Sword and Shield

Dealing with Pakistan: Time to Face Realities

2012-02-14T17:11:00.000+05:30

Dealing with Pakistan: Time to Face Realities

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

Over the last six decades India has tried various policies to make Pakistan see the benefits of a rancor-free relationship. Every Indian Prime Minister made liberal conciliatory gestures in the mistaken belief that he could make a place for himself in the history of the sub-continent as the harbinger of peace. One went to the ridiculous extent of banning Indian secret agencies from operating in Pakistan. All were doomed to fail for the simple reason that they were based more on hope than hard ground realities. In the end, the Indian leadership had to throw its hands up in sheer frustration due to Pakistan’s anti-India intransigence.

A few years ago a group of Indian ladies visited Pakistan under a social exchange programme. One of the ladies sustained a wrist fracture in an accidental fall and was taken to the nearest medical facility. The orthopaedician on duty treated the lady diligently and to the best of his ability. While bandaging the wrist, he engaged the lady in small talk. When the lady referred to commonality of Indian and Pakistani cultures, the doctor flared up and blasted the lady for her ‘flawed views’. “What is common between us? We eat cows and you worship them. We asked for a separate nation only because we are totally different in all respects. I suggest you Indians should stop fooling yourselves”, he thundered.

The above incident has been recalled here to show the extent to which Pakistani citizens have been brainwashed. Their deep-rooted hatred and venomous mindset defies logic. When some well meaning enthusiasts talk about Track-II diplomacy and initiatives like ‘Aman Ki Asha’, they forget the fact that Pakistan lives and thrives on anti-Indian policy. The day Pakistan sheds hostility towards India and adopts a conciliatory stance, it would amount to negating two-nation theory, the raison d'être for its very existence. Therefore, it will be naïve to expect Pakistan to have a change of heart.

‘Be patient with a bad neighbour: he may move’ is a famous Egyptian proverb. Unfortunately, such hopes cannot be entertained with respect to a bad neighbouring country. It is a great misfortune that India has been cursed with a neighbour like Pakistan which does not mind harming itself only to harm India. Kashmir is merely a manifestation of Pakistan’s infinite hostility towards India. Were India to hand over Kashmir to it on a platter, Pakistan will invent newer issues to keep the pot boiling. Discord and acrimony would continue as always.

India’s policy of extending a hand of friendship and accommodation has been a total failure. On the contrary, it has emboldened Pakistan into considering India to be a soft state and increased its intransigence and hardened its anti-India attitude. How to deal with an unreasonable and hostile neighbour continues to be a convoluted dilemma for India.

Ground Realities

Before embarking on a fresh initiative, Indian policy makers will do well to analyse underlying reasons for Pakistan’s anti-India stance and antagonistic attitude while keeping the following ground realities in mind:-

a) Negative Core Values

Every nation has certain core values. These are fundamental traits that provide sustenance to it for its existence. Normally, these are positive attributes which are considered non-negotiable and unalterable. In many countries, the core values are enshrined in the opening chapter of their written constitution. In India’s case, it is to secure for all its citizens justice (social, economic and political); liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship); equality (of status and opportunity); and fraternity while assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.

On the other hand, despite high sounding assertions in its frequently rewritten constitution, Pakistan’s core values are based on the warped political principles of ‘hate and hurt India’ at all costs, even if its own existence gets jeopardised in the process. Pakistan was created on the ideology that the ‘pure’ cannot coexist with the infidel. A nation born out of hatred needs hatred to feed itself on for continued sustenance and to justify its existence. Anti-India stance fulfills this need and cannot be shed.

b) Deep Rooted Prejudices

Bhutto’s ‘1000 year war’ and Zia’s ‘bleeding India by 1000 cuts’ are indicative of innate prejudices. In its school text books, Pakistan’s existence is claimed since the time Qasim captured Sindh province in the 8^th century. Muhammad-bin-Qasim and Mahmud Ghori are portrayed as great heroes who were instrumental in the establishment of Muslim rule in India. When a leading Pakistani paper claims that Pakistan is destined to defeat India because Pakistan’s ‘horses in the form of atomic bombs and missiles’ are far better than Indian ‘donkeys’ and boasts of re-conquering India, the level of percolation of anti-India venom can well be gauged.

In the wake of 1962 Indo-China conflict, Pakistan tried to fish in troubled waters to extract concessions from India. Subsequently, it decided to befriend China to spite India. Today, it swears by its camaraderie with China. It is an unprincipled marriage of expediency against a common adversary. Anti-India attitude has compelled Pakistan, a nation owing its existence to religious fundamentalism, into embracing communist China.

Anti-India feelings are so pervasive that the Pak cricket team conspired to lose a cricket match during the last World Cup to ensure India’s elimination. Yet, the Pak players had the temerity to complain about their non-inclusion in the IPL tournament. Even a casual visitor to Pak websites and blogs gets shocked to see venality of comments against India. There is hardly a sane voice that advocates need to promote amity. Strangely, every comment considers India and Hinduism to be synonymous. India bashing always degenerates into Hindu bashing by painting every issue with communal colour.

c) History of Deceit and Duplicity

One may not fully agree with former Australian Test umpire Darrell Hair’s description of the Pakistani cricketers as ‘cheats, frauds and liars’. But the fact is that the whole world considers Pakistan to be an untrustworthy and deceitful nation. Independent Pakistan started its track record with treachery. Starting with the Kashmir betrayal; Pakistan has made deceit and duplicity to be its national policy. Despite having signed a ‘stand-still agreement’ with the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan unleashed Pashtun marauders on the hapless Kashmir valley with the active participation of Pak army.

Breaching undertakings given to the US, it surreptitiously used American equipment to launch a surprise attack on Kutch in April 1965. Even before the ink had dried on the Kutch agreement, Pakistan was back to its treacherous ways. Covertly, it infiltrated its forces into Kashmir, expecting a local uprising against India. Under the Tashkent agreement, India agreed to return the strategic Haji Pir pass to Pakistan, in exchange for an undertaking by Pakistan to abjure the use of force to settle mutual disputes and adherence to the principles of non-interference. However, Pakistan continued its proxy war through its notorious secret agencies. Sanctuaries and safe passage were provided to underground elements of North-Eastern India.

Without learning from the past experience, India agreed to release 96,000 Pakistani Prisoners of War (PoWs) after 1971 war. In exchange, India accepted a solemn verbal undertaking by Bhutto that Pakistan would accept LOC as the de facto border. India once again let Pakistan bluff its way through. Bhutto never intended to abide by his word. Worse, to avenge its defeat, Pakistan redoubled its efforts to create turmoil in India.

Under the Simla agreement, all PoWs were to be exchanged. Whereas India kept its word, Pakistan, true to its nature, dishonestly kept back 54 Indian PoWs out of 617 PoWs held by it. It is apprehended that they are still rotting in various Pak jails.

While the Indian leadership was trying to break ice through ‘bus diplomacy’ in 1998-99, Pakistani military brass was busy planning the notorious Kargil incursion. Thus, Pakistan remains incorrigible as a devious and cunning neighbour.

d) Sadistic Anti-Indian Streak

Due to decades of indoctrination and brainwashing, all Pakistanis suffer from an extremely brutal and vicious anti-Indian streak. While dealing with India, a strange sadistic instinct gets aroused that takes control of their thinking and behaviour.

Despite India’s honourable treatment of 96,000 Pak PoWs, the treatment meted out to the patrol led by Lt Saurabh Kalia in May 1999 by the Pakistan army will put even barbarians and animals to shame for its sheer cruelty. Defying all conventions and norms of humanity, Pakistanis pierced their ears with hot rods, removed their eyes before puncturing them, broke most of the bones and chopped off various limbs and private organs of the hapless Indian soldiers. After 22 days of torture, the brave soldiers were ultimately shot dead. A detailed post-mortem report is with the Indian Army.

The Way Forward

It is often said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. India has been repeatedly duped and cheated by Pakistan but continues to entertain hopes of a change of heart while Pakistan has made India the whipping boy for all the ills that it suffers. India is blamed for every terrorist strike in Pakistan, whether on their military academy or on the Sri Lankan cricket team. People are told that evil India was responsible for causing floods. Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Education, Sardar Aseff Ali accused India of stealing Pakistan’s waters and threatened to wage war with India. Anti-India propaganda goes to the ridiculous extent of accusing India of extracting electricity from the river waters flowing in to Pakistan, thereby rendering the waters worthless.

It is time India stops living in a fool’s paradise and reformulates its Pakistan policy, keeping the following facts in mind:-

· Pakistan was born on anti-India plank and it is its only identity. Shedding of anti-India posture would amount to questioning the logic of its very creation. Therefore, Pakistan cannot afford to shed its antagonism towards India.

· Pakistan can never be India’s friend as the venom of anti-India feeling is too deeply ingrained and it will take generations for it to abate. India’s unilateral offer of friendship will always be rebuffed.

· Deceitfulness and duplicity is its state policy and it can never be trusted. Trust deficit is the anti-thesis of amity and it cannot be bridged easily.

· Harming Indian interests is the corner stone of its foreign policy. Attacks on Indian parliament, IT hub Bangalore and commercial centre Mumbai show calculated selection of objectives. It never misses an opportunity to embarrass India in every world forum.

India should stop claiming that a united Pakistan is in India’s interests. There cannot be a more blinkered view. Nations born out of a persecution complex can never rid themselves of bitterness of history. Their break-up is the only way out and India must encourage that in its own security interests. Having failed to make Pakistan see reason, India has no reason to be apologetic. Repeated assertions of being a peace loving state are invariably misconstrued as impotence of a soft state.

A proactive policy should be followed to make friends with the countries who feel threatened by the growth of terrorism in Pakistan. Simultaneously, leveraging its enormous economic clout, India must convey its displeasure to countries that help Pakistan pass anti-India resolutions in various comities of nations. No nation that supports Pakistan’s anti-Indian motions can claim to be India’s friend. It is time India asserts itself.

To hate and cheat India is Pakistan’s national obsession. It is time India accepts this bitter fact and modifies its approach accordingly. Affable statements made by a few retired cricketers and singers are of no import. As they visit India only to make money, they have to be professionally correct. Their masquerading as ambassadors of friendship is of little consequence.

As a matter of policy, India should never trust Pakistan’s word. It has been taken for a ride for far too long. Pakistan is adept at playing double game and has mastered ‘cloak and dagger’ policy. Under world pressure it may be forced to wear a mask of reasonableness and friendship, but the irrefutable fact is that India will always remain Pakistan’s eternal enemy.

Therefore, India should stop dreaming of having a friendly neighbour in Pakistan. The history of past 64 years has amply proved the futility of entertaining such hopes. Therefore, it will be in India’s own interests to get reconciled to an antagonistic Pakistan and tailor its approach accordingly. India should aim at minimising, and if possible neutralising, Pakistan’s threat to Indian security and national interests by aggressive measures. Rogue countries like Pakistan do not believe in international conventions and shamelessly flout them. The only language they understand is of strength and retribution. India must make it amply clear to Pak government that every anti-India mischief would invite immediate reprisal and that no transgression will go unpunished.

Of Matters Military: Chief Goes to Court

2012-01-25T10:39:00.000+05:30

Of Matters Military: Chief Goes to Court

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM

TV shows, print media and the internet are flooded with assorted opinions and comments on the current controversy about the date of birth of the Chief. The debate has acquired diverse angles. Two aspects for which the Chief is being criticised deserve special mention. One, he is being accused of an act of impropriety – a serving Chief approaching the court for the redressal of his grievance. Two, he is being censured for questioning the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and thereby defying the well-established concept of civilian supremacy. Both are highly sensitive and critical issues. It is a unique case and may set a precedence for the future. Without going into the merits of the Chief’s claims regarding his date of birth, the above aspects are discussed hereunder in an objective, dispassionate and candid manner.

Coming to the first issue, it is alleged that the Chief’s act has lowered the standing of the august appointment that he holds and brought a bad name to the noble institution. It is suggested that he should have resigned before challenging the Government that he serves. It is an untenable argument for the following reasons:-

· The Constitution of India empowers every citizen to seek justice from courts when he feels wronged. It is a right without any riders and discrimination whatsoever. By being the Chief, he does not forfeit this right. He is not a lesser citizen of this country. If ministers, governors and CVC can seek relief from the courts, why not a Chief?

· The Chief followed the correct procedure and exhausted all other avenues before approaching the court.

· Appealing against a government decision is not an act of defiance or indiscipline. The government itself has provided for exhaustive arbitration mechanism for officials who feel aggrieved. Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunals and many other appellate authorities resolve disputes between the government and its employees. Senior functionaries regularly approach them and the government abides by their decisions. These are not construed to be anti-government steps.

· It is unfair to link a personal issue with the prestige of the appointment held or the institution. The Chief has repeatedly stated that it is a personal matter and does not affect the organisation in any way. When ministers and civilian leadership approach courts, their ministries or departments are never targeted. Why should there be a separate yardstick for the top brass of the services?

The second question is more sensitive and critical. Does going to the court on a personal issue amount to challenging civilian supremacy? It is a highly unjustified and perverted logic. The Chief has not questioned any operational directive or official instructions. On the contrary, he has reposed immense faith in the law of the land. He has simply asked the court to adjudicate in the matter and deliver a duly considered judicial decision. He has repeatedly reiterated that it is the prerogative of the government to appoint chiefs and he would abide by its decision. How does the question of threat to civilian supremacy arise?

Compared to the criticism of some veterans, the government deserves credit for highly mature and sagacious response. When questioned by media, Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni stated, "Every human being has a right to seek justice if he feels he has been denied justice and in that sense it is (the) right of every Indian." Similarly, Defence Minister AK Anthony and the Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju have been very composed while commenting on the issue, albeit they are ‘sad and sorry’.

Finally, it needs to be stated that most of us have double standards – one for ourselves and the second one for others. It is so very easy to pontificate that a Chief should resign before fighting for his honor and dignity. Most critics of the Chief’s act would never think twice before bending backwards to safeguard their own career prospects.

One is reminded of an address by an Adjutant General (AG) to a Higher Command Course a few years ago. The AG spent a considerable part of his speech exhorting officers not to question organisational decisions by submitting non-statutory/statutory complaints or approaching courts. He said it was ‘unofficerlike’ to do that. During the customary cocktails after the lecture, a student officer reminded him that the AG too had obtained promotion after representations. Needless to say, the AG felt embarrassed and replied sheepishly, “You know my case was different. The Board had been very unfair to me.”

Appeal to the Supreme Court should be seen as a simple case of an officer seeking justice for the perceived wrong done to him. Nothing more should be read into it. It is neither an act of indiscipline nor a challenge to the civilian authority. Seeking redressal of grievances through officially established procedures cannot be construed to be an act of impropriety or insubordination.

Chief's Date of Birth and the War of Succession

2012-01-25T10:35:00.001+05:30

Chief's Date of Birth and the War of Succession

Major General Mrinal, AVSM, VSM

The recent debate about the date of birth of the Army Chief has been highly skewed, ill-informed and subjective in nature. It is being said that the order of ‘succession’ would get changed in case it is accepted that the present Chief was born in 1951 and not in 1950. An issue that critically affects the quality of top military leadership has been reduced to a war of ‘succession’. Merit has been rendered inconsequential. The term ‘succession’ sounds totally incongruent with respect to the appointment of a service chief. It smacks of the old feudal system where the eldest born, irrespective of his competence, claimed first right over the throne.

In the current controversy about the Chief’s age, no one has questioned the rationale of selecting a service chief purely on the basis of his date of birth. India is the only country in the world where top military leadership is chosen without any consideration of competence and suitability.

Unfortunately, one lesser known fact about the armed forces is total lack of meritocracy in higher appointments. Though equally applicable to all the three services, further discussion shall be restricted to the army for the ease of understanding the issue.

There are over 65 officers of the rank of Lieutenant General (Lt Gen) in the general cadre at any time. Once a Major General is approved to be a Lt Gen, he gets on the ‘auto-pilot’ mode. He does not need to prove his capability any more. He becomes a corps commander, an army commander and even the chief on the basis of his inter-se seniority and age-wise placement in the hierarchy. In other words, any one of these 65 officers can become a chief, provided he is favourably placed age-wise.

To assume that any officer who is found suitable to command a corps is equally capable of being the chief defies logic. A corps commander is a field commander of around 30,000 troops whereas a chief wears multiple hats while heading 1.13 million-strong army. To equate the two appointments is highly untenable as competencies required for a corps commander and a chief are totally different.

The current system has two major drawbacks. One, the services are deprived of quality leadership. Many brilliant officers fail to move up solely because of their unfavourable age-wise placement. In the absence of merit, mediocrity prevails. Indifferent quality of senior leadership can be attributed to seniority based promotions. Some of the Chiefs in the recent past did little credit to the exalted appointments they held.

Two, the system lends itself to manipulation by subjective chiefs and thus, perpetuates a regime of patronage. Every chief, on assumption of office obtains details of age-wise placements of senior officers and thereafter, identifies prospective officers from his regiment or ilk. Before his tenure ends, he ‘manages’ the system to ensure that the selected protégé are firmly planted in the line of ‘succession’ by nipping all likely challenges to their advancement in the bud. The present Chief is a victim of a similar stratagem. His repeated pleas for entering the correct date of birth were deliberately disregarded to pave the way for the chosen one.

The current system is highly inappropriate and inefficient. Instead of selecting the most competent officer amongst the eight eligible officers (vice chief and seven army commanders) to be the next chief, it lets sub-optimal quality of leadership prevail through seniority based promotions. It is inconceivable that the senior-most officer is invariably the most competent one. Undoubtedly, the Government has abdicated its responsibility. It shuns selection process under the plea that it does not want to be seen meddling in the internal functioning of the services. This is a highly specious excuse.

Some service personnel fear undue political interference if promotions to senior ranks are made through a selection process. They are comfortable with the parochialism being practiced within the services but resent likely civilian bias. It is a totally unfounded apprehension. In every democratic country, senior military appointments are decided by the government. If the government can select top civil functionaries like the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Chief Election Commissioner, selection of military brass should pose no major challenges. Special selection boards can be constituted to select officers for the posts of army commanders and the chiefs. Chief of Defence Staff (when appointed) and the other two service chiefs should be co-opted.

It is time the Government puts in place a well evolved selection system to ensure that merit becomes the main criteria for promotion to higher ranks and the armed forces get the best leadership. Quality of top military brass is too serious a matter to be left to the accident of the date of birth.

Of Matters Military: Debate and Dissent

2012-01-10T12:10:00.000+05:30

Of Matters Military: Debate and Dissent

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM

Debate is a technique of interactive argument wherein an issue of common interest is discussed by various participants by taking a stand either in favour of or against a stated perspective. A healthy debate is built on logical consistency, factual accuracy and persuasive presentation of arguments and counter-arguments. It should avoid rhetoric and confine itself to the points under discussion. Introduction of infructuous issues blurs the focus and dilutes the quality of debate. A debate must remain confined to issues under discussion and never personalised for character assassination. Issues are important, not individuals.

It is not necessary to be in agreement with the opposing viewpoint in a debate. Agreeing to disagree is an old axiom. Every participant has a right to contest a proposition, if it is not in conformity with his thinking. But it should be done in a convivial and courteous manner. Resort to harsh and foul language shows impoverishment of cogent rationale and lack of basic intellect to argue intelligently. Dissent is a healthy and desirable reaction. Dissent improves the quality of debate and helps arrive at well-evolved conclusions. However, dissent should not degenerate into a slanging match or street-urchin type squabble.

Of late there has been an unsavoury exchange of emails amongst the veterans – a totally unnecessary and unfortunate development. Some of the emails degenerate into abusive and vituperative language. One wonders as to how gentlemen officers can stoop so low. They seem to have forgotten all courtesies and discard all the values imbibed during their military service.

When a veteran suggested that a particular political party should be shunned for not supporting OROP, a few respondents called him to be an agent of another political party. He was assigned motives of carrying some hidden agenda. Similarly, Chief’s date of birth, role of veterans, deposition of medals, addressing of letters to the civilian authorities and many other issues have generated unnecessary bad blood. It is a very sad and poor commentary of our ability to partake in a healthy debate.

It is not necessary to agree with a writer but opposition should be well-reasoned. Whenever a matter of common concern is raised (duly supported by cogent arguments and reasoning) respondents must present counter-arguments to oppose it. Mere use of semantics and adjectives shows hollowness of thoughts. When a well-articulated article stated that the institution of Colonel Commandants promotes parochialism, not one opponent disputed the assertions. However, a few critics dismissed the article as ‘lop-sided’ or ‘flawed’ but not a word was written in support of their observations.

Surprisingly, many veterans do not even read full articles to understand as to what is being suggested. Their mindset is so psyched that the very mention of an issue arouses their opinionated reaction. A recent article that cautioned the environment against increasing social stratification amongst the officer cadre and excessive flaunting of ranks evoked immense interest amongst serving and retired officers. Over 800 respondents agreed that corrective measures need to be taken. Two dissenting comments need to be recalled here.

A serving General wrote – “As an ex Cdr JC Wing I am completely empowered to say that 4000 of the greatest offrs of the world went through me… Even today as a Corps Cdr of the most happening Corps of the Indian Army I marvel at their intellect and readiness to sacrifice every comfort... This Army is a couple of notches higher in capability in every field than what it was in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or in 2010.”

The article in question does not contain a word about the quality of the officers, their intellect and readiness for sacrifice. Nor does it question the quality of today’s army. These unrelated issues have been raised by him without reference to the article. He has not said a single word about the issues discussed in the article – social inequities and flaunting of ranks. Apparently the officer has not read the article. One refuses to believe that such a senior commander is incapable of reading and comprehending a simple article.

A healthy debate should be issue-based and not made personal. Yet, the General chose to comment – “It has become a habit with people who never commanded on ground and never felt the sound or flurry of a whizzing bullet to comment upon the new generation Army.” He appears to be claiming that bravery is his exclusive preserve and he is the sole repository of all wisdom. It is a statement that shows total inability to counter an argument with logic but resorting to ungentlemanly innuendos.

Worse, his out of context statement, “Even today as a Corps Cdr of most happening Corps of the Indian Army”, is totally gratuitous and uncalled for.

Another respondent feels that the best way to counter a proposition is to attack the credentials of the writer rather than talk of issues. His response tends to become abusive and slanderous. Sample this – “The author talks … as if the forces are now the scum and vermin of the earth...These assumptions by the officer are not just off the mark but themselves hypocritical and hollow and suggest that the motivation may not be to educate the hoi polloi of India and the world how bad and unprofessional the Army is, but some unstated angst against the very Army.” The article in question never called the forces ‘scum and vermin of the earth’. First the respondent wrongfully attributes the statement to the author and thereafter goes on to condemn him for that. Interestingly, the respondent has not said a word about social stratification.

One is reminded of a story learnt in the school. A budding painter showed his painting to his teacher for opinion. The teacher asked the pupil to hang the painting at the busiest crossroad with a placard reading – “Put a cross where you detect a flaw in the painting”. The next day, the painting was found to be fully covered with crosses put by the viewing public. The pupil was highly upset with the ruination of his effort. The teacher asked him to make a similar painting and hang at the same place with a placard reading – “Rectify flaws that you notice”. The painting remained untouched. Moral of the story – “It is so very easy to find faults and condemn but difficult to improve upon other’s efforts”.

Regular introspection is the key to continued good health of an organisation. Every organisation has to be ready to face newer challenges. Brushing them under the carpet in the fear of offending some can prove very costly in the long run. Complacency breeds degeneration. When an issue that affects the well being of the forces is raised, it should not be construed to be condemnatory but considered as a reformative initiative and discussed accordingly. Veterans can help create an environment wherein issues of common interest are discussed in a frank, mature, logical and coherent manner. Even dissent should be dignified.

Arrogance of Seniority

2011-10-30T12:07:00.000+05:30

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

Search for recognition is one of the pursuits which all human beings indulge in and continuously strive for. For professionals, promotions and advancement in career are important aspects of their aspirations. In the services, rank achieved is a conspicuous and well-recognised measure of a soldier’s professional competence and an indicator of his progression. As rank fixes one’s place in the services hierarchy, senior officers have every reason to be proud of their achievement. They are justified in deriving a sense of justification from the heavy brass they carry on their shoulders. In a steep pyramid-like organisation, promotions do not come easily.

However, it is equally important that they carry their rank with due dignity and composure. They should neither carry them to ridiculous limits nor flaunt them in an unbecoming manner. Increasing arrogance of seniority is clearly discernible in stratification of social events and indiscriminate flaunting of flags and stars, as discussed below.

Social Discrimination

There was a time when senior officers and their wives made use of social occasions to interact with junior officers and their wives to get a feel of their morale and establish informal rapport with them. On the other hand, junior officers and their wives learnt a great deal by watching the way the senior officers and their wives conducted themselves. Thus, social functions were considered to be excellent occasions to build cohesion in an informal manner. Additionally, military norms, ethics and values were passed on to the new-inductees.

Unfortunately, social functions have become highly stratified events. There is no interaction between the seniors and the juniors. Separate areas are earmarked for them. Exclusive seating for VIPs has become a standard practice. Senior commanders and their wives remain surrounded by their staff officers and cronies. They make no effort to walk up to the juniors to exchange pleasantries. At times one gets an impression that the senior brass considers it below their dignity to mix with subordinate officers.

There are three reasons for this obsession for exclusivity. One, senior officers get special treatment in terms of quality of liquor and food. Two, they get hospitality free whereas they should be paying for their drinks and food like the other officers. Finally, the current top brass is so self-seeking that it has no concern for others’ sensitivities and social niceties.

Earlier, all guests were treated at par and served the same food and drinks, irrespective of rank. The only privilege that a senior officer enjoyed was that he was served his drink by the waiter and did not have to walk up to the bar like others. Today, not only the type of whisky but also the goblet – crystal for seniors and Borosil for others – are rank based.

A few months ago, an Air Force Station had organised a social evening after an event and invited a large number of officers from the services. Prior to the serving of dinner, an announcement was made requesting all officers of one-star rank and their wives to have dinner in the hall while the others were asked to move to the tents on the side. It was such an insulting move that many officers and their wives walked out without dinner. One fails to understand how such petty mindedness has crept in the services’ culture. If a Brigadier or a General has dinner along with others, will it lower his dignity?

At a post-tournament dinner at an officers’ institute, the Army Commander, after showing his face for a few minutes, withdrew to an exclusive chamber along with his ‘Nav Ratnas’ (Major Generals) to enjoy the evening and exclusive hospitality. Others were left outside to interact with each other – a reminder of the grand old Mughal tradition of ‘Diwane Khaas’ and ‘Diwane Aam’.

Protocol golf is another innovative measure that displays haughtiness of seniority. In case senior commanders want to play golf after a conference, the golf course is declared off limits for others. It is a disgraceful sight to see 4 to 5 commanders playing golf on an 18-hole golf course with staff officers who are detailed to accompany them. It shows arrogance of the poorest order. Do the senior commanders find it demeaning if Colonels and Majors are also playing at the same time? Arrogance of rank cannot be carried to such limits.

Flaunting of Ranks

It must never be forgotten that badges of ranks worn by the soldiers represent national symbols – the Ashoka Lion and the five-pointed Indian Star. The nation has bestowed its greatest honour on its soldiers. Every officer understandably takes pride in his rank by displaying the stars and flying the flag that he is entitled to. However, it must be done with due decorum and as per the laid down norms. Their sanctity should never be demeaned. Of late, a tendency has been discernible amongst the senior officers to flaunt their stars and flags in most unbecoming manner.

Although display of star plates and flags on private cars is forbidden, many officers feel insecure without their use and openly flout the orders. There are many commanders who insist that the mules that they ride in mountainous terrain must be duly embellished with stars and flags – a ridiculous sight indeed. Similarly, it was a shocking sight to see a Chief flying his flag and displaying four stars on his golf cart in New Delhi.

Recently, a photograph was circulated on the internet that showed golf caddies wearing jackets with stars prominently displayed on their backs to indicate ranks of the players they were assisting. Can there be a more ludicrous demonstration of disgraceful obsession with ranks?

Another absurd practice that has gained currency in the recent past is to present golf caps and tee-shirts to all participants with their ranks duly indicated through embossed/embroidered stars. It is a comical sight to see officers playing golf with their ranks duly advertised. It appears that senior officers are unable to swing their clubs unless adequately supported by the trappings of their ranks.

In another case, a garden umbrella at a divisional tennis court had two stars prominently displayed on it to indicate that it was exclusively reserved for the Divisional Commander and his wife. As human ingenuity has no limits, there are numerous such examples wherein display of rank has been carried to preposterous extent.

Many senior officers complain that they never demand such displays and that some over-enthusiastic juniors take initiative of their own accord. This explanation holds no water at all. Unless the junior officers are convinced that their initiative would fetch them a pat, they would never take the risk. Additionally, senior commanders can always order stoppage of such practices if they so desire. The fact is that they relish such treatment as it boosts their ego, gives them a ‘kick’ and makes them feel special.

Finally

Informal interaction between officers of different ranks should always be governed by the dictum that ‘a good senior does not flaunt his seniority all the time while a good junior does not forget his juniority at any time’. That should be the basis of healthy social equilibrium.

It must never be forgotten that the officers who fail to make to higher ranks are not incompetent. It is just that the steep pyramid-like structure provides limited promotional avenues. Many brilliant officers suffer due to the shortage of vacancies and retire as Colonels. Supersession impacts their psyche and they show signs of social withdrawal. Instead of reassuring them, social discrimination adds to their discomfort through shameless display of inequities. Worse, ‘social apartheid’ is widening the gulf between the top brass and the others.

Senior commanders would do well to remember that humility is the hall mark of a good leader and a meta-virtue. A self-effacing demeanour indicates maturity and not meekness or timidity. Humility is all about maintaining one’s pride about one’s worth and achievements, but without arrogance. It is an old saying that ‘those who achieve the most flaunt the least’.

Army Officers and Seven Golden Norms

2011-10-27T10:07:00.001+05:30

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

Of late, the Army has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Apart from coining highly outrageous and derogatory terms like 'Ketchup Colonel,' 'Booze Brigadier' and 'Frisky General', media has covered delinquent activities like unauthorised sale of weapons and corrupt practices in sufficient detail. Consequently, the public image of a military officer has been indescribably dented.

The edifice of the Indian Army is built on the twin pillars of committed leadership and motivated soldiers. Both are intrinsically linked and mutually contingent. Distortions in one cause shock waves in the other as well. Whereas our soldierly stock continues to be excellent, it is the fall in the quality of the leadership that is a cause for concern.

Militaries by nature are conservative and thrive on well-evolved traditions, precedents and conventions, which over a period of time get translated into norms. Norms are unwritten rules which need to be followed diligently for the continued sustenance of a military. Norms can be descriptive (what to do or ‘Dos’) and proscriptive (what not to do or ‘Don’ts’). A norm gives a rule of thumb for conduct. The Indian Army finds itself in the current mess primarily due to the dilution/neglect of seven golden norms by the officer cadre.

1. “Impartiality – an ethical requirement”

Fair and unprejudiced deportment is an essential component of an officer’s morality. Impartiality means treating everyone as equal and rewarding them on their merit alone. Any commander who acts in a discriminatory manner to grant favours to his regimental mates, community members or protégé is guilty of breach of trust and faith. Partisanship is impropriety of the worst kind, erodes credibility of leaders and encourages parochialism. Humans identify themselves with an organisation only when visible merit-performance ethical linkage in place. A system should be put in place to weed out all officers who display biases of any nature.

2. “Prompt redressal of grievances – every soldier’s right”

Close to one lakh cases involving service personnel are pending in various courts. It reflects poorly on the Army’s grievance redressal mechanism. Soldiers knock at courts’ doors only when driven to it as a last resort, after losing faith in the sense of justice and the fairness of the system. They feel aggrieved and deprived of their rightful dues, giving rise to dissentions and litigations. Although an elaborate mechanism (from ‘arzi report’ at unit level to statutory complaints at the Government level) is in place, inadequate attention is being paid to this critical aspect of man-management. Many grievances are misplaced due to lack of information and can be resolved at the unit level itself. Soldiers’ faith in the credibility of the system must never be allowed to wane.

3. “Empathy for men under command – a moral obligation”

The Indian Army has been rocked by a large number of suicide and fratricide cases. In most cases, officers’ had failed to handle the reckless soldiers with due compassion. Unlike other organisations, relationship between a military leader and his men is based on the twin pillars of commander’s empathy for his men and unflinching loyalty of the subordinates. Soldiers willingly repose faith in a leader in the belief that he would safeguard their interests. Exhorting men in the name of the regimental spirit, some self-seeking leaders drive their men unduly hard to fulfill their own aspirations. With shortened command tenures, commanders are hard pressed to prove their worth for further promotions. Resultantly, welfare of troops is totally neglected. Men are quick to gauge true disposition of their leaders. Any leader who lacks empathy for his men and uses them purely for his personal advancement loses their trust.

4. “Safeguarding predecessor’s honour – every officer’s sacrosanct responsibility”

It is a proscriptive norm not to let down one’s predecessor. There are understandable reasons for this norm. One, decisions are always taken as per the prevailing circumstances and with inputs available at that time. It is very easy to find fault with them in retrospect with the benefit of the hindsight. Two, a predecessor is never present to defend his actions. Thus, vilifying him amounts to his trial in absentia. Three, military as an institution, is highly sensitive to the reputation of its leadership. When leaders try to malign each other, troops’ wonder if such officers are worthy of their confidence.

5. “Ostentatious living – an anathema to soldiering”

Soldiering stands for honorable but simple living. Undoubtedly, an officer must live comfortably and should be financially secure to fulfill his obligations to his family and save enough for his old age. However, pompous lifestyle is most unbecoming of a soldier. Strength of an army officer’s character lies in moderation exercised by him. Rising ostentatious extravagance, both in personal and organisational matters, is a cause for concern. Worse, over the last few years, five-star culture has given way to seven-star culture and an unhealthy competition has set in. For unit functions, all activities from catering and decoration to entertainment are being outsourced at huge costs. Costliest whisky is served. Even, ‘Barakhanas’ are being outsourced. Many cases of misuse of official funds are a direct outcome of ostentatious profligacy. Therefore, there is an urgent need to put an end to excessive extravagance.

6. “Segregation in social gatherings – an affront to junior officers”

When a proposal to have segregated seating arrangement for officers of different ranks for a social function was put up to the Late Field Martial Cariappa, he shot it down with remarks that stratification in social functions will damage cohesion of the officer cadre. Today, it is one’s rank that determines one’s seat and even the type of drink offered – scotch for seniors and cheaper whisky for others. It is reprehensible to see separate areas earmarked for different ranks, even with different décor and menus. It has become a common practice for the senior brass to huddle together and there is little mixing with the junior officers and their wives. Instead of promoting camaraderie amongst officers, such occasions become a highly humiliating experience for the juniors, thereby breeding dissatisfaction and dissentions. Worse, seniors miss an opportunity to ‘feel the pulse’ of their commands and establish rapport with their subordinates.

7. “Ladies have no role in official functioning”

Immense respect is accorded to the ladies in the services. However, they can never be allowed to meddle in official matters. Unfortunately, to satisfy the ego of commanders’ wives, a parallel command hierarchy has proliferated under the garb of family welfare activities. They move around in army vehicles with staff officers in toe. They contribute little to the genuine welfare of troops but get a façade to interfere in organisational affairs. Most soldiers consider such activities to be wasteful and irksome as they divert attention from the essential to the non-essential. Worse, undue interference by ladies in unit functioning invariably results in creating dissentions and causing fissures in unit cohesion.

Finally

Claudia Kennedy rightly remarked that an army damages itself when it doesn’t live up to its own values. The present mess that the Indian Army finds itself in is entirely due to the dilution of values that have sustained it for decades. As attitudes undergo changes, value system is understandably impacted. Attitudes are affected both by implicit and explicit influences. In addition to personal beliefs and experience, attitudes in the services are influenced by the organisational environment (traditions, precedents and conventions). The Army must ensure that organisational norms that mould attitudes are nurtured carefully and corrective measures taken expeditiously, lest the situation drifts beyond redemption.

Defence University for India: An Appraisal of the Proposition

2011-08-11T12:29:00.002+05:30

Defence University for India: An Appraisal of the Proposition

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

Establishment of a defence university in India was first suggested in an article that appeared in College of Defence Management Journal in 1978. The article evoked considerable interest and was often debated in academic circles of the services. However, there was little progress on ground and the matter lay dormant till resurrected in the wake of the Kargil War. The Task Force constituted in May 2000 to review the Management of Defence observed that there was no synergy between academic research and the requirements of the Government. It felt that advisors to the Government in security matters needed a great deal more information and analysis, as defence policy formulation was a constantly evolving exercise owing to the ever changing nature and increased complexities of security threats and challenges.

The Task Force, therefore, suggested that a National Defence University (NDU) be established to carry out research and impart education. It wanted some of the existing institutions to be affiliated to NDU. It also recommended establishment of a College of National Security Management, Information Resource Management and Maritime Security.

The Group of Ministers (GoM) studied the Task Force report and concluded that university research in India in the field of defence was not managed, funded, or structured effectively. It further observed – “Whereas academic research is carried out more or less in a policy vacuum, official agencies undertake their policy making tasks in the absence of the wealth of information available with the academic community. There is a need to ensure that the Government's policy and decision making processes are informed by the findings of rigorous analyses and research.” Therefore, it recommended setting up of NDU, which could undertake long term defence and strategic studies, as “the development of country/region specialisation along with associated language skills and studies in strategic areas need to be ensured.”

The Government accepted recommendations of GoM regarding the need to have NDU on 11 May 2001. A 13-member expert committee (Committee on NDU or CONDU) was constituted to examine the issue in its entirety. It visited the USA and China to learn about functioning of their defence universities and recommended adoption of the US model, albeit with modifications to suit Indian needs.

CONDU based its recommendations on the following two primary issues:-

Deficiencies in Existing Security Policy Making Mechanism. A primary requirement for the attainment of India's national security aims and objectives is the existence of an effective and focused policy planning mechanism, which has to be long term, integrated and anticipatory in nature. The committee felt that national security policy architecture with formal processes and structure was needed to provide synergy between academic research in the field of security and the Government’s requirements for inputs for security policy formulation.
Training Needs of the Services. There are three training components towards the advancement of military officers in their careers - professional service training, training for joint operations/planning and training for combined military-civil leadership roles in national security policy and planning at the strategic levels. The committee felt that higher education in the fields of national security and security policy was non-existent in India.

CONDU felt that the above considerations necessitated establishment of Indian National Defence University (INDU). Its salient recommendations were as follows:-

INDU should be established as a multi-disciplinary Centre of Excellence in the country in education and research on national security issues.
The President of INDU should be a serving three-star officer of the armed services and the Vice-President should be an officer from the Indian Foreign Service. The faculty should consist of 70 officers from the armed forces and 65 from the civil services.
INDU should have a mix of existing and new institutions. Three new institutions should be created for education and research on national security and technological issues. As part of these new institutions, a new "think tank" for defence and security issues should be established with a focus on policy-oriented research.
Three existing institutions should be affiliated to it for award of degrees, while another existing institution should be upgraded.
A War Gaming and Simulation Centre should also be established.
INDU should accord recognition by awarding degrees, short-term diplomas, and credits for courses undertaken by serving personnel from the armed forces, paramilitary forces and officers from various civil services.

The estimated cost of establishment of INDU was pegged at Rs 226 crores in 2003-04, excluding the cost of land as defence land was proposed to be utilised for the purpose. The total expenditure was proposed to be spread over seven years. See box for the proposed outline structure.

It is learnt that the Finance Ministry has not cleared the project and wants the proposal to be deferred. It feels that existing facilities in Indian universities and defence training institutions can perform these functions with suitable augmentation and fine tuning.

Appraisal of CONDU Proposal

The Task Force had expressed its dissatisfaction at the existing state of research on strategic issues on four counts:-

· Limited research activities.

· Poorly managed, funded and structured research regime.

· Lack of orientation to public policy.

· Lack of synergy between research and official requirements.

The Task Force, therefore, suggested establishment of NDU. GoM accepted need for NDU purely for long term defence and strategic studies as it felt that ‘policy orientation and synergy between the academic community and governmental functionaries were lacking’. Other requirements like training needs of the services and distant learning were added later on by CONDU.

The primary thrust of CONDU has been that the Indian policy makers are bereft of advice from the academic community of well researched security concerns. It felt that research lacks in policy orientation and hence, suggested new facilities under INDU. CONDU, quite inexplicably, failed to identify underlying reasons for this infirmity. Had it done that, it would have realised that there was no shortage of well-run defence research institutes/centres and competent scholars. The root causes for the malady lay elsewhere, as given below:-

· India lacks a tradition of long term strategic thinking and policy planning. Even within the Government, there is a total indifference to advance planning.

· Policy makers are averse to accept external advice as they consider themselves to be fully equipped to take decisions in national interest.

· Day-to-day routine business takes precedence over futuristic thinking and planning.

· Individualistic and compartmentalised mindset of functionaries hinders wider consultations and dialogue. They are highly protective of their turf and consider collective decision making as an encroachment of their domain. They decline to share information with others.

· Functionaries lack knowledge and training to take defence related decisions.

· Finally, Indian functionaries resent criticism and difference of opinion. They do not take kindly to dissention and expect academicians to toe the official line. That is the reason why all Government-funded institutions get coerced into producing placid and non-contentious research studies. The value of such studies, therefore, becomes suspect.

India boasts of some of the finest institutions involved in research and analysis of strategic subjects in Asia (see accompanying boxes). The Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) and the United Service Institution of India (USI) have commendable track records. Full potential of these institutions has never been utilised by the Government functionaries. It is not known if these institutions ever failed to deliver when requisitioned by the Government for any specific study/analysis. CONDU has totally neglected the expertise, brain-power and infrastructure with these and other premier defence institutions.

Recommendations made by CONDU can be grouped as follows:-

· Creation of additional facilities.

· Amalgamation of existing facilities.

· Corporate fellowship programme.

· Distant learning programme.

· Affiliation of existing institutions.

Creation of New Facilities

CONDU has recommended establishment of some additional institutes. Their envisioned role vis-à-vis available facilities has been examined in the following paragraphs. Creation of new research facilities through INDU ought to be justified only if the envisaged research and education functions cannot be performed by existing institutions.

· National Institute of Security Studies. CONDU has sought establishment of National Institute of Security Studies for conducting required research programmes on all strategic issues of concern to the Government to enable it to take fully informed decisions.

These functions can easily be assigned to IDSA, which is considered to be the premier strategic and security studies think tank in India. Over the years the Institute has enlarged its focus of research from defence studies to cover issues of national and international security.

The Institute has a well-qualified multi-disciplinary research faculty of over 50 scholars drawn from academia, defence forces and the civil services. Its library has an excellent collection of more than 50,000 books covering national security, defence strategy, international relations, conflict and peace studies and related subjects.

· College of National Security Policy. Establishment of a College of National Security Policy has been recommended by CONDU ‘to act as a think tank contributing to security policy formulation’.

National Defence College (NDC), founded in 1960 with identical objective, is fully equipped to fulfill the above requirement. The study at the College relates to strategic, economic, scientific, political and industrial aspects of national defence. The scope of study includes an examination of internal and external threats to the security of India as well as possible trends for the next ten years. Studies include analysis of diverse factors such as foreign policies of other nations, conflicts over vital economic interests or territorial claims and factional, communal or political differences. Formulation of national strategy for various contingencies up to and including the outbreak of war is also analysed. NDC provides future decision-makers with the necessary skills and background for filling senior positions in national security and associated fields.

· Institute of Advance Technology Studies. As emerging technologies have a profound influence on defence systems and doctrine, CONDU has recommended setting up of an Institute of Advanced Technology Studies at Bangalore in a new campus.

However, CONDU overlooked the existence and potential of Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT), located near Pune. It is the foremost institute in the field and functions under Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). It has been accorded the status of a ‘deemed university’ in recognition of its academic excellence. Its charter includes the following:-

a) To impart higher education and training in various fields of science and technology having a bearing on defence requirements in general and weapon systems in particular to the officers of MoD, public sector undertakings, private sector and others.

b) To carry out research, design and development activities with a view to maintain adequate standards required for (i) above.

c) To maintain active interaction and liaison with Universities and other civil and defence teaching institutes in the country and abroad for to and from flow of scientific knowledge.

The Institute has some of the best scientific brains in India and possesses infrastructure spread over 500 acres of area. Being under DRDO, it has the added advantage of close interaction between the scientists, field staff and the user services.

Amalgamation of Existing Facilities

CONDU has sought establishment of an Institute of Defence Management (IDM) at Secundrabad by amalgamating existing College of Defence Management (CDM). It has also recommended establishment of a Centre for Research and Policy and a College of Industrial Research and Management under IDM.

Justification for such a recommendation is not clear. An easier and simpler option would have been to exploit full potential of CDM by enlarging its charter and scope. Founded in 1970, CDM strives to be the nation’s leading centre of excellence in developing management thought with a focus on optimising the effectiveness of the defence services. Its vision is to fulfill the need for enlightened leadership, resource optimisation and effective decision making ability to meet the ever-increasing challenges to national security.

CDM’s highly reputed Research and Consultancy Faculty undertakes project studies for the three services and other organisations every year. The College has three teaching faculties - Faculty of Organisational Behaviour, Faculty of Decision Analysis and Faculty of Resource Management.

Corporate Fellowship Programme

This is also an add-on by CONDU. Fellowship programmes in strategic studies are being conducted by a number of universities, although the standard of research and instructions is certainly not of the requisite standard. The most prudent option is to improve standards in the universities. Additionally, USI can also be assigned this task. Located at New Delhi, USI is an autonomous body and already has a number of Fellowship Chairs for research projects. It has three centres under it, i.e. Centre for Strategic Studies and Simulation, Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research and Centre for United Nations Peace Keeping.

Distance Learning Programme

A separate department called National Defence Open University is proposed by CONDU to impart distant education in various disciplines, although at a later stage.

Presently, a number of Indian universities are offering distance learning programmes in defence subjects, albeit of indifferent quality. USI also possesses considerable experience in distance learning as it has been conducting highly popular correspondence courses to prepare officers for promotion examinations, Technical Staff College and Defence Services Staff College entrance examinations for the Army and the Navy. Every year, 2,500 to 3,000 officers attend these courses. It would be more prudent to streamline, upgrade and expand existing facilities in the USI and the universities.

CONDU Proposal	Objective	Observation
*1. New Establishments*
a) National Institute of Security Studies	To conduct required research programmes on strategic issues of concern to the Government	Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis was established for this purpose and has done commendable research work in defence studies to cover issues of national and international security.
b) College of National Security Policy	To act as a think tank contributing to security policy formulation	Studies at National Defence College include an examination of internal and external long term threats to the security of India to help policy formulation.
c) Institute of Advance Technology Studies	To keep abreast with emerging technologies as they have a profound influence on defence systems and doctrine	Defence Institute of Advanced Technology is a deemed university with excellent faculty and infrastructure. It can carry out envisaged functions.
d) Institute of Defence Management (by amalgamating present College of Defence Management)	To promote application of concepts and techniques of modern management to security issues so as to enhance leadership and decision making potential	College of Defence Management is fully equipped for the task. Incremental need-based additions would meet the emerging requirements ideally.
*2. Corporate Fellowship Programme*	To carry out research in specified discipline/subject	A number of universities and United Service Institution already have such programmes. They could be steered towards desired security issues.
*3. Distance Learning Programme*	To impart education through correspondence courses	United Service Institution is already running highly acclaimed programmes. Scope can be enlarged with minimal additional resources.
4. Affiliation of Existing Institutions	Affiliate National Defence College, Defence Services Staff College and National Defence Academy to the proposed university for grant of degrees	All the institutes are already affiliated to well-known universities and no purpose would be served by disturbing the present arrangement.

Proposed National Defence University vis-à-vis Existing Facilities

Affiliation of Existing Institutions

The proposal suggests affiliation of NDC, National Defence Academy (NDA) and Defence Services Staff College (DSSC) with INDU.

NDA cadets get graduation degrees awarded by Jawaharlal Nehru University. NDC is affiliated to Madras University for the award of M Phil Degree in ‘Defence and Strategic Studies’. Similarly, DSSC is also affiliated to the University of Madras which awards M Sc (Defence and Strategic Studies) degree to all students who qualify on the course. Faculty members can register for M Phil degree. The College has six full time and eight part time vacancies for M Phil. Three vacancies are also available to the College faculty for Ph D. Present arrangements are working very well and one fails to understand the logic in disturbing them, except to justify creation of INDU by expanding its role. See figure above.

The Way Forward

The current proposal suffers from the following infirmities:-

· It fails to take into account the assets possessed by the country in the form of well established research facilities. Instead of exploiting their full potential, the proposal by implication considers them beyond redemption and ignores them totally.

· It recommends establishment of new facilities, thereby creating unnecessary and totally unwarranted duplication. If accepted, over 135 new vacancies would get created resulting in further increase in Government manpower and related recurring expenditure.

· The proposal seeks a seven year time frame for the completion of INDU’s establishment. It belies need for urgency. A much quicker option would be to tap existing institutions and develop their expertise.

· The proposal has been padded with unnecessary trappings to make it look credible and reasonable. As having a defence university only for research may have looked unconvincing, the scope of the proposal has been enlarged to include training, distance education and affiliation of existing institution. Actually, these add-ons dilute the primary objective of the proposal mooted by GoM and weaken focus on security related research.

As seen earlier, deficiencies of the present system are not due to lack of facilities or due to indifferent quality of research. It is just that their potential is not utilised by the decision makers. Take the case of NDC. Despite the lofty objectives for which it was founded, the bureaucracy considers it to be of little value and never sends its upcoming and bright officers for training. As per the list of prominent alumni (as shown on the College’s website), only two bureaucrats who attended National Security and Strategic Studies Course rose to the level of Secretary to the Government of India in the last 46 years. On the other hand, it is a merit-based and highly sought after course for the services - numerous Chiefs and other top brass appear in the list of prominent alumni. It just goes to show that the civil services do not consider it worthwhile to spare their best talent for acquiring strategic orientation.

The most pressing need, therefore, is to change mindset of Government functionaries. Research remains academic and is carried out in ‘policy vacuum’ as officials rarely seek inputs. Security policy planners should be encouraged to seek independent viewpoints. They must understand that acceptance of external advice does not show their inadequacy in any way. On the contrary, it displays an attitude of integrated, collaborative and holistic approach towards long term security assessments and policy formulation. Comprehension of strategic imperatives can only be done in a collegiate manner with inputs provided by various specialists. Unfortunately, critical comments by analysts are not taken kindly by the functionaries. Such a regime not only discourages honest advice but, more harmfully, lowers the quality of research. Competent academicians recoil from such a system.

Synergy between research scholars and Government functionaries can only be achieved by regular interaction and mutual confidence. There is a need to inculcate and nurture strategic thought in body politic. Research institutions can become centres of excellence and vibrant ‘think tanks’ only if their reports are valued and given due consideration.

India possesses research facilities of world standing. Their existing competencies must be harnessed and exploited. Minor restructuring of establishments, liberal funding, focused issue-specific research and greater autonomy will contribute immensely in creating dynamic and responsive environment for the study of strategic security matters. Establishment of INDU at a huge cost to the exchequer will serve little purpose except create additional vacancies and bloat manpower. The solution lies in replacing indifference and apathy of the policy makers by a healthy respect for strategic studies and research carried out by scholars at existing institutions.

Appendix 1: Existing Research Facilities

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) was established in New Delhi on November 11 1965. The Institute is funded by the Indian Ministry of Defence, but functions autonomously. Apart from research, the Institute also provides training programmes to civilian and military officers of the Government of India. The Indian Parliament's Standing Committee on Defence frequently utilises the expertise of the Institute.

The Institute provides training and refresher courses to government officers drawn from the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service, the Indian Police Service, the Armed Forces and the Para-Military Forces. The Institute offers research facilities for foreign research scholars/students. The library has a number of reports and CD-ROM databases. In addition, it subscribes to over 350 current journals both in print as well as in electronic/online versions. The library's resources are heavily used by the Institute's scholars, members of the Institute and other external users.

The IDSA faculty is grouped into the following clusters to facilitate inter-regional and inter-functional research:-

a) East and South East Asia

b) West Asia and Africa

c) USA and Europe

d) South Asia

e) Russia and Central Asia

f) Internal Security

g) Military Affairs

h) Modelling and Net Assessment

i) Non-Military Threats, Energy and Economic Security

The United Service Institution of India

The United Service Institution of India (USI) was founded in 1870 and presently has more than 12,000 members. A number of Fellowship Chairs have been established for research projects. USI has three centres under its aegis:-

a) Centre for Strategic Studies and Simulation. The Centre aims at conducting comprehensive enquiry, research and analyses on national and international security issues, and gaming and simulation of strategic scenarios, to evolve options for wider discussion and consideration.

b) Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research. Its aim is to study the history of the Indian Armed Forces with objectivity - covering different facets - strategic, tactical, logistical, organisational, socio-economic policies - and their implementation.

c) Centre for United Nations Peace Keeping. It acts as a training facility, aimed at providing integrated training in UN Peace Keeping operations.

The USI library has a collection of over 50,000 books, bound volumes, government documents, general documents and journals, including some books of 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries vintage, on an astonishing variety of subjects although the principal emphasis is on strategy and defence. Over 200 defence and strategy related journals and magazines and leading newspapers from India and some foreign countries are provided. The library also has a rich collection of atlases, encyclopaedia and reference material.

National Defence College

The National Defence College (NDC) is a pioneering institute of its type in Asia. It was inaugurated in April 1960 for ‘providing instruction to senior service and civil officers in the wider aspects of higher direction and strategy of warfare’.

The role assigned to the National Defence College is:-

a) To provide a facility to bring together selected senior officers from various departments of the Government of India and friendly foreign countries for the purpose of giving them a structured exposure to various issues related to the national security of a modern state in general and India in particular.

b) To facilitate individual development of selected senior officers of the Indian and Foreign Defence Forces, Indian Civil Services and other organisations by creating an academic environment for the study of issues related to national security.

c) To develop a thorough and lasting mutual understanding between different organs of the Government of India and selected foreign countries by creating an environment and opportunities for developing such understanding between officers under training at the National Defence College.

d) To be an instrument for the Government of India to foster better understanding, mutual co-operation and desirable linkages, in the National, Regional and International Security related fields, with selected foreign countries.

NDC functions under the direct control of the Ministry of Defence. The Defence Secretary in consultation with the Chiefs of Staff implements proposals for changes, as necessary, in the syllabus or functioning of the College. NDC conducts an annual course of 47 weeks duration on ‘National Security and Strategic Studies’.

The College has a well stocked and organised library and Information Resource Centre (IRC). There are over 25,000 books on various subjects related to national security aspects.

(Primary Source: official websites of the concerned establishments)

Appendix 2: Existing Professional Institutes

Defence Institute of Advanced Technology

It came into being as the Institute of Armament Studies in 1952. In the year 2000, the Institute acquired the status of a Deemed University. Training courses at DIAT span a wide spectrum of technologies including regular long and short term courses. Some of the fields are:-

a) Advanced Air Armaments

b) Advanced Marine Engineering

c) Advanced Naval Weapon System

d) Aerospace Quality Assurance and Management

e) Aircraft Weapons Delivery System

f) Aircrew Ejection System

g) Armour Materials

h) Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility

i) Guided Missile Technology

j) High Energy Materials

k) LASER and Electro-Optics

l) Marine Propulsion and Control

m) Military Vehicles Technology

n) Modelling and Simulation Techniques

o) Range Techniques and Technology

p) Special Weapons

DIAT has trained over 20,000 officers in the above disciplines. It conducts 29 long and short courses annually. Specialisation is offered in the following fields:-

· Army. Armaments, Ammunition, Combat Vehicles & Equipment Management.

· Navy. Armament, Weapon Systems, Marine Engineering, Electronics & Marine Propulsion Control.

· Air Force. Air Launched Weapons and Installation, Warheads and Fuses, Aerodynamics, Decelerators, Aircrew Ejection Systems, Aircraft Weapons Systems, Electro-Explosive Device.

· Guided Missiles. Missile Guidance & Control, Missile Aerodynamics, Structures, Configuration and Propulsion, Guidance Signal Processing, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Flight Dynamics, Missile Design, Combustion, Missile System Analysis & Simulation.

The Institute has a computerised library having 40,250 books, 22,500 bound volumes of periodicals, 15,500 reports, 3,100 micro-documents and subscribes to about 250 foreign and national periodicals.

College of Defence Management

College of Defence Management (CDM) was set up in June 1970 to impart modern, scientific management training to the services. It strives to promote application of concepts and techniques of modern management in the three Services so as to enhance leadership and decision making potential. Provision of research and management consultancy support to the three Services and defence oriented industries is an important sphere of the College activities. It has built a rich repository of defence related information. It has a bank of over 245 project reports, 1300 dissertations and an equal number of case studies.

The College has trained over 3500 officers up to the rank of Major General (and equivalent) in defence management through its on-campus programmes. It has also given exposure in defence management to a large number of officers through external capsules. Officers from the Ministry of Defence, research and development organisations and friendly foreign countries also attend various on-campus programmes.

It conducts the following programmes:-

a) Long Defence Management Course. It is a residential course of 42 weeks duration attended by over 80 select officers of the rank of Colonel (or equivalent) as well as civilian officers. The course is pitched at directional and conceptual level.

b) Senior Defence Management Course. It is a six weeks course attended by 30 select officers of the rank of Brigadier (or equivalent) as well as civilian officers. The inputs are at conceptual level and are oriented towards enhancement of leadership potential and decision-making skills through application of modern management concepts and techniques.

c) Defence Management Seminar. This seminar is an annual feature which is conducted over a fortnight. It is attended by officers of the rank of Major General (or equivalent) and other senior officers. The seminar addresses issues related to higher military leadership including problem solving and decision making at strategic level.

The College boasts of an exclusive management library with over25,000 volumes and reference material. The library also subscribes to a large number of Indian and foreign management related and professional journals. A permanent location of the College has been planned on 54 acres of land in Secunderabad Cantonment.

(Primary Source: official websites of the concerned establishments)

Blacklisting Foreign Vendors

2011-08-11T12:19:00.001+05:30

Blacklisting Foreign Vendors

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

India has a penchant for blacklisting foreign arms producers without considering negative effects it has on India’s military preparedness. This is the reasons why recent reports of irregularities in the procurement of seven Barak anti-missile defense systems and 200 missiles from Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd (IAI) have caused serious concern to the Indian armed forces. They fear that the Government may get forced to blacklist IAI as per the provisions of defence procurement procedure. Should that happen, India’s defence modernisation plan would suffer irretrievable damage. Having seen the adverse effects of banning Bofors, HDW and Denel, they dread a similar fate for a large number of ambitious plans under implementation.

IAI is deeply involved in most of the major modernisation plans of the three services. In addition to the upgradation of fighter aircraft (Jaguar, MIG-21, MIG-29 and Mirage-2000), transport aircraft (AN-32) and all helicopters of MI series, it is supplying three Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) systems to India. It is also the prime supplier of unmanned aerial vehicles to the three services. Most importantly, IAI is involved in a number of developmental projects. India simply cannot afford to cut off all dealings with it. The saga of banning Bofors, HDW and Denel cannot be repeated.

Bofors

After carrying out trials of various guns on offer, India opted for Bofors 155 mm FH-77B towed artillery system. A contract for 410 systems was signed with the Swedish firm in 1986 for Rs1437.72 crore. The contract included transfer of technology for subsequent manufacture of guns in India. India had planned to produce 1,840 pieces within the country to equip 92 artillery regiments. However, with the exposure of kickbacks, the Government banned Bofors for all future dealings. It had the following effect:-

· Although India had paid for transfer of technology, it failed to utilise it. India lost an opportunity to create a base for further development of artillery weapon systems. As a result, indigenous competence to manufacture and maintain guns remained stunted.

· As spares could not be procured from Bofors, middlemen thrived making huge profits. In the absence of adequate spares, the Army had to cannibalise parts from some guns to keep other guns functional. Essential maintenance also suffered.

· Without help from Bofors, India is struggling to carry out overhauling of guns in the stipulated time frame. It is feared that delay in overhaul will adversely affect extension of useful life of the gun systems. Indigenous capacity installed with a Base Repair Workshop is far too less and it will take unacceptably long to overhaul the complete inventory.

· The Navy was already using Bofors guns on some ships and they faced difficulties in ensuring regular supply of spares.

· Indian inventory of 84 mm Carl Gustav Rocket Launchers suffered as Carl Gustav subsequently became a subsidiary of Bofors and thus, came under the ban.

Denel

Discussions were in final stages with Denel of South Africa for 155 mm howitzers (both towed and self-propelled) when it emerged that Denel had employed unacceptable means to grab contract for the supply of NTW-20 Anti-Material Rifle. It was alleged that Denel had engaged middlemen to offer bribes to obtain sensitive information about the internal proceedings of the Commercial Negotiation Committee. The Government decided to blacklist Denel in 2005 and cancel all orders placed on it.

The development was highly unfortunate. Bhim project was almost concluded with Denel’s T-6 155mm turret from the G-6 being mounted on Arjun hull. An initial order had also been placed on a public sector undertaking. With the blacklisting of Denel, Indian Army’s Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan suffered a crippling blow. The total requirement envisaged by 2025 is 3600 artillery guns of 155mm/52 calibre. The current inventory is of 410 Bofors guns only. Therefore, India desperately wants to procure 400 additional gun systems (220 wheeled and 180 tracked) on priority to meet inescapable minimum requirement.

Field trials in respect of wheeled systems were carried out in 2003 to ascertain compliance of Services Qualitative Requirements. Three competitors participated – Denel, Soltam Atmos 2000 and FH77 of SWS Defence. All the three systems failed to meet specified standards. Retrials of duly improved versions were held in 2004. With the blacklisting of Denel, the choice got limited to Soltam and FH77. As per the press reports, FH77 emerged far superior to Soltam and was the choice of the Army. However, due to politically sensitive reasons, the Government incorrectly termed the case as a single vendor situation and decided to float fresh tender enquiries with reformulated Qualitative Requirements. Tender for wheeled guns was floated in March 2007 and the second tender for tracked guns followed soon thereafter. It is learnt that 12 producers of guns have been invited.

Nearly 20 years have passed since the induction of Bofor guns; no new gun system has been procured. Due to ban on Bofors and Denel, India has shut doors on two major producers of guns and thereby limited its choice. Continued shortage of suitable 155mm/52 calibre gun systems implies major gaps in India’s defence preparedness. Additionally, India’s quest for indigenous production of 155 mm ammunition also suffered a major blow. Work on a new ordnance factory in Nalanda to manufacture 155mm ammunition for Bofors guns has got stalled, as Denel was to provide technical know-how. Hundreds of crores of rupees have also gone down the drain.

HDW

The case of HDW makes instructive reading. A contract was signed with the German firm in December 1981. India was to get two HDW 209 class fully built submarines and sub-assemblies and components for assembling two other submarines in India. HDW was also to provide required training to Indian personnel.

HDW delivered two submarines in 1987 and two more were assembled in India in due course. As allegations of bribery and kickbacks became public, the Government decided to blacklist the company. It was also decided not to build any more submarines of the same class. Marlog, a company jointly owned by HDW and Ferrostal, took over the responsibility to fulfill all contractual obligations.

There are just a handful of competent submarine manufacturers in the world. By blacklisting HDW, India antagonized one of the leading producers and thereby deprived itself of the benefits of latest technological advancements. HDW is the world leader with the most advanced air-independent propulsion system. Continued collaboration would have given a boost to indigenous submarine building competence. Additionally, India would have acquired wherewithal as regards maintenance, overhaul and repair support.

As India had not received the complete drawings and NATO identification numbers for all spare parts of the submarines, it faced immense problems in procuring them from other sources. Middlemen made huge profits. The Navy wanted to increase the offensive punch of the submarines by mounting Exocet missiles on it. As HDW could not be engaged, others laid unacceptably harsh conditions. Indian plans for the upgradation of the submarine entailed an increase in their length and that could be done only by HDW. To sum up, by blacklisting HDW India deprived itself of maintenance support, upgradation opportunities and development of indigenous skills.

Probity Provisions of the Procurement Procedure

Defence Procurement Procedure -2008 (DPP-2008) has laid down clear guidelines for all foreign vendors. They are warned not to resort to any unethical practice to influence the decision makers.

A ‘Pre-Contract Integrity Pact’ has been made mandatory for all schemes exceeding Rupees 100 crores. The vendors are required to sign and submit it separately along with the technical and commercial offers. It is a binding agreement in which the procurement agency promises that it will not accept bribes during the procurement process and bidders promise that they will not offer bribes. It also includes an undertaking by each bidder to disclose all payments made in connection with the contract in question to anybody (including agents and other middlemen as well as family members of officials).

The Government can enforce the following sanctions for any violation by a bidder of its commitments or undertakings: -

· Denial or loss of contract.

· Forfeiture of bid security and performance bond.

· Liability for damages to the principal and the competing bidders.

· Finally, debarment of the violator by the principal for an appropriate period of time.

While signing the final contract, every vendor (irrespective of the contract value) is required to give an undertaking that he has not given, offered or promised to give, directly or indirectly any gift, consideration, reward, commission, fees, brokerage or inducement to procure the contract. Any breach of the aforesaid undertaking by the seller or any one employed by him shall entitle the buyer to cancel the contract and all or any other contracts with the seller and recover the loss arising from such cancellation. Should the Government desire to ascertain if any unauthorized payments have been made, a vendor has to allow inspection of his account books.

It will be seen that debarment of a vendor is the last resort and has to be taken only in extreme cases.

Appraisal of the Issue

Before initiating any action against a company, the Government must weigh pros and cons of all alternatives open to it. While punishing a defaulting vendor, own interests must be fully safeguarded. India must consider the following points while taking decision on blacklisting foreign vendors:-

· There are limited manufacturers of major high-tech defence systems in the world. Additionally, world defence trade is circumscribed by embargoes on technology export. Thus, there are very few manufacturers who possess and are willing to offer advanced weaponry to India.

· To develop indigenous defence industry, India needs imported technology and reliable foreign partners with long term commitment. Blacklisting nullifies all transfer of technology agreements, even if paid for.

· India needs to modernize its armed forces expeditiously and its shopping list spans a vast canvas, including all major systems. As most major defence companies produce a large array of equipment, blacklisting in one contract will have a ripple effect on all other purchases as well.

· India possesses a huge inventory of weapon platforms which are in need of immediate upgradation to increase their useful life. This task can be undertaken by a handful of companies. Banning any will reduce own options.

· No company produces a complete defence system. Most major producers are in fact mere integrators. They outsource major assemblies from varied sources. Blacklisting of an assembly supplier can also jeopardize major acquisition proposals.

· One of the stated aims of DPP-2008 is to ‘demonstrate the highest degree of probity and public accountability, transparency in operations, free competition and impartiality’. Blacklisting of vendors reduces competition and forces the Government to resort to single vendor procurements with related cost penalty. This is also contrary to Government’s declared policy.

· Every time a finalised contract is suspended, the earmarked funds remain unexpended resulting in their surrender.

· Most importantly, the services get deprived of the essential equipment. It may have critical effect on nation’s war preparedness. Fresh floating of tenders entails major delays and cost overruns.

In every irregular transaction, there are always two parties – the bribe giver and the bribe taker. Action must be taken against both and in equal proportion. It is unfair to apportion the entire blame to bribe givers and take no action against those who demand and extract bribes. It conveys an impression that the Government is reconciled to the fact that procurement functionaries are bound to fall prey to temptations, if offered to them. It amounts to a tacit admission by the Government of its inability to find officials with unimpeachable integrity and to exercise control over them. The Government thus, feels that the onus of keeping all transactions clean is entirely on the vendors - they should decline to pay bribes even if demanded by the decision makers. This is a strange logic. Instead of putting its own house in order, India holds foreign vendors accountable for all wrong-doings.

The Way Forward

The Government must have conclusive proof that a major breach of probity provisions has taken place. Media reports and rumours cannot be the sole basis. As has been seen, a majority of media reports are subjective, biased and even planted to sabotage a deal. This could be done either by a losing vendor or even by entities inimical to India’s interests. As has been seen earlier, every blacklisting of a foreign vendor puts back India’s defence modernisation plans by decades. Undoubtedly, it is the most cost effective option available to adversaries to impede India’s defence preparedness.

Retaliatory action must always be well considered and commensurate with the degree of misdemeanor. It does not have to be blacklisting at the outset. It is prudent to follow a phased and graduated approach for two reasons. One, the defaulting vendor gets unambiguous message that the Government means business and the vendor should exercise due caution in further dealings. Secondly, should blacklisting become inescapable, the Government can time it to suit own requirements. In the case of HDW, hasty action to ban the company deprived India of catalogues and drawings. India could have easily waited for a few months.

India must also remember that banning a major foreign vendor may have little effect on his business and India may suffer more. Thus the whole exercise of punishing a foreign vendor for his alleged misdemeanor may become counter productive and end up boomeranging on India. In fact this is exactly what has happened in all cases. We have ended up shooting in our own foot. There cannot be another example of immature and reckless decision making. While trying to fix a vendor for his misconduct, we put our own defence modernisation plans in disarray, with consequent critical capability gaps and cost overruns.

The Government seems to have realised the foolhardiness of its policy. It has decided to tread cautiously. Blacklisting of Bofors has been revoked as the company is now owned by SWS Defence with considerable equity being held by a US based company. Similarly, after the clearance by Indian courts in 2005, HDW has commenced participation in Indian defence business. It has recently been issued Request for Information for six next-generation submarines with air-independent propulsion systems, a project worth Rs 30,000 crore.

It is time to close the old chapter, change our approach and start afresh. Although Denel has been proscribed recently, the Government should offer a way out by asking it to make good financial loss with stiff penal deduction. For generating maximum competition to obtain best deals, the Government has to show maturity, practicality and adroit handling. Outright blacklisting is the easiest and the most imprudent way of managing a delicate and highly critical issue.

A sustained and inspired media campaign was carried out by a small section of press to sabotage Scorpene submarine deal. It is to the credit of the Government that it resisted all demands to reopen the case. It is similarly hoped that the current reports against IAI would be looked into judiciously and an objective view taken. In case any misdemeanor is proved, appropriate and balanced action should be taken against both the vendor and the functionaries involved. Blacklisting, however, must remain the last resort. Cutting off your nose to spite your face can never be considered a prudent policy.

INDIA NEEDS INDEPENDENT DEFENCE THINK TANKS

2011-08-11T12:14:00.000+05:30

INDIA NEEDS INDEPENDENT DEFENCE THINK TANKS

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

During his address at the 42^nd Foundation Day function of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), the Vice President of India, Mr M Hamid Ansari stressed the need for structured thinking. “Governments busy with the concerns of the moment sometimes do not have the time and the energy to devote themselves in sufficient measure to matters in the domain of the possible, the probable and even the improbable,” he added. He exhorted the strategic community to respond to security imperatives and energise the policy impulse.

Think tanks provide an ideal vehicle to the strategic community to study future uncertainties and develop well-articulated policy options through research and analysis of multi-dimensional variables. They help bridge the gap between insightful knowledge and well-informed policy making. Although India has 122 think tanks, most of them are of indifferent standard. According to a global survey carried out by the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute in 2007, India was fifth in the list of countries having the maximum number of think tanks. Quite expectedly, the United States headed the list with 1776.

The origin of the term think tank can be traced back to the Second World War and was initially applied to war planning deliberations. Some used the phrase brain boxes as well. However, by the end of 1950s the term think tank had come to be accepted universally and gradually transcended to other disciplines as well. RAND Corporation, founded in 1946 to offer advice to the US military is considered by many to be the first modern think tank. It developed systems analysis, whose objective was "to provide information to military decision-makers that would sharpen their judgment and provide the basis for more informed choices."

As seen above, the role of think tanks was limited to military advice initially. As all militaries have to contend with indefinite and unpredictable environment, think tanks help immensely by developing tools for decision making. Their contribution to game theory, dynamic programming, mathematical modelling, simulation, network theory and cost analysis is well documented. During the last thirty years, with expansion of their field of activity, their number has increased exponentially. They number over 5000 today.

In the United States, all major issues are researched, analysed and debated in public domain by different think tanks to generate multiple interpretations, viewpoints and alternative courses of action. Both privately funded and the Government owned think tanks contribute by active participation. The Government encourages such open discussions and takes due cognizance of opinions expressed while formulating policies. Britain boasts of some of the finest think tanks which influence Government policies. Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI), founded in 1831 to study naval and military science has widened its area of study to include insurgency, terrorism and other unconventional threats. Even the People's Republic of China has realised the importance of think tanks. Although owned by the Government, they are granted sufficient autonomy to debate issues freely. Maximum proliferation of think tanks in the recent times has been seen in the erstwhile Soviet Union countries.

Although it is difficult to define think tanks in precise terms, they are all structured as permanent bodies, funded by government or private supporters. Some of the essential attributes that a conventional think tank should possess are as follows:-

· Independent and Non-partisan Approach

Think tanks should subscribe to no ideology and produce honest and objective research papers. They should not permit themselves to be used as propaganda tool or as lobbying groups of funding entities. Some think tanks are aligned with different ideologies or view points and tend to support them through their studies. They are treated as mouth-pieces of interested parties. There are many advocacy organizations (under the façade of think tanks) that are ready to produce tailor-made studies for a cost. Such institutions lose their credibility and contribute little to objective debate of issues involved. Therefore, it is essential that outside funding should be such that it does not impinge on the independence and integrity of research institutions. The US based Centre for Defense Information (CDI) is totally financed by voluntary tax-deductible contributions from individuals and grants from foundations. It declines funds from the military and the military contractors to remain as “the nation’s foremost independent military research organization.” Similarly, in order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding. It receives approximately 75 percent of its funding from individuals, with lesser amounts coming from foundations, corporations and the sale of publications.

· Quality of Research Staff

Quality of research work totally depends on the competence of research staff involved. Any think tank that becomes a parking area for favourites degenerates into a coterie club where merit ceases to be of any relevance. Such think tanks exist only to provide vocation to some influential retired functionaries and produce little of value. Self preservation becomes the prime concern of the research scholars. RAND owes its preeminence to the high quality of its researchers which include many Nobel Laureates. Similarly, high caliber of scholars has made Brookings an influential and most-quoted think tank. RUSI is known for consistent high quality research work produced by world-class experts associated with it.

· Selection of Issues for Research

A think tank should carry out research and analysis of important issues concerning the governments and the public. Research cannot be carried out in a vacuum. It has to be relevant and topical. It must produce results which are of use to mould public opinion and help the functionaries in opting for the most suitable course of action. Selection of issues depends on field of activity and national interests. For a US based think tank every occurrence in any corner of the world is important but for an Indian think tank it is pointless to focus on issues that India does not relate to. Unfortunately, many think tanks produce research work which is of little relevance and remains purely academic in value with no practical application. Such efforts are wasteful.

· Objective Research and Purposeful Analysis

Research must aim at discovering, interpreting and revising understanding of issues under study. It must be carried out in a structured format – spelling out of the subject matter in precise terms, formulation of preliminary hypothesis, defining operational imperatives, collection and analysis of data, review of preliminary hypothesis and generation of research results. Research can be exploratory (identifies new problems), constructive (finds new solutions for a known problem) or empirical (solution is tested against empirical evidence). The aim of analysis should be to carry out an in-depth study of an issue by careful examination of its structure and operation. Different inferences with supporting evidence are drawn to arrive at the best course of action from among various alternatives. In order to generate credible options with their positive and negative aspects, research has to be objective and analysis purposeful. Therefore, think tanks must generate solutions which are within the realms of practicality. Wishful and implausible propositions mean little.

India and Think Tanks

Degree of effective contribution of think tanks in a country depends on two factors - first, degree of freedom granted to them to analyse and debate issues of national importance in a frank and forthright manner and, secondly, government’s receptivity to different viewpoints. Therefore, think tanks generally perform better in democracies rather than dictatorial regimes where they get forced to articulate government’s stance and policies. Moreover, the quality of research work varies from mediocre to sub-standard.

In the case of India, think tanks have failed to contribute significantly for the following reasons:-

· India lacks a tradition of long term strategic thinking and policy planning. Indian psyche is more wrapped up in philosophy rather than history. History is never studied seriously to draw lessons for preparing for the future. Furthermore, petty politicking and day to day routine functioning keeps the Government so busy that it has little time or inclination to develop long term perspective and objectives.

· As the Government’s functioning is highly secretive, very little authentic information is available in public domain, handicapping realistic research work. Individualistic and compartmentalised mindset of functionaries also inhibits sharing of information and wider consultations. They are highly protective of their turf and consider collective decision making as an encroachment of their domain.

· Moreover, Indian functionaries resent criticism and difference of opinion. Policy makers are averse to accept external advice as they consider themselves to be fully equipped to take decisions in national interest. They do not take kindly to dissention and expect academicians to toe the official line. All Government-funded institutions get coerced into producing placid and non-contentious research studies. The value of such studies, therefore, becomes suspect.

Of late, a number of ‘think tanks’ have come into being, both with Government and private funding. Unfortunately, most of them have got reduced to the level of fiefdoms of a coterie of self-promoting and self-proclaimed experts. Despite the fact that the Government funded think tanks possess enormous infrastructural resources, they have failed to deliver. In the Indian scheme of things, the term autonomy does not exist. If the Government funds an organisation it ensures that its writ runs. Even the jobs of organisation’s experts depend on their ‘continued good behaviour’. Any person trying to chart an independent course is quickly sacked and replaced by a favourite loyalist. Therefore, most experts never oppose any Government policy and confine their so-called research to perfunctory and irrelevant issues. A statement often heard in such organisations is, “When you are occupying a cushioned seat, why stand up (for any cause) and risk losing it?”

A well known think tank is often referred to as ‘cut and paste’ club, as all its members excel in producing research papers by compiling excerpts from published material. Their only motivation for taking up research is to get a peaceful tenure in Delhi. Research papers are produced on every subject under the sun, even if of remote interest to India. The quality of research papers is judged by the number of references and notes provided at the end. Every statement is required to be authenticated by referring to a published source, howsoever well known it may be. There are many papers in which the researcher does not contribute even a paragraph of his own.

Another think tank is so short of quality work that it fills its journal by reproducing texts of speeches made by visiting speakers and reports of study tours. One of the newer think tanks has a single point agenda – oppose appointment of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Every article and statement emanating from it ends up stressing and re-stressing the ills of CDS system. It is known to have declined to accept work which does not toe anti-CDS line. Instead of looking at national security imperatives in a holistic and interdisciplinary manner, new think tanks have set narrow subjective objectives for themselves. For example, one think tank feels that the constitution of aero-space command under the Air Force aegis is the panacea for all security concerns and hence it must be promoted vigorously. Another think tank looks at the Indian Ocean in isolation while the third one remains embroiled in insurgency related issues. They have thus got reduced to furthering the official viewpoints of their respective funding authorities to promote service interests in inter-service turf wars.

Worse, most of the defence experts lack credibility. They change their opinion as per their job requirements. Their lack of courage of conviction and fickle mindedness can teach a few tricks to even professional political defectors. Experts, who opposed Indo-US nuclear deal initially, turned its strongest supporters overnight. Similarly, advocacy of CDS system got replaced by opposition with the change of job. Defence experts have failed to establish reputation for stating their mind honestly and hence, no one takes them seriously.

The only silver lining in this otherwise dismal scenario is the effort being put in by a few intrepid and enterprising individuals who have started defence journals to provide a vehicle for the free-flow of ideas without fear and partisanship. Their efforts deserve special praise as they possess limited resources but seek no Government support to retain their independence. These journals can not be called think tanks in the classical sense but they have been in the forefront of study and analysis of strategic issues facing India. Their yeomen service needs recognition.

The Way Forward

The Group of Ministers (GoM), constituted in the wake of the Kargil War, while referring to research in India in the field of defence observed – “Whereas academic research is carried out more or less in a policy vacuum, official agencies undertake their policy making tasks in the absence of the wealth of information available with the academic community. There is a need to ensure that the Government's policy and decision making processes are informed by the findings of rigorous analyses and research.” As it always happens, instead of identifying underlying reasons for such a state of affairs and suggesting remedial measures, GoM recommended creation of a defence university to fill the lacuna. The proposed university will only add to the burgeoning government staff strength and contribute little of value as the current mind-sets are unlikely to change.

Given our way of functioning, psyche and penchant to play favourites, no improvement can be expected in the performance of Government funded think tanks. They will continue to be perfunctory players, thriving on patronage rather than the quality of serious research work. As no difference of opinion will ever be tolerated by the Government functionaries, such think tanks will carry on churning out insipid, irrelevant, indefinite and worthless studies. In short, they will remain as parking slots for the well-connected and nothing else.

A large number of reputed think tanks in the Western countries are either affiliated to universities or are funded by foundations, trusts and individuals. That is the reason that they attract the best research talent and produce independent works. India should also strive to move in the same direction. Some universities do have departments for strategic and defence studies but the scope of their work is highly limited at present. They must be encouraged and supported.

Public apathy is one of the primary reasons for the Government’s neglect of think tanks in India. The Government knows that even the most critical decisions can be taken by it without any questions being raised in the public domain. It is, therefore, incumbent on the think tanks to inform and prepare the country men as regards the seriousness and enormity of the security challenges faced by the country. Only public pressure can force the Government to take cognizance of the research studies and draw upon the expertise of the think tanks. This is going to be a tall order for a country that is overly secretive about all security issues and prefers to keep the public in dark. Public, on the other hand, is blissfully occupied with cricket, movie stars and petty politics. It has little time for serious deliberation of security matters. Even the Parliament spends more time discussing India’s cricket performance than the defence budget.

Finally, research can not be carried out in a vacuum. What India needs is institutionalization of strategic thinking and close interaction between the strategic community and the policy makers. All well-meaning trusts and foundations should come forward and help in the development of independent think tank culture in India through applied and basic research of issues of national concern to generate multiple courses of action with detailed reasoning and inter-se merits. Policy makers should be able take well-considered decisions. In other words, think tanks should act as a bridge between the academic community and policymaking functionaries. More importantly, they should provide independent, credible and candid analysis to the public for informed debate of national security issues.

Appendix 1: The Indian Defence Expert

All defence experts associated with think tanks in India have some common traits. They are all survivors - regimes come and regimes go but they go on for ever. They never criticize the Government in the fear of losing benefaction. They always toe Government’s line and have no qualms in changing their viewpoints as per the requirement of the recipient. They swim with the tide as their survival depends not on any meritorious work but on continued patronage of the functionaries.

Ask the Indian defence experts to speak on any subject and they start giving out well memorized statistics regarding GDP, defence budget and various percentages. After a few standard clichés, they sum up their talk advocating higher allocation for defence, need for modernisation and requirement of revolution in military affairs. Having heard them once, one can anticipate the complete talk on every subsequent occasion. Most have developed a well cultivated style of talking in low serious monotone, appearing over-burdened with national security concerns.

Most defence analysts can produce volumes of research work on revolution in military affairs taking place in the US but are unable to suggest a plan for India. Every defence expert writing on the emerging Chinese threat recounts all well-documented Chinese activities to reach the conclusion that India must be more assertive while dealing with China. Such a study is of no value at all. One does not have to be a China-expert to recommend that. A purposeful research work must spell out different options with anticipated Chinese responses and own counteractions. Finally, the most beneficial course of action must emerge.

An article written by a well known defence expert that appeared recently in a leading daily pleaded with Mrs Sonia Gandhi to ensure operationalization of the Indo-US nuclear accord. He wrote, “While the credit for conducting the tests may go to Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the father of both the military nuclear programme and the renewal of foreign civil nuclear cooperation is Rajiv Gandhi….. People all over the country understand that the decision on nurturing Rajiv Gandhi’s legacy of the nuclear issue rests wholly with Sonia Gandhi….. She should now listen to her inner voice and not depend upon the advice of her veteran party advisors….. Let her pause and reflect on her own. Rajiv Gandhi’s legacy is at stake.”

It is only in India that a defence expert can stoop to such reasoning and seek to influence national policy on such a vital matter by appealing to a political leader to listen to her inner voice for the sake of her late husband’s legacy. The appeal was not based on any overriding national strategic considerations but amounted to emotional coercion. The said article exposed the hollowness of our strategic community. Unfortunately, India has been suffering such defence experts for far too long.

Appendix 2: Defence Seminars or Networking Congregations

Being the seat of the Government, almost all think tanks are located in New Delhi. Conduct of seminars is one of the regular activities undertaken by them. The methodology and the modus operandi have been perfected over the years. A high sounding subject is chosen and invitations sent to mutually obliging think tanks. Reciprocation of invitations to chair seminars ensures continued limelight. An informal coterie of defence experts has emerged to perpetuate and advance mutual interests.

Every seminar typically starts with registration of delegates. The audience consists of invited ex-servicemen and detailed serving military officers. The ex-servicemen invitees are always the same on the seminar circuit whatever be the subject of the seminar. They are selected for their availability and willingness to be seen in such forums rather than for any known expertise. After inaugural and key note addresses by eminent speakers (generally serving functionaries who sanction funds for the host think tank), there is a prolonged break for tea. As this is the most important occasion for networking and developing contacts, it invariably overshoots the time allotted. Thereafter, most of the invitees collect their folders and leave. Only serving service officers are left behind. Occupancy gets reduced to 50 percent.

Although seminar papers are distributed in advance, no invitee ever comes prepared. In the absence of background knowledge, their questions are more in the nature of recounting their personal experiences, howsoever irrelevant they may be. Another interesting aspect is the time allotted to each guest speaker. In most cases, it is 40 minutes to start with but gets reduced to 20 or even 10 minutes as the day progresses, to ensure an extended lunch break. The seminar takes the form of an enjoyable ‘male kitty party’, as an observer pointed out.

The seminar becomes active once again closer to the time of the concluding address by another important functionary. As he does not attend the full session, he is blissfully unaware of what was discussed during the day. He invariably talks of his personal experiences and concludes by mouthing hackneyed pearls of wisdom. The seminar thus ends on a high note and with much mutual back thumping. In true kitty party tradition, schedule of the next seminar and the name of the host are also announced. Au Revoir.