Gp Capt Murli Menon (Retd)
Defence analyst
Two decades after the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) and the consequent Group of Ministers recommended the creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), and eight years after the Naresh Chandra Committee recommended a permanent chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, the Indian government instituted the first CDS in January 2020.
Tasked essentially with promoting inter-service jointry and giving much-needed fillip to defence modernisation through timely and optimal defence acquisitions, the first incumbent to the post, General Bipin Rawat, has not given a lackadaisical performance, however contentious his initiatives have turned out to be so far.
His latest desire to win a war for India by employing indigenous weaponry, though laudable, is easier said than done, given the large gap that exists between the state-of-the-art and homegrown capabilities. Serious limitations exist in our indigenous defence capability, more so in the arena of advanced avionics, aerial weaponry and other cutting-edge technologies, such as aircraft carriers and main battle tanks.
The fact that the government chose to have a ‘first among equals’ four-star CDS rather than a five-star one as recommended by the KRC, would in the long term impinge on the effectiveness of the new dispensation.
Be that as it may, perhaps it is premature to judge whether the CDS idea was a good one or not. Three areas of prime concern comprising his charter will be analysed herein: jointry, acquisitions and administration.
Jointry has been a bugbear for most modern militaries, with single service rivalries ruling the roost generally. But this is a difficult tree to bark up, which a mere joint doctrine manual cannot deliver. The career profiles of officers and men have to build in frequent cross attachments to other sister services and mandatory ‘maroon’ tenures for the leadership for career progression.
Understanding the operating culture and peculiarities of other services is one challenge and ‘unified thinking’, more importantly, is the crucial bit.
The CDS needs to initiate policy moves in this respect to gradually build up jointmanship over time. We have a big advantage by way of initial joint training at the National Defence Academy, but a lot needs to be done to enhance tri-service jointry and consequent combat-effectiveness.
Realistic international exercises would help, no doubt, but the ultimate challenge will be to evolve as an Integrated Defence Force, wherein meaningful savings in deployment of combat assets and added combat efficiency could be achieved. Ideas of theaterisation, such as the Air Defence Command and Maritime Theatre Command, mooted by the CDS are perhaps a bit ahead of their time, given the situation in the defence forces as of now.
On defence acquisitions, whilst Make in India is a good guiding principle, practicality in technology exploitation has to be kept in mind. A classic example would be that of the Kaveri engine for the LCA, which the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) has been struggling to indigenise, but to little avail. Hence, the recourse to the US GE 404/414 engines. There are similar handicaps for helicopter, ship and tank engines and other areas, where import becomes inescapable.
The story is the same for most high-tech weaponry for all three services, such as artillery shells, aerial weaponry like the Spice series bombs and naval anti-ship and anti-aircraft weaponry. The recent government decision to grant Rs 48,000 crore for 83 Tejas jets is another doubtful starter in indigenisation, with a proven prototype of the machine not yet being available!
The third contentious policy matter initiated recently by the Department of Military Affairs under the aegis of the CDS is the proposed modification in colour service and pension criteria. Whilst increasing the retirement age to 60 may be attractive to a section of the uniformed fraternity, it may not really assist in bringing down the defence pension Bill, which at 24 per cent of the defence budget — a whopping Rs 1.12 lakh crore — is worrisome, no doubt.
But let us not forget that the defence budget is a mere 1.15 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product, and not 3 per cent, as is expected to be, as per the recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee on Defence. Were that to be realised, the pension Bill would be 8.86 per cent of the defence budget.
Also, some of the already instituted measures, such as permanency to the short service commission, OROP already sanctioned etc. would find the DMA struggling to control its inflating pension Bill, a virtual drag on modernisation and general funding.
More innovative measures by way of lateral mobility, compulsory military service and reservists need to be put in place to achieve the desired tooth-to-tail ratio and pyramidical age and career profiles demanded by the military. Getting a handle on the often infructuous Defence Industrial Complex under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and meaningful indigenisation through privatisation are other areas the CDS needs to address to improve the overall combat efficiency and cutting of the flab.
The pension of defence civilians is another substantial loadstone that the CDS needs to do something about. Also, increasing the years of service to earn pension (effectively suggesting a reduction in pension to 50 per cent for service up to 35 years) may not go down well with the new entrants to the defence services, even if applied prospectively.
In any event, the malaise of a bloated manpower situation in the military has been the result of flagrant flouting of norms and uncalled-for beefing up of manpower requirements at the stage of government approval over the years.
To rectify this situation, drastic steps for manpower rationalisation would be called for.
