Some Indian posts remain air maintained, troops moving in and out on foot. The recent press reports on Kibbitu, which indicates a road on one side of the river, while troops remain deployed on both sides is an example.

India, always wary of Chinese intent, has now begun enhancing its deployment at key places. We cannot question Chinese building infrastructure in their own territory, however being unaware of their true intentions, we need to be prepared. Chinese roads being better gives them the advantage of accessing even remote passes, which we only reach by patrols on occasions and are not held always.

What could be the Chinese intentions? An all-out offensive akin to 1962 is unlikely, as India is no longer the weak nation of that period. What could emerge is strong patrols moving into Indian territory to justify their claim lines. Whether the patrols would remain for a prolonged duration or return after leaving tell-tale signs confirming their visit remains a mute question. Limited offensive operations restricted to small areas, indicating their desire to convey a message is also always possible. In no case would both nations seek to enhance tensions which could lead to an all-out offensive.

It is with this intention that India is now seeking to enhance its patrols and deployment in the region, news of which has been flowing in the press in recent times. Doklam was a one-off incident, which no nation would desire to repeat. In addition, neither nation would seek to escalate tensions beyond local levels. With a ‘no first use’ nuclear policy declared by both nations, it is unlikely for tensions to rise beyond a point.

In the meanwhile, development of road infrastructure which would permit faster movement of forces needs to be speeded up, with special monitoring. There was a delay as India lacked capacity and capability to handle Chinese threat. As these grow, so does the confidence of the nation in countering the dragon. It is only by being able to resist Chinese offensive gestures and actions would it consider India as an equal rival and desist from misadventures.

DRDO-military mismatch (English Version) Rakshak News 07 Mar 18

The Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) announced the successful launch of the NAG missile last week after firing it against two targets in desert conditions. It issued a statement stating, ‘With this, the development trials of the missile have been completed and it is now ready for induction.’

The army has made no comment on this announcement. It is still not clear whether it was an army conducted trial or done as a technical test by the DRDO alone. In Sept last year the DRDO made a similar announcement, only to be rebuked by the army when it made its own statement stating that they expect the development trials to be completed by end 2018.

Post the Sept trials the army was unhappy with many of the missile’s parameters including its thermal sensors and high price tag, hence recommended retrials. This is not the first time that the army and the DRDO have not been on the same wicket. The army is unwilling to enhance orders for the Arjun tanks because of its high weight, making its movement across most roads and bridges difficult. The DRDO is now being compelled to revisit the drawing board.

The air force is not keen to increase orders for the Tejas due to immense restrictions on its performance parameters, though the MoD thinks differently, as stated by the defence minister recently. Even in the case of the NAG missile, though the army needs 8000, it is only willing to order 500 pieces initially. The army is also unwilling to confirm orders in the case of artillery guns, presently undergoing trials, till it is sure of its performance.

The DRDO functions as an almost independent body and has on numerous occasions blocked procurements of the armed forces claiming it has the capability to develop the desired equipment inhouse but failed or immensely delayed the project or provided for trials a poor model. The MoD cancelling the Spike anti-tank missile deal with Israel is a case in point.

The DRDO claimed that since it has almost developed the NAG missile, it could produce a similar one as the Spike in 3 to 4 years. Whether it produces on time, delayed or with limited capabilities, time would judge. Delay on their part has never been questioned, but the army has been denied a capability which it desperately needs.

One of the major causes for the delay in procuring the basic infantry assault rifle has been insistence of the DRDO in being able to develop the same. The 5.56 INSAS rifle which it has produced is now being discarded as the infantry seeks better quality weapons. Soldiers prefer the AK series to the INSAS. Thus, apart from missile and rockets, most other projects of the DRDO fail or are below the desired quality. It is the DRDO which till very recently held sway over defence procurements, that has prevented the nation from becoming a major international power.

The government has continuously treated the DRDO with kid gloves, giving it an advantage over the private sector. Thus, it charged as per will, quality always remained in doubt and project delays were common. The government’s decision to bring in the private sector is a welcome change and would enhance the technological base of the defence industry, while challenging the quality and cost of the DRDO.

The DRDO has a total of 52 Laboratories, of which majority are defunct and can either be closed or privatised. The power of the DRDO to overrule military plans to procure weapon systems from other agencies or abroad should be stopped.

No nation can become a military power from imports alone. However, if the internal R and D base is low, then forcing the armed forces to adhere to such quality is also wrong. With the opening of the defence sector to the private market, special treatment being granted to DRDO should stop. They should compete alongside private and international vendors. Delays in development and lack of quality of products should be questioned and scientists taken to task. It is only by making them accountable and competitive would they produce quality, making the nation and the armed forces proud.

A failed procurement procedure The Excelsior 07 Mar 18

A presentation to the PMO by the MOS Defence, Subash Bhamre, on the failed defence procurement procedure may finally have brought into public domain an aspect which has been common knowledge within the defence community. An aspect which remains ignored is that development of military capacities and capabilities is time consuming. The process takes years and has multiple stages. Even after identification and placing of orders complete induction would span time, depending on the nature and sophistication of the equipment.

The MOS claimed that the procurement process is dogged by ‘multiple and diffused structures with no single point accountability’. It went on to claim duplication of processes, avoidable redundant layers, delayed execution, no real time monitoring and no project-based approach. He also stated that no major ‘make in India’ project has taken off in the last three to four years.

The armed forces continue to face shortages in critical equipment including fighter aircraft, drones, helicopters, submarines, artillery guns and howitzers and even the basic assault rifles for the infantry. The delays commence from the first stage itself which is generating a General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) to the stage of final approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). The amount of delay varied from 2.6 to 15.4 times the laid down guidelines. Clearing files itself involved in many cases upto 120 weeks, which was six times the laid down timeline.

Another major reason given by the MOS was lack of synergy between the three services as well as tendency of different MoD wings to work in ‘independent silo’s’. He even stated that only 8 to 10% of the 144 proposed deals in the last three fiscal years fructified within stipulated time. The delay was immense during the UPA regime, solely because Anthony, scared of even the shadow of the Bofors and visualizing kickbacks around every corner refused to clear any deal, delaying where he could and cancelling at even a whiff of a scandal.

The fact is that none of the causes of delay are unknown to the MoD, yet it is unwilling to act. Firstly, within the armed forces there is a major mismatch. The three services view their capabilities in isolation, each desiring a major share of the capital budget. The most cost intensive services are the smallest, the navy and the air force. The impact of a non-appointed Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is the principle reason.

With no single body accountable for collating demands, prioritizing and planning for a centralized capability development program, individual services seek their own and project it to the MoD. The CDS heading the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) would have logically been the single point military advisor, whose role would have been prioritization, collation and evaluating a centralized procurement plan for the armed forces. However, the government has failed to appoint any, despite its strong demands from the strategic community and being an international norm.

With his absence, the onus of deciding priorities and dividing the budget falls on the defence secretary and the defence minister, neither of them are qualified nor have the depth of knowledge on matters military. Hence, either the allocation of the capital budget becomes almost mathematical or skewed in favour of a service. This will continue to haunt capability development, unless the government wakes up and pushes through major changes in higher defence management.

Secondly, the services tend to take prolonged periods of time including retrials on multiple occasions solely to approve an equipment, including indigenous productions. While detailed trials are essential as the equipment once inducted would remain in service for decades, however, modifications and induction can always be simultaneous, at least for equipment being manufactured inhouse. The Danush and ATAG artillery systems being prime examples.

Thirdly, the services continue to change GSQRs at regular intervals, as has been happening with the infantry assault rifles. Thus, retendering becomes a norm as requirements change. Hence, once decided, the services should avoid multiple changes, setting the process back by years. Finally, each equipment is expected to function at all altitudes from -50 degrees centigrade to plus 50. At extreme temperatures a small force is expected to operate, for which special equipment could be considered. This would be more realistic.

Within the MoD, the entire process of acquisition is under the control of a civilian bureaucracy, which apart from lacking knowledge on the criticality of the equipment and capability, are never concerned on the time factor. They are neither accountable nor responsible for any delays in the process. To continuously raise queries, forcing delays is a norm, failing which they could be considered redundant. Thus, the process drags and drags, with no end in sight.

Politics also plays an important part in enhancing delays. Unwarranted comments, as raised in the Rafale deal, pushed the government on to the defensive, even when were no kickbacks. It compels it to put off major decisions, especially when elections are around the bend. Asking the air force to reconsider its single engine fighter requirement is an example. The air force, desperate for aircraft as its fleet is dwindling would be compelled to fly outdated machines, enhancing possibilities of accidents, solely because the government seeks another excuse to delay procurement.

Finally, is the ‘bread versus guns’ battle of the finance ministry. How much would it be able to spare for military modernization considering other national projects. This impacts the demands of the forces and leads to restrictions and delays.

The lack of progress on ‘make in India’ is again due to poor decision making and wavering in mindset at the MoD level. Cancelling the Spike order when the factory was already established, failing to finalize the single engine fighter aircraft and ultimately proceeding ahead with the Tejas are examples. Between deciding and implementation is a time gap, which only grows with poor decision making. Companies are willing to invest but the MoD hesitates in confirming. Which such a wavering MoD, how can ‘make in India’ move forward?

The government fails to realize that only nations with a powerful military are respected. China is ensuring that India faces a threat from two fronts, hence continues to arm Pak. The service chiefs keep mentioning this fact, but the government ignores. Unless the PMO directly intervenes, lays down timelines and forces those involved to act, bringing in accountability, procurement and progressing on ‘make in India’ would only be delayed forcing the military to battle the next war with last war capabilities.

The truth behind the Rafale deal (English Version) Amar Ujala 22 Feb 18

The forthcoming elections in Karnataka has the Congress battling for survival. Thus, with all gloves off, anything and everything is being questioned. The latest to be questioned by the Congress is the Rafale deal. For those not involved in matters concerning national security, this may be an issue aimed to counter the BJP’s claims of scams during the UPA rule. However, those who have been following national security are aware that development of military capabilities almost came to a standstill during the ten years of UPA.

The MoD under Anthony during the UPA regime just sat on proposals and refused to clear any defence deal, solely because he was concerned about his clean image. The ghost of the Bofors dominated every purchase decision. Ammunition reserves were at their lowest, spares almost non-existent and vital capacity shortfalls remained.

The hollowness in defence preparedness left the armed forces extremely vulnerable in every field. The air force would never have been able to defend the nation in the event of a two-front war. The artillery saw no deals post the Bofors, while the naval Chief resigned in disgust due to shortcomings in maintenance equipment, leading to multiple accidents, with resultant loss of lives. It even forced the then army chief, General VK Singh, to write an open letter to the government stating major capacity shortcomings. Yet Anthony and the government slept, unconcerned, only seeking to save whatever little reputation was left of theirs, since they feared being blamed for kickbacks.

It fell on the present government to recreate the capacities and capabilities that the armed forces were desperately seeking. The Rafale deal was amongst the first, which it cleared. There is a need to place facts to remove wrong claims being made by the Congress. This is being done in an impartial manner, as I, a veteran do not represent any party.

The air force had desired 126 aircraft to make up its shortfalls in the coming years with the phasing out of aircraft and maintaining the bare minimum fleet strength for a two-front war. The Request for Proposal for these aircraft was issued in 2007. From then to 2011 the air force conducted a series of trial evaluations to finalize the aircraft.

Finally, the Rafale and Eurofighter Tycoon were shortlisted. In 2012, the Rafale was declared the L1 bidder, which implied that its price was the lowest. The Eurofighter subsequently offering a discount implied nothing. From 2012 to 2014 (all during UPA rule), contract negotiations remained inconclusive mainly due to lack of agreement on the terms of the proposal and cost. It did appear that the UPA government was not serious in its endeavours.

The cost of the aircraft is never the basic cost, as being stated by the Congress. The cost is dependent on avionics, armament, maintainability and fitments, all of which remain solely the domain of the air force. These aspects remain secret as declaring them in detail in the public domain would impact security. Hence, these are included in a non-disclosure clause signed between the two countries.

The other issue raised is Transfer of Technology (ToT). This implies transferring technology to enable production in India. The most classical case of ToT is the development of the Dhanush, the indigenous 155mm Gun, based on the ToT from Bofors. ToT was amongst the main stumbling block between the two nations during the preliminary discussions during the UPA regime.

The manufacturing company of the Rafale, Dassault Aviation, after visiting HAL, where the manufacture of 108 aircraft was to be done, was unwilling to take responsibility for quality controls, since they were dissatisfied with their work ethics and quality checks. Further, while Dassault considered 3 crore man hours enough for production of 108 balance aircraft to be assembled in India, HAL was quoting almost double the number, thus shooting the cost of the aircraft. ToT was never discussed, only assembly in India was.

The NDA government under Modi, on assuming control decided to change tack, and opposite of the NDA decided to go in for a government to government deal for the purchase of the aircraft. It took the decision to purchase 36 aircraft in flyaway mode, rather than proceed for manufacture in India under the ToT. Thus, the company, Dassault Aviation, was out of the discussion phase and the deal, being between governments, removed any kickbacks. The agreement included that the aircraft would be delivered in the time requirement and fitted with avionics and weapon systems as per air force desires.

The proposals were then routed back to the defence acquisition council on more than one occasion and their suggestions incorporated. The final Inter-Government Agreement was finally inked in 2016 not 2014 as claimed by the Congress. The issue of costs having been escalated is also aimed at projecting a wrong picture to the public. Every defence equipment has a basic cost. However, as essentials are added on, spares to cater for a duration of time, specific armament fitments and maintenance requirements added, the cost increases. Since breakdown of cost details are unavailable in the public domain, details would remain shrouded in mystery.

The offsets would be implemented. The Dassault was clearly unhappy with the work ethics of the HAL, which is nothing new. It is the same impression being carried by all defence personnel who have ever been associated with it. Hence, it would choose a private company, where there would be better ethics and quality control.

In summary, the agreement was signed between two governments, with no private company or individual involved, thus removing any issue of kickbacks. The procurement process will also be on similar lines. This is the major difference between the approach adopted by the NDA and UPA. Every UPA deal including Bofors and AgustaWestland helicopters were between the government of India and a private company, hence have led to kickbacks, now under investigation.

For a political party, questioning national security purchases, seeking to garner votes may be acceptable, however asking the government to openly declare what additions were involved in the equipment is incorrect. Political entities who have lived their lives in glass houses should stop throwing stones at others.

Impact of a weak defence budget (English Version) Rakshak News 06 Feb 18

Military power determines the standing of a nation in the international domain. A strong military is always respected and nations flock to engage with it. The other elements of power, economic and diplomatic, are only effective if backed by resolute military power. All nations who presently have a strong international standing possess strong militaries. A weak military would never be able to ensure security of a nation’s institutions and its people.

In South Asia, Indian institutions are secure due to which the world seeks to invest in India, partner its military and the nation continues to draw international respect. Other countries in the region do not possess the same level of institutional security hence lag in development and have not attained economic growth as India has.

As India grows in economic power, it would face challenges from its competitors, mainly China in the region. Chinese assertiveness would therefore continue being on the increase. It is constructing bases at multiple locations surrounding India, seeking to complete its string of pearls. Standoffs are on the rise and China would consider India’s growing proximity to the ASEAN and its involvement in the Quad with the US, Japan and Australia as a threat. Nations across the globe expect India to be a counter-balance to China, hence even Trump termed the region as the Indo-Pacific.

Pakistan remains internally unstable. The military has no plans of talking and resolving issues. Its policy of activating the LoC and pushing in militants would continue. To limit its scope of launching terror strikes deep within India, compelling it to restrict its activities to J and K, a strong conventional edge over them is essential. This automatically threatens them with a possible Indian strike, calling their nuclear bluff.

Internationally, nations are flocking to India seeking military and security cooperation, alongside economic investment. India is being considered a net security provider in the larger Asian region. Indian voice in the international arena is being heard because of its strong economic base and powerful armed forces. Therefore, maintaining continuous military modernization and upgradation is essential if the nation desires to grow and be accepted as a world power.

The present budget has pushed military modernization behind. The allocation, though a modest increase of 7.81% over the last year, is the lowest in terms of its share of the GDP (1.58%) since the 1962 war. When Trump was demanding for NATO nations to enhance their defence expenditure, he was talking of them devoting 2% of their GDP. Ideally, the military has always demanded 2.5, but any figure beyond 2% should have been the minimum which should have been considered.

Another skewed part of the budget has been increased share of revenue versus capital. While revenue is to maintain ‘forces in being’ capital is to enhance capabilities and capacities of the forces, or to create the ‘force of the future’. The capital share of just under 100,000 Crores is almost half of the revenue. Out of the amount allocated for capital expenditure, around 80% is for payment of outstanding liabilities (purchases made earlier and payments pending), thus leaving limited for new acquisitions.

Many economists and commentators, sitting in the safety and security of Lutyens Delhi, have claimed that the government has done correct as an enhanced budget would imply purchase of more military equipment, which may not be employed. A lopsided view, since unless the military has the equipment and ability to deter adversaries, the nation would always remain under threat. Nuclear power and missiles may act as a deterrent, but conventional might is equally essential.

In the battle for development and social security versus military might, the finance minister is compelled to strike a balance. This balance may be more towards social security especially in an election year. However, ignoring national security, when threats are rising by the day is placing the nation at risk.

Each of the three services are crying for modernization and procuring equipment essential for the conduct of their tasks in war. With this limited amount, it is most likely that the army would bear the brunt on its modernization plans, as the need for enhancing naval and air power is on the rise. The finance minister must re-visit the budget and reconsider his proposals, if he as part of the government desires to guarantee national security, which is their primary responsibility.

Remodelling the National Security Council CENJOWS 05 Feb 18

The parliamentary committee on external affairs in its report to the government last month, suggested reviving stalled talks with Pakistan. It stated that despite bilateral relations plummeting due to support for terrorism and the treatment meted out to Kulbhushan Jadhav, ‘geopolitical realities’ make such a process a necessity. The present government has been stating that no dialogue is possible without Pakistan stopping support to terrorism, hence the onus of creating a conducive environment remains with them, on which there are no indicators.

While there have been no official talks, since the Pathankot terror strike, the two NSAs have been meeting at irregular intervals at neutral venues and have also been talking on the phone. The government also fears a political fallout if it accepts any offer for talks, as a terror strike post such acceptance, could lead to a political debacle. The government’s apprehensions increased post the ouster of Nawaz Sharif as it was an indicator of the army consolidating its hold on the country. India even ignored the Pak army chief’s comments that he is willing to support peace with India.

Chinese aggressiveness is on the rise. Its forays into South Asia, by providing financial support at high rates of interest, subsequently seeking strategic assets in lieu, is adding to challenges being faced in the immediate neighbourhood. It has also increased incidents of transgressions into Indian territory in recent years. The Doklam standoff proved that India is willing to counter China. The army chief in his interview pre-army day, even stated that though China is a strong country, India is not weak.

In the case of both Pakistan and China as also countering Chinese influence in the immediate neighbourhood, India has no consistent declared national strategy. It continues to lumber on battling threats as they emerge. In both cases it began with peace overtures, but when it did not materialize, India changed tack. It has since then been adopting a calibrated policy against both. While its diplomatic consultations with China continue, it has almost stopped any official interaction with Pak. Thus, while it continues to appease China, it seeks to challenge Pak.

What also needs to be considered is the collusion between the two and the threats it poses. China has always propped up Pak as a challenge to India and compelled India to consider Pak as a major threat. As per reports, it presently provides over 60% of Pak’s military hardware. India has majority of its military commands biased towards Pak while even hesitating to develop infrastructure on the Chinese front.

This was because many Indian military leaders still carried the 1962 ghost and defensive mentality towards China and opined that China could exploit this infrastructure, in times of hostilities. It is only recently, that the government has begun shifting focus from the west to the east and commenced enhancing infrastructure development along the Chinese front.

The collusion between China and Pak will also impact Kashmir. As Chinese military, economic and diplomatic support to Pak increases, it would become bolder along the LoC and in attempting disruptions in Kashmir. Further, Chinese investments in POK as part of the OBOR, would seek to provide Pak with a sense of security from Indian intentions.

Internally too, the nation faces a multitude of security threats, however lacks an integrated approach based on a common strategy. Mr NN Vohra, the Governor on J and K, while delivering the 12th RN Kao memorial lecture, suggested a three-pronged approach for refurbishing the internal security mechanism. Firstly, India should promulgate a ‘well-considered and holistic’ national security policy, which should be implemented with a time-bound action plan. Secondly, there is a need to refurbish the internal security administrative apparatus. He desired the establishment of a national security administrative service. Finally, he suggested the enactment of a new anti-terror law with a more enlarged role, than the NIA.

A national security strategy, as a precursor to a national security policy can only be drafted when all elements of national power are well represented in the main strategy creating institution, the National Security Council (NSC). While it has under its wings the Strategic Policy Group (SPG), Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), the frequency of their meeting and inputs towards developing a national strategy remain unknown. In most cases, strategy appears to evolve through one individual, the National Security Advisor (NSA).

There has never been any doubt on the qualities, experience and capability of the NSA. He also has the complete trust and faith of the Prime Minister and hence the Cabinet Committee on Security, the main national security decision evolving body. However, any strategy to be viable must envelop all elements of national power in complete harmony. Thus, there is an essential need to have senior representatives from the three main elements of power represented in the NSC.

In the present NSC structure, the NSA is the ex-head of the Intelligence Bureau, while his deputy is the former chief of RAW, both being IPS. It does appear that the government’s emphasis with this structure is to concentrate on Pakistan and Kashmir. Logically, the top structure of the NSC should be considered for a change, involving the NSA and three deputies, representing the major elements of national power, finance, diplomatic and defence.

It is a restructured NSC, with the task of producing a national security strategy catering for future threats and the government’s approach to them that would open doors for a coordinated ‘whole of government’ approach. Ignoring other elements of power, in its structure and leadership, would, despite the knowledge and capabilities of the existing leadership, never enable the drawing of a comprehensive strategy.

Thus, the armed forces, which form the backbone of any strategy remain in dark on their role and capability development. The PM of Israel had clearly stated in his address during the Raisina Dialogue, ‘The weak don’t survive, the strong do. You make peace with the strong, you ally with the strong’.

Strength of a nation flows from a combination of all its elements of power. Unless these are seamlessly coordinated into a common national strategy, there would be pitfalls. This can only happen, when the NSC is restructured to include representatives of the elements on power, employing their specialities to full measure.

Defence Budget 2018: Sadly, Modi government has let down Indian soldiers’ Daily O 02 Feb 18

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his address in the Raisina dialogue was noteworthy and realistic. He stated, ‘The weak don’t survive. The strong survive. You make peace with the strong. You ally with the strong.’ It thus implies that the nation is only as strong as its military is. It is also a well-accepted fact that a nations economic and diplomatic power only bear relevance if they are backed by resolute military power. If a nation’s military lacks capability and capacity, it would no longer be a voice in the international environment. No nation can be a military power with ageing equipment and if it is unable to ward off immediate threats.

The budget announced by the finance minister clearly missed the mark as far as defence preparedness was concerned. It appeared to be a budget to satisfy the voting majority, considering elections being around the corner. Announcements were aplenty however availability of funds and its actual implementation would be determined with time. Defence barely got a mention with the defence minister stating that the nation respects the armed forces for their role in ensuring national security.

In figurative terms the defence budget got an overall flip of a measly 7.81% to Rs 2,99,581 crore as compared to last year’s 2,74,114 crores. However, it was just 1.58% of the GDP, the lowest since the 1962 war. The armed forces have been hankering for a minimum of 2.5% of the GDP. Trump had realistically cautioned his NATO allies that they need to expend a minimum of 2% for defence, to ensure that capabilities do not deteriorate. The Indian budget capital outlay which caters for modernization and new procurements was Rs 99,563.86 Crores. It was dwarfed by a revenue figure of Rs 1,95,947.55 Crores, which caters for maintenance of the force and assets.

The most important part of the budget is the capital expenditure which is utilized for enhancing capabilities and capacities. Out of this figure, almost always 80% is meant for earlier procurements, payments for which are guaranteed and must be made. Thus, only about Rs 20,000 Crores is available for new procurements during the current financial year. In percentage terms only 3.6% of the defence budget is available for modernization.

It does appear that national security and development of military power has been given a short shift, when elections appear to be around the corner. Though the figures have been declining each year, yet this lowest percentage puts a major stumbling block in military modernization. It also goes completely against the present governments international outreach of enhancing defence cooperation and projection of military power in its area of interest and influence. It also impacts the preparedness of the force to meet future threats and challenges.

Defence modernization and procurements are time consuming. Equipment being contracted today would only commence entering service a few years hence and would be completely inducted after a longer time span. Hence, delays at the procurement stage would impact the armed forces for a considerable period of time. Threats are on the rise, the holding of assets to counter the threats are ageing and moving towards the obsolete stage.

It is also that the guns versus butter battle is always at the forefront when the defence minister plans and issues his budget. Social schemes are as important as national security, especially for a developing nation. Yet the words of Late President Abdul Kalam bear relevance that national security and national development always go hand in hand. One cannot happen without the other. Butter would have lesser value if the nation remains under threat.

India has in recent times faced increasing Chinese assertiveness and enhanced tensions along its border with Pak. Competition with China in Asia and the Indian Ocean region is only likely to increase. Simultaneously the government has been reaching out to nations in the Indo-Pacific seeking to enhance military to military cooperation. Instability in Pak would continue and the military’s control over the state would be complete with the conclusion of elections this year. If Indian is to cater for immediate threats and meet the aspirations of the government, then it must make up its increasing shortfalls in capacities and capabilities.

The national leadership is aware of the gaps which exist in India’s defence preparedness. The air force is way below its sanctioned strength of squadrons. More aircraft are in the process of being phased out of service due to vintage in the coming years. The existing capacity of the navy preclude it from fulfilling its mission of providing security in the Indian Ocean region as also interacting with world navies. It immediately requires helicopters and fighter aircraft.

The army lacks even the basic assault rifles, bullet proof jackets and long-range artillery. If it must maintain a credible domination over Pakistan, then its armoured fleets also require an overhaul. The army in general desperately needs modernization and upgradation. With this budget the defence ministry has very limited money for procurements.

The government has been keen on promoting, ‘make in India’, which despite multiple amendments to policy has failed to take off. If the intention of setting up two defence industrial production corridors, as announced by the finance minister, is a step in this direction, then it may further delay defence modernization, as establishment of policies, selection of vendors and setting up facilities would take immense time.

In a final analysis, it is surprising that Jaitley, who has been the defence minister twice during the term of this government, hence aware of the critical shortfalls has failed to address core issues. The nation needs a strong and robust military for ensuring national security and warding off threats. The stronger the military, the less would nations seek to tamper with the nation. If it is the man behind the gun which counts, then he must have a gun, not a spear as he possesses today.

Why the world wants to engage with India The Statesman 30 Jan 18

The world is moving towards realpolitik, ignoring previous relations based on history, commonality of religion and humanitarian considerations. India is a growing powerhouse in both economic and military terms and thus is being sought after. It is a market for every nation seeking to expand trade as also a net security provider in the larger Asian region. With this changing profile, international leaders are flocking to engage with India.

Across the globe, terrorism is a major threat, which India has kept under control. Further, China has begun pushing its weight on its smaller neighbours. It has become aggressive over its territorial claims including the South China Sea. Its loans at higher rates of interest are trapping developing countries. Its trade policies are resulting in balance of payments shifting in China’s favour. The US seems to be withdrawing under Trump, its traditional outlook of supporting its allies becoming more doubtful by the day. Into this gap India is wading in, a reliable friend, willing to support and invest as also provide a lucrative market. Thus, leaders are flocking in.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister visited India recently, the leaders of ASEAN were the guests for the Republic Day and the Canadian Prime Minister arrives next month for a week’s visit. The US Ambassador to India, stated that the US even seeks to exchange liaison officers with the Indian military, taking the relationship from the ‘strategic to the durable’. India is the new destination.

Economically India is one-fifth of China. Further, Indian aid is more project related, though at very low interest rates, hence on occasions undelivered. Militarily it may not be as powerful as China, but as the army chief stated in his pre-army day press interaction, ‘India is not a weak nation’. It has shown the world that it would not back down if its core interests are threatened. Hence, alliances involving India are on the rise.

The ASEAN leaders, who arrived in the country for the Republic Day parade are seeking to enhance cooperation with India in both, economic and security spheres. They, like the US and Japan seek India as a counter balance to China. Thus, Indian security engagements with them would be on the rise. The Indian navy would be more engaged in visiting ports in the ASEAN region as also conducting bilateral and multi-lateral exercises.

There would be more exercises involving the army, with India sharing its expertise on handling terrorism. Many ASEAN nations are seeking to procure the BrahMos and Akash missile systems from India. A clear Indicator of India’s growing military power.

Israel, though still enhancing ties with China, is desirous to supply military hardware and partner India on matters of security and economic development. India-Israel ties have already shaken Pakistan, which feels that these are a threat to them. Similarly, India-ASEAN meet is being closely monitored by China mainly because it considers this grouping as a threat to its relationship with them and a possible enlarged role to India in the South China Sea.

Trade wise, India is the seventh largest trading partner with the ASEAN nations. It would seek to change that status. There are already thirty dialogue mechanisms between India and ASEAN, which includes an annual summit and seven ministerial meetings. India has changed its ‘Look East’ policy of the previous government to an ‘Act East’ policy, a clear shift in focus. India is seeking to actively enhance its relationships with these countries, thus all leaders willingly accepted India’s invitation to attend the event. Their combined presence indicates the standing of India in the Asian region.

Security concerns, mainly due to Chinese hegemony would have dominated the agenda of the ASEAN-India meet. India, US, Japan and Australia formed Quad has already raised eyebrows in China and would have also been noticed by the ASEAN nations. Individually many of these nations already have security and joint exercises tie-ups with India, however, not collectively.

The major issue for which a resolution or a common approach would always allude ASEAN nations is unanimity in its approach to China. Chinese investments in the region and the fact that China is a major trading partner would always be a hinderance. India on its part would be willing to support the nations in their seeking security, enabling economic development.

The US has already considered India as a major defence partner and would desire joint patrols with India in the Indian Ocean Region, which India has avoided. With the signing of the LEMOA (Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement), the range of the Indian navy has vastly increased. The Quad is clearly aimed at countering Chinese hegemony, while enhancing India’s role in the region. The Canadian Prime Minister would also be seeking to enhance military cooperation, apart from trade.

For India, while these interactions enhance its image and diplomatic power, it still has change its internal policies and cater for its military capability development. To become an effective global player, the Indian military needs to have a voice in the diplomatic circuit, an aspect which the government has avoided so far. Military diplomacy and soft power are issues which the government needs to incorporate as a part of its strategy for the future.

Simultaneously, is enlarging the role and scope of the Andaman and Nicobar Command, making it a formidable joint command, with the ability to project power beyond the region. Its assets need to be increased as this would be the command to project Indian military power beyond its shores.

India is moving fast in its international outreach. It is a nation being sought after for economic and security cooperation. Heads of state have made it a destination for economic and military cooperation. However, if India must remain a power on the global stage, then it should realize that economic and diplomatic power can only be effective, if backed by resolute military power. Slowing military capability development would reduce the impact of its global outreach.

AFSPA should not be diluted The Excelsior 18 Jan 18

There are reports in the media about the home and defence ministries reviewing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and seeking to dilute some sections of the same. This is to cater for comments made by the supreme court, demands by the PDP and NC as also a few expert committees. Similar attempts had been made by the government earlier, but resistance by the army, precluded any dilution. The act was first passed by parliament in 1958 to tackle growing insurgency in the North East. It provides operational flexibility and protection to army personnel operating in hostile environment against terrorists and other inimical forces.

The sections under review are sections 4 and 7 of the act, which accord powers and safeguards to security forces while undertaking counter-terrorism operations. Section 4 gives security personnel the power to search premises and arrest without warrant, to use force even to the extent of causing death, destroy arms/ammunition dumps, fortifications, shelters, hideouts and search and seize vehicles. Section 7 on the other hand offers protection of persons acting in good faith. Prosecution is permitted only after sanction of the central government.

The centre had in the past refused permission to the J and K government for prosecuting army personnel in 47 of the 50 cases it has submitted since 2001. In the balance cases, it has kept its decision pending. The reason given by the centre in defending its decision is lack of concrete proof.

The supreme court in Apr 2017 had ruled that the police must investigate all cases of death, whether the victim is a militant, terrorist or insurgent, even in areas where AFSPA is in force. It stated that this is a requirement of democracy, preservation of the rule of law and individual liberties.

It is easy to criticize AFSPA, however, for troops operating in a hostile environment, especially when they are targets of forces inimical to the nation, they need to be protected to enable them to function.

There are many organizations and individuals, who would adopt an effortless option of impacting the morale of forces functioning under trying conditions, by dragging them to court on the flimsiest of reasons or even in fake cases, with fake witnesses. Once this is permitted, it would impose immense caution on troops, thereby reducing their efficiency. It must be noted that the most difficult insurgencies in the country have only been brought down and the right environment created for the government to reimpose its control over the region, when forces have been given the freedom to act as also protected from unnecessary legal battles.

This does not imply that the army has not made mistakes in its operations. Other than a few rare cases, where troops have deliberately committed crimes, which have been dealt with disciplinarily and individuals even sent to jail, most errors have been inadvertent. This is because in such an environment, troops function under severe restrictions, knowing that one error could lead to loss of their own lives. Further, like in the North East and presently in the valley, there are localities where the locals have tended to support insurgents, making functioning difficult for security forces.

The debate on removal of AFSPA in some parts of the North East does bear merit. However, in J and K, where militancy is supported by Pak and most militants are being infiltrated, the continuation of AFSPA is essential. While political parties, including the PDP and NC in the valley, prefer its dilution and removal, the fact is that it would place the army in a difficult situation. This may bring additional votes to political parties in the short term, but would be detrimental to the nation in the long.

The reason why it must remain is simple. No army is trained or equipped to target its own people. It is primarily for defending the nation from enemies and fighting wars. However, when there is external interference and the situation is beyond the ability of all types of police forces, is the army inducted to enforce the government’s writ. Once inducted, the army employs and deploys as per its own perceptions. While police forces have powers to search and arrest, the army in many cases operates on its own, without such powers. Hence, granting them powers is essential. It is the government which inducts it and gives it its task, its de-induction is also a government decision.

The army has its role cut out in such environments. Its task is to create an atmosphere for the government to establish its own writ. Once this has been done, it is the government which orders its withdrawal. Thus, employment and deployment are political decisions. If taken erroneously, they could be detrimental. It was for some time removed from regions within the valley due to political considerations, but re-inducted, when the situation again deteriorated. In Assam, though the situation is near normal, the state government desires a continuation of the act, thus seeking to bring about greater stability.

The army is the nation’s ultimate instrument of power. It is inducted only when all other forces available to the government have failed. Thus, it cannot be allowed to fail. Further, it is only the Indian army which fights militancy with one hand tied behind its back. No other army resorts to handling militancy with kid gloves. It has never used helicopter gunships, heavy weapons or air power. Therefore, it suffers far greater casualties in such operations. Other nations including Pakistan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka when battling the LTTE, Israel and many more have all employed air power and heavy weapons against their own people.

Amending AFSPA or reducing the protection to forces operating in such environment would impose extra caution solely to avoid legal battles, thereby supporting inimical forces. This would be detrimental to national security. The government should consider this factor before taking any decision. Continuing employment of the army, with a diluted AFSPA is as meaningless as employing only police forces in such environments.

Why Nitin Gadkari’s outburst against Navy betrays ignorance Daily O 13 Jan 18

Nitin Gadkari, the union minister for shipping in an address in Mumbai last week, questioned the authority of the navy in blocking a proposal for a floating jetty in Malabar Hill of Mumbai. He went on to state, ‘Where is the navy at Malabar Hill? A mindset has developed to create roadblocks in projects. Bring the project before me. We are in power, not the navy or the defence minister. I will not give even an inch of land to the navy in South Mumbai. We respect the navy, but they should go to Pakistan and do patrolling’.

Such comments by Gadkari are clearly indicative of his lack of knowledge and frustration. The central government had issued directions to the armed forces, to clear projects in near vicinity of the cantonments, post a series of construction, including the Adarsh building in Mumbai, which could impact the security of military cantonments. These were laid down under the Ministry of Defence (MoD) guidelines and are being implemented irrespective of who plans the constructions.

As per the MoD guidelines, projects rejected by the service HQs at local levels, could be projected to the MoD for a review. The ultimate authority is the MoD. Thus, the navy in Mumbai, after considering the jetty at Malabar Hill and its impact on the naval bases in the city, was within its rights to reject the proposal. The state government could approach the MoD for clearance. Even projects being directly approved by the centre could face similar objections. Thus, Gadkari was clearly ignorant or he was not briefed on the reasons why the project was turned down or being aware was seeking to score a few brownie points. The last appears most probable.

His comment that the navy should patrol Pakistan indicated a new low in knowledge. The Navy is responsible for protecting the nation along its sea lines of communication, which it has been doing exceedingly well. It would only be required to patrol off the coast of Pakistan during war or increased hostilities which it would do, as part of his task.

If Gadkari was presuming that his comments would add a few additional votes in his future election campaigns, he is mistaken. Mumbaikars are more than thankful to the armed forces of the nation for the immense support provided to them in times of trouble. During the monsoon, when Mumbai was in a deluge, the navy set up canteens and provided free meals to all those who were unable to return home due to flooded railway tracks. The army is building Foot Over Bridges, which the Mumbai municipal corporation and the railways failed to construct. When Mumbai was under a terror strike, the first force to enter the hotels were the naval Garuds (commando’s).

The armed forces have never been against development. Mr Gadkari may be unaware, but it is the armed forces who have secured the nation and defended its institutes to ensure development. He may never know, but Late President Abdul Kalam had stated in his speech to passing out cadets from the Indian Military Academy on 09 Dec 2006 that ‘national development and national security have to go together’.

However, if any commercial activity is so located that it opens doors for inimical forces to monitor or impact military movement then that facility is a threat to the nation. In such cases denial of permission has been done on numerous occasions in the past. Some cases, post the sealing, are also being contested in the supreme court as they were forced into closure after immense investments.

The navy is in Mumbai, not out of choice or compulsion. It has been a major naval base even prior to independence and being the financial capital of India must be secured from all threats. Its force levels continue to grow as threats to India increase. As force levels grow, so does the strength of the force. It therefore needs land for its staff, providing which is the responsibility of the government. Mr Gadkari would in no way be doing the armed forces any favour by allocating land, it is their responsibility.

Mr Gadkari is only a Minister of Shipping. He is not the Prime Minister of India nor the defence minister to pass direct instructions or comment on a national resource. Allocation of land is done by the state government in consultation with the defence minister. The shipping ministry is nowhere in the picture on such issues. He would benefit the nation if he restricts his comments on a topic of which he is aware.

Being a minister of shipping, he would be aware that it is the Indian navy, which has secured the shipping industry from the piracy prevailing off the coast of Africa. It permanently patrols the seas to secure ships from inimical forces. Thus, instead of praising them for their stellar performance, he raised his voice on a topic on which he was ignorant.

In his address he was venting his frustration as the navy, which possibly after detailed analysis rejected his proposal. He may not have experienced his orders being turned down earlier, being a powerful political figure, however when it comes to ensuring national security, the armed forces refuse to budge despite pressure. If they are to be overruled, then the authority must flow from its own ministry, rather than an outspoken political figure. If the naval vice admiral, Girish Luthra, present at the event would have walked out, on Gadkari’s comments, the insult would have been his. It was his maturity that he remained seated.

The Prime Minister spends Diwali with soldiers, terms them as members of his family and promises to cater for their welfare. His own minister, Nitin Gadkari, berates them solely because they considered national security more important than accepting one of his schemes. Despite his comments, the armed forces would adhere to the guidelines laid down by the MoD and reject any proposal which threatens national security. For them the nation would always remain more important, as governments may come or go, but the armed forces would always remain.

Is it possible for India to change the character of Pak? CENJOWS 11 Jan 18

Background

Over the years, despite a collection of ceasefire agreements, violations along the LoC continue to rise. These increased from 152 in 2015 to 820 in 2017. Infiltrating militants killed in 2015 were 30 and in 2017 they were 59. Foiled attempts rose from 18 in 2015 to 33 in 2017 and Indian army soldiers killed in J and K rose from 33 in 2015 to 61 in 2017, which includes 31 along the LoC. This clearly indicates aggressiveness on both sides is on the rise. Indian retaliation would have resulted in many more casualties on Pak side, however, since their army is afraid to release even basic data, fearing loss of face and morale, a clear comparison is not possible.

Every time a soldier loses his life along the Line of Control (LoC), India’s heart bleeds. The family loses a son, husband and brother. It would be the same feeling across the border in Pakistan. Villages, which dot the LoC, residents of whom seek to make a living on their meagre fields along the border are hounded by small arms and artillery fire at regular intervals. These innocent villagers too suffer regular casualties. There appears to be no end to tensions and hatred.

Unresolved issues over time

Seventy years is a long time for two nations to have unresolved disputes despite four wars, especially if they have originated from the same stock, have a common history and a near similar culture. However, the two-nation theory of partition, based on religion has ensured that the subcontinent is tense and may possibly remain so for eternity. Both nations possess nuclear weapons, thus limiting options for an all-out war.

In recent times, there have been multiple attempts to discuss peace, however each has been cast aside by a terror strike. The best option was post 1971, when India held 93,000 prisoners, but it missed the moment. Even then there was no guarantee that peace would have reigned over the years. In this environment, is there any option for the future or would both nations continue losing valuable young lives?

Increasing hostility

Both have always blamed the other for violating the sanctity of the LoC. India would always retaliate with enhanced firepower unless Pak reigns in its state sponsored terror outfits, causing turmoil in the valley. India would desire a peaceful LoC, which is easy to monitor, while for Pak, an active LoC, enables infiltration. Pak feels that Indian conventional military might is a threat to its survivability and one of its options is to tie down the Indian army by employing cheap and readily available cattle fodder militants. It has always feared that India seeks to break it into smaller states.

The main problem between the two nations is the status of Kashmir. Pak has always considered Kashmir to be an integral part of it, solely on religious grounds, while India considers the legality of the accession document. There has been no serious discussion on the issue because of differing perceptions on both sides and Pak’s support to terror groups. For Pak, they are freedom fighters, while for India they are terrorists. Both nations have attempted to commence dialogue, under multiple formats, including track II, however each has been left midway due to terror incidents.

Pak military remains a stumbling block

The Pak military, the stumbling block to peace, has an interest in maintaining India as an enemy. The budget, strength and capability of the Pak military is solely to ensure the security and sanctity of its eastern borders. While it is now employed against anti-Pak terror groups and the Baluchistan freedom struggle, that involvement is miniscule as compared to its deployment along its borders with India. It has no major enemies, other than India, provided if it stops support to the Taliban and Haqqani network.

It is the strength deployed against India and reserves, which has given it the power to dominate internal politics, conduct coups when it desires and subdue the nation. If there was peace between the two nations, the military strength could be considered for reduction, which would impact its standing. Thus, it has never endorsed nor permitted the polity to seek peace. Historically, it has never forgiven India for the crushing 1971 defeat. Further, it has attempted to annex Kashmir by stoking internal fires, which have further enhanced hatred between the two nations.

India, on the other hand, being a democracy, where if national security is assured, would easily reduce its military capability, spending more on social security schemes. It would enable the nation to concentrate on enhancing its international role and securing its eastern borders. Not only the armed forces, but multiple other security agencies could be cut to size, a major saving for the government.

Over the years, within the population, there has been a feeling of intense hatred generated between the two nations. It may be less on the Indian side, but due to increased Islamization, it is far deeper on the Pak side. Even sporting events between the two nations, now rarely held, are almost a do or die game, a mini battle zone. Economically and diplomatically, the two countries are vastly apart.

Increasing disparity between nations

India is a growing power, seeking a seat in the UN Security Council and is sought after for economic and military cooperation. Pak, which was for a long time, a close US ally, is now almost alone, with only Chinese backing. Its economy is in shambles and its dependence on China is complete. It has suffered prolonged periods of military rule, while India has remained a vibrant democracy.

Thus, the two nations, which gained independence together are vastly different in every way and sworn enemies. Hatred continues to increase, and tensions are on the rise along the LoC. It is therefore likely that the possibility of peace is remote and talks, even if held, may not yield results.

Compelling Pak to change

Is there any manner by which India can push Pak to change and ultimately bring forth an era of peace and development?

Attacks across the LoC, including cross border and surgical strikes have limited impact, as their nation is unaware of their army’s true losses. Despite losses, Pak would continue to be volatile and equally active, because if it displays caution, it would impact their morale and become a national loss of face. The Pak army always denies Indian claims of surgical and cross border strikes and with its internal hold and power, there is no authority to even question or counter its claims. Thus, there is no impact on the nation at large.

Therefore, striking deep may be an option. While India possess the capability, as also the will to do so, however, economic constraints in the long term and possession of nuclear weapons by Pak may deride this option. The very threat of a strong conventional military retaliation by India, calling the Pak nuclear bluff, ensures that Pak does not venture beyond the present limits of supporting terror strikes in the valley. Thus, military option alone is not the answer.

International pressure is presently building on Pak to act not specifically against the Taliban and Haqqani network but also against other terror groups. Pak would be seeking a way out, as it knows that unless it terror groups on its side, it would be unable to fulfil its planned strategy for Kashmir and Afghanistan and remain a bystander in the region.

The groups have now gained almost an independent status, with the ability to create own funds and draw in supporters. The banning of a host of groups by the Pak government recently had no impact, as the very next day, they were conducting a well- attended rally in Peshawar. Further Pak fears, more now than post 9/11, when it changed sides, that the groups could turn inwards, converting Pak into another Afghanistan.

International pressure did bring about a change post 9/11, but that pressure was backed by a strong military threat, when Musharraf was told to act or the ‘nation would be bombed into stone age’. This time, such pressure, solely due to Chinese backing is unlikely. Hence, Pak may act, but it would be controlled and limited, not the level the US desires. It still hopes that China would fill in the financial and military gaps where the US withdraws.

China factor

Chinese investments in Pak is a major influencing factor. The repayment of five billion dollars a year to China is way beyond the capability of Pak. Hence, it would, following the path of Sri Lanka and Myanmar in the region, be willing to sacrifice assets to China in lieu, the commencement of which would be the new naval base being established adjacent to Gwadar. However, the Chinese would desire security of their investments and hence may possibly remain the only nation, with sufficient influence over Pak, to compel it to act. This could only come about if the Chinese realize that non-compliance by Pak could be detrimental to Chinese interests. This message needs to flow from the US. Flowing from India would have limited impact, as India-China relations remain on a sticky wicket.

Non-military options for India

One non-military option for India is to push Pakistan into a conventional arms race, forcing it to increase its arms spending beyond its financial capabilities. While this may impact Pak, but would only push it closer into China’s arms. It may be ideal in the mid to long term, not in the short term.

The second option would be creating and supporting anti-Pak factions, independence movements and groups challenging the Pak state. This would bleed the Pak army, threaten the CPEC, push its economy to the limits and create an atmosphere of uncertainty within Pak. The only benefit for India as against the present status of Pak is that these groups will not exist on Indian soil, hence blowback is unlikely. It may compel Pak to increase terror strikes within India, for which we need to be prepared.

The third option, is to consider Pakistan as a pinprick on our side, handle the terrorists it launches, be offensive along the LoC, accept casualties and continue to grow economically and diplomatically. Simultaneously, leave no stone unturned to continue exerting pressure on Pak to change. If militancy in the valley is controlled, restricted to a few districts, permits the state to maintain control over the region, then it should be accepted as a near normal scenario. The situation should be such as to permit development to continue.

The final option would be to inculcate all the three to ensure Pak is pressured to act in some manner. It cannot ever stop support, as many within its own establishment have close links with terror groups. Most important would be to ensure that militancy remains confined into a small region and within the capability of the army to control.

Conclusion

Indo-Pak enmity has been in vogue for over seven decades and is likely to increase, rather than subside. India, should aim to use multiple options to enhance pressure on Pak compelling it to change its approach. Simultaneously, we should be prepared that peace is still distant and talks anytime in the near future would not yield results. In the long term, once Chinese investments are threatened, it would ensure Pak regains control over its terror groups. Calls for talks from any quarter, internal or external, are meaningless until the deep state is impacted and requests it.

A former minister should know The Statesman 09 Jan 18

In an article 07 Jan 18 and subsequent tweets, Chidambaram, the former home and finance minister, wrote that the present strategy of a ‘hard stance’ adopted by the government in Kashmir will never lead to a political solution. His views were based on data indicating that terror strikes have not reduced, while the killing of terrorists and losses of security force have increased over the years.

He claimed that the appointment of Dineshwar Sharma as the interlocutor was only a political gimmick. In his view, the governments policy of ‘no talks’ with the Hurriyat or those who demand ‘Azadi’ or those arrested for stone pelting had doomed the mission to failure. He further stated that ‘no purpose will be served by pretending that there is no issue or dispute between India and Pakistan’.

He concludes by stating that while he supports the appointment of an interlocutor, but it must be part of a set of measures. The measures which he suggests are promulgating governor’s rule, announcing talks with all stake holders, reducing the presence of the army and para military in the valley and strengthening the defence of the border while taking deterrent action against infiltrators and militants.

The article appears to be more for gaining political brownie points and a few minutes of media glare, than for suggesting a genuine possible solution. He should have been aware, considering his heading critical ministries of the government, that the problem within Kashmir is neither homegrown nor internal, but has been created and fuelled by Pakistan. Pakistan has been projecting since its birth, that it feels bare without Kashmir and the sole reason for its survival, is Kashmir. This is well known on both sides.

They have always been seeking talks, in the present environment of continued support to terror groups, operating in the valley. If India agrees, then this would imply talks with Pakistan at a time when it feels it is in a position of strength. No nation, especially India, would seek to negotiate from a position of weakness. If Pak stops support to terror groups and moves forward for talks, then India would be the dominant party, which would not satisfy Pak. Thus, talks are presently ruled out.

The Hurriyat, whom he considers as major stakeholders, which is contrary to the present government’s views, did possess power and support, so long as hawala funding continued to flow from across. As soon as it stopped, so did violence and strife against the state. Presently, their calls for bandhs, strikes and violence has no takers. Chidambaram ignores the fact that the Hurriyat purchased properties worth millions, without doing a single day’s work, using money funded by Pak. Thus, they played on the blood of the youth for obtaining their wealth.

Militants within the state are largely from Pakistan, with a sprinkling from within. Those from within have joined to seek local power or to overcome a jobless environment, which the centre and state failed for decades to create. Majority of the state youth desire peace and development thus providing them employment avenues, which would allude them, unless security forces dominate the valley and eliminate militants.

Militancy and attacks on security forces would continue, so long as the Pak deep state is able to easily obtain cannon fodder militants, launch them across, befooling them that they are serving the interests of Islam. They can be controlled, restricted, eliminated but never stopped. Thus, security forces would suffer casualties, despite all precautions and firepower. This must be accepted as it is battling state sponsored terrorism, not simple violence. Hence reducing security forces presence in the valley would be detrimental to national security. The desperation within the Pak establishment on the success of our security forces was evident, when it pushed for the release of Hafiz Saeed from prison.

Chidambaram had suggested strengthening of the border and adopting deterrent action against infiltrators and militants. The culling of militants had touched a high of over two hundred in 2017, as per data in his own article. The number of infiltrators eliminated, and infiltration bids foiled have also been high last year. As a home minster he would have been aware that border management, despite every known gadget is never a zero-sum game. There are rivulets, jungles and ravines, which make monitoring every inch difficult. Yet, multiple layers adopted by the security forces have reduced infiltration to low levels.

His recommendation of promulgating governor’s rule is the most absurd suggestion coming from a former home minister. Imposition of governor’s rule, especially in J and K, sends very wrong signals across the globe. Firstly, it implies that the state has lost control over the valley. Secondly, the governor is employing the army to subdue the state, thus spreading false news of Kashmir being army controlled.

Thirdly, Pak’s propaganda machinery would have a field day projecting victory for the people of the valley as the Indian government had failed. It is for this reason, that even during the violent summer of 2016, the centre refused to consider governor’s rule, despite calls from many quarters.

The interlocutor, Mr Chidambaram, has been given full freedom to interact with any member of society. There is no rule of not taking to the Hurriyat, those seeking ‘Azadi’ and stone throwers. In fact, many of these groups including students, who led the 2016 violence, have interacted with him and would continue to do so. Interactions must necessarily be within the Indian constitution.

Kashmir needs a strong security presence to thwart Pak’s designs while opening doors for dialogue employing the interlocutor. It remains an issue, as Pak holds what was rightfully ours because your party leadership under Nehru, panicked and ran to the UN, rather than trusting the Indian army, which you also don’t. Let those in power today, attempt to solve, what the UPA could not for ten years, despite appointing three interlocutors and holding a collection of round table conferences.

Display realism in ties with Palestine The Statesman 02 Jan 18

The recent international debate over Trump announcing the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the shifting of his embassy there, resounded in the UN. The UN security council voted 14:1 on the issue, with the US being compelled to use its veto for the first time in years. There was also a vote in the General Assembly, where a total of 128 nations voted against the US decision, 9 supporting and 35 abstaining, India being one of those that voted against. The General Assembly vote was conducted under direct US threats, issued both by Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative to the UN and President Trump.

The Indian vote was based on four factors. Firstly, despite requests from various political parties and members of the international community, which understood India’s growing proximity to both, the US and Israel, India maintained a studied silence on the US announcement. Secondly, India did not participate in the discussion in the UN, preferring to maintain its silence once again. These two steps indicated India’s genuine stand. Thirdly, to display its historical support to the Palestinian cause, it voted against the US and Israel.

Finally, were the threats issued by the US. Had India backed down and voted for the US and Israel or even abstained, the government would have come under intense criticism at home. It would have been accused of being a US lackey, which it neither is nor would ever be. Though the vote also impacted Israel, a close partner in economic and military fields, however, India had limited options. With the parliament session commencing, the government would have had to battle to remove the stigma of acting under US pressure. Possibly Nikki Haley and Trump’s threats were the final deciding factors. Thus, the final vote was more to avoid domestic criticism, than support Palestine openly, however, the fact was that it did support them and historically have always had.

India would have discussed its stand with Israel, if not the US. This was because of its growing relationship with Israel. At the same time, it ignored calls for speaking against or criticizing the US and Israel, as it was aware that Palestine has never supported India on the Kashmir issue. It has always towed the line of Pakistan and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). Their support may be solely in name however, it has always been expected on a reciprocal basis.

Recent press reports of the Palestinian ambassador to Pakistan sharing the dais with Hafiz Saeed, has raised eyebrows in India. There has been widespread criticism of this action and demands are increasing for the government to reverse its stand and stop supporting Palestine. Hafiz Saeed is the individual, whom India considers as being responsible for Mumbai and many other terror operations in India. Thus, the Palestinian ambassador being on the same platform is an indicator of the disrespect and ingratitude which Palestine displayed towards India.

The incident occurred just prior to the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister to India and post the announcement of Modi’s visit to Palestine in the coming months. Despite its proximity to Israel, India has been one of the few vibrant supporters of the Palestine cause. President Mukherjee visited Palestine in Oct 2016, followed by the Sushma Swaraj. Mukherjee’s visit bears special significance, as the Modi government declared its intention to continue to support their cause. Mukherjee visited Israel and Palestine simultaneously, indicating India’s commitment for peace in the region. This was followed by the visit of the President of Palestine to India last year. Mukherjee during his visit gifted 30 computers to a training centre.

Israel, on the other hand, has been a nation which has always stood by India. It has supported Indian stand on Kashmir, condemned Pak for supporting terror groups, sold India weapons with latest technology, provided intelligence on terror groups and shared its expertise in agriculture. Despite India maintaining minimum relations with Israel in the past, it has never let India down. Manekshaw, the COAS during the 1971 war, had even stated that India fought the war with Israeli manufactured ammunition for the 130 mm Guns, which Russia had failed to provide. Thus, considering realism in international relations, India should logically be seen moving closer towards Israel than Palestine.

The open presence of the Palestinian ambassador alongside Hafiz Saeed should be taken as an insult. It may have been condemned by Palestine and its Ambassador withdrawn, however it does indicate their mindset. It is an indicator that as a nation, they would align with groups operating against India, rather than supporting Indian interests. It is possible that this action was done to assuage India, so that the scheduled visit of Modi is not cancelled. They, like many others whom India has always stood by, have begun taking India for granted, which in international relations, impacts its prestige.

It therefore becomes incumbent for India to change its international relations towards realism, rather than on historical baggage and sentimental values. Realistically, peace in West Asia would only come about when the Palestinians accept the reality of the existence of the state of Israel. India can be a via-media in discussions.

India as an international powerhouse has a voice respected across the globe. It provides economic and diplomatic support to Palestine. It should therefore make its position clear that repeating such actions or acting against Indian interests would invite Indian counter measures, which would harm the support and assistance it now receives. While Palestine may have withdrawn its ambassador to Pakistan, it needs to formally apologize to India for this misdemeanour.

India has the power to force such change in nations whom it has supported and continues to support. Hesitation to support Indian stand should result in announcing a drastic shift in our foreign policy. India is a rising global power and unless it commences acting like one, it’s decency and magnanimity would always be misconstrued.

Can India learn from the US national security strategy CENJOWS 28 Dec 17

Introduction

President Donald Trump unveiled his National Security Strategy (NSS) last week. He announced his views on it, which is a departure from his predecessors. The Goldwater Nichols act mandates every US President to declare their NSS on a yearly basis. Most presidents issue one or two during their entire tenure (even if it spans two tenures of eight years). Issuing one within his first year in office indicates to his government, which direction he desires them to take. On ground, the policy may be tweaked depending on changing global coalitions, however, responses from across the globe indicate its international acceptability.

Relevance of the document

China and Russia, being termed as the US’s main competitors have severely criticized the document and the approach of the US towards them. Pakistan, which came in for severe criticism has also been vocal in its objections. India, on the other hand has welcomed the document. This implies that the document has relevance and is studied across the globe.

Such a document, if carefully drafted, guides departments of the government on their approach to challenges and threats facing the nation. India has yet to have any enunciated national security policy. In our case, it should have been the National Security Council, established in 1999, which should have authored it. It has not been published mainly due to coalition nature of our politics, where views on dealing with challenges facing the nation are at wide variance due to leanings of political parties. However, as we emerge as an international power, we need to reconsider our approach and prepare to issue a policy document.

Implications of not possessing a national security policy

Lack of a policy document implies that there will be no whole of government approach to threats, both external and internal, facing the nation. Even the armed forces would flounder on, unguided by a common approach, based on their own threat perceptions, seeking capabilities which they feel they would require in the future. Therefore, different services would view threats from their specific angles, presuming to combat them individually, thereby demanding essential capabilities. Government departments would also lumber on, battling crises after crises, with minimum inter-governmental coordination.

Importance to military power

A casual reading of the US NSS would indicate the importance their national leadership has given to joint operations and enhancing military power. There is a clear link between foreign policy, emerging threats and a strong and capable military. It has been stated in multiple places that military power needs to be enhanced to counter future threats and that a powerful military also strengthens diplomacy and enables shaping of the international environment.

George Keenan once remarked, ‘you have no idea how much it contributes to the general politeness and pleasantness of diplomacy when you have a little quiet force in the background’. Jim Mattis, stated last weekend, while addressing soldiers in Fort Bragg on tensions in the Korean peninsula, ‘My fine young soldiers, the only way our diplomats can speak with authority and be believed, is if you’re ready to go’.

An analysis of each nature of threat, would lead to deducing the right level of military capabilities essential for national security. In our case, lack of such a document, permits the finance ministry to control defence expenditure and procurement, without any responsibility for national security. It is a lopsided approach, resulting in the defence minister requiring sanction from the finance ministry on matters concerning national security, even though funds have been released for defence, specifically to the ministry. It therefore adds one more layer of concurrence or rejection for military procurements.

Funds allocated for procurements for national security have also been reducing by the year, despite threats increasing manifold. Regular adverse comments on the same from the parliamentary committee of defence have had no impact. Every year the finance minister states in his budget presentation that there are no shortages of funds for national security, yet the armed forces have been compelled to restrict even their essential procurements. Had there been clear necessities of developing essential capabilities laid down to counter emerging threats, in an official security policy document, such a state would not have risen. It is further compounded by a toothless HQ of Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), which cannot issue a coordinated capability development plan.

Joint operations are an urgent requirement for any nation seeking to be a military power. They can only be implemented by integrating the three services. This involves creating theatre commands and appointing a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). In India, the government, despite the Subramanyam committee report post the Kargil war, has yet to take a decision in this regard. Jointness remains miles away. India has only taken cosmetic steps by establishing a few joint organizations and issuing a joint training directive simply because governments fearing a coup by appointing an all powerful CDS, continues to seek political consensus, which may never happen.

Importance of an industrial base

The US national security strategy also highlights the importance of a strong internal defence base. The statement in the document which needs to be noted is, ‘support for a vibrant domestic manufacturing sector, a solid defence industrial base and resilient supply chain’. In India, it is only now, that the private sector is being encouraged to become a part of defence R and D and manufacturing. This encouragement needs to be continued, with greater orders being placed on them. The government needs to revamp the DRDO and support the private sector more. Only in those fields where DRDO has made a breakthrough should it be encouraged. Providing reservations in defence procurement, by compelling the armed forces to acquire low grade DRDO products is meaningless.

Contingency plans for shaping the environment

The document also includes contingency plans for handling of crises and options for employment of funds to shape the environment to suit national objectives. It also brings about a synergy between the two major organs of the government in handling crises across the globe, foreign and defence ministries. While the Indian armed forces have no role outside our region as Indian policy does not envisage such a role, however, lack of a reliable document, makes the government ignore growing military soft power and military diplomacy.

India has been expending large quantum of funds in our immediate neighbourhood seeking to woo our neighbours away from Chinese influence. A national security policy would lay down the government’s goals and options to achieve this objective, by adopting a whole of government approach.

Recent years have witnessed an increasing number of countries seeking military to military cooperation with India. This is an indicator of international recognition of the professionalism of the Indian armed forces and enhancement of military soft power. This should be suitably dovetailed with the foreign ministry for shaping the near environment to our advantage. However, lack of a concrete policy keeps the armed forces away from the decision-making process. Rivalry between the civil and military service ensures it is ignored.

The US has termed China as its main competitor and supports alliances to contain its expansion and belligerence. India has been facing the brunt of Chinese hegemonistic attitude and thus needs a comprehensive strategy involving all branches of the government to contain it. Further, it would guide the direction India would need to adopt to counter China including developing infrastructure along the Chinese frontier.

Conclusion

The future belongs to Asia and the Indian Ocean and India will be a major international player. As a growing power India requires to create a viable document to synergize all branches of the government, enhance military capabilities and build an international consensus amongst allies, to deter emerging threats in the region. It may not be a yearly nor biennial, possibly even one for five years would be sufficient. Ignoring it implies floundering along as we have been doing till date.

Weak defence in the face of failures The Statesman 19 Dec 17

The DRDO director general (BRAHMOS), Mr SK Mishra, while speaking during a session on ‘Role of DRDO in making India a world class defence hub’ justified high imports of military equipment. His reasoning was the existing security environment of the neighbourhood, wide weather variations in various parts of the country and our history of importing equipment. In his opinion, wide variations in weather from super high altitude in Siachen and Sikkim to deserts and high humidity areas, made developing equipment capable of being operated in these areas concurrently difficult.

DRDO was established in 1958 with the merger of the Technical Development Establishment and the Directorate of Technical Development and Production with the Defence Science Organization. It presently consists of fifty-two laboratories and employs over five thousand scientists. Its major success has been in the fields of rocket and missile science, with limited to no success in other fields.

This is possibly the first time that a DRDO head has justified import of military hardware. His statement on the volatile security environment in the region is nothing new, as since independence the security environment has never been secure. In fact, it took a dip for the worse after 1962. DRDO raised in 1958, has been a part of this volatile security environment since its inception. This should have goaded it to strive harder for self-dependency, rather than compelling the nation to seek imports or in many cases even being compelled to accept equipment way below the military’s requirement.

The other justification of wide variation in climatic conditions is again lame, as it has never impacted imported hardware. If international arms manufacturers can develop equipment capable of operating in such environment, even if does not exist in their nation, why has our own DRDO failed. This failure has led to India being a leading arms importer.

Factually the reasons for high imports are low technological base and in most cases inferior quality of products delivered by the DRDO, which are rejected by the armed forces. This has been compounded by lack of motivation of scientists, who are neither questioned for their performance nor taken to task to justify high funding with no major outputs.

Over the years, DRDO held sway over defence imports. The armed forces requests for capacity building by purchasing equipment were always routed through the DRDO, which then proposed to develop the same inhouse in a specific time frame, always using the pretext of saving vital funds. The recent case of India cancelling import of Spike missiles in favour of possible development by DRDO is a case in point. In most cases the DRDO failed or produced equipment below par, compelling the military to operate without the desired capability.

The opportunity to purchase had already crossed and the military suffered. It has been decades and till date the basic infantry weapon has not been correctly designed, the Tejas came after years of research, akin to the Arjun tank. The Transfer of technology for the Bofors Gun remained with them since its induction in 1984, however, was possibly discovered only recently. It has almost never adhered to its own laid down timelines but has rarely been questioned.

There were occasions when it did deliver, Arjun tanks being a recent example, however, the equipment failed to meet the army’s requirement. The military wanted to reject the product, but under pressure from the government, was compelled to place limited orders, which it did. Thus, Arjun tanks are presently held with hardly any armoured regiments. Similarly, the air force has rejected the next upgrade of the Tejas aircraft.

It is a fact that no nation can ever become a major military power on imported equipment alone. It must have a strong internal technological base. Imports can always be held to ransom, which has happened with India on numerous occasions. Shortage of spare parts of Russian equipment has led to low serviceability levels. US policies on provision of military hardware includes a clause of withholding supplies, if they are employed against US interests.

Until recently, DRDO even discouraged private industry from participating in defence Research and Development (R and D). They therefore held monopoly, which impacted capability and capacity development. They were never accountable for their failures nor even for promises made, but unfulfilled. There has hardly been any questioning on their use of allocated funds and resultant developments. Failures are dubbed as ‘confidence building projects’.

Historically, the government was right when it created the DRDO, as the nation lacked technology essential for defence forces. As the private sector grew, it could have been involved in defence R and D, which would have changed the scenario. However, for decades, the DRDO kept it out. It is only recently, that the government has opened this sector, changing the environment.

Even the government’s decision to support the DRDO, giving it preference, as compared to foreign vendors, when it came to evaluation of military equipment, was akin to adopting a reservation policy. This never worked as DRDO knew they could push substandard equipment down the throat of the armed forces, simply because the scientific advisor to the Prime and Defence Ministers has a closer level of contact with the decision makers, than service chiefs.

In rare instances, it is better to accept lower levels of inhouse developed technology rather than import costly equipment, as it is our own and can be secured. This is feasible only in very limited cases, mainly communication equipment, but not across the board. It is lack of faith in the capability of the DRDO to deliver that the armed forces are compelled to seek imported equipment, much against wishes.

Therefore, the justification as given by the DRDO BRAHMOS chief is incorrect. He should have accepted the failure of his organization, which by now should have mastered military technology, rather than chasing it from behind and expecting the military to accept their sub-standard products.

This Vijay Diwas Modi Government must end its war against the Indian soldier Daily O 16 Dec 17

As we celebrate Vijay Diwas, victory over Pakistan in 1971, it is time to retrospect. The 1971 war was a decisive victory. It concluded when Lt General AAK Niazi, then governor of East Pakistan, signed an unconditional surrender in Dacca on 16 Dec 1971 and Pakistani forces comprising of 93,000 soldiers, surrendered to the Indian army. Paintings of the surrender ceremony adorn army establishments, filling the hearts of those who view it, even today, with pride.

Each battle of the war had its hero’s. While some were recognized for their exceptional bravery and leadership, others remained unsung. While some battles were immortalized on screen, others remain a part of history. Hearing the recount of battles from those who participated, leaves any audience filled with pride for the common soldier. The nation stood as one throughout the war, supporting the armed forces in their endeavours.

At the end of the war, Bangladesh came into existence, despite the hype of the US Seventh Fleet moving into the Bay of Bengal and open threats by President Nixon. India proved that it would not bend, despite international pressure, unless its objectives were achieved. The sacrifice of the Indian soldier and the Mukti Bahini, who fought alongside him, will remain etched in Indian and Bangladeshi history.

As a nation we need to say a silent prayer for those who remain in Pak custody even today, with no knowledge of whether they are alive and in what condition. Governments over the years have almost given up on them, with only their families hoping and praying for a miracle. Our hearts even go to the families of those who made the supreme sacrifice to ensure India’s victory. India won the war and the army proved it had out grown the ghost of 1962.

However, what the army gave to the nation, Indira Gandhi lost on the bargaining table. She lost the advantage of holding 93,000 prisoners and settling the issue of Kashmir permanently, instead letting the advantage shift to Bhutto. Whether it was deliberate or an error in judgement or based on a promise Bhutto made but could not follow, India remained the loser.

Release of documents covering the crucial stages of decision making, may only unravel the mystery. It was a repeat of the post 1965 war Tashkent talks, when Haji Pir was handed back to Pakistan without realizing its strategic importance, the government again never sought military advice, instead relied on diplomatic and bureaucratic suggestions, losing the advantage. Never again would India ever get such an opportunity in history, to resolve Kashmir in India’s favour.

The Indian soldier proved then and has proved ever since, that he remains dedicated and sincere to his task. The armed forces fought with weapons and equipment well below standard, hence it was truly the man behind the gun, which led to India achieving victory. Its leadership, then with Manekshaw at the helm, was decisive and clear in its aim and ultimate objective. There were days during the sixteen-day war, when operations were bogged down, progress was slow, but the leadership maintained faith and belief in the soldier, knowing he would not fail and he never did.

A lot has changed since then, but the soldier has not. He has never let the country down, either in Kargil, Siachen or even Kashmir. Equipment profile, communications and intelligence gathering may have improved, but what would remain unchanged is the man behind the gun. He battles on, unaffected by the happenings behind his back, where he is continuously downgraded, his entitlements withdrawn, left to fend for himself post his disembodiment and even forced to battle for his pensions, denied by some bureaucrat sitting behind a chair in an air-conditioned office.

It hurts the common Indian when news floats of senior veterans or their widows, battling for their justified rights in courts, denied by a heartless government machinery. Such cases need to be personally handled by the defence minister, as caring for veterans and widows is a national responsibility, which it cannot ignore. The only consolation is that the army looks after its own, but faces a stonewall when it encounters chair bound bureaucracy.

1971 proved that leadership at the helm needs to be strong and decisive. It cannot be accepting directions from those ill-informed on matters military. Despite all pressure, Manekshaw refused to launch operations until he was certain that the army was ready. He was unwilling to commit his forces till he was confident that desired equipment was in place. If the armed forces must succeed, then the leadership needs to be upright and an inspiration to the rank and file. The present leadership needs to stand tall against those seeking to let the military down, after all they represent those whom they command. If they claim helplessness against government apathy, then it is a weakness in leadership and ignorance of the Chetwode Motto.

A major change over the years has been an increase in threats facing the country, which demands a well-equipped and motivated military. The armed forces can no longer live on the laurels of 1971 and Kargil, but must be prepared for the future, where challenges are on the rise. The leadership at the helm of the nation need to understand that ignoring the armed forces and permitting bureaucracy to override and degrade it as also withdrawing what is justifiably theirs, would only harm its morale. They must also realize that welfare and well-being of veterans and war widows is their primary responsibility, which if they ignore would impact its performance.

Vijay Diwas must be an occasion which the nation should celebrate with gusto and pride across all spectrums of society and in every educational institute. It should be an occasion to rekindle patriotism and nationalism. War heroes and widows of the 1971 war should be felicitated across the country, conveying the message that the welfare of armed forces personnel remains a national responsibility. It was India’s glorious moment and should be celebrated as such, not solely a military event as of now.

Nationalism is not debatable The Excelsior 13 Dec 17

A topic gaining prominence across the nation and being debated in multiple forums, mainly by political parties, is nationalism. It has been in the limelight since events criticizing the nation and supporting Afzal Guru began unfolding in JNU. Leading political parties have been blaming one another for changing the concept of nationalism on frivolous grounds, including religion. Despite orders from the supreme court, political parties continue seeking votes on religion, caste and creed.

Another debate, even resonating in the supreme court, is standing and respecting the national anthem, when it is projected in cinema halls as also questioning on whether it should even be projected in places of entertainment. It gained momentum after incidents involving those who failed to stand were manhandled. The national anthem and the national flag are two symbols of the nation which should be binding its nationals and enhancing nationalism, however remain focal points of debates and discussions.

Nationalism is not the patent right of any specific political party, religion nor organization in India. While accepting that views of political parties, individuals or groups may wary against the views of the party in power, it should be acceptable so long as it does not insult the nation nor its institutions. Supporting an enemy state or those who indulge in terrorism on its behalf is an insult not only to the nation but specifically to those who place their life and limb at risk for the country and its security.

While it is fashionable to criticize those at the helm and that a democracy should accept varying views with the government being open to criticism, there is a line which cannot be breached. This line is supporting those who have harmed the nation or have worked for forces inimical to the country. When this line is breached, then the state needs to act, which it has done on multiple occasions, despite criticism, JNU being a prime example. Encouraging anti-national voices, seeking to gain a few votes is the lowest form that politics can ever take. Thus, while some political parties may term the breaching of the line as liberalism, however it remains anti-national.

Indians for ages had more unity towards language, ethnicity, state and religion, rather than the nation, except during war. The anti-Hindi agitation in the South, support to Tamil tigers and demand for states based on ethnicity are some examples. This is presently undergoing a transformation. Irrespective of being in any part of the country, not respecting the national flag or the anthem is being frowned upon.

Nationalism has begun raising its head, however not without its opponents, mainly politicians seeking a few minutes of limelight. Since nationalism has suddenly risen into prominence in the last few years, the debate has shifted from Indian nationalism to Hindu nationalism, mainly seeking to attack the ruling BJP and the majority community, who have been supporting it.

However, many do not realize that the armed forces, while not holding any patent rights to nationalism and national unity have been proponents of the same since independence. An RTI seeking information on the number of Moslems in the army, received a reply stating that there are no Hindu’s or Moslems in the army, only soldiers. The army neither recruits on religion, caste or creed, solely on the fitness of an individual to serve, based on state quotas, laid down by the government.

Its operational units do not have separate religious institutions, even when the soldiers belonging to different religions, serve together. They only have a Sarv Dharam Sthal (an abode for all religions). This one institution epitomizes the symbolic union of different religions under one roof. It also symbolizes the essence of tolerance, brotherhood and unity in diversity, which the armed forces portray. It is here that Eid, Gurpurab, Janmashtami and Easter are celebrated. The personal details of an individual mention religion, as it is essential for his last rites, but no caste or creed.

The same soldier would rush to rescue Indian citizens affected by natural disasters or accidents, without even considering their religion. Post the floods in Srinagar, the soldier, forgetting his own accommodation being under flood waters, was rescuing those who were pelting stones on him a day prior and even while he was carrying out his task. He served them food from his own stocks, knowing well, that tomorrow stones may again be pelted. Army columns, while on the task of restoring order, have done so, without any favour to religion, caste or creed. They have restored order just by their presence, because the nation knows it remains areligious and apolitical. Hence, they are the most respected.

The nation debates whether the national anthem should be played in places of entertainment and whether it is compulsory to stand. The national anthem plays when the national flag flies. Symbolically both represent the nation. It is this flag, which the anthem represents and which the solider salutes. It flies with honour and dignity even on the icy mountains of Siachen and motivates the soldier as he battles the enemy and nature. It is this flag which the soldier displayed on the summit of Tiger Hill when he captured it. It is also the same flag which drapes his mortal remains when they return to his town or village.

It must be astounding for him to read about frivolous reasons questioning paying respects to the anthem and flag, while he is prepared to sacrifice his life for it. He would wonder, tomorrow if not today, is it worth dying for a nation, which disrespects, what I am ready to sacrifice my life for. When he can stand for hours and hours on duty, facing enemy bullets and awaiting infiltration attempts in every weather, standing for under a minute, when the anthem is played is being questioned. If he can attend all religious functions of his colleagues in the same Sarv Dharam Sthal, why can’t others do so. Nationalism and national unity should be binding us as a nation, not dividing us on the basis of caste and religion.

Flag day should be on 16 Dec The Statesman 12 Dec 17

Information on the armed forces flag day was for the first time well spread across the nation employing every medium, mainly social. While the event did have good coverage and possibly reasonable contributions flowed, however, the very concept and methodology of its conduct needs a revisit. It has followed a laid down schedule since 1949, with an increased emphasis this year on employing digital media to enhance contributions.

It was first celebrated in 1949 on this date and has since become a ritual. There is no specific historical reason for the selection of this date except the fact that the Defence Ministers Committee in Aug 1949 took a decision to celebrate rmed forces flag day every year on December 7th. In 1949, the nation had yet to face any major external threat, hence any day was suitable.

In earlier days, NCC cadets and volunteer school children would be visible at crossings, with small donation boxes and flags, where passing motorists would put their contributions and a flag would be pinned on their dress. The smile on children’s faces or NCC cadets while they pinned the flag was enough to even melt the heart of the army’s most ardent critic. Presently, there is no organized system of collection, hence largely remains an unknown day. Photographs in newspapers on the next day always show a flag being pinned onto the jacket of the state governor and chief minister.

In the present digital era, contributions can easily be made online. The funds collected on flag day are employed for three principal tasks. Firstly, rehabilitation of families of battle casualties, secondly, welfare for serving personnel and finally for resettlement and well-being of ex-servicemen, including battle casualties. In addition to armed forces flag day, there is always an option for those seeking to donate for the welfare of armed forces personnel to deposit funds online to either the National Defence Fund or the Indian Army Welfare Fund.

In its initial years, on armed forces flag day, the three services would hold a variety of traditional and cultural programs, plays, festivals and other activities to showcase their unity in diversity. This has taken a backseat and so has serious efforts at interacting with the common Indian. The day has largely remained ignored by the serving military community and the masses. With passage of time, even efforts at increasing public donations have reduced.

Collection of donations at national levels is coordinated by the Kendriya Sainik Boards (KSB). At state levels it is the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB) and Zila Sainik Boards, which are quasi-independent bodies at state and below level, and operate under the KSB at the central level. While advertisements are few for donations, however apart from previous years, the government went on an overdrive on social media to enhance awareness amongst the public.

In the present era, there is a requirement to reconsider the date and manner of conduct of the flag day. In India, there are specific days when the public remembers armed forces martyrs and functions are held in their memory. Well known days are Vijay Diwas, which marks victory over Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh, which is celebrated on 16 Dec every year and Kargil Diwas, which is victory in Kargil and celebrated on 26 July every year. On these two dates, the nation collectively pays homage to martyrs in organized events including candle light vigils.

Since 07 December has no specific significance, it would be ideal to change the date to one, which the nation can relate to, thereby inviting better participation. It would then be a conduct of multiple events, all with a cause, with fund raising being just one of them. Once the national public relate to an event, everything, including contributions change.

Between the two common dates, the most ideal would be Vijay Diwas. This is mainly since it was a major victory and changed the subcontinent for eternity. Further, this war involved the active participation of all three services and sacrifices were also from all three, hence would be more symbolic, especially in areas where there are naval and air force bases. In addition, donations are not as important as the common Indian declaring solidarity and increased interaction of the society with members of the military, hence a change in the manner of conduct is equally essential.

The new concept should involve all academic institutions and corporate houses inviting few serving and veteran members of the armed forces from the nearest cantonment or town. They could address the audience on the nature of operations of the 1971 war and on issues concerning their present role and tasks. A talk by uniformed soldiers accompanied by veterans who had either participated in operations or counter insurgency, sharing their experiences would rekindle nationalism and support to the armed forces. It would enhance trust and belief in their role and task.

Collection of funds should remain the responsibility of the KSB and its affiliates. They could involve those institutions and corporate houses, which are inviting service representatives on that day. These institutes could collect donations, if any, subsequently handing over to the representatives of the RSB. NCC cadets could also be involved in the event, enthusing them with a strong feeling of nationalism and making them feel special, as they remain the closest link of the masses with the armed forces.

The armed forces flag day has begun losing significance since it is a stand off event, with no correlation to India’s major victories, post-Independence. Since the day had been selected at random, its continuance need not be sacrosanct. Changing it to Vijay Diwas has no political connotation, hence could be considered. For a nation with short memories, maximum participation and contributions would flow, if the date of armed force flag day is changed to 16 Dec, coinciding with Vijay Diwas. Changing the manner of its conduct would enhance solidarity of the common public with the armed forces.

Defence ministry needs an image overhaul The Statesman 05 Dec 17

Over the years, for multiple reasons, the defence ministry (MoD) has been viewed as a stumbling block in national security, rather than being the prime mover. It has been viewed as being anti- armed forces, rather than their supporters. Amongst all the ministries of the government, this has come in for maximum flak.

The UPA regime refused to clear any defence deal, creating capability shortfalls and leaving the armed forces with such shortages of ammunition that even fighting a ten-day war was difficult. For ten years, Anthony only saw the Bofors ghost lurking around each corner, viewed every deal with suspicion, worried about his clean image being damaged. It led to the ministry losing even the basic respect it deserved.

The present government appeared to begin on a positive note, with Modi addressing the Rewari veterans rally, promising to pay special attention to the military and its veterans. He gained full support in his campaign. With no defence minister at the helm for prolonged periods, the MoD continued with its antics. It gave false details to the pay commission, without clearing it from service headquarters, leading to them being degraded in status and salary in the seventh pay commission, which the government accepted despite strong objections by the service chiefs. It was the joint decision of service chiefs against issuing the letter of acceptance, which compelled the PMO to step in.

Other issues which dominated headlines were letters degrading the status of the armed forces viz-a-viz their civilian counterparts, refusing to process their case for the grant of NFU (Non-Functional Upgradation), propelling a group to approach the courts for a decision and even supporting government decisions on cancellation of rations. It has claimed to be studying the Reddy commission report, a year after it was submitted. It kept silent while veterans were hounded out of Jantar Mantar, not once, but twice and has ignored to address OROP anomalies.

Every day there are reports of war widows, including those of gallantry awardees and aged veterans challenging the government in the courts for their rightful pensions, being denied by the accounts department of the MoD finance. This despite having obtained justice from the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). Some babu’s sitting in MoD finance, prefer challenging these humane and just decision of AFTs in higher court, while the defence minister keeps quiet, adding to the suffering of widows and veterans.

Are these deliberate actions or accidental or being done to compel service headquarters to waste time and reams of paper only resolving non-issues? It is a fact that those who serve in the MoD have no knowledge on matters military, seek privileges which flow from being a part of the armed forces, but battle to remain at their helm. The impression being conveyed to the nation is that the MoD is a monster, seeking to dominate the services, subdue its voice and lower its status, while denying it the capabilities it needs to ensure national security.

For every ill, the MoD is blamed, because as an organization it has neither amalgamated the service HQs, nor has its representatives as a part of it. Yet it continues to take decisions impacting the armed forces, with lack of understanding and knowledge. Publicly it is visualized as being aloof, uncaring, unresponsive and insensitive.

At the same time, the present defence minister has shown her desire to interact more with service chiefs and veterans than her predecessors and appears to have concern on service related issues. She is possibly the first defence minister, in a long time, with minimum outside responsibilities and hence able to devote complete attention to the armed forces. If this be the truth, then the MoD must make efforts to change its image from that of an opponent to one of a friend in the eyes of the common Indian, who supports the armed forces, because of its sacrifice and commitment.

The first action that the defence minister must do is to direct her staff to stop approaching higher courts, especially in cases of pensions and disability issues which concern war widows and senior veterans. Unless special focus is given to veteran and war widows welfare, the ministry would continue to be criticized for being insensitive. If George Fernandes, as defence minister, could threaten sending erring defence ministry officials to Siachen, she could do the same with those playing with the agony of war widows and veterans.

The next action is to withdraw the challenge of the government in the NFU case. It would resolve much of the anger which presently permeates throughout the service and be an immense morale booster. On similar lines is the case of ‘Military Service Pay (MSP)’ for the Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), a small issue but has immense impact on morale.

The veteran community today stands by and with the serving. Those in service today are veterans of tomorrow. They would be disembodied between the ages of thirty-five to forty-five, hence OROP would be essential for their survival. A positive approach to their problems, resettlement and pensions would enhance the image of the MoD and subsequently the government.

She must pull up ordnance factories for their tardiness including holding them accountable for their lapses, especially their poor-quality products. Decisions on defence procurements must be based more on service HQ inputs rather than on suggestions of her scientific advisor, who would invariably support the DRDO in its development. This would not be difficult as both these organizations directly function under her ministry.

Finally, the armed forces need to be amalgamated into the MoD. By keeping them away, they are neither in decision making, nor are their interests even considered, only enhancing the swelling anger against the ministry. Functionally too, the present system is obsolete, especially for a rising superpower.

The MoD needs to alter its image, which has in recent times been adversely negative. Nirmala Sitharaman has proved to be an able administrator and has indicated a desire to act as also concerned, however unless she does put in concerted efforts to change the outlook of her own staff, the MoD would remain mired in criticism and be the most disliked ministry of the government.

Modi Government is risking India’s security by telling army to rebuild Elphinstone bridge Daily O 01 Nov 17

Since the announcement by the defence and railway ministers on the army being tasked to construct the Foot Over Bridges (FOB) at Elphinstone railway station in Mumbai and two other places, there has been a flurry of criticism for the government’s decision. The Elphinstone FOB, is being constructed where a recent stampede claimed over twenty-three lives and left scores injured. As usual, the army would never fail the local Mumbaikar and ensure the FOB is completed before time and of the correct quality and specifications. There are always different views when the army is allocated tasks, which do not fall in its immediate charter.

The army aid to civil authority rules, laid down in 1970, has a section stating that it can be employed for other miscellaneous tasks, apart from emergencies. Thus, legally there is nothing wrong in this task being given. However, the same rules state that the army is the instrument of last resort. This rule has been regularly flouted by this government, whether it be Haryana, Sri Sri event, clearing garbage or the Mumbai FOB.

Whether the concurrence of the army hierarchy was obtained, the impact on employment of scarce army resources evaluated or the army was directed, would always remain a matter of conjecture. Amarinder Singh, the Punjab Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, along with multitude of veterans have criticized the government action, quoting incidents of 1962 where moving the army away from its primary tasks proved to be a blunder.

Nehru had tasked the army for construction of accommodation in Ambala. 4 Infantry Division was involved in this task, ignoring their training. General Kaul, the favourite of Nehru had approved the task, while the army chief has objected. The formation was, post the Chinese aggression, rushed into operations, unprepared and untrained. It suffered heavy casualties. However, 2017 and 1962 are completely different. The army has changed, its deployment along the border is all the year round and it remains well prepared, as Doklam proved. Hence this comparison holds no ground.

This is not the first time when the army has been so tasked in recent times. It was tasked for constructing a near similar structure during the Commonwealth Games, when a structure constructed by the civil agencies collapsed. It completed the task in four days. There have been no reports of whether anyone was taken to task for the failure on the part of the civil administration or the issue was brushed under the carpet. It was a national face-saving task, as the games were days away, and the army proved its mettle. It has traditionally been constructing Pontoons bridges for the Khumb and Ardh Khumb Mela’s in Allahabad. However, the frequency of its employment has increased with the present government.

It had constructed a Pontoon bridge for the Sri Sri mega event on the Yamuna flood plains in 2016, as also a Bailey bridge in Kerala this year, once the state realized that the PWD would take time to repair the existing damaged bridge. In recent days, the defence minister had directed the army to clear garbage left behind by tourists in remote areas. While the army completes all its assigned tasks, without a murmur, as per tradition, questions are being raised on the present case. There are many unanswered question, clarification of which, from relevant authorities, would complete the picture.

The responsibility of constructing a new FOB, as per the rules, remains that of the railways and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). They compulsorily need to follow government norms of tendering, which takes time. The FOB was sanctioned two years ago, the tendering had still not been completed. Thus, instead of pulling up those responsible, the government adopted the easiest route, task the army. Further, it appears that there is lack of faith on the ability of the railways and BMC to deliver, despite the railways having its own engineers and engineering colleges dedicated to bridging. The new railway minister, possibly considering the political importance of Maharashtra, along with the defence minister adopted the easiest solution.

This action has side lined the railways, who maintained silence as any future accident or incident on these bridges would absolve them. The army would never let them supervise, post obtaining the basic requirements and specifications. However, what has been ignored is that this decision has proved that government organizations, including large elephants like the railways, are incapable of performing their own tasks. An ideal option should have been tasking a contractor and the army being nominated to oversee, which it has done before and ensured quality.

Secondly is the aspect of cost and stores. The army would employ its own resources, meant for operations, which would permanently remain with the railways and the state. It already has immense shortfall of bridging equipment, which would only increase. It would now need to spend reams of papers over the years, seeking to justify to the CAG on why army resources are with the railways, payment for which has not been made.

For the army, it is another task, which it would do to the best of its ability, ensuring delivery on time, with quality. However, this task would involve immense manpower, as the stores need to be shifted and construction i labours intensive. This manpower would be diverted from its primary task and training, to fulfil the responsibilities which others failed to complete.

The government spokespersons during discussions in various forums have stated that there is nothing wrong in the army being tasked, as it remains the army of the nation, for the nation, by the nation. While this is true, however, why is it that the army is considered a national asset by this government only when tasking it on behalf of other agencies or for gaining political mileage, but ignored when it comes to their rightful dues.

The military has been regularly degraded and denied their rights, whether it be equivalence, OROP or Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU). In equivalence it is considered even below state police forces, to whose rescue it comes as soon as riots commence. The Prime Minister makes promises with one hand, while his own government and ministers break them with the other. Veterans are manhandled, pushed aside, denied a hearing, the voice of the serving are silenced and their basic rights including rations are withdrawn, even without a second thought. Yet when the government finds itself in a fix, it is only the army to whom it rushes, to bail it out.

If the decision to construct the FOB has been taken keeping the welfare of the local Mumbaikar in mind, then all opposing would support it. However, the reality is that the decision has been taken keeping political factors in mind, since the BJP is on the wane in the state and desperately seeks a face saving. Thus, the army is being used for political ends, which would only harm the institution and the nation in the years ahead. It is setting a wrong trend which would grow, moving the army away from its primary task for the flimsiest of reasons. The government is risking national security for votes, a desperation which it should avoid.

Refugees: India should learn from Europe’s mistakes ORF 25 Oct 17

War, ethnic cleansing and droughts create refugee movements, compelling hordes of suffering humans to move from their permanent residence seeking shelter, food and security to life. In reality, no one desires to leave his place of residence and become a refugee in an alien land, irrespective of present difficulties or benefits it may provide in the future. However, wars and increased terrorism in West Asia and Afghanistan, drought, wars and terrorist attacks in Africa and the domestic issue of Rohingya’s in Myanmar have led to the latest mass movement of population, solely seeking to survive. The movement from West Asia to Europe, yet continuing, is the largest migration since the second world war. Majority of those fleeing are Moslems.

Many refugees lose their lives or limbs while attempting perilous journey across seas, desolate regions and turbulent borders laced with minefields. Many suffer at the hands of ruthless gangs seeking to exploit them while attempting to flee and many more are cheated and left to struggle for life in overcrowded and broken vessels. While hundreds are being rescued at sea, similar numbers perish attempting to cross and hundreds of thousands are interned in detention centres and forced to return.

Despite all this the migration continues unabated, forced due to circumstances including hunger, persecution and security concerns. Those fleeing the wars in West Asia, Africa and Afghanistan seek safety in Europe while those fleeing from Myanmar seek the same in Bangladesh and India. Most cannot even speak the language of the countries they aim to reach, but continue to attempt.

Europe in the past accepted migrants mainly because it had a shrinking population, felt it needed to do its share for those suffering as also felt responsible for its erstwhile colonies and possessed an economy strong enough to absorb them. However, with passage of time, it has begun to realize the follies of its actions. Its demography has begun to change, internal threats have increased, and its traditional culture is being challenged from within. The migrants have begun sharing and utilizing the limited resources of the state, without contributing much, thus depriving permanent residents of the same. With declining economies, the state can no longer provide as it had earlier, hence renders most migrants jobless.

The change in demography is now nearing close to ten percent in most countries of Western Europe, leading to the creation of ghetto type colonies. These colonies, located in most major cities in Europe are no-go zones, dominated by migrants, legal or illegal, where locals are almost prohibited from entering and the police only enter in force. These localities follow their own laws and life style, vastly different from the host nation.

The change in demography has on occasions resulted in existing laws being amended to suit the culture of migrants, to the extent that even the nature of meat being served in schools should not harm religious sentiments. In Germany, a minister came under fire for seeking holidays to mark Moslem religious events. Countries like Sweden even provided its migrants with free housing, education, health care and funds for daily living.

Almost all terror strikes launched in Europe in recent times, has been by migrants, influenced by the Islamic State (IS). European migrants have been amongst the largest group fighting for the IS in Syria and Iraq and are an internal threat on return. With high unemployment amongst them, most take to a life of crime. This has adversely impacted local society. The resentment against accepting migrants is on the rise and so is the rate of hate crime.

Countries of Eastern Europe erected fencing for the first time to keep migrants at bay. They refused EU diktat for accepting their share of the migrants, threatening the very existence of the EU. In Austria, the Right Wing political party won the elections solely playing on the fear of increased migration. The emergence of the far right in German politics, after almost a gap of fifty years, was the result of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration policies and the fact that she would need their support to form her government, has compelled her to reduce planned immigration quotas to almost fifty percent.

The very existence of the EU is threatened as countries refuse the EU diktat of accepting refugee quotas. Europe is now waking up, after decades of being soft and accepting, fearing a change in its culture and demography. India needs to learn from Europe, where changing demography, increased unemployment amongst immigrants and soft policies has left the continent tottering.

India too had been soft for decades, permitting illegal migrants from East Pakistan and subsequently Bangladesh, to settle in and change demography in Assam and in districts bordering Bangladesh in West Bengal. Assamese and Bengali are being spoken almost equally throughout Assam. General Sinha (Retired), as Governor of Assam had written to the centre way back in Nov 1998, ‘It (illegal immigration) poses a grave threat both to the identity of the Assamese people and to our national security.’ The insurgency in the state is the fallout of the illegal migrants. His advice was ignored.

In West Bengal, the bordering districts to Bangladesh are witnessing a fast-changing demography and enhanced law and order issues. Riots in Kaliachak in Malda district, Barisat in North 24 Parganas and a blast at a bomb making unit in Birbhum district are recent examples. Census reports are an indicator of the presence of large scale illegal migrants in border districts.

The latest is the move of Rohingya’s into India. While a political debate on their repatriation continues, the Supreme Court takes it upon itself to decide national security policies, the nation remains silent. Their repatriation is also becoming a politico-religious issue, with vote banks as the final aim.

The fact that the majority of known Rohingya’s have settled around Jammu should ring a warning bell to security agencies. Earlier Jammu accommodated Bangladeshi’s seeking to migrate to Pakistan, who after failing, settled around the region. Now it is the Rohingya’s. Is the Rohingya movement to Jammu with a desire to attempt crossing into Pakistan (on religious affinity), accidental or planned by those seeking demographic change, is a matter of investigation.

The Jammu region, comprising of the area south of the Banihal pass has a very delicate demography. Mass movement of Rohingya’s would over the years, turn the demography, unless checked now. The fact that they are mostly unemployed, possess meagre resources while maintaining large families, opens their exploitation to anti-national elements, enhancing security risks. Their settling on the outer fringes of the city, increases dangers within.

India, akin to Europe has similar problems, shortfall of resources and employment avenues, with which it cannot cater to its own populace. The quantum of educated unemployed is on the rise. To add to its woes would be thousands today and Lakhs tomorrow of illegal migrants seeking to absorb the same limited resources. This would enhance alienation within society, increasing friction between religions, adding to internal security problems.

Europe has learnt and is rapidly changing its policies against illegal migrants, despite calls from international organizations. India, should adopt their lessons, rather than suffer today and seek to change its policies once damage has been done, Assam being a prime example. It is the citizens of the country, who should hold the hand of the government as it seeks to provide for its legitimate citizens rather than illegal migrants.

Reforming apex defence management: Baffling government hesitation Bharat Shakti 05 Oct 17

As early as 1967-68, Mr V Shankar, the defence secretary had stated, ‘In the absence of a single head at the top of defence forces organizations today, the ultimate burden of coordination, superior direction and working out of policies, of evolving weapon concepts suitable to defence policy and strategy and of settling inter-service rivalries or competing demands largely falls on the defence secretary and the defence minister. He (defence minister) does not have independent advice at the professional level. To expect that annually changing Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) would be able to fill the gap, is in my mind, asking for the impossible’. Most committees that the government has nominated over the years to suggest measures to reform national security management at the apex level or to enhance combat potential of the armed forces has had near similarity in recommendations.

The Kargil committee headed by Mr K Subrahmanyam, post the Kargil war had recommended that the entire gamut of national security management, apex decision making and the structure and interface between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the armed forces HQs be comprehensively studied and reorganized. Based on this advice, a task force on management of defence under Mr Arun Singh, then the RRM, was established. It recommended the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and restructuring the MoD to include serving and civilian bureaucrats working together. The same was also recommended by the recent Shekatkar committee. There are also recommendations on enhancing allocation of funds for enhancing defence preparedness.

Studies have stated that the Indian armed forces are designed to fight battles of the previous decades and not for operations of the future since they function in watertight compartments, lack joint planning and operational capacity. The gap is such that different service HQs marked to support other services in operations are geographically vastly apart, making coordination difficult. The army and air force eastern commands are located at Kolkata and Shillong. The air force western command which is responsible for the western and northern borders is located at Delhi, while the army commands are at Chandigarh and Udhampur. Similar status exists with others.

The recommendations of committees have continued to fall on deaf ears, despite the Prime Minister being aware that these are essential, if the government seeks to enhance management of defence at the apex level. In his address to the combined commanders in Dec 2015, he stated that restructuring of higher defence management, joint planning and joint warfare are essential and it would be addressed by his government. Almost two years have lapsed and the nation has witnessed no forward movement.

The answer emanating from the polity on the question of why it hesitates to take this crucial decision, essential to enhance military preparedness, is that it is seeking consensus. Consensus implies that all the three branches of the armed forces agree to integration, so do all political parties. Such consensus has never been witnessed in any nation across the globe, as history would indicate.

The branches of the armed forces would never agree easily, as the service chiefs, who presently function as force providers and force employers, would be relegated to solely force providers. The CDS, in conjunction with the MoD and the theatre commanders would be force employers. The US pushed the appointment of the CDS through the Goldwater Nichols act, while in Canada it was implemented by a top down approach, which resulted in the sacking of seven top officers, aptly covered by Paul Hellyer, their then defence minister in his book, ‘Revolt of the Admirals’. Even China has reorganized its forces onto the CDS and theatre command structure, solely by a top down approach, under directions of its present President, Xi Jinping. Hence India too would need a top down push for this major reform.

Political consensus for appointing a CDS is lacking because of two fears, created by the bureaucracy and ill-informed politicians. The first fear is power flowing into the hands of one commander, which could enhance threats of a military coup, since nations in the neighbourhood have witnessed it. Secondly is protocol between the bureaucracy and the armed forces, when an additional and senior member is added in appointment in the existing structure.

India in seventy years had never had an instance of even a threat of a coup. At the height of its standing, post 1971, there was no incident which ever gave such a doubt. It even stood by the government during the emergency as its rules indicate supporting the government in power. Thus, such fears are not only baseless but unwarranted. The polity fails to realize that the nation is more secure when the CDS and integrated commands are in place than the present. A coup is generally conducted by the army alone and in the present environment the army chief is the force employer.

Under the CDS and integrated command system, the integrated force commanders would receive orders and directions from the defence minister, hence would never act on illegal orders from the CDS. Further commanders may belong to different services; thus, the supposed bonding and support would be lacking. In brief, if fears of a coup are the reason, then the polity is being misguided by elements who do not seek a strong and organized armed forces, mostly for selfish reasons. The government has proved that it can select the individual it can work with to head an organization, the appointment of Bipin Rawat as the present army chief, superseding two others, being an example, hence could choose its own CDS and integrated force commanders.

The other issue is the protocol of the CDS, when appointed. The bureaucracy is worried that logically he would supersede the Cabinet secretary, which is unacceptable. The inter se seniority between appointments is issued by the Ministry of Home under its ‘Order of Precedence’, which is its protocol list. There is no compulsion on where it places the CDS viz-a-viz the cabinet secretary. The service chiefs are presently above the defence secretary and so would the CDS. Thus, briefly the appointment of a CDS would only enhance national security management at the apex level and not be a threat to the nation in any manner.

The next critical issue is reorganization of the MoD. It is an organization, which enjoys all perks and privileges of the military, without any responsibility and accountability. The number of service and hired vehicles enjoyed by the ministry is solely because it controls the budget and sits on the head of service HQs. When George Fernandes as the defence minister moved unresponsive civilian staff from the ministry to Siachen, there was hue and cry, simply because they hold power without accountability and responsibility.

Most, including the defence secretary are there either for limited tenures or part of the Armed Forces HQ cadre. Their knowledge of matters military is pathetic, since they have had no service experience. Thus, military demands for equipment, ammunition and stores is treated with disdain, without understanding. Hence, the MoD is always under the fire of the CAG and the Standing Committee of Defence, for not ensuring military preparedness and shortfalls in critical stores.

For the polity, interacting with stern looking military officers in uniform with a chest full of medals, indicating vast service and operational experience is anyway daunting, hence always feel more comfortable with the civilian bureaucracy. However, if the ethos of the MoD must change, then only by amalgamating it with service HQs, would it happen. It again cannot be implemented by consensus, but solely by a top down approach.

The fact that every committee formed by the government to recommend changes to enhance management of national security at the apex level has almost the same recommendations, then it must be positively accepted. For a government, seeking to ensure military preparedness, it is time, it took these recommendations seriously and considered their implementation. Ignoring it, would leave the armed forces unprepared for future battles. As all service chiefs have been recently commenting that India needs to be prepared for a two-front conflict, it is for the government to create requisite structures for the same. It is hoped that the present defence minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, has been given this mandate by the Prime Minister.

Modernizing central police forces The Excelsior 05 Oct 17

The recent upsurge in violence in Haryana had the army deployed in panic by the state government, even before it had run out of central resources. It ensured an early return to normalcy. The police and other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were a dismal failure. Anibhav Kumar, an IPS officer on deputation with CAPFs, wrote in the Indian Express of 31st Aug, that ‘the decision to permit a large crowd to assemble and whether preventive measures are to be taken or whether punitive response can take place only after violence has happened is in the hands of the political executive and not the chief secretary or the DGP.’ Thus, the blame was shifted to the political class by law enforcing agencies.

He went on to add that over the years, states of India have simply not invested enough in the police, resulting in the CAPFs and the army being called in for anything beyond normal law and order. Julio Ribeiro in his commentary in the same newspaper on 18 Sept stated ‘there was a time when politicians were wary of expecting senior police officers to blindly toe their line’. He added that presently politicians of all parties treat the police and bureaucracy as private fiefdoms. Haryana is clearly an example. In Sirsa where the main dera of the godman was located, the army was requisitioned and conducting flag marches even before the police entered to search the dera. This ensured the situation remained under control.

The army is visible during natural calamities as assisting the civil administration is its secondary role. In Mumbai, the navy set up canteens to support commuters impacted by the floods. Whenever the going becomes tough in Darjeeling, the army is out on the streets, restoring confidence in the public. It was visible in the streets of Darjeeling even during the blockade, when movement of all others was restricted.

All these are not its primary tasks, but considering other central forces capabilities, are slowly becoming its important tasks. The army of the nation is there with its people, providing relief in calamities, restoring confidence when the situation gets difficult and working hard to bring normalcy in troubled regions. It is possibly the most visible force and almost the first to be deployed, when the national public faces difficulties.

This is not the only organization at the central level which wears a uniform and has been created to function as a team to provide results. There are a host of others, yet somewhere down the line, states have begun preferring army assistance to NDRF during times of calamities and army deployment simultaneous to CAPFs, during periods of strife and riots.

For a nation, this is a matter of concern, as when considering the army strength physically available, after removing those deployed permanently for operations along active borders, CAPF strength would be much more. Further the army is the instrument of last resort and should be inducted, only when the others have been employed and been ineffective. This was the norm till possibly a decade ago, but the trend is changing to involve the army as early as possible.

In most western nations, the army is only deployed after a state of emergency is declared and that also by the head of the state. Forces equivalent to CAPF can be moved much faster and by local authorities. As an example, the national guard can be requested by states in the US, but the army is only deployed, post the President declaring a state of emergency. In France and Belgium, the army was deployed on the streets only after the President declared a state of emergency, post large scale terror strikes.

India has adopted British era regulations, where they deployed the army at the first instance, solely to control the freedom movement, when it felt the police were incapable. There were no CAPFs then. Times have changed, yet we continue to follow the old pattern. If this continues as the present trend, then as a nation we need to introspect and reassess the strength, role and tasking of the multitude of forces which the state has created and continues to create, but are found ineffective when employed. Further, over deployment of the army would reduce its impact in the eyes of the masses, as has been witnessed in Kashmir and the North-Eastern militancy affected states.

The men who form a part of this multitude of organizations come from the same stock as the army and are equally well equipped for their envisaged roles and tasks. Hence, there could be just two to three major shortcomings, when compared to the army, which separates their effectiveness. The first is the level and quality of training imparted during their initial phase and subsequently in establishments. The army, when not deployed operationally, is always in the training mode, preparing for operations and envisaged tasks, firm in the belief that ‘the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war’. The same may not be said about other central forces.

Secondly, is motivation of the rank and file. Motivation flows from making every individual feel he is an important part of the organization, rather than just a member. It is this motivation, which has compelled soldiers to lay down what is considered most precious, their lives, solely for the nation. There are numerous instances in the history of our country, where soldiers have fought to ‘last man, last round’, knowing death was imminent, but holding onto their position was equally important. On the contrary, police and other CAPFs have failed to contain violence, despite large presence, Panchkula being the latest.

The above two shortcomings only flow from the level of leadership which an organization has. The Sukma encounter in Chhattisgarh in Apr this year was a classic example of poor leadership. A column of seventy-four soldiers leaving a camp, without an officer at the head, unbriefed and despatched on a task, considered routine, was laxity. The CAPFs are deployed by the state police, when requested for, whose quality of leadership itself has remained a question mark as recent violence in Haryana and earlier examples have indicated.

The army is the reverse. Every column is led by an officer. The high ratio of officer verses soldier casualties, indicates that officers lead from the front. It is only when officers and men, live, train and operate together, sharing risks and dangers, does faith and trust evolve. Once troops have faith in their leadership, would officers be able to influence, motivate and prepare their command for their role and tasks.

Hence, the failure of the CAPFs is not because they come from Mars, but because there is a major gap in their manner of functioning, basically the quality of leadership, which impacts training, morale and efficiency. The situation is even worse where state police are concerned. The gap between the IPS officer cadre and the men is immense. Police personnel are left to handle the situation, while the officer is located away in HQs or control rooms, thus lack of communication. Lack of training, integration and motivation is clearly evident, where ever they are deployed.

Police modernization has remained a low priority for state governments. Funds allocated have not been correctly implemented. The Minister of state for home, Kiren Rijiju, stated in Feb this year, that “We really need to update our policing system. I am admitting to the fact, that we are not yet upto the mark in terms of modernization of our police forces.”

Recently the government announced special funds for state police modernization. Equipment may flow, but motivation and training of all personnel, enhancing leadership qualities within the officer cadre and closer coordination at all levels also needs to be reviewed and inculcated. The Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy should be the nodal centre for reinventing police leadership and morality, thus creating an environment wherein the officers begin considering the nation first, rather than political masters.

The armed forces are the instrument of last resort and should be treated as such. Employing them at the first stage itself defeats the very purpose of creating such a mass of CAPFs. As an immediate measure, the government should consider recruiting army jawans who retire early and inducting army officers on deputation, even at junior levels in police and CAPFs, to change their working environment.

No politics, please, with illegal immigrants The Statesman 26 Sep 17

The Rohingya issue has begun taking a political turn, with leaders cutting across party lines, projecting their views, which in many ways is contrary to that of the government and against the national interest. Omar Abdullah stated that there were no reports of Rohingya’s being a security threat till 2014, when he was the Chief Minister. Mamta Banerjee, through whose state, most Rohingya’s transit stated that some may be security risks, not all. Muslim leaders are threatening violence in Bengal, if deportation takes place. The Congress demanded that the opposition be taken into confidence, before the government finalizes its decisions. It even went on to state that India should accept illegal immigrants, especially if coming from a troubled region.

It is surprising that those political parties which accepted illegals throughout their time in power, only to garner votes, continue with the same policy, with similar intentions. The Congress paid no heed when millions of Bangladeshis illegally migrated to Assam, changing its demography. General Sinha (retired), then Governor of Assam, even wrote to the President in Nov 1998, “Large scale illegal migration from East Pakistan/Bangladesh over several decades has been altering the demographic complexion of this state. It poses a grave threat both to the identity of the Assamese people and to our national security.” There was still no reaction of the centre.

The Congress formulated the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) (IMDT) act in 1983, which was skewed in favour of illegal migrants. It was the Supreme Court which finally struck the act down this act in 2005. However, the act gave birth to a horde of militant groups in Assam, seeking removal of illegals. It never bothered the Congress when thousands died during militancy, which continues to dog the state.

In Bengal, all border districts are major law and order issues, solely because of a skewed demography, created by massive influx of Bangladeshi illegal migrants. There are regular reports of anti-national activities including bomb and weapon manufacturing units. Since they support the TMC, there is no action being taken to declare them as illegal migrants. Reports of violence, which are a regular feature in this region are suppressed and on such occasions, visits by the media and other political parties banned.

Omar never objected when Rohingya’s came and settled around Jammu. He has never once stated that they would change the demography of the region hence could be considered being moved to the valley. The fact that the demography is rapidly changing around Jammu and the Rohingya’s remain a security threat has no relevance to him, because if they continue, his vote bank only increases. If he was to even suggest their move to the valley, he would never be accepted there too. A clear case of religion supported vote bank politics.

The government rightly stated in the Supreme Court when it said, ‘India is already saddled with a very serious problem of illegal migrants.’ It added that it is attempting to address this problem keeping national resources of the country, requirements of our own population and national security in mind. Reports of involvement of the ISI and LeT in training the Rohingya militancy and seeking to lure illegal Rohingya migrants into their fold are making news. Pak agents have been arrested while on these missions. The question we need to ask our politicians is whether votes and winning elections are more important than national security.

India cannot afford to accept illegal migrants, when its own nationals are unable to gain the benefits of its development and resources. While India grows economically, the benefits should belong to the Indian citizen, not illegal migrants. This is an era of realpolitik; no longer can India remain a nation of Buddha and Gandhi, accepting all and sundry who find entry into the country by illegal means. We need to consider our own nationals first, irrespective of religion, caste or creed, before considering illegal migrants.

The world over, nations refuse entry to illegals. Europe has turned away most migrants from the war-torn zones of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Border fencing has for the first time been visible within the EU. Nations have refused the EU diktat for accepting illegal migrants. Europe has begun deporting many back to their homelands, still locked in conflict, after all its own population matters more. Terror strikes in Europe are the handiwork of illegal migrants.

Australia has set up detention camps on Manus islands of Papua New Guinea, clear that none would enter. Not a single Moslem nation, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, are willing to accept any Rohingya migrant, then why should we. We are not the providers of home to all who face persecution.

It is surprising that most lawyers representing the Rohingya against deportation are those from the opposition, seeking to challenge government directions. Is this the India that we are looking at, home to all who seek shelter, denying our own the facilities and services which remain in shortfall? Should vote banks and countering every government decision as the opposition, be its sole responsibility? Why cannot national political parties follow the concept of ‘nation first’ rather than ‘political ideology or gaining votes first’.

Internationally India cannot be criticized for its decision. It is neither a signatory to the 1951 Refugee convention nor its 1967 protocol. It has also not ratified the UN convention against torture, though it signed it in 1997. It is only our own, who seek to let our nationals down. They did it in Assam and Bengal and are willing to do it in other parts of the country. National security has no meaning before political ambitions.

It is time the influential educated masses of the nation opened their eyes and insisted that political parties look at the nation first. This is not the responsibility of the government alone, but of all concerned citizens. Let responsibility for the nation and its citizens, reign above politics and religion, for once.

Indian policies towards illegal migrants The Excelsior 20 Sep 17

The Rohingya’s forced migration from Myanmar into Bangladesh has been in the headlines in the recent past. There are controversies surrounding this forced migration. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR), US and many other nations have blamed the Myanmar army for ethnic cleansing. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UNHCR, went on the state that this is clearly a text book case of ethnic cleansing.

Myanmar on the other hand claimed that trouble began when members of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa) attacked a police post and killed twelve Myanmar border guards. Myanmar also claims that it is not burning Rohingya villages, but they are doing so themselves. Reports are afloat of the ISI and its affiliates being involved in the funding and equipping of Arsa. Post the spurt in migration, Arsa declared a unilateral ceasefire, which the Myanmar government refused to consider.

Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel laureate and unofficially the head of state, has refused to criticise the military action, hence is being targeted by many international critics. There are demands from the international community to even withdraw her Nobel Peace Prize. India and China have supported the Myanmar government in its actions, hence with the Chinese veto, the UN Security Council may be unable to censure the country.

Many fail to realize that in Myanmar, a civilian government has been established in a power sharing role with the army, which had held sway for decades, moving the country into self-isolation. The military still controls matters pertaining to national security. Internal criticism could push the military to retake the reins and all international and internal efforts over decades to re-establish democracy would be redundant. Handling the army maturely may be the answer, which she would be doing.

While Bangladesh bears the brunt of the Rohingya refugees other countries are also affected, most notably India. Official reports claim that India has approximately forty thousand Rohingya illegal migrants, of whom fourteen thousand are registered with the UNHRC. They are settled around Delhi, Hyderabad and Jammu. While most struggle to make ends meet, there are regular reports of few being involved in drug smuggling and other petty crimes. The Home Minister in a recent statement did mention that action is in hand to deport illegal Rohingya migrants back to their homeland. Some Rohingya’s have approached the supreme court for justice.

The UNCHR criticised the decision of the Indian government especially ‘at a time of such violence against them’. The Indian permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, Rajiv Chander, stated that like many other nations, India is concerned about illegal migrants especially if they pose security challenges. While the Rohingya case has assumed a debate in the country, those supporting their cause seem to forget that the last two years have witnessed massive illegal migrants attempting to enter Europe from West Asia and the reactions of nations there.

The movement of Afghan, Syrian and Iraqis fleeing war in their country to Europe has been uncontrollable in recent times. Most East European nations have refused to accept them, despite strong statements by the EU. For the first time, nations as a part of the EU set up barriers and fencing to check the inflow of illegal migrants. European nations, including Germany, have deported thousands of them back into their countries, which continue to remain in the throes of war, solely because they cannot be absorbed into the system while posing a security risk in the long term.

No Moslem nation, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran have accepted any. Australia has set up detention camps on Manus islands of Papua New Guinea, where it has kept all illegal migrants and asylum seekers. It has made it abundantly clear that none would be permitted to enter the country. If this is the trend the world over, then why should India be any different.

India has been home to illegal migrants for decades. Earlier central and state governments were lax hence turned Assam into a state where the original Assamese considers himself a minority, resulting in a series of insurgencies, basically to rectify the system. The districts bordering Bangladesh with Bengal have witnessed a demographic change in population, with illegal migrants residing in mass numbers. These districts are a major law and order problem as many illegal weapon and bombs manufacturing factories exist.

Another concern is their exploitation by enemy agencies including the ISI. Migrants desperate to maintain growing families, lacking financial resources, are easy lure for enemies of the state. They would be enticed to commence with low level activities akin to passing of drugs and slowly be compelled into participation in more lethal activities. They are stateless, with nothing to lose and no affection for the host country, hence could always remain a threat.

Akin to others, India too has the right to take its own decisions on the handling of illegal migrants. Internationally, the world can only comment but not criticize India for its decision. This is because India is not a signatory to two UN conventions. India is neither a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 protocol. These clarify the rights of refugees and help protect them.

In addition, India though a signatory since Oct 1997, has yet to ratify the UN convention against torture. Article 3 of this convention states, ‘no party shall expel, return or extradite to another state, where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.’ The act also states that determination could be based on a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Hence, while India is legally justified in its decision to deport all illegal migrants including Rohingya migrants, it should seek the cooperation of the Myanmar government to ensure their return. Similarly, while it has supported Myanmar from international criticism, it could commence playing a role in seeking reduction of state sponsored violence in the region. Humanitarian aid to support the refugees in Bangladesh is a welcome step and must continue. Finally, and more importantly, the government should be equally bold, when it comes to deporting millions of illegal Bangladeshis who have settled in this country. India should be as firm as western nations in turning away illegal migrants.

Prime Minister’s office wants Indian army to pick up garbage: Where’s your outrage now Daily O 19 Sep 17

The PMO passed directions to the defence ministry to task the army to clean up tourist spots in high altitude areas of the muck deposited by tourists over the years. In the last two years, the army has laid mats for the Yoga day celebrations, a responsibility of the state government, as also of constructing two pontoon bridges for Sri Sri Ravishankar’s mega event in the Yamuna flood plains in Delhi. In a similar manner, even before the central police forces were employed in handling the Panchkula riots or the police entered the dera in Sirsa, the army was employed.

Is this because there are no other capable organizations left in the country or because it involves no expense to the state that the army is the first responder or tasked beyond its mandate. Is it because it is the only organization which has never refused a task, completes everything given to it with dedication and sincerity and have never let the nation down. Or is it because the government is seeking to lower its prestige and standing in the public eye, by giving it tasks way below its charter and role.

Realistically the centre has immense resources under its control, but ignores them, because the armed forces are the easiest to employ. The top down approach adopted by the military ensures that tasks once passed down the chain from the top hierarchy are implemented in letter and spirit. It has always been a service which always accepts any degradation, without even a whimper. Hence it is being taken for granted.

The armed forces of the nation have a role and task. Their task is national security. They are trained to kill anti-nationals or the enemy, while in the bargain be willing to sacrifice their own lives. They are neither trained or tasked to clean muck dumped by careless visitors, whom the state has failed to brief. They are trained to lay bridges in war like situations, not for mega showcase events. They are trained to handle situations beyond the control of local security forces, not act as police outside the dera. They are trained to assist the state in handling national calamity crises, not laying mats, which any other establishment or organization can do.

Cleaning muck left behind by tourists should be the responsibility of the state government which has permitted them to visit remote areas. If the state collects the fees from the tourists and profits from their visits, then a part of the same should be spent on maintaining the region. Why task the army?

The logic being provided by the PMO and the defence minister in the latest directions of cleaning up tourist muck in remote areas, is that these are regions with no local inhabitants. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are no such areas in existence in India. Even in high altitude regions there are tourist camps, hotels and transport facilities, through which tourist’s transit. If these facilities do not exist, tourists would never venture. Along with these facilities are government offices and establishments to monitor the region. However, while the state brushes off its responsibility, the centre taps the only source it feels free to misuse, the armed forces.

Sometime ago, there was mass discussion in every form of media on the buddy system adopted by the army. It was considered by almost everyone as a demeaning task for a soldier. Cleaning muck deposited by the hundreds who visit tourist destinations in remote areas is even more demeaning that being a buddy, where you are still considered a family member. It is surprising that those who criticized the army then, are quiet when it is given demeaning tasks.

In both Sikkim and J and K, regions specifically mentioned by the defence minister, the forces deployed are the army and the ITBP. However, it is the army which has been tasked. Is it because it would never say no, simply because orders flow from the top, while others may object, since the level of discipline is not the same. Whenever such decisions are taken the soldier, who has been finally tasked, feels insulted, so do his superiors who pass these directions, but does the government care?

If the defence minister is new and unaware of the terrain where the army is tasked to perform demeaning tasks, then the right advice should have been conveyed by those that matter. Tasks which are bona-fide and within its gambit should be readily accepted, not those which are demeaning to troops and would hurt sentiments of some. The armed forces are the most disciplined and respected institution of the nation and should be tasked accordingly. The fact that it never questions, disobeys orders and performs its task to complete satisfaction, should not be taken for granted and it be misused. Those in power must understand the sentiments of the soldier on the ground and avoid giving him demeaning tasks.

What Nirmala Sitharaman must do for the armed forces Daily O 03 Sep 17

Nirmala Sitharaman, India’s second woman defence minister, Indira Gandhi being the first, assumes her appointment with immediate effect. Like all her predecessors, she would have limited knowledge on the functioning of the military. The three service chiefs and the defence secretary would spend time, slowly taking her through the paces, enabling her to comprehend the complexities of military power and its application in the regional and global context.

Though having headed an independent portfolio and proved her mettle, she needs to be determined to bring about much needed improvement into the system, especially as she assumes her appointment in the midst of path breaking events. Her experience in handling industry and commerce would benefit her as the military seeks enhanced cooperation in defence-industry partnerships.

The appointment comes post the termination of the tense standoff in Doklam, where disengagement occurred after seventy-four days. It is also when the army has begun gaining the upper hand in the valley, post elimination of over one hundred and thirty militants this year. The fact that normalcy is around the bend was evident when the Home Minister made an announcement of visiting J and K for three days, seeking to meet all sections of society for talks, including in the valley, during his planned visit in the second week of Sept.

The period has also witnessed the announcement of implementation of sixty—five of the accepted ninety-nine recommendations from a total of one hundred and eighty-eight of the Shekatkar committee. The recommendations ordered for implementation are trivial in nature, as compared to those the government even fears to consider. The committee had made major recommendations for revamping higher defence management in India, to bring it at par with international standards, optimizing employment of combat potential and making the Ministry of Defence (MoD) accountable and responsive to armed forces demands, apart from downsizing many deadwood organizations under the MoD.

The armed forces still have grievances concerning rank structure when compared to their civilian counterparts, pay and allowances and OROP. It is only a dedicated and full time defence minister who would be able to spare time and understand. Morale is impacted when forces are side-lined. The chiefs have only the defence minister to explain these shortcomings too, hence a permanent incumbent is essential.

The navy is seeking to enhance its capacity and capability to counter growing Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean and desperately needs to fast track its modernization. The air force is on the verge of finalizing its post Raffale plans, with many manufacturers lining up with offers. For the army, plans for induction of new artillery is almost through while the contract for the Light Machine Gun has again been cancelled. Shortfalls in war wastage reserves continue to dog the three services, which would need attention.

The government has also recently sanctioned an increase of seven Principal Directors (PDs) and thirty-six posts of Director in the Armed Forces HQ (AFHQ) civil service. This will only enhance resentment between the uniformed and civil cadres and increase bureaucratic control and red tape, rather than being beneficial. The three services operate independently, lacking joint warfare capabilities while joint planning exists only in name. In simple terms, the armed forces are unprepared for the twenty first century.

The remarks of the Prime Minister, when he addressed the Combined Commanders Conference in Dec 2015 on restructuring higher defence management, defence planning and joint warfare remain just words, with no forward movement. The demand for appointing a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is on the rise, while the minister’s own bureaucrats would suggest otherwise, scared of losing control and power over the ultimate element of power of the nation.

Thus, the new defence minister appears to have her task cut out. How far is she willing to go, how much is she willing to change, how much is she willing to push her bureaucrats, time would tell. Would she understand the needs and demands of the military or just listen to her yes-men bureaucrats, the nation would realize in a few days? Would she, like the scores before her, pass her time, with photo-ops with troops in difficult areas or would she desire to create history by changing the military from one prepared for war in the nineties to one ready for tomorrow. Would she devote effort to revamping the military or spend her time handling her state, the answer would soon be available.

Since Manohar Parrikar left for Goa, there has been an adhoc defence minister, who could never seek to make major changes, solely because of his multiple responsibilities. The armed forces desperately need changes, upgradation and making up of shortfalls, a task which only a permanent incumbent can fulfil.

There is much to do, with limited time prior to 2019. If the new defence minister puts her heart and soul into her job, she would be remembered for a life time and maybe more, or else she would be just one of them, who came, saw, failed and left. Very rarely has a ministry as important as the MoD been left unattended. It has happened twice with this government. Hopefully the new defence minister comes with a positive attitude, seeking to change the system for the better, even if it involves battling her bureaucracy, rather than simply using the ministry to project herself.

Haryana events show why army deserves respect The Statesman 29 Aug 17

Friday 25th Aug, a black day, when the Haryana government writ collapsed in the state. It was the day, when Ram Rahim, a self-styled godman was to be sentenced for alleged rape in the Panchkula CBI courts. For a week, Lakhs of his supporters had been entering the city, jamming sidewalks and parks, creating confusion amongst residents, conveying the message that they will become a law and order problem, when the judgement is announced.

The day dawned with news channels showing state police in mass numbers, Rapid Action Force (RAF) jawans with donned helmets, DIGs of SSB and CRPF interacting with senior police officials, in brief, a state confident of handling law and order. It had scores of central police force companies along with thousands of state police forces, all primed for action. Numerous spokespersons stated that they had the requisite forces.

The day progressed, reports began flowing of a two hundred vehicle convoy accompanying the accused on his move to court. This is possibly the first time in recent history that an accused moved to court, to be judged for a crime, like a prince, escorted by special security personnel of the state. Each halt along the route incited supporters who were willing to protest in case he was sentenced. The state was almost at the mercy of a so-called godman, also a rape accused. It appeared the government was protecting its vote bank and the man who ensured its victory, leaving the region at the mercy of his supporters.

While the state government refused to act, the courts came into picture, questioning why it had not imposed Section 144. Vague answers justifying their decision cut no ice. Strictures by the court compelled the government to act. This state had experienced similar situations earlier, but had refused to learn, basically because political compulsions dominate law and order. Votes are more important than a few lives.

The government was playing to the galleries, keeping the so-called godman and his supporters in good humour, while hoping that the situation would remain controlled. Panchkula was on a lockdown, almost a police state, with thousands of security force personnel to ensure law and order, with residents too scared to even venture out.

With the court pronouncing the godman guilty, mayhem commenced. State police forces were incapable of even escorting the accused to the helicopter, which was to move him to prison. It was a small army column which was pressed into service. The move was incident free, however, while the region exploded in violence, the accused accompanied by his so-called daughter travelled in comfort in a state helicopter. There have been claims that there was an escape plan to take the accused to a safe location, with representatives of the state police involved, thwarted solely because the army was involved.

Within a short time, the mass of security forces lost control of the situation in Panchkula and Sirsa. The almost seventy companies of CRPF, SSB, RAF and thousands of state police proved incapable, with local police even abandoning their posts and running away. This was witnessed in earlier incidents over the past few years, yet police officers refused to learn, refused to retrain and reorganize their forces. News reports mention that the state administration in panic, requested army columns, which had been requisitioned, to move in.

The army had less than a dozen columns in the region. In a short time, it curtailed the violence, secured the colonies and restored order. The reason, the army had reconnoitred the area, war gamed the situation and planned the movement of columns. It was prepared, while others were not. Residents claim that it was the army, which saved the day, otherwise there would have been excessive damage and losses.

It is surprising that despite such open display of panic, the state police authorities claimed in subsequent press conferences that they had led from the front and were in control of the situation. Led whom was the question, as the state police was nowhere to be seen. Even in Sirsa, where the main dera was located, the mass of police and other security agencies were incapable of handling the situation. It was again the army which was tasked for controlling the situation.

The national taxpayer pays for maintaining massive state and central police forces, but if they are incapable of even holding the fort for a few hours, ensuring the safety and security of its residents, is maintaining and equipping them essential? The Haryana state Chief and Home secretaries, responsible for security of the state and its people, have remained underground till date. Neither has made a statement nor offered to resign, despite failure commencing at their table.

It is the same army which the government has lowered in status and reduced in privileges, which brought peace and succour, while others vanished in panic. The Justice Mathur pay commission had graded the IPS and IAS as the crème-de la-crème of the nation and the armed forces notches below, solely based on the commonality of an entrance exam. The combination of the creme-de la-creme (IAS and IPS) has failed the nation every time, while the army has ensured safety and security. It has respect and gratitude of the nation but faces apathy of the government.

The army, as always, quietly did its task, restored peace and moved back into barracks, while the IPS suddenly seemed to find its voice, conduct press conferences, claim success and normalcy. They attempted to project a few specific incidents of courage, but if their own personnel left the ground, was it courage or poor leadership, more likely the latter. Admitting own failures, lack of decision making, poor leadership and unpreparedness was missing in the press conferences, so also was admitting that the army saved the day, while their own forces ran for safety. No army officer gave a statement, after all the army has been ensuring national security since independence, which the nation knows and the government takes for granted.

It is easy to criticize Kashmir policy as part of opposition, Mr Chidambaram Daily O 17 Jul 17

Chidambaram’s recent article in the Financial Express entitled, “Centre has taken a maximalist position on Kashmir like militants”, is seeking to defend the failures of the UPA and deflect its faulty policies to the present government. Further, a weak opposition is always scared when the government in power adopts a different approach, which may succeed. Every approach must be given time before it is judged. For decades, the Congress ruled the nation and yet was unable to resolve the Kashmir tangle. Still Chidambaram in this article seeks to justify their failures and oppose the present approach.

Every government, which has held power at the centre, prior to the present one had always considered talks as the solution to the Kashmir problem. If talks, as claimed by Chidambaram, could have resolved the issue, then Kashmir would never have been in the state it is now. Seventy years of talks and still no solution, implies that talks were never meant to be a solution and was a wrong approach from the start. It is this soft policy alone, which is the cause of the current crises. A soft approach implies postponing a decision, not taking one, which had been the hallmark of the UPA.

The Congress, including the UPA, which it headed, always visualized the separatists and Pakistan as the holders of the key to Kashmir. Thus, they kept pampering the Hurriyat, providing it funds, security and support. It even failed to indict Yasin Malik for the killing of air force personnel, even though it was known. Had the Hurriyat been serious about talks, Kashmir would have been resolved by now. The Hurriyat played games and the Congress fell hook, line and sinker for it, a failure which Chidambaram attempts to justify.

The Congress also prevented the army from adopting harsh measures against militants and Pakistan, giving both leeway and a sense of success. Stone pelting existed even then, but was restricted as social media was yet to gain ground. The fact that it is social media which fuels anger, spreads false propaganda and calls stone throwers to the fore was carefully avoided by Chidambaram. The funding by Pakistan to the separatists would have been known, but Congress mollycoddling prevented agencies from acting against them. It is this funding which supported stone throwing as cutting of hawala transactions has reduced it to a trickle.

The massacres of Kashmiris and Sikhs occurred during their watch and they did nothing to prevent it, blaming the state government, whereas they should have acted and enforced order. Had they acted in time and with firmness, the demographic mess in Kashmir, which the present government inherited would never have come to pass.

The Congress policies were faulty and a means of deflecting the problem, not resolving it. It failed to realize that the Pak army has never shown any inclination to resolve the Kashmir issue through dialogue. Every time dialogue was attempted, an incident pushed it onto the backburner. This should have been a lesson, which they ignored, reinforcing failures, a serious strategic error. Any strategist would have told them, the basic cardinal rule is never to reinforce a failure. Had the Congress realized it or had correct advisors against ‘yes men’, Pak could have been compelled to change by the sheer power of the Indian army.

Further, ten years of UPA rule and the army’s capabilities to enforce its writ on the borders and gain enhanced capabilities over Pak was pushed back by a decade as the defence minister and the government feared every deal would involve kickbacks. A military cannot function under a defence minister who is scared of his own shadow, as far as kickbacks are concerned, but needs a strong leader, willing to take risks and provide a free hand, as being resorted to now.

When harsh measures are adopted, there would be increase in incidents, casualties and border escalations, something Chidambaram deflected. It is all intrinsically linked. It would also increase desperation in those who till now were favourites of the government, the Hurriyat, but suddenly feel scared and discarded. The Hurriyat never hesitated to come to Delhi and visit the Pak Consulate, doing so at will and state cost, however, now being called for NIA questioning, fear for their lives. This is the change which has occurred and may produce positive results.

Every government must realize that peace and talks can only succeed if undertaken from a position of strength and not weakness nor stalemate. It was a state of stalemate when the Congress claimed it was talking, hence all attempts were doomed to fail. The increase in number of militants being killed would soon inculcate fear amongst locals attempting to join militant ranks and those already inducted, but have nowhere to hide. The message is clear, you will be hunted down. This position of strength can only be provided by security forces and not by dialogue. Hence, till the army brings the situation to this level, it would dominate the Unified Command meeting, Mr Chidambaram. This is the approach which should have been adopted decades ago.

There was no permanent solution during the UPA rule, even when Chidambaram was the home minister, irrespective of his claims of seeking solutions by talks. If there was, he should mention it. After all, he is also a concerned citizen of the country. They only postponed actions, claiming talks, but letting the situation deteriorate. Now when the government acts, they seek to criticize. It is time the common Indian is informed about the errors committed by the last regime, rather than their seemingly poor justification.

Prakash Karat’s views on the Indian army shows he’s living in the wrong country Daily O 07 Jun 17

Fading Indian politicians seek limelight solely hoping for a boost in their careers. A few minutes of media glare, they hope, would re-open doors to a flagging career and maybe their party would suddenly recognize their capability. Mani Shankar Aiyar rushed to Srinagar, seeking to hobnob with the Hurriyat, knowing that even when his party was in power, they had refused to bend. He went knowing that TV reporters would follow him and record every word he spoke. The fact was, that as usual, he like his predecessors, came back empty handed.

The latest to join the list of publicity seeking politicians is Prakash Karat of the CPM. His article, in his party’s mouthpiece, is based on incorrect information, twisting of facts and half-truths. His most controversial line was that the army was toeing the line of the government. I do hope he realizes that we are in India, where the army is a part of the government but has no role to play in governance. Does he also realize that the army and the government work hand in hand towards a common goal? The goal is to normalize the situation in Kashmir at the earliest, to enable the government to push its agenda for peace forward.

I sincerely hope that he does not expect the Indian army to behave like the Pakistan army, which is at logger heads with the government. A tweet by a Major General, the Director General Inter Services Public Relations (DG ISPR) of Pakistan had compelled Nawaz Sharif to call a cabinet meeting to defuse the situation. I also hope he realizes that the Pak army is independent of government checks and balances and solely the power which refuses the polity to engage in talks. Is this the type of army he desires in India, not toeing the government line but being independent? If so, then I feel he is living in the wrong country.

I have still to understand his logic that throwing stones and petrol bombs as also demanding azadi is a political protest. Azadi instigated by Pakistan implies breaking away from India, not any special privileges as a region of the state. He is possibly the first politician to call locals supporting militants who attack and seek to kill security and other government personnel as political protestors. I wonder if the party philosophy propagates this thought. He mentions excessive force being employed by the army and the chief supporting Major Gogoi in the same context. If Gogoi had employed excessive force, the death toll would have been astounding on both sides. It was to avoid excessive force that Gogoi took this action. How skewed can political thinking become.

He has again put his foot in his mouth by commenting that the army chief taunted protestors to take up arms. This possibly is the only time when he has made a logical comment even without knowing it. When anyone opens fire, the army is legally permitted to respond, in the act of self-defence, however, it cannot do so against stone throwers, hence has been compelled to withdraw from encounters due to the presence of large numbers of locals throwing stones. The army does not retaliate to stone throwers, letting the police and CRPF handle it.

His most illogical comment was that the government cannot find a solution employing force, but by political means. Seventy years, including governments supported by his party have failed, and now there is a realization. In every case, where the nation has been able to broker peace, Punjab, Nagaland and Mizoram, it has been from a position of strength. The army creates the environment and the government launches its initiative. Seventy years, innumerable opportunities and governments including those his party supported failed. Negotiations can never take place from a position of defeat or being on the backfoot. Let us give the present strategy a chance.

I only hope, politicians mature and make comments which have a meaning, rather than write only to seek a few minutes of prime time, to boost their sagging careers. India needs maturity in its polity, not loose cannons.

How many lies by politicians will it take to know they’re not fighting corruption DailyO 31 May 17

The nation is aware, Lakshman had amply illustrated it in his cartoons, that finding an honest politician is akin to seeking a needle in the haystack. The needle may still be found, an honest politician unlikely. Politics is never the art of caring for the common human, but first of filling pockets, then possibly catering to the needs of the common man, provided there are leftovers. Politics is also seeking power. With power flows money, accompanied by corruption. India is ranked seventy-nine out of one hundred and seventy-six countries in the corruption index. This does not imply that only bureaucracy is corrupt, while politicians are holy cows. The Indian knows that without feeding money, nothing moves. Political parties need funds to function, to pay their workers, hire audience and manipulate protests. Money does not always flow from donations, there would be alternate routes.

In recent times, investigative agencies and Income Tax (IT) authorities have been extra busy investigating criminal cases, money laundering, hawala transactions and tax evasions of politicians not in power and anti-national leaders. The sting operation on the Hurriyat clearly indicated that inimical foreign powers are more than willing to fund anti-national activities. Agencies are restricted from investigating those in power, as sanctions are hard to come by and pressures from the top. The turn of those in power would also come, albeit shortly.

It is only after a political authority has vacated his high office do his misdeeds come to the fore, suppressed by his power, while he maintained a façade of honesty, while serving. An issue which every Indian would ask is why do politicians need to amass such wealth that investigation is mandatory. In each case, the amount being investigated is mind boggling for the common man and enough to feed extended families for generations.

In recent times, almost all leading political parties, personalities and their close kin from those out of power, are under the scanner. The Gandhi’s (including their extended family), Mayawati, Lalu Yadav, Virbhadra Singh and Chidambaram are amongst the few, hogging the limelight. The Congress, AAP, RJD and the BSP are parties facing the heat. The Hurriyat, which the nation knew, but the government hesitated to act, has also been blown apart by the sting operation. Court cases against political luminaries drag for years, with no conclusion, as essential witnesses either turn hostile or disappear. Cases are delayed and not argued on various pretexts, permitting the accused to continue their lives without interference, solely prevented from contesting elections. Simple Indians are denied such privileges and benefits.

Interestingly, every time any agency commences an investigation, the concerned individual, his political party and supporters cry foul. They claim political vendetta and targeting simply because they criticized the government and it decided to clamp down on them. Even the Hurriyat is claiming innocence. Few clean politicians exist, who also criticise, but have never been targeted. Politicians are aware, that criticism is part of politics and never affects those in power, as has been amply proved in recent times, but would do anything just to seek sympathy. They claim investigating agencies only function under the control of the government, hence the government decides whom it should target. While this may be true, but the agency can only act once there is evidence of misappropriation or evasion. It cannot conjure evidence, it requires a spark.

Surprisingly, I have yet to witness any politician, even when charged with wrongdoing or amassing wealth, agreeing to the fact. How could justice ever prevail, when no decision has yet flowed on the fodder scam and hundred others, since hearings are adjourned and cases delayed for decades. To prove their innocence, they hire supporters to take to the streets in support. It is simply cry wolf and wolf, hoping to offset the investigation.

Why do we maintain such hypocrisy? Is lying and claiming innocence an accepted trait amongst politicians and political parties. Are they blind to reality and feel that the Indian voter is unaware? They are grossly wrong. The common Indian is very aware and has witnessed obscure political entities amassing wealth beyond their means, in short tenures. Similarly, the nation is aware that protests in Kashmir are being funded by money routed through the Hurriyat, hence its claims of innocence is being laughed at. The Indian has witnessed an exponential growth in politicians’ assets and is no longer ignorant. However, we know democracy is essential, hence bear up with corrupt leaders. One rule politicians learn, immediately on joining the profession, is maintaining a thick skin, ignore criticism, care for themselves rather than the common man.

Th government too plays games. It commences investigations in financial irregularities, slows the same, awaiting elections, when suddenly the issue gains prominence. The AgustaWestland helicopter scam, involving retired Air Chief Marshall Tyagi, always came to the fore just prior to elections, vanishing under the carpet, immediately thereafter. Similar are cases involving the extended Gandhi family.

The press is also part of the act. Visual media houses and their personalities, depending on which party funds them, or the ideology they support, discuss these charges accordingly. Funding, TRPs, advertisements and political support have purchased visual media houses. In select cases, caste, creed and religion is invoked to claim bias in investigation, with the hope that the public would sympathise. The fact is that no one believes such post truths.

It is time, for the non-political intelligentsia, from all walks of life, across the nation, to create and address forums which could be a means of conveying to the Indian masses, the games political parties play and the means they employ to hoodwink the public. The courts must set timelines for completing investigations, preventing them being dragged solely for political gains. Delaying the case, with the politician on bail, is unfair to the common Indian criminal, lodged for years without a hearing or bail considerations. Why should crooked politicians be treated any different, as the case of the South Korean ex-president has recently proved.

Needed: A full time Defence Minister The Excelsior 10 May 17

The Indian system of governance, in the manner it has evolved post-independence, is unique, especially as it concerns the functioning of the military. Fear and lack of trust on the military, compelled the government to relegate it to the level of attached offices, the only country to do so. It was post Kargil and the Kargil committee report, which blasted the government on this issue, that it relented and made a change, by announcing an integration of the service HQs with the Ministry of Defence (MoD), however in reality there is neither an integration, nor is it still considered as part of the government. The three arms of the military have no connection, involvement nor interaction with any other ministry in the government. It is represented by the MoD, which has no uniformed representative as part of it, hence remains mostly ignorant on matters military. They cannot even be considered paper tigers for neither are they tigers, nor do they effectively push paper, but act as stumbling blocks in decision making.

Crises management in the country, especially in case of a natural calamity, insurgent strike on central police forces (Sukhma being an example) or a terror strike on the local population is managed by the concerned ministry (generally home), without involving other stakeholders. This becomes a single ministry approach and is archaic, whereas the rest of the world has moved to a ‘whole of government’ approach, which involves immediately constituting a committee comprising of all who could be in anyway involved in resolving the crisis. Even if the military is invited, it is the MoD representative who attends and lacks even the basic knowledge of military capability, strategy and tactics. The military continues to remain out of the loop of government functioning.

In India, the military never responds to criticism, nor defends its actions in the public domain, irrespective of provocation, the recent jeep tying incident and the Poonch encounter, where two soldiers were beheaded are recent examples, unlike its Pak counterpart. Recently the head of the Pakistan Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) questioned the decision and announcement of the Prime Minister’s office on the Dawn newspaper leak episode in open media, sparking fears within the government, compelling the PM to call a cabinet meeting to diffuse the situation. The military in India rarely conducts press conferences, letting the defence minister do the talking and answering queries. The announcement of the surgical strike was done by the Director General Military Operations (DGMO) with no fanfare or question-answer session. It was just a matter of fact, statement made.

The release of the joint military doctrine should have logically been done by the defence minister, since it concerns all three services, but the possibility of non-availability of an acting defence minister compelled the chiefs to release the same. Further, though the pay commission may have been announced, there would still be anomalies, which would need to be handled. The services would study the announcement, note pending queries and seek for an early resolution. It would need a voice in the government, none better than the defence minister. To understand the shortcomings and its impact takes time, which would never be available with a part time minister, holding a variety of important portfolios. He would never have time for interacting with troops on the ground to understand their side of the story, hence remains cut off from reality.

The three services remain independent, with no single entity at the helm, such as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), hence depend on the defence minister to handle major issues. Procurement is a contentious issue as each service seeks to develop its own capabilities within the limited budget. It is the defence minister who does the balancing act after interacting with the service chiefs. Since the move of Manohar Parrikar, processing of procurements has also moved at a slower pace.

The government’s decision to appoint a CDS has been made on numerous occasions, but a formal announcement is still awaited. To comprehend issues on the subject, for a non-military politician is not easy, considering the fear existing within the polity of a powerful appointment. Manohar Parrikar took time, but understood reasons for the appointment. The PM was also convinced, however, with a change at the helm, everything is back to square one.

The present period is strategically active, with a boiling Kashmir, firing along the Line of Control (LoC), Chinese assertiveness and major procurements in the pipeline. This is the period when the nation requires a full time defence minister, approachable to the chiefs, alienable to their needs and answering multitude of issues arising from the recent situation. It is through him that the army would project its plans and future course of action. It is through him that the army would suggest its Kashmir policy for acceptance by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. This gap was evident, when a part time defence minister made a general statement with the usual cry of vengeance and support, post the recent Poonch incident, however could not handle questions on the subject.

Hence, the only connect between the three arms of the military, the government, media and the public is the defence minister. He has always remained as the front face of the military in the public eye, answering questions and conveying the military mind and thought. A permanent incumbent, aware and well informed is able to handle queries on behalf of the military. Lack of a permanent incumbent adversely impacts day to day functioning and decision making at the ministry level. A part timer, like the present, having to scuttle between offices and juggle between appointments would naturally prefer to devote more time and attention to his permanent assignment of finance, rather than defence. Even when dealing with defence related issues, his interactions would be confined to the defence secretary, rather than service chiefs. In the ultimate analysis it is the nation which loses.

Military issues presently are at the forefront of national policy, especially in Kashmir, and with an unintegrated MoD and services kept at arms-length, the non-availability of a permanent incumbent is being felt. It is time that the government does not wait for the next cabinet reshuffle but considers appointing a defence minister to recreate the link between the military, government, public and the media.

The tragic consequences of irresponsible, overzealous journalism The Wire 06 Mar 17

The past few months have witnessed a series of media attacks on the army. It began with the present Chief of Army Staff’s (COAS) appointment, moved to the complaint by one jawan of a million plus army and covered the statement made by the COAS on stone throwing and disrupting operations against militants in the valley. Every incident erupted on media networks, occupied prime time debates and attempted to degrade the service. Defending the service appears to be the responsibility of the defence minister or the veteran community as serving personnel remain gagged due to conditions of service. Whether such intense media hype is a natural process or an intentional action to downgrade the military in the public eye, remains debateable. Such degradation does not occur in the case of other civil services, where gross misuse is the order of the day. However, it has impacted the army’s functioning and morale.

The icing on the cake was the recently released sting video by an online magazine, ‘The Quint’, concerning the hotly debated buddy issue. It directly or indirectly presented details of the individual, Roy Mathews from the artillery, located in Deolali, who was lured by a reporter (Poonam Agarwal), to make comments against his superiors. This was done by posing leading questions seeking specific answers, compelling him to commit suicide, within a day of its release. He never realized that the people he was speaking to were recording his statements, using hidden cameras. The editing of the sting interview would logically have removed comments which did not suit the magazine’s goal of the sting.

The diary in which he made his last comments, his apology to his superior by a message on mobile and his last call home have confirmed this inner guilt. The magazine while releasing the video, gloated over its expose, without once considering the ramifications of its actions. If it wanted to highlight any wrong doings on the buddy system, then the sting should have been conducted on the preparator of misuse, which is the officer, not the jawan, who is the supposed victim. Breaking the trust of a simple jawan, who was unaware of being made a pawn, is the cheapest form of reporting.

The Quint and specifically the reporter, Poonam Agarwal, had approached army headquarters, seeking comments on the system, possibly after the conduct of the sting. They were replied to by an email from the Public Relations Officer (PRO), on 28th Feb. The reply contained complete details of proposed changes to the system as concerning the army. The magazine in its hurry to seek credit, with overzealous editors and staff at the helm, released the video without awaiting the reply. It has yet to issue a clarification and publish details of the reply received. It was an action aimed at garnering a few additional viewers for its site, but in the process, took a life.

Roy Mathews family was justifiably worried and has asked for a second autopsy. After all, a suicide is not a natural death for a soldier and has financial implications for the future. The army never questioned the individual, but when he realized the damage he had done to his superiors and his unit, the hurt was internal, leading to such a drastic response.

The suicide has harmed the army’s image, morale of the unit in which Roy was serving and most importantly his family. I wonder if ‘The Quint’ realizes that his family would never see a son, husband or father again and would have to bear this trauma for ages? Is it aware that since it is proved to be a suicide, there would be only family pension and not salary or full pension? They would be compelled to struggle for eternity. Further, being a suicide, there would be no national flag and no military funeral. Would the magazine or the journalist dare to face the family?

I am certain, no magazine representative would attend the cremation, out of guilt. The only support to the family would come from his unit, of which he was once a part. I wonder if the magazine has realized that they have abetted the suicide? Has it realised that the country has lost a trained soldier on whom it invested large sums to train? An apology, even if made, would never reverse a life, hence would have no meaning.

Whether this is one-up-man-ship or aiming to gain additional viewership for increasing revenue, I am not certain. However, it is clearly a case of immaturity and overzealous editors. The silence projected by the magazine post the suicide, may just be temporary as it would aim to release more reports, maybe even falsified, to justify its actions. The bare minimum that the magazine can do is offer a letter of apology to the family.

The magazine and its reporter are guilty because they ignored all rules, broke the trust of a simple soldier and entered and filmed in restricted areas, despite anti-trespassing and restricted area boards displayed all over. Hence, it needs to face the consequences. Firstly, the family and the army should sue it for abetment to suicide. The veteran community of the state should fund and support this move. Secondly, they should be compelled to compensate the soldier’s family for their personal loss and the government for the cost of training. Finally, since they filmed inside a restricted area an FIR needs to be registered and those responsible charged in a court of law.

Spare a moment to thank the soldier The Excelsior 01 Feb 17

India has just finished celebrating its 68th Republic day, wherein the nation smiled proudly when the military walked down Rajpath in its finery and perfect unison. The laying of the wreath by the Prime Minister at the memorial of known and unknown soldiers, at India Gate, prior to the commencement of the event, was a solemn moment. The display of weapons and the fly past by the air force had everyone witnessing, spellbound. The presentation of the Ashoka Chakra, the highest peace time gallantry award, to a brave heart, whose late husband personally eliminated three dreaded militants, had the audience fighting back tears, as she silently, gracefully and humbly accepted it from the President. At the same time, near the parade venue, many military officers, in ceremonials, were being turned away from the defence enclosure as it was occupied by others, not meant to be there. Their request, that it was a defence enclosure, fell on deaf ears.

In J and K and the North East, while the nation celebrated, the army remained on extra high alert to prevent any untoward incident by militants, which could mar the celebratory mood of the nation or even interrupt the festivities in states, still battling militancy. Those deployed on the border kept a strong vigil to prevent any infiltration. At the same time, news kept flowing in of loss of lives of officers and men, in avalanches which swept their camps, in remote areas of J and K, where they were holding firm, ensuring security, irrespective of pending dangers. In fact, it is our bonded duty as citizens of India, to spare a moment to thank the soldier, standing guard at remote locations or battling militancy, while we savour the joy of the occasion and relish in our secure environment.

The soldier that we need to thank is one who comes from the same humble background, as most Indians. He would in his younger days, prior to wearing the uniform, never held a weapon, must less fired one in anger. He was absorbed into the military fold and transformed into a responsible citizen, filled with nationalist feeling, disciplined and trained into becoming a killing machine, capable of battling the most hardened and motivated militants, whom our neighbour pushes across. He is taught never to give in, give his best, including his life, when he is expected to.

The same soldier is also a father, brother, son and a husband, who loves his kith and kin, as any of us. The fact that he spends less time with his family and more with the establishment he is tasked to serve, does not make him any different. He is easily distinguishable in any crowd by the manner of his walk, dress, behaviour and temperament. He also faces anguish and worries, when he hears sad news from home, but is compelled to put all that behind, when he is on a mission, as any momentary loss of concentration by him, could lead to loss of lives of his comrades, an act which he can ill afford. Every time he leaves the security of his camp on an operation, he never knows, if this is his last. He moves because he must, the nation expects him to and his comrades bank on him, as much as he banks on them.

He does his job, well aware that the government has still not provided him his dues, as he belongs to the only service yet to receive the benefits of the seventh pay commission. He also knows that there are forces within the government machinery, which are jealous of his success and hence plant road blocks to deny him his rights and let him down, whether it is in allowances, disability pensions or even a post retirement opportunity. Every soldier is aware of the harm and damage, which the pay commission panel did to him, despite enjoying army hospitality, in the most remote places. Yet none of this affects him as he continues with his daily routine, knowing that his superiors are there, to fight for him and get the best that the government can offer. It is this trust which makes the soldier trudge along, day after day.

The common soldier is also aware, that there are elements within his own organization, who would let it down by either corrupt means or seeking public media to broadcast their grievances, which would overshadow the hard work being done by many like him. While television battles would ramble on, the military berated, nothing would change for him, as he would continue with his routine of ensuring security. His task remains simple, protect the nation, be prepared to battle enemies of the state and at the same time, be ready to assist the civil administration, whenever there are natural calamities or the situation goes beyond the control of the local police authorities. It is this soldier which we need to thank.

The nation also needs to thank those families, who remain worried, always in the dark, when their kith and kin, serve in difficult areas, always awaiting a call just to hear the words that he is alive and well. Their pressures and tensions know no limits, however, they continue to put a brave face forward and go about their daily routine, while their heart remains in their mouth. They all dread a call with an unrecognized voice, conveying what they always fear to hear. These families are the backbone of the soldier and equally need the nation’s gratitude.

Let us as a nation solemnly thank our men in uniform and their families for giving us the security and freedom, which we enjoy the festivities of the republic week. We should spare a moment in thought for them as we celebrate the economic growth of our nation, after all, national security and national development always go hand in hand. Jai Hind.

Borders burned as MPs fiddled 18 Aug 15

Post the meeting between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan at Ufa and the announcement of NSA level talks, the security situation along the Pakistan border has been steadily deteriorating. The scale and quantum of ceasefire violations has increased dramatically, resulting in casualties to both civilians and security personnel. Attempts at infiltration are more than normal. The attacks in Gurdaspur and Udhampur were serious incidents and could have caused many more casualties than they actually did. The interrogation of the captured terrorist Naved proved beyond doubt the direct involvement of Pakistan in both the incidents. Subsequently, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) went about busting and arresting active Pakistani supporters across the valley. Yet the proposed talks between the NSAs of the two countries are likely to be held on schedule.

In Uttarakhand around mid-July, the Chinese pushed back Indian shepherds and dismantled their huts in the disputed area of the Barahoti Bowl, which is on our side of the border. This month, the Chinese conducted a major exercise with live firing involving the army and the air force from the Chengdu military region, the headquarters responsible for directing and conducting military operations against India, very close to the border. The level and scale of the exercise raised eyebrows in military and intelligence circles about its possible aim, intent and the message it was meant to convey.

The historic Naga peace accord has been inked. It would have ramifications on neighbouring states and other militant Naga insurgent groups opposed to the talks as also bringing an end to one of India’s longest running insurgencies. The Ministry of Defence is in the process of going ahead with large scale procurement of military hardware to make up deficiencies in critical capabilities, and planning at doing this through government to government deals.

The security related events and incidents as stated above merited being questioned and discussed in the monsoon session of parliament. The government should have been made to justify to the parliament and also simultaneously to the nation on its reactions, possible courses of actions and future intentions to prevent or limit such incidents. National security and defence are issues which are essential for the survival and economic growth of any nation and thus should transcend the borders of inter party rivalry. The behaviour of Pakistan in the recent past should have been criticized and simultaneously parliamentarians from all parties should have jointly praised the members of the individual security forces responsible for blocking or thwarting the terrorist attacks and demanded action against Pakistan. Similarly the government should have shed light on the incidents with China and given details of the Naga peace agreement.

However none of this happened. The entire monsoon session of parliament, was solely devoted to fighting a political battle between the government and the opposition. It left me wondering whether national security is a priority or considered secondary to the demands of individual political parties. Night after night the political logjam was played out on television and the morning newspapers were filled with editorials and articles on the behaviour and attitude of the Members of Parliament. The citizens of the country were given to believe that nothing could be more important than the resignation of the concerned politicians.

It simultaneously also proved that national security is too minor an issue for serious consideration. Militant attacks, incidents with China and cease fire violations are superfluous and discussion on anything pertaining to the defence and security of India could only be resorted to once the collective demands of the opposition are met.

In contrast, when we look at the budget session this year, when a similar group of terrorists struck Kathua and Samba, the hue and cry raised in both houses was immense and both the defence and home ministers were busy justifying the queries raised by a combined opposition. All parliamentarians cutting across party lines criticised Pakistan, sympathized with members of the family of those martyred and simultaneously praised the security forces for their role in blunting the attack and eliminating the terrorists. The previous border incidents with China have always been well discussed in parliament. National security related incidents have always brought solidarity amongst the members of parliament. This has provided the concerned ministry and the government the confidence to deal firmly with such incidents due to the support of all members.

The present logjam led to a failed monsoon session. Apart from causing a loss of hundreds of crores and the non- clearance of important bills, it also gave Pakistan and it’s directly supported LET an opportunity to step up their activities, knowing that the entire attention of the country’s leadership was diverted to dealing with internal politics. The sudden spurt of attempted infiltration and increased ceasefire violations compelled India to move additional troops to increase pressure on Pakistan. All this happening during the current monsoon session and not being raised in parliament is completely bizarre. Never have two such incidents, Gurdaspur and Udhampur, been so close together in time and place, and no serious discussion taken place. Even the arrest of a terrorist and the clear spilling of beans of Pakistan’s involvement did not invite any serious criticism cutting across party lines. It indicated the importance given to matters of national security as against political agendas. Such action by our political leaders shows lack of desire to deal with issues of national security.

The main stream political parties are well aware that national security and development go hand in hand, and thus whenever national security is threatened by militant action on our soil as also enhanced violations of ceasefire, there is a need for all to cut across party lines and show a strong intent and solidarity in dealing with the same. Ignoring it or avoiding it, due to other political compulsions only gives the militants and their handlers a feeling that they can continue with their dastardly actions without any fear or serious retribution from India. I only hope that the future would bring out more maturity within our political system especially on issues pertaining to national security.

How we manage our borders The Statesman 13 Jul 15

India shares its international boundary with six different countries. In addition it has a maritime boundary of over 7200 Kms. With some of our neighbouring countries we have an excellent relationship, in the case of a few, the border areas tend to lend themselves to heightened insurgency, and with others, the border dispute is yet to be settled. This has over a period led an increase in the terminologies meant to define the borders. The terminologies range from the simple international border, to what the Pakistanis call the ‘working boundary’ to the line of control, to line of actual control and onto the actual ground position line. These terms have been prevalent through the years and have existed due to various reasons. Mandarins in South Block understand the impact of each of these terms and the manner of dealing with them.

While resolving the border issues is the responsibility of the government, and not something I would want to get into, however, what I would want to highlight is the method of management of the border and responsibility of the same to the nation.

A simple analysis of the border would bring forth that borders with Nepal and Bhutan, pose no threat, except for possibly they being used as routes of ingress for terrorists or anti national elements. The Bhutan border has also been used by insurgent groups which would establish camps inside Bhutan and operate from there. Joint operations have been launched earlier and would continue on an as needed basis to deal with such groups. The border with Myanmar was in the news recently, when in response to a strike by the NSCN (K) militants an operation was launched to strike and destroy their camps, which was immensely successful. The border with Bangladesh also has insurgent groups with their hideouts within their country, as also cattle and other smuggling and immense demographic migration. Therefore with four of the six countries, there is no direct military threat but definitely an indirect threat of terrorists or insurgents.

With Pakistan, the border is volatile, whether it be the international border or with any other term. Movement of terrorists, smuggling and violations of cease fire is very frequent. With China, while movements of terrorists and insurgents are low, however border violations and standoffs are a regular feature.

The coastline is vast and has a number of prized off shore assets as also a large maritime zone. Protection of the same especially post the Mumbai attack of 2008 assumes importance.

The international border with Pakistan and Bangladesh is the responsibility of the Border Security Force, which functions under the Ministry of Home. It would soon possibly also assume the responsibility of the Myanmar border too. The Line of control and beyond along the border with Pakistan is the responsibility of the army. The border with Nepal and Bhutan is manned by the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), which also functions under the Ministry of Home. The Chinese frontier is manned by the army and in some parts by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Interestingly the ITBP is also under the Ministry of Home.

The maritime boundary is well manned as both the Coast Guard and the Navy, responsible for the same, come under the same Ministry of Defence. Here there is complete cohesion and cooperation.

Since the agencies responsible for the protection of the borders are immense and also report to different ministries, therefore the question- who is truly responsible for the security of the country? It is easily said, the government of India, but then within the government who?

With no major threat envisaged from the Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh borders the responsibility of that remaining with the Ministry of Home sounds logical, since in their case, most of the incidents would come within the purview of the Home Ministry. However, considering the possibility of increased terrorist movements through Nepal the placing of BSF along the border rather than the SSB could be a better option.

However the multitude of agencies responsible for the Pakistan and Chinese borders, reporting to different channels makes it absurd to manage.

Along the Chinese border the army has for long been crying for operational control over the ITBP, and the same is logical too, as the ITBP is deployed in permanent locations, and some of these are sensitive too, yet for reasons unknown, the same has never been implemented. How can the army, which is responsible for the sanctity of the border task and ensure implementation of plans unless the forces deployed are placed under their control or at least under the control of the same ministry.

The same is the case along the Pakistan border. The BSF especially in the working boundary and beyond is responsible for its actions through its own channels and thus in a number of cases valuable intelligence of either force goes a-begging due to inter force rivalry. The army too has its problems, as it does not trust the BSF, due to lack of integration at varying levels, including in the holding of weapons and equipment. Therefore joint plans are never joint and operations and one force concept of employment never truly happens. This results in delicate handling of the other force in peace and could lead to major issues in actual operations due to complete lack of cohesiveness in planning and training.

This shortcoming was also raised by the Border Management task Force and the Group of Ministers report post the Kargil committee which stressed the importance of one border one force responsibility. It had also stated that multiple forces, with varying command and control structures would always lead to lack of accountability.

The concept propagated of one border one force was ideal, and logical, and aimed at preventing any misadventure. It would also ensure that accountability and responsibility would be clear in peace and would lead to a complete coordinated operation in war. Since Kargil, the country has faced no major challenge hence laxity in the government on national security has set in. As the report stated, “The political, bureaucratic, military and intelligence establishments appear to have developed a vested interest in the status quo. National security management recedes into the background in times of peace and is considered to be too delicate to be tampered with in times of war.”

The government must consider taking the right step forward now, rather than wait for the next crises before implementing remedial measures based on another Group of Minister’s report.