BRIG HEMANT MAHAJAN NATIONAL SECURITY

Not a happy state of affairsMatters military need urgent attentionby Inder Malhotra

FOR the first time in many years, the media was barred from the ceremony at which the outgoing chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Air Chief Martial P.V. Naik, handed over charge to the Naval Chief, Admiral Nirmal Verma. The stated reason was that Defence Minister A.K. Antony had expressed displeasure at the proclivity of Service Chiefs to talk out of turn publicly.
It is sad that this should have happened on the verge of ACM Naik’s retirement that has since taken place. But it is only fair to acknowledge that Mr Antony had good reason to do what he did. Ironically, the outgoing Air Chief himself had made two statements that were found unacceptable. First, at his farewell Press conference, in reply to a question he had said that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal did not worry him because if Islamabad uses nuclear weapons, India’s retaliation would be “massive”.
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with this statement, which reflects the ground situation. But, as the Defence Minister underscored, no Service Chief should have said so just before the arrival of the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mrs Hinna Rabbani Khar, for talks with her Indian counterpart, Mr S.M. Krishna. What lent a sharper edge to the episode is that on the day ACM Naik addressed the Press, the Defence Minister had presided over the 12th anniversary of the Kargil war where he took care to declare that he didn’t want to say anything that might “spoil the atmosphere” for the Foreign Ministers’ talks.
Secondly, a few days earlier the outgoing Air Chief had publicly rubbished the idea of having a Chief of Defence Staff. To this a great many people concerned about national security had legitimately taken exception. A Service Chief is within his rights to argue his case on any issue in the inner councils of the government, not in public. The retired Air Chief is not alone in crossing the Lakshman rekha. The Chief of the Army Staff, General V.K. Singh, also erred when, after the elimination of Osama bin Laden by the American Special Forces at the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad under the nose of the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), he declared that India had the capacity to do what the Americans had done but Indian policy was not to undertake such operations. This became an inducement to several others — including, surprisingly, the head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Mr V.K. Sawant — to follow suit. In heaven’s name, if we have a certain capacity, let’s use it, if and when necessary. Why brag about it?
Unfortunately, the malaise is not new. It has gone on unchecked for some time. Some years ago, when the Pay Commission’s report and the government’s decisions on it had caused dissatisfaction within the armed forces, the then Navy Chief had gone public and even sent an unclassified signal to the entire naval personnel. When his action invited widespread criticism, he felt offended.
That apart, there are even more worrying elements in the situation that do not necessarily find their way into the media but of which all concerned are aware. Yet no one is doing anything about these. Without beating about the bush, let it be said that things within each of the three armed forces are not of the best, and so are in inter-Services relations. Relations between the Services and the civilians are worse. Strange though it may seem, even the unfortunate dispute over Gen. V.K. Singh’s date of birth has had ugly repercussions. Within the Army, almost across the board, there is a feeling that with the government’s rejection of the General’s claim by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), their Chief has been treated “shabbily”. The civilian decision makers feel, on the other hand, that Cadet V.K. Singh himself had given his date of birth to the National Defence Academy and on joining it. Nearly three decades later, when his appointment as the Chief was almost certain, did the dispute arise. Is there a lesson here for laying down a policy for the future?
Moreover, there are disturbing shortages of officers, equipment and even ammunition in the Services, especially the Army. It needs to double its present sanctioned strength of officers by 2025, and yet it continues to be nearly 12,000 officers short. There is yet no sign of a medium gun to replace the Bofors. And the contrast between our infrastructure at the India-China border and that of China is stark.
Overriding all these difficulties is the wider problem of reviewing the reforms in higher defence command, intelligence cooperation, coordination of border management and so on brought about 10 years ago thanks to the Kargil Review Committee, headed by the late K. Subrahmanyam. Even a cursory glance at the situation shows that there are a lot of gaps between what was attempted and what has actually
been achieved.
Luckily, there is now a competent task force to review the entire gamut of national security, internal and external. It will do the country a great and long overdue service if it takes a firm decision on the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff and integration of the three Service headquarters and the MoD, as is the case in all mature democracies. In any case, it is inconceivable how, in this day and age, wars can be fought without inter-Service integration and theatre commands. In their absence the Integrated Defence Command is like an arch without the copingstone.
CDS was an integral part of the higher defence structure suggested by the Kargil Committee. The Group of Ministers, headed by Mr L.K. Advani, also endorsed it. Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister, did not reject it but deferred a decision on it. Privately, he explained that he did so because the Air Force had created “too much bad blood” — nine former Air Chiefs had gone to him to protest — and he was so advised by former President R. Vekataraman and former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, both of whom had earlier served as Defence Minister.
When I asked how long the decision would be delayed, he replied: “Not more than a year.” That was exactly a decade ago. Isn’t it time this dithering settles the issue once and for all?