China’s Xi exhorting PLA to expedite reforms, Indian political leadership unenthused

Manoj Joshi
Strategic affairs expert

WE  need to take a balanced view of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ‘order’ to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to continue strengthening its combat capabilities and be always ready for battle. This is the kind of message that leaders all over the world are expected to give to their militaries, so it should not be taken to mean that the PLA is about to embark on a new wave of aggressive behaviour.

In his speech, Xi did emphasise that China faced unprecedented risks and challenges and so China’s armed forces needed deeper “preparation for war and combat” to ensure an effective and efficient response “in times of emergency”.

Though probably aimed elsewhere, there is a message there for the Indian military, which confronts China across a 4,000-km disputed border and is learning to cope with the PLA Navy movements across the Indian Ocean. Since the Doklam episode in 2017, the land border has been more active than ever; in the past year, there have been reports of the PLA upgrading its posture across its length. 

Xi’s remarks came two days after he raised the temperature on Taiwan by calling for ‘peaceful reunification’, while asserting that his government made “no promise to renounce the use of force” in relation to the issue. The ‘Taiwan contingency’ remains the premier focus of the PLA’s deployments, followed by the South China Sea. On both accounts, it must contend with the fact that its premier adversary is the US, by far the much stronger power in the western Pacific.

 Overall, the message seems to be that the PLA needs to double down on reform and restructuring that began in 2013. This is more so when Beijing is confronting an unprecedented political challenge from the US, which has now categorically designated China as a strategic challenger. Technology has emerged as a major area of this rivalry and the US is convinced that China has been systematically working to acquire western technology through acquisitions, forced transfers and thefts to gain strategic advantage.

The threat of an all-out war between, say, the US and China, or India and China is remote. But what is real is the jockeying for advantage in which both sides worry that emerging technologies could provide the other with some as yet unknown battle-winning edge. However, as of now, the PLA is still in the midst of its restructuring and reform process that has led to considerable disruption through its reduction of numbers, as well as reorganisation into theatre commands.

For obvious reasons, the PLA is emphasising the reform of military education and training to accompany the acquisition of new equipment. The PLA’s joint operations research and experimentation has revealed weakness in its military training institutes, joint proficiency of its officer cadre, joint training, doctrine and tactics and logistics, and command structures, all of which are being addressed in the current reform.

The key thrust of the reform process has been jointness. Over the years, the PLA has been moving from ‘coordinated joint operations’ to ‘integrated joint operations’. It took a major step under the 2013 reforms, with the creation of theatre commands and the establishment of joint headquarters to create optimal joint operational capability.

The foundation of integrated joint operations lies in developing an effective system of systems capability. This, in essence, is the fusing of various components-weapons, equipment, units beyond their individual capacity to provide synergy. At the heart of this lies the development of integrated command, control, communications, computer intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) structure which will not just link the systems and forces, but also enhance their joint operational capacity.

The PLA’s Strategic Support Force (PLASSF), set up on December 31, 2015,  has sought to integrate capabilities in space, cyberspace and the electro-magnetic spectrum into the PLA’s combat arms. Its goal is to meet the PLA’s military strategic guidelines of being ready to fight and win ‘informationised’ wars.

The SSF has been involved since 2016 in the PLA’s key annual Stride exercises. But, say observers, it is still some way from developing its fifth generation of operational regulations (the previous set was issued in 1999) that will guide its operations in space and the cyber domains.

The shift of the PLA from being a continental force to one capable of integrated joint operations within China’s borders and without could easily span a generation. Clearly, at present their capabilities remain far behind those of advanced countries like the US and Japan. In that sense, Xi’s injunctions and those of the PLA Daily are by way of being exhortations to do better. Under Xi, the deadlines have been advanced. In the 19th Party Congress, Xi announced that modernisation of the PLA would be complete by 2035. Earlier, the third stage of the plan was for it to be completed by 2049.  However as Xi himself noted, the PLA is not likely to become a world- class military till the mid-century. The US will remain the dominant global military power for the foreseeable future and can look after itself.

The big questions are for India, which has failed to push through any significant reform and reorganisation in its defence system. The political leadership seems to be uninterested in it. Meanwhile, its component force (Army, Navy, Air Force) leaders periodically boast about capabilities they don’t have and so, we are simply not ready for the new generation of warfare.

Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi

Jammu, January 5

Pakistan army fired mortar shells at forward posts and civilians areas along the Line of Control (LoC) in Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir on Saturday, in violation of the ceasefire for four consecutive days, officials said.

The number of ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops along the LoC and the International Border (IB) in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 was the highest at over 1,600.

Pakistani army also fired mortar bombs at forward posts and civilian areas in Poonch sector on Friday, they said.

They targeted Mankote, Khadi Karmara, Gulpur areas without any causality or injury to anyone. The firing and shelling continued till late into the night, they said.

Indian troops guarding the border retaliated strongly, they said.

Pakistani troops shelled forward posts and civilian areas in Poonch on the previous three days as well.

Despite repeated calls for restraint and adherence to the ceasefire understanding of 2003, Pakistani forces had launched unprovoked attacks along the LoC and the IB, they said. PTI

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, December 31

Former Defence Minister AK Antony on Monday accused the Narendra Modi government of going soft against Anglo-Italian helicopter maker AgustaWestland and asserted that then Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the present party chief, Rahul Gandhi, never interfered either in the defence deals or in the functioning of the Defence Ministry during his tenure (October 2006-May 2014).

The issue of the AgustaWestland has cropped up as Christen Michel, a UK national, is in custody in India and for allegedly acting as the middleman in the purchase of the 12 VVIP helicopters for Rs 3,600 crore. The purchase was scrapped by the Congress-led UPA regime following allegations of corruption in Italy, the headquarters of AgustaWestland’s mother company Finmeccanica (now named Leonardo). Antony accused the BJP of misusing ‘agencies’ and spreading lies. 

“If we had anything to hide (in the AgustaWestland deal) would we have cancelled the contract, would we have ordered a CBI probe, would we have moved international arbitration to encash the back guarantee?” he questioned. Listing out that the deal was scrapped by him after allegations in Italy, he said in February 2013 the process of black listing was started but the company could not be blacklisted till we encashed our bank guarantee.

Antony questioned the functioning of the Modi government which in July 2014 blacklisted Finmeccanica and in August that year removed the same company from the blacklisting. 

“Were you acting against the accused or were you helping them?” Randeep Surjewala questioned the BJP. Surjewala asked the BJP to clarify how Goa Chief Minister and former Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had reportedly told his Cabinet colleagues about being in possession of a file on the Rafale jet deal.

Meanwhile, in the Lok Sabha the Congress said it was ready for a debate on the Rafale jet deal on January 2.

“Jaitley ji has thrown a challenge … we are ready for a debate on January 2. Please decide a time,” Congress Leader in Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge said.

Last Saturday, the defence ministry had filed an application before the Supreme Court for the correction of a paragraph in its order on the Rafale jet fighter deal.

Less than a week after the government had asked the Supreme Court for a correction in its order on the Rafale jet fighter deal, the Congress has continued to keep up the pressure on the government.

“We want a JPC as we’ll only get to know everything when Parliament members sit and look into the files. A JPC was formed in Bofors and 2G cases also. How can there be a typo? Had it been one word it would’ve been understandable, entire paragraph can’t be a typo,” Congress Lok Sabha floor leader Mallikarjun Kharge told ANI on Wednesday.

Last Saturday, the defence ministry had filed an application before the Supreme Court for the correction of a paragraph in its order on the Rafale jet fighter deal.

Though the court’s ruling effectively vindicated the government’s stand that due process had been followed in reaching the Rs 59,000 crore deal, and had said that there was no reason to order a probe by the CBI.

However, the Congress pointed out that the judgment had referred to the government’s stand that the pricing details had been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, and that the government auditor had submitted a redacted report to parliament. It also indicated that parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had examined the report.

That error had been picked up by the petitioners and the opposition which had claimed that the government had misled the court with its original submission.

“How does the Supreme Court judgment have this line that Rafale pricing has been examined by the PAC. Now, we have to ask the government, where is this CAG report?” Congress president Rahul Gandhi had said at that time.

The original paragraph in the order (paragraph 25) said: “The pricing details have, however, been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (hereinafter referred to as CAG), and the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee… Only a redacted portion …was placed before the Parliament and is in public domain.”

In its submission asking for a correction, the defence ministry had said that the court seems to have misunderstood it, which was, it added, “in the form of bullet points”. According to the ministry, the “second bullet point” read: “The Government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain”.

The petition had argued that the use of the word “is” was “a description of the procedure usually followed” and asked the court to replace “has been” in paragraph 25, which seems to suggest that the act has already taken place, with “is”.

Ideally, of course, the government’s original submission should have used “will be” instead of “is” to make things clear.

“They have given wrong information to the court and on the basis of that information, the court has given its verdict. Now, I will request all the PAC panel members to fix a meeting to summon the attorney general and the Comptroller and Auditor General. We want to ask them when did they submit the Rafale report to the House and when did it come to the PAC, when did they come to give evidence, and when did we present the PAC report to Parliament?” Kharge had said on Saturday.

Responding to Congress’ allegations of misleading the court and over which the party has been stalling the functioning of Parliament, Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had said at that time that the error was a technicality.

“He is going into technicality, I am going on substance. The court verdict is in 34 para(graph)s. It has dealt with all the issues (raised by Rahul). If he (Rahul) wants to find faults to do politics, I have nothing to say,” Prasad had said.

Arun Jaitley had earlier too responded to the Congress’ demands for a JPC saying that the Supreme Court judgement was clear and that the demand for a JPC probe was intended to prevent a discussion in Parliament.

“The creators of falsehood will still persist with falsehood even at the cost of their own credibility. Only their captive constituencies will clap,” he had written in a blog post on his site.

First Published: Dec 19, 2018 14:32 IST

Physical and mental health of the forces is integral to modernisation of the Indian Army.

Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat last Thursday said that the Army is not a job provider, and warned soldiers against feigning disability.

Considering General Bipin Rawat’s audience consisted of disabled veterans and serving soldiers, there is much to be said about the forbearance of these men that they listened. No one feigns disability.

General Bipin Rawat said, “A section of soldiers and officers who call themselves disabled on grounds that they are suffering from high blood pressure, hypertension and diabetes seek concession from being deployed at difficult operational posts.” This is ironic.

Generalisation doesn’t work

It is well-known that officers with such existing conditions (and much of this expresses itself after joining service), who are out on an exercise or deputed in tough, forward or high-altitude, areas may not have access to supportive diets and medical attention. At times, they may not be able to cope with inimical terrain and have collapsed or suffered setbacks and have had to be either sent back or evacuated.

But General Bipin Rawat’s statement on ‘feigning disability’ impacts not only the credibility of the disabled soldier, but also the veracity of institutions such as the Directorate General Armed Force Medical Services (DGAFMS) and the Medical Services Advisory Committee that certify the degree of disability.

Medical conditions such as hypertension are covered by rules as ‘affected by stress and strain of military service’ and also by several judgments of the Supreme Court.

With the advances in modern medicine, ‘feigning disability’ requires a multiple and varied level of collusion. While an odd case may have slipped past the system, generalising feigned disability is disrespectful to both retired and serving personnel.

Also read: Women with disability face higher risk of sexual violence & lower access to justice in India

Government’s handling of disability cases

The Indian Army had declared 2018 as the ‘Year of the Disabled Soldiers in the Line of Duty’, a move that surely does not come too soon.

Over the years, one has seen how cases of disability have been dealt with by the government where the percentage of disability, whether the disability can be attributed to service or not, whether it was a pre-existing condition or not, has been at the discretion of the administrative and financial authorities and the pension wing of the ministry of defence.

That the issue had already been decided by a medical board and approved by the competent authority on the military side of things are of little consequence. This leads to litigation where the matter is taken to court and in the event of the decision being in favour of the litigant, the state shows its upper hand by filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the apex court. Much of this exercise is usually a waste of public money and, in several cases, the disabled soldier eventually wins his or her case.

Despite the court’s order, there are cases where the government drags its feet in terms of compliance. The forces serve in the toughest of terrains, handle all sorts of equipment, engage constantly with both insurgency and infiltration, and are away from families for long periods. The physical and mental fallout of such deployment is undeniable and leads to both physical and mental disability.

This fact was well recognised by the previous Raksha Mantri who set up a committee of experts to review service and pension matters to minimise litigation and strengthen mechanisms for redressal of grievances. The committee had four retired Generals and an eminent advocate, himself a former military officer, working extensively on disability litigation. In the said report, para 2.2.1 (page 15) specifically focuses on denial of disability benefits by incorrectly branding in-service disabilities as “neither attributable, nor aggravated by service”. The report points out that there is an inherent paradox where all stakeholders agree on granting disability pension, but more often than not this is contested in a court of law due to rigid interpretation of provisions and clauses.

Modernisation in true sense

The world over, disabled soldiers are given immense respect and their due within the system. There is a need to take this learning on board while clamouring for modernisation of the Army because the physical and mental health of the forces is as integral to modernisation as weaponry and equipment. With a steady reduction in the number of young people opting for the armed forces as a career choice, it is important that welfare of forces be demonstrated both in words and in action to attract young people to the Army.

If we want to attract the best young talent to the armed forces, there is a need to demonstrate recognition of the existing conditions of service and an understanding of the fallout it may entail.

Having said that, stating that the Indian Army is not a “means of employment” undermines other avenues of employment. While there is no doubt that the service of the soldier to the nation is most noble, every job serves its role in nation-building. Leaders need to be supportive, and should identify the gaps and build capacity to strengthen institutions.

Also read: Indian Army made way for government to resolve Kashmir, but politics failed

C declines probe into Rafale fighter jet deal with France.

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, December 14

In a big relief to the Narendra Modi government, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France under an inter-government agreement.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said there were no irregularities in the deal and the decision making process for the purchase 36 Rafale fighter jets from Dassault was above board.

The court said the need for fighter jets and Rafale’s quality we’re never under question and it was not the court’s job to get into comparative pricing details.

“We cannot go into the wisdom of why the deal for 36 Rafale jets was made and not the original 126 aircraft. We cannot ask the government to go for 126 aircraft,” the Bench said.

For the first time, four senior IAF officers – three Air Marshalls and an Air Vice Marshall – and Additional Secretary (Defence) had appeared in the top court to explain various aspects of a defence deal.

CJI Gogoi had asked several questions about previous acquisitions, which generation of aircraft IAF was using. Air Vice Marshall J Chalapathi had told the Bench that the last acquisition was Sukhoi-30 and before that Mirage Aircraft were bought in 1985.

He had said while most of the countries were using 4th and 5th generation fighter planes, IAF was using 3rd or sub-4th generation (3.5) aircraft.

“Our country can’t remain unprepared when adversaries have acquired 4th & 5th generation fighter jets compared to none by India. We have interacted with senior Indian Air Force officers and there is no doubt about need and quality of Rafale jets,” the Bench said.

It’s not correct for the court to sit as an appellate authority on every aspect of the deal,” the Bench added.

Terming it “unfortunate”, Prashant Bhushan, cousel for one of the petitioners said, “It’s a totally incorrect judgment given by the Supreme Court.”

The top court had reserved the verdict on November 13 on the contentious issue after hearing arguments from counsel for the petitioners, including Prashant Bhushan, senior journalist Arun Shourie and Attorney General KK Venugopal who had defended secrecy clause of the deal estimated to be of Rs 58,000 crore.

Alleging irregularities in the deal, petitioners ML Sharma, Prashant Bhushan, Vineet Dhanda and Sanjay Singh had demanded registration of an FIR and a court-monitored investigation into it.

Following the court’s October 31 order, the Centre had submitted in a sealed cover the pricing details of 36 Rafale jets.

The process of acquisition had started in 2001 and India was to purchase 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) but the contract negations reached a stalemate and Request for Proposal compliance was finally withdrawn in June 2015. During the protracted process India’s adversaries modernized their combact capabilities, the AG had submitted.

It was in this background that India signed an agreement with France in September 2016 for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of upgrading process of the Indian Air Force equipment.

It has better deliverables, the AG had said, adding norms prescribed under Defence Procurement Policy -2013 were followed.

The Bench said, “Minor variations in clauses should not amount to setting aside of the Rafale jet deal.

The Bench agreed with Attorney General’s argument that the decision on types of aircraft and weapons needed to be procured was a matter for experts and could not be adjudicated upon by the judiciary.

Rafale: Defiant Cong wants JPC, says SC can’t review pricing

http://

In its first reaction on the Supreme Court dismissing all petitions seeking a review of the Rafale jet purchase, the Congress on Friday said the apex court was limited by constitutional provisions to get into pricing issues and only a parliamentary probe can look at that.

Not giving up on the issue despite the court saying there was no reason to doubt the deal the Congress reiterated its demand for a JPC into the purchase repeating its old allegations of corruption and nepotism in favour of the Anil Ambani led Reliance Defence which got the offset contract in the deal with the French jet maker Dassault Aviation.

Even as the BJP fielded senior ministers to demand an apology from Congress President Rahul Gandhi for “fear mongering” around the deal the Congress media head Randeep Surjewala said the ruling party will have to answer why the jet originally priced low was eventually bought at three times the previous cost.

“The issue is of corruption, which the government will have to answer. We demand a JPC. The government must tell why HAL was dropped as the partner and transfer of technology clause of the original deal compromised; why a fledgling private company was given a major contract and how the deal was a government to government deal when France didn’t even give a sovereign guarantee and sufficed to give a letter of comfort for the deal,” said the Congress.

Gandhi have instructions to Surjewala to keep the Rafale pot boiling with Surjewala saying “PM Narendra Modi should order a JPC if he has nothing to hide.”

Rahul should apologise: Rajnath  

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh has asked the Congress and its president Rahul Gandhi to apologise to the Parliament for “misleading” the nation and causing

“damage” to the country’s international reputation when levelling allegations  on the purchase of the Rafale fighter jets.

Outside the House, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor dismissed the demand for an apology saying “there will be no apology. We need to establish the truth as tax payers money is involved”.

Inside the House, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan did not allow Mallikaarjun Kharge to speak till Congress leaders were protesting in the Well of the House and did not return to their seats. A visibilily angry Kharge said the party was   demanding a JPC.

Anil Ambani welcomes decision

Reliance Group Chairman Anil Ambani had welcomed the Supreme Court order, saying it established the falsity of politically motivated allegations against his firm.

In its ruling on a batch of petitions seeking a probe into the deal, the apex court said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of the 36 Rafale fighter aircraft from France.

Dassault Aviation, the makers of Rafale, had entered into an agreement with Ambani’s Reliance Defence Ltd (RDL) for fulfilling offset obligations.

“I welcome the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court today summarily dismissing all PILs filed on the Rafale contracts, and conclusively establishing the complete falsity of the wild, baseless and politically motivated allegations levelled against Reliance Group and me personally,” Ambani said in a statement.

Programme – Military Literature Festival, Chandigarh 2018

Venue – Lake Club

7^th December 2018

8^th December 2018

9th December 2018

CBI takes Christian Michel, the alleged middleman in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal, to the Patiala House Court in New Delhi on Wednesday. Tribune photo: Mukesh Aggarwal

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, December 5

Patiala House Court remanded British national Christian Michel in Central Bureau of Investigation’s custody for five days on Wednesday over charges of corruption in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal.

Michel is one of three suspected middlemen in a deal that both CBI and Enforcement Directorate are investigating for financial irregularities. Michel was extradited from Dubai late on Tuesday night and brought in for questioning.

Special CBI judge Arvind Kumar rejected Michel’s bail application on the ground that the case was complex.

Prosecution argued that CBI needed Michel’s custody to question him about the case, including details of possible kickbacks to senior politicians and officers, and to help them uncover a money trail.

Security was tightened at the Patiala House Court complex before Michel was brought in.

Around 15-20 personnel of the CRPF and 30 Delhi Police officials were deputed in the court complex as well as outside several of its gates, said one of the police officials.

Michel, 54, landed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on a Gulfstream jet at 10.35 pm on Tuesday after which he was arrested by the CBI in connection with the case.

The other suspected middlemen being investigated are Guido Haschke and Carlo Gerosa.

Both CBI and ED had an Interpol red notice (RCN) issued against Michel after a court issued a non-bailable warrant against him.

The CBI has alleged there was an estimated loss of euro 398.21 million (approximately Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer in the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010 for the supply of VVIP choppers worth euro 556.262 million.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), in its chargesheet filed against Michel in June 2016, had alleged that he received euro 30 million (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland.

The money was nothing but “kickbacks” paid by the firm to execute the 12-helicopter deal in favour of the firm in “guise of” genuine transactions for performing multiple work contracts in the country, according to the charge sheet.

The ED investigation found that remittances made by Michel through his Dubai-based firm Global Services to a media firm he floated in Delhi, along with two Indians, were made from the funds which he got from AgustaWestland through “criminal activity” and corruption being done in the chopper deal that led to the subsequent generation of proceeds of crime.

On January 1, 2014, India scrapped the contract with Italy-based Finmeccanica’s British subsidiary AgustaWestland for supplying 12 AW-101 VVIP choppers to the IAF over alleged breach of contractual obligations and charges of paying kickbacks of Rs 423 crore by it for securing the deal.

The CBI on September 1, 2017, had filed a charge sheet in the case in which Michel was named as one of the accused.

Former IAF chief SP Tyagi was also chargesheeted by the CBI in a Delhi court along with nine others in connection with a bribery case in the VVIP chopper deal.

Tyagi (73) is the first chief of the Indian Air Force to be chargesheeted in a corruption or a criminal case by the CBI and he has denied all charges against him.

Besides him, the agency has also chargesheeted retired Air Marshal JS Gujral along with eight others, including five foreign nationals, in the charge sheet filed before the Special CBI Judge.

Anglo-Italian company, AgustaWestland, is also one of the accused.

Others named in the charge sheet are—Tyagi’s cousin Sanjeev alias Julie, advocate Gautam Khaitan, alleged European middlemen Carlo Gerosa, Christian Michel, Guido Haschke, former AgustaWestland CEO Bruno Spagnolini and former Finmeccanica chairman Giuseppe Orsi.

They have been chargesheeted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC in the case relating to the alleged bribery of Rs 450 crore.

Tyagi, who had retired in 2007, his cousin Sanjeev and Khaitan were arrested on December 9 last year by the CBI in the case. These accused are currently on bail.

Michel has denied the charges against him.

Meanwhile, when UK High Commission was asked about whether they had consular access to Michel, the commission’s spokesperson told The Tribune: “Our staff continues to support the family of a British man following his detention in the UAE. We are in contact with his family and the Emirati authorities regarding his case, and are urgently seeking information from the Indian authorities on his circumstances”. With PTI