The bench of AFT Chairperson Justice Virender Singh and Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra (retd) have made the observations while giving directions to the Army to immediately hold the promotion selection board of a Major General for the rank of Lt General.

The Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has come down harshly on the Army’s new promotion policy for Generals finding portions of it to be “not only arbitrary and discriminatory but also violative of the principles of natural justice”.

The bench of AFT Chairperson Justice Virender Singh and Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra (retd) have made the observations while giving directions to the Army to immediately hold the promotion selection board of a Major General for the rank of Lt General.

Pronouncing the judgment on October 5, on the petition of Major General VK Singh, the bench observed that the Army’s new promotion policy of December 2017, which became the subject matter of the case requires a re-visit by the Army for its effective implementation in the right perspective, so as to avoid any further litigation.

Major General Singh was commissioned in the Armoured Corps of the Indian Army on in 1983 and was considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General by the Service Selection Board (SSB) held in October 2017. He was not empanelled for promotion on the basis of his overall profile and comparative merit within the batch and limitation of available vacancies. He filed a Non-Statutory Complaint against his non-empanelment, wherein he was granted partial redressal by expunging certain assessment of his confidential report on technical grounds.

However, despite granting him partial redressal, the officer was not considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General in view of certain p[rovisions of the enw promotion policy. As per this new policy, the SSB is to be held only once a year and all special review cases are to be considered only with the next scheduled SSB. The officer told the AFT that he apprehends that in view of the new policy he may still not be considered in the next SSB scheduled to be held in October 2018 as that will only be a month prior to his retirement making him ineligible for consideration as per the policy

The counsel for the Union of India told the bench that the new policy stipulates that if an officer is superannuating before occurrence of the first vacancy, then he will not be eligible for any consideration by No. 1 Selection Board (for Maj Gen) or SSB (for Lt Gen). The counsel confirmed that while the name of the applicant will be included in the agenda for consideration, but he will be shown as ‘not eligible’ as he is retiring on November 30 before occurrence of first vacancy.

Disagreeing with these provisions of the policy, the bench ordered that the applicant should be considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General as a Special Review (fresh) case in accordance with the same Promotion Policy as was applied for his batch which was in vogue when the first SSB took place in October 2017 and, if found fit by the Board he shall be promoted to the rank of Lt Gen as per vacancy available on that date well in time before November 30, his date of retirement.

Ibrahim Mohamed Solih Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s win in Maldives spells the defeat of pro-China elements that steered the country away from India’s traditional influence ,

How does an island nation of 400,000 inhabitants, tucked not too far off the coastline from   southern India, just a meter above sea level and threatening to go under water with the swell of rising oceans due to climate change, assume such geopolitical importance that its national election comes so avidly under the scanner of the international community? It’s a different issue that its football team has also just recently defeated the Indian football eleven in the South Asian football tournament,exemplifying the David and Goliath syndrome which exists in the India- Maldives relationship. The recently concluded Maldivian election where 89.2 per cent of the electorate turned up at the polling booths, threw up a major surprise as the incumbent President Abdullah Yameen, known to be a hard-nosed dictator, was defeated by a coalition of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the Jumhoree Party under the leadership of Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, by a fairly large margin. Mohammad Nasheed, the former president,  had been disqualified from membership of any political party due to the criminal and anti-national charges that Yameen brought against him. Solih’s victory spells the return of effective democracy and the defeat of the pro-China elements that for the last four years had steered the Maldives away from the traditional influence enjoyed by India as the dominant power of South Asia. This is as far as the political scenario is being discussed here although it needs to be mentioned that India was perhaps as surprised by the result as many others were around the world. Why are all the big powers and the sub continental powers, India and Pakistan, so interested in the Maldives?

There are three significant things about the Maldives: its location, real estate, and ideological orientation. From a strategic security perspective, it actually sits atop the sea lanes of communication (SLsOC) which emanate from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and head towards the Straits of Malacca. It is well known that 70 percent of the world’s trade and almost 80 percent of China’s energy requirements are transported through shipping resources along these SLsOC. The 1200 islands with about 200 occupied make up the nation. Apart from the large Indian ports of Cochin and Chennai and the Sri Lankan ports of Colombo, Hambantota and Trincomalee , there are no ports between the Gulf of Aden  and Straits of Malacca unless we also count Port Blair within this scope. Male, the capital of the Maldives is a small port. Kulhudhufushi, Hithadhoo and Thilafushi are other ports. In the southern atoll of Gaadhoo, China has been seeking to build a port with much of the physical clearance work having been done. Its location makes it an ideal point in the Indian Ocean to have a base as it is mid-way between the eastern and western extremities of the ocean and suitable as a replenishment point for a naval fleet which wishes dominance in the Indian Ocean.

A large land mass is considered a major asset but in the case of the Maldives, it is the minuscule size which works to advantage. A small country with an underdeveloped economy hugely dependent on tourism would always like to have benign benevolence of a big state. The Chinese have sent tourists in hordes, something India should have done to a greater extent. China’s romance with Maldives began as soon as it realised the two fold advantage the islands held. First, the ideal mid point for its new maritime silk route and, second, the scope it offered to drive the string of pearls strategy against India. The first helps in the ambitious outreach and establishment of an overseas network of states to ultimately sustain the Chinese economy. The second is to offset India’s natural maritime advantage of being located at the virtual apex of the Indian Ocean Rim (IOR) and in a position to control entry and exit from the Straits of Malacca. The latter in the context of China is often referred as the Malacca Dilemma. China is not a country which likes to remain hamstrung by geographic disadvantages. Thus the Great Game of the Indian Ocean being played by it aims at a series of maritime facilities in the IOR from Djibouti to Malacca and an enclosing string of states, in India’s neighbourhood, under  obligation to China.

The strategic intent is threefold — outreach, security of Chinese maritime interests and hemming India through limited coercion. The Maldivian location and territory forms one of the most important points on the canvas of this strategy and serves more than one purpose in China’s purpose. In the last five or six years China has made great strides in developing this strategy through its Belt & Road Initiative.  China’s successful inroads here send its desired message to other states in the Indian neighbourhood. Equally, the failure of the Chinese camp in the election this time can be exploited effectively by India to send a reverse message that China’s hold in India’s neighbourhood can only be marginal. For India, the Maldivian election should also strongly message that India holds it own in its strategic neighbourhood.

The earlier mention of ideology as one of the issues of strategic significance stems from the well-known fact that the largest ratio of foreign fighters of the Islamic State (ISIS) as compared to a nation’s population base came from the Maldives. It means that Islamic radicalism has penetrated the tiny nation far more than is imagined. The role of both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is important in this connection.

The Saudi connection is difficult to explain except for the worldwide support to the promotion of its brand of Sunni Wahabi ideology; no specific strategic gain appears evident unlike in Pakistan and Afghanistan where its target is the balancing of Iran’s Shia ideology. However, for Pakistan, its collusion with China perhaps obliges it to help promote this ideology so close to India’s southern states. The potential for destabilisation of India’s South remains a threat and a contribution towards China’s hold over the islands.

For now it’s advantage India but translating that to real strategic advantage will take much more for India than just being an interested bystander.

The author commanded the 15 Corps in J&K and is now the Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir. Views expressed are persona

Arun Shourie discussed with ThePrint an operation conducted under PM Vajpayee that he described as much bigger than the one in 2016.

New Delhi: The Indian Army’s surgical strikes of 28-29 September, 2016, were not the country’s first, but they remain the only such operation openly acknowledged by the government, and that too in the immediate aftermath.

This fact has opened the Narendra Modi administration up to allegations of using a crucial security operation to bolster its image, with critics pointing out how preceding governments kept far bigger cross-border strikes under wraps in the larger public interest.

Former union minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Arun Shourie told ThePrint that one such strike took place under the first National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, which was led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Also read: Modi’s Rafale deal is largest defence scam, says Arun Shourie

Speaking to ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta at Off the Cuff in July last year, Shourie had said the strike involved soldiers trooping over 14 kilometres inside the Pakistan border to target a post, compared to the two-three kilometres Army men covered in 2016 to destroy multiple terror launchpads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Bringing back a trophy

“I will tell you something from absolutely personal knowledge,” he said.

“This time it is said we went in two kilometres. In that particular incident – it happened during Atalji’s time – they had done something evil on the Indian side. To teach them a lesson a raid was planned which was about 14 km inside Pakistan,” Shourie added.

He said the Indian team even brought back bodies and documents from the raid. “They killed everybody there, probably about 10-15 people, and they lugged seven bodies back across the border into India,” Shourie said.

A guest book brought back from the post, he claimed, revealed that former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf had visited it just a few days before the raid.

“As a trophy, they also brought the guest book of that particular post. It is lying in one of the regimental headquarters today,” Shourie said. “And it so happened that 10 days before, Musharraf had come to the post and said what a good job you are doing, keep it up.”

The former minister cited the incident as he made a point against what he called “rising rhetoric”, saying that the operation conducted during NDA-I was never spoken about.

Also read: Anthem to events at India Gate: How Modi govt plans to celebrate ‘covert’ surgical strikes

Saturday marks the second anniversary of the surgical strikes that were carried out 11 days after terrorists attacked an Indian Army camp in Uri, Jammu & Kashmir, and killed 19 soldiers.

Even as Pakistan denied them, several world powers had rallied in support of India at the time. Earlier this year, a leaked video of the operation had triggered a fresh round of political mudslinging on the surgical strikes.

This is the only military achievement of the Modi government howsoever small. It does not have the benefit of a Kargil war which bequeathed the then BJP led by Atal Behari Vajpayee a great electoral victory in the 1999 elections. The Vajpayee dispensation made unabashed political capital out of the Kargil victory

Chander Suta Dogra

Senior journalist

Forget for a moment the absurdity of the University Grants Commission (UGC) calling for observance of ‘Surgical Strikes Day’ on September 29, in all its affiliated universities and colleges. It was actually a cabinet decision taken earlier this month, which is currently being coordinated by different arms of the government including the Ministry of Defence and HRD ministry. There will be marches by NCC cadets, talks by veteran officers of the armed forces, patriotic songs, pledges of admiration for the Armed Forces by students and the works. The UGC which is mandated to regulate higher education in the country decided to take a break from governing the 860 universities and more than 30,000 affiliated colleges, and inject a dose of patriotic fervour in the campuses under it.

It doesn’t matter who thought up the idea or where it originated because it was always there in the air. Even after the ruling BJP had finished tom tomming  the ‘achievement’ on prime time television channels and on elections rally stages in Uttar Pradesh  in November 2016. The term slipped effortlessly into the political vocabulary and men in uniform smiled bemusedly whenever someone referred to ‘surgical strikes’.

In June this year, suddenly a handful of television channels were provided ‘exclusive’ videos of the strikes by Special Forces troops against terrorist launching pads in enemy territory. The term was once again alive in the national consciousness. Or, it could be said that there is a concerted effort on to ensure that it remains alive until its political utility is exhausted.

Let there be no doubt that the observance of the day on September 29 this year is political . No one in the government or the UGC remembered to commemorate the day last year. Timing is everything. It doesn’t need much insight to see that dusting  and serving up the military operation to unsuspecting students and the nation at large on its second anniversary surely has something to do with impending Lok Sabha elections.

Two quick points here.

1. Firstly the ‘strikes’ have done little to deter terrorists and their backers in the Pakistan military to desist from conducting more attacks on Indian soil. The steady rate of soldiers dying in insurgency related operations  in Kashmir, and little respite from ceasefire violations on the Line of Control even after the September 2016 strikes are indicative.  Within the army it is common knowledge that after 1990 such cross border raids and limited skirmishes became routine on “small isolated enemy posts that are within the operational reach of infantry battalions.” But the ‘surgical strikes’ which captured the nation’s imagination were a slightly bigger operation conducted on September 28 and 29 to destroy terrorist launching pads in PoK and deliver a message of deterrence. The immediate provocation was the attack on the Uri brigade on September 18 in which 11 Indian soldiers were killed. There was anger and talk of taking revenge. The government claimed that the strikes led to the death of more than 50 terrorists and possibly some army regulars too. That Indian troops have been active and inflicting a toll on Pakistani troops located close to the LOC even after the strikes was revealed recently at GHQ Rawalpindi where the Pakistani Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa gave away gallantry awards to Pakistani soldiers killed near the LOC from 2016 onwards.  They would most certainly have been casualities of  Indian army operations. So why is there such a hullabaloo over something which happens quite often as part of retaliatory tactics involving operations by Border Action Teams (BAT) and small and heavy fire?

This brings us to the second point.

2. That this is the only military achievement of the Modi government howsoever small. It does not have the benefit of a Kargil war which bequeathed the then BJP led by Atal Behari Vajpayee a great electoral victory in the 1999 elections. The Vajpayee dispensation made unabashed political capital out of the Kargil victory, even putting up posters of serving Chiefs at election rallies. But Modi’s chest is bereft of a great military medal like Kargil  or the Indo-Pak war of 1971  which dismembered Pakistan. Given the present geo-political compulsions , the nuclear reality and uneasy relations with neighbouring countries its hard to see the present BJP government exercising a limited military option in the near future, though military veterans do not rule out an air attack or two “to teach Pakistan a lesson”, closer to elections.  The Army chief Gen Bipin Rawat has ominously said  that  India needs to change its strategy vis a vis Pakistan so that “they feel the same pain as India.”

The thinking in the BJP quite clearly is that it should have a military achievement in its arsenal as it goes into elections and the 2016 surgical strikes are its very own. Senior veteran officers are being asked by the defence PROs to write helpful articles in mainstream media outlets on surgical strikes.  Not only does the BJP see a repeat dose of jingoism endearing it to the young in college campuses as they clamber over vintage captured tanks of 1971 war at ‘ Surgical Strikes Day’ rallies, but it is targeted also at its growing ‘fauji’ constituency in the countryside. Even though it is not homogenous, the ‘fauji’ vote bank is now a reality and the BJP can claim some credit for the political awakening of soldiers

No political party except for the BJP has ever paid attention to this group which was assiduously nurtured in the 2014 elections. It has seen some erosion since then but many of those who returned home after serving in hotspots of Kashmir will be happy to see their small military operation get such huge recognition.. It is hard to see the UGC issuing a directive to observe Kargil Vijay Divas in the same manner.

Rafale deal: HAL, sources in favour of the deal say, never had any interest in serving as an offset partner of Dassault Aviation — instead, it wanted to build the main structure of the fighter jets here

https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/why-we-chose-anil-ambani-s-firm-despite-massive-debt-dassault-sources-494728

http://

Rafale deal: Dassault has emphatically said it was not influenced to pick Anil Ambani

NEW DELHI: Dassault, one of the world’s most established and experienced defence manufacturers, picked Anil Ambani’s debt-ridden firm as a partner in India, “because it was registered with the MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) and had land in Nagpur which provided access to the runway,” said top sources at the French firm, speaking to NDTV on the condition of anonymity.

As justification, those reasons are unlikely to tamp down the opposition’s allegations that Mr Ambani benefited from brazen crony capitalism in a massive $8.6 billion deal for India’s purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, a deal that was negotiated personally and then announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016 during a visit to Paris.

For months, the opposition Congress has alleged wrongdoing in the Rafale deal; it claims PM Modi overpaid for the planes and struck the deal without any transparency; the government has hit back, accusing the Congress of making wild allegations without any evidence and pointing out that the Rafale deal, though with vastly different contours, originated when the Congress was in power.

Last week, the opposition received a huge shot in the arm with former French president Francois Hollande, who negotiated the Rafale deal with PM Modi, declaring that it was the Indian government who proposed Reliance — “we had no choice”, he said. But a day later, he said that it was for Dassault to comment on whether it had been pressured to choose Mr Ambani’s firm as an offset partner — as part of the contract, Dassault has to invest 50 per cent of the overall value of the deal or Rs. 30,000 crore in partnering with defence manufacturers in India.

Dassault Aviation’s Rafale is an advanced all-weather multirole fighter jet

Dassault has emphatically said it was not influenced to pick Anil Ambani; but on Monday, speaking to NDTV, sources at the defence manufacturer said that they began engaging with Anil Ambani after the defence manufacturing company “changed hands” from his older brother, Mukesh, to him and that the plans for the joint venture were firmed up at Aero India, the massive air show held in Bengaluru in 2015, just 2 months before the Rafale deal was announced by PM Modi in Paris.

The plans to buy Rafales for the Air Force were first set upon by the government of Dr Manmohan Singh; originally, HAL, the state-run company, was to play a large role in the manufacturing of 108 planes; Mukesh Ambani’s defence firm was to be a partner contributing to the process but its intended role was not clear. Dassault has maintained that it began talks with Mukesh Ambani’s firm in 2012, then changed later to discussions with the company headed by his brother.

That’s because Mukesh Ambani, the country’s richest man, exited the Rafale landscape over the complicated and lengthy procurement rules that accompany defence deals; his defence unit was then taken over by Anil Ambani, whose own business empire was bleeding profusely.

Just 17 days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India would buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France off-the-shelf, the top boss at Dassault, which is the parent company of Rafale, made a speech where he said that the company was looking forward to a partnership with HAL, the state-run defence manufacturer.

A big part of Dassault’s commitment to investing in India is met through a joint venture with Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence in Nagpur which will manufacture parts for some Dassault jets.

“The statement by Dassault Chairman on the impending deal with HAL was because Dassault was hopeful of the (126 aircraft) deal and did not know what was happening inside the Ministry of Defence,” a Dassault source told NDTV on Monday.

The video of the Dassault chief, Eric Trappier, professing this, was shared on social media on Monday by the opposition Congress to bolster its claims that PM Modi cut out HAL to favour Anil Ambani, whose rookie defence manufacturing company benefitted greatly from the new deal. A big part of Dassault’s commitment to investing in India is met through a joint venture with Anil Ambani’s firm in Nagpur which will manufacture parts for some Dassault jets; none of these will be used in the Rafales that India has bought from France.

Those who defend the new Rafale deal say that HAL priced itself out of the deal because the number of hours and people it needed to build the planes was far larger than what Dassault was offering in France. The government also says that it was during the Congress’s time that HAL became an unviable proposition, so the Congress is wrongly accusing PM Modi’s administration of wronging a public sector company.

HAL, sources in favour of the deal say, never had any interest in serving as an offset partner — instead it wanted to build the main structure of the fighter jets here.

The government has separately alleged that former French president Hollande’s allegations have been made to save his own skin — he’s accused of conflict of interest because an entertainment company owned by Anil Ambani co-produced a film by the French leader’s partner right when the crucial Rafale deal was finalised.

84 COMMENTS

A French minister on Monday said Mr Hollande’s allegations could hurt ties with India — but he did not counter them as untrue.

Tribune News Service

Jammu, September 23

Even as Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh has told the BSF Director General (DG) to take the strongest action against Pakistan, BSF’s hands are tied and its troops can’t cross the International Border (IB) to act against the Pakistan Rangers.

They are restricted to only shelling and firing when provoked by the Pakistani troops.

“The BSF hasn’t moved beyond the Zero Line on the IB to act inside the enemy territory. This time also there may not be any action like the surgical strikes conducted by the Army along the Line of Control (LoC),” said a BSF officer posted along the IB in the Jammu frontier.

Unlike the LoC, the population along the IB in the Jammu frontier is significant in number and any action involves the civilian population also. On both sides of the IB, villages are situated up to the Zero Line.

“Our plan will be to retaliate the firing and shelling from the other side and incur maximum damage. We have proved this time every time. When the Pakistan Rangers provoke the BSF, they face strongest retaliation possible. If they fire one shell, we bombard them with 100 shells,” he said, maintaining, “When we retaliate, the Pakistan Rangers are forced to call for a truce.”

The chorus of teaching Pakistan a lesson is growing since September 18 when a BSF head constable was mutilated by the Border Action Team (BAT) from Pakistan. In response, Rajnath told the BSF to go hard against the Rangers and take strongest possible action.

The incident took place a day after Rajnath Singh’s visit to Jammu to inaugurate two pilot projects of smart fence under the comprehensive integrated border management system. The projects were aimed at putting an end to infiltration from Pakistan side.

Take strongest possible action: Rajnath 

New Delhi: Following the killing of a BSF head constable by Pakistani troops, Home Minister Rajnath Singh had, on September 20, told the BSF to take strongest possible action against the Pakistani troops. The BSF man’s throat was slit and his body bore multiple bullet injuries. The missing trooper was found killed by the Pakistani troops in the Jammu region, in a first-of-its-kind barbaric act against the Indian forces along the International Border. Another official said the BSF was expected to take some a “pro-active” action against the Pakistan Rangers to “avenge” the killing. PTI

Two gunfights in Valley, 3 militants killed

Tribune Reporters

Anantnag/Srinagar, Sept 23

Three militants were killed by security forces in two separate encounters in the Kashmir valley on Sunday.

In the first encounter, a Jaish-e-Mohammad militant was gunned down by security forces on Sunday during a gunfight that lasted several hours in the Tral area of south Kashmir’s Pulwama district.

The slain militant has been identified as Adnan Bhai of Pakistani origin.

The gunfight erupted in the Aripal area of Tral at 8 am on Sunday, the police said. “The area was cordoned off early Sunday morning following inputs regarding the presence of militants in the area,” a senior police official said.

He said the militant, who was hiding in a house, opened fire at the security forces while they were conducting a search operation in the area.

“The fire was retaliated, triggering an encounter. The exchange of fire continued for several hours before the militant was neutralised,” the official said, adding that arms and ammunition were also retrieved from the encounter site.

Sources said the house where the militant was hiding had been reduced to rubble as heavy explosives were used during the encounter.

Meanwhile, a civilian was critically injured during clashes between security forces and protesters that erupted in Wagad village and nearby areas soon after the encounter ended. The injured identified as Manzoor Ahmad Dar was shifted to Srinagar with a bullet injury in his mouth.

“The forces fired at stone throwers. One of the youths was hit by a bullet in his mouth,” a source said. A health official said: “He has been shot in the mouth and is critical. We have shifted him to the SMHS Hospital in Srinagar.”

In another encounter, the Army on Sunday claimed to have foiled an infiltration bid by killing two militants in north Kashmir’s frontier Kupwara district.

“Two terrorists have been killed as the Army foiled an infiltration bid in Tangdhar sector. The operation is in progress,” it said.

The identity and group affiliation of the slain militants could not be established immediately. The operation was launched by the Army on Saturday afternoon when they noticed suspected movement close to the Line of Control near Pathri Behak in Tangdhar sector, over 180 km from Srinagar. There was a brief exchange of fire between militants and the Army on Saturday.

A massive combing operation was undertaken in the sector after the brief gunfight and on Sunday, a fresh contact with militants was established that led to their killing, defence sources said.

45-yr-old labourer abducted in Sopore

A 45-year-old man was abducted by militants in north Kashmir. The police said militants barged into the house of Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, a labourer, at Harwan in Sopore late Saturday night and abducted him. A case has been registered and investigation is on. “A manhunt has been launched to trace the abducted man,” a police officer said

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, September 21

Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai paid tributes to the martyrs at Jallianwala Bagh here today. He had paid obeisance at the Golden Temple last evening.

On the current situation in Afghanistan, especially with regard to the minorities, he said, “Our Sikhs and Hindus are, like the rest of the Afghan people, sons of the soil. They have also suffered along with other compatriots. I hope peace prevails so that all Afghans, including Sikhs and Hindus, lead a life of happiness and prosperity.”

Later, he took a tour of the galleries at the Partition Museum. Museum manager Rajwinder Kaur said he read about the freedom movement and the Boundary Commission in the Gallery of Division. “In the Gallery of Refuge, he looked at the objects which refugees had brought with them during Partition,” she said. He wrote a note on the Tree of Hope, saying that “for the people of South Asia, let’s hope that the Partition Museum becomes a museum of unity and prosperity.”

As his term winds down, army chief Bipin Rawat has discovered the huge agenda he should have known about at the outset – the need to restructure and reform his force. All this while Rawat was busy fighting other enemies, some real and others imaginary. But a recent report says that he has, at last, called for studies to prepare the army for 21st century conflict.

As part of this the army envisages a cut of some 1,50,000 troops, beginning with a cut of one-third within two years. Some of these would involve cutting and merging existing departments at the army HQ, but others could involve cuts in support units like Signals and Supply Corps. The army, reports say, hopes for a saving of Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 7,000 crore that could be used to boost its capital budget to buy new equipment. All this sounds nice, but is easier said than done.

Such ideas are neither new or remarkable. In August 2017 the defence ministry had announced it was “redeploying” 57,000 personnel following recommen-dations of the Shekatkar Committee, set up to suggest measures to enhance the army’s combat potential and constrain its revenue expenditure. In 1998, the army reduced its recruitment so as to cut its numbers by 50,000, with the hope that the expected saving of Rs 600 crore would help to buy new equipment. But, to its chagrin, it found that the government simply pocketed the money and there was no bonus in the 1999 budget.

As for restructuring, in the early 2000s, when the army formulated its Cold Start Doctrine, it envisaged the reconfiguring of its divisions and corps into agile integrated battle groups (IBGs) which would be roughly the strength of a brigade. These groups were to comprise an armoured regiment, two mechanised infantry regiments, an artillery battalion, specialised units for Intelligence Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTR), electronic warfare (EW) and aviation. But, just as Cold Start was quietly put on the backburner, so was the idea of IBGs, though modern warfare needs such reorganisation regardless of doctrine.

Now presumably the army wants to revive these ideas. The suggestions that cuts will take place in Signals and Supply units actually goes against the grain of modern warfare, which emphasises quick moving forces and long range precision strikes enabled by specialised ISTR, EW and logistics units. Modern militaries have actually seen a reduction of traditional infantry and combat roles for soldiers and an expansion of the roles of laptop warriors – geospatial imagery analysts, GIS entry specialists, IT specialists, cyber network defenders, linguists, to name but a few areas.

Two issues stand out here. First, there is no guarantee that the army’s savings will be given back to them. In India money is retained in the Consolidated Fund, and whatever is saved or left over, goes back into it. It’s not as though the money “belonged” to the army. The government would have to re-appropriate the alleged savings through the Union Budget process. Going by past experience, that is unlikely to happen.

The second is that reducing numbers does not necessarily translate into reducing expenditure. Indeed, in the short run, it will be the other way around. The reason is that there is need to invest in getting higher quality personnel, pay to train them into their new jobs and re-equip the army with an entire new range of weapons and systems.

And before we go too far, it is worthwhile recalling the testimony of the army to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence earlier this year, that some 68% of the army’s equipment holdings belong to the “vintage” category, 24% current and 8% state of the art. A modern, war winning military needs to be state of the art in every dimension – doctrine, organisation, equipment and quality of its personnel.