Current Events :
Speaking to mediapersons Wednesday after receiving his first guard of honour as the Army Chief, General Naravane said operational readiness and modernisation will be among the top priorities of the Army under his leadership.
Newly appointed Chief of Defence Staff Gen Bipin Rawat (third from left) with (from left) Army chief Gen M M Naravane, Navy chief Admiral Karambir Singh and IAF chief Air Chief Marshal R K S Bhadauria in New Delhi Wednesday. (Express photo by Prem Nath Pandey)
A day after he said India reserves the right to pre-emptively strike at sources of terror in Pakistan, new Army Chief General M M Naravane expressed confidence that maintaining peace and tranquility along India’s border with China will set the stage for an “eventual solution” to the boundary dispute.
Speaking to mediapersons Wednesday after receiving his first guard of honour as the Army Chief, General Naravane said operational readiness and modernisation will be among the top priorities of the Army under his leadership.
“While we have been paying attention in the past to the Western front, Northern front also requires equal attention. It is in that context we are going for capability development and enhancement of our capacitors in our Northern borders including the North-East part of the country,” he said.
“The border question is yet to be settled. We have been able to maintain peace and tranquility along borders and I am sure that situation will prevail. By maintaining this, we will be able to set the stage for the eventual solution,” he said.
Highlighting the priorities of the Army under him, General Naravane said: “The priorities will always remain to be ever ready to meet any challenge and to be operationally prepared at all times. This will happen as a result of modernisation. We will continue to build up capabilities especially in the North and North-Eastern region of the country. We will also lay emphasis on raising the security awareness amongst rank and file.”
“India can progress (in the next decade) only if our borders are secure… then only will be able to do our work and then only will there be development in the country. I want to assure my fellow citizens that all three defence services — Army, Navy and Air Force — are fully ready and will keep our country secure,” he said.
“The soldiers of the Army deployed on the border are ready and alert 24x7x52. In the coming days, in the future as well, we will continue preparing to take on the future challenges. Our Army is battle-hardened and, in the future as well, is capable of repelling any danger,” he said.
Explained: What are role, powers of CDS?
General Naravane took over as Chief of Army Staff Tuesday from General Bipin Rawat who became the country’s first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS).
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in Twitter posts, said: “I am delighted that as we begin the new year and new decade, India gets its first Chief of Defence Staff in General Bipin Rawat. I congratulate him and wish him the very best for this responsibility. He is an outstanding officer who has served India with great zeal.”
The past decade has seen India shifting away from its largely Russian dependence for weapons and equipment. The US emerged as a key supplier, especially planes for the IAF and the Navy, besides specialised helicopters for the Air Force. The first US-made planes, the C-130J, started arriving in 2011. New Delhi has, so far, balanced its strategic ties between the US and Russia, warding off threats of sanctions for its military ties with Moscow.
Border standoffs with China in 2013, 2014 and 2015 marked sporadic tensions that peaked during the 73-day standoff at Doklam in 2017. A new Border Defence Cooperation Agreement signed in 2013 ironed out some wrinkles, but the settlement of the boundary question remains.
The announcement of the charter of the Chief of Defence staff is a major reform for the services.
The Army inducted the latest artillery guns like the imported M777 and also the locally-made Dhanush. Nuclear submarine INS Arihant made its sea debut and a new sea-borne aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, was added to the fleet. The Agni series of missiles progressed rapidly and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited emerged a major helicopter maker with its Advanced Light Helicopter powered by Safran-made engines.
The forces did face the brunt of the digital era. Leading the men to conflict in times of Facebook, Twitter and ‘fake’ information on WhatsApp is getting tough. Veterans have opinions critical of the service headquarters, matters once mentioned in hushed tones and without names are now discussed on Twitter or TV studios.
The decade saw acrimony as Army Chief Gen VK Singh went to court against the government, only to withdraw the case later. Accusations were levelled against seniormost officers, including a few retired Chiefs, who got flats allotted in the Adarsh housing society in upscale Colaba, south Mumbai. Land for the society was reserved for war widows; the CBI is probing it.
A case of alleged corruption in the purchase of helicopters saw former IAF Chief SP Tyagi facing a CBI case as an accused.
— Ajay Banerjee
Defence acquisition is a mission for committed professionals and not for administrative generalists or indeed for uniformed specialists working on rotating assignments, burdened with other chores and pressures. In the US and elsewhere, it is a profession where people train, specialise and work full-time. The US even has a Defence Acquisition University.
Air Marshal BD Jayal (retd)
Mmilitary Commentator
Arecent panel discussion on ‘Make in India and the nation’s security’ featured General VP Malik, who was the Army Chief during the Kargil war. Few will forget his promise to the nation, when faced with a herculean challenge, of ‘we will fight with what we have’, also discreetly conveying the message to the civil leadership that the defence management, procurement and production systems had failed to deliver, leaving the Army to fend for itself. Not surprisingly, during the panel discussion, he again cautioned the people that unless India becomes self-reliant in defence, its security forces would continue to be vulnerable.
Another panellist, who had been a senior member in the defence acquisition system, suggested a dedicated and overarching organisation to deliver on defence needs and the panel moderator reflected on the irony that the country has launched ballistic missiles but is unable to make the INSAS rifle. If these are the sentiments of those who have been practitioners, then clearly the self-reliance in defence production, that has been an avowed objective of governments since independence, continues to evade us.
It is worth revisiting recent history to fathom why indigenising defence production is proving to be so challenging to successive defence ministers, all of whom mean well, and of late, appear to have taken positive steps towards this end. In 2015, the government appointed the Kelkar Committee to study the public-private partnership concept and make recommendations. This was followed by the Dhirendra Singh Committee which looked at the Make in India concept in the field of defence manufacturing and recommended a strategic partnership model wherein the government would select Indian private enterprises to exclusively make designated military platforms.
Consequently, the ninth version of the Defence Procurement Procedure or DPP-2016 devoted a chapter to strategic partnership, which followed soon after. Whilst the idea evokes optimism amongst most stakeholders because of the dynamism that the private sector will bring, as subsequent events including the drawing of the Rafale controversy into the political arena showed, any attempt to involve the private sector in the defence procurement and production domain will continue to be a challenge.
This is borne out by a recent media report highlighting how in six years, no major Make in India defence project has taken off because of bureaucratic bottlenecks, commercial and technical wrangling and a lack of requisite political push. These shortcomings have a historical reason, some going back decades and unless we attempt to understand and address these, our Make in India vision will continue to stagnate. That the Defence Minister has formed yet another committee to review the DPP-2016, indicates that formulating newer and more complex procedures appears to have become an end in itself rather than merely a means to an end.
The first challenge is to understand that defence manufacturing is in a special category and needs to be treated as such. This is best exemplified by what Jacques S. Gansler, who steered such consolidation in the US, had to say in their context: “In order to understand the economic operations of the US defence industry, it is first absolutely essential to recognise that there is no free market at work in this area and that there cannot be one because of the dominant role played by the federal government. The combination of a single buyer, a few large firms in each segment of the industry, and a small number of extremely expensive weapon programmes, constitutes a unique structure for doing business.” Drawing from this experience and applying our own conditions both in the public and private sector, we first need to arrive at our own ‘unique structure’ of doing business in the field of defence production which must have unanimity across the political system for it to succeed.
The second challenge dates back to the Bofors scandal of 1987 and the attendant political controversy that resulted in a defence procurement eco-system where procrastination has become the mantra. The Services have termed this as the Bofors syndrome, a mindset where few in the decision-making chain would venture to take decisions for fear of falling prey to the shenanigans of others in the complex chain of decision-making.
The unique feature of this syndrome is that it works smoothly where government-to-government procurement contracts are concerned, but goes into deep freeze when faced with an open tender purchase. But with the recent political controversy surrounding the government-to-government agreement for the purchase of Rafale aircraft, this avenue may also become a victim to the Bofors Syndrome.
The next challenge is to recognise that defence acquisition is a complex process involving multiple stakeholders and involves diverse resources and decision-making systems and should aim to provide on-performance, on-time and on-cost capabilities to the armed forces. This is a mission for committed professionals and not for administrative generalists or, indeed, for uniformed specialists working on rotating assignments, burdened with other chores and pressures. In the US and elsewhere, defence acquisition is considered a full-time profession where people train, specialise and work full-time. The US even has a Defence Acquisition University committed to creating acquisition professionals.
In the foreword to the DPP-2016, Manohar Parrikar said, “The DPP is not merely a procurement procedure, it is also an opportunity to improve the efficiency of the procurement process, usher in change in the mindset of the stakeholders and promote growth of the domestic defence industry.’ The biggest challenge to the Make in India aspect in defence production, hence, remains the outdated mindset.
Whatever the official claims, to impartial observers, the underlying spirit of successive DPPs is no longer ‘delivering and sustaining effective and affordable war-fighting capabilities to users within a specified time frame’. Instead, each successive version is being driven by a procedural, legal and defensive mindset where following the book appears to be an end in itself, leaving the armed forces bereft of modernisation and left to ‘fight with what they have.’
Hamirpur, December 31
The mortal remains of Varun Kumar, a jawan who died battling freezing conditions at the Siachin Glacier, were consigned to flames here today. The 35-year-old soldier was from Dulehra village and posted in Jammu and Kashmir. He was reportedly stuck in a snowstorm and brought to the base hospital for treatment but could not survive. His body arrived here in the afternoon and was cremated with state honours. The Subdivisonal Magistrate and Tehsildar paid homage to the soldier while a contingent of the Army was also present. — OC
New Delhi, December 31
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed chargesheet against six for attack on Assam Rifles personnel in Manipur in 2017.
An NIA spokesperson said here on Tuesday, the agency had filed charges against three absconding persons — Koijam Ibochouba aka Sumo, Mayanglambam Siromani aka Kesper, Thokchom Ningthemba aka Ningthem Feiroijamba —before the Special NIA court in Imphal.
Chargesheet has also been filed against Laishram Priyokumar Meitei aka Amuthoi, Thangjam Achou aka Thangjam Achan and Chandam Tondon Singh aka Shileiba under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The case relates to ambush on a road-opening party of the 4th Assam Rifles in Chandel district of Manipur on November 15, 2017 by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Manipur Naga People’s Front (MNPF) activists.
Two Assam Rifles jawans were injured and one of them succumbed to injuries, later. Two terrorists were killed in the action. The spokesperson said the PLA and the MNPF conspired to wage war against the government and carried out the ambush. — IANS
New Delhi, January 1
The creation of the Department of Military Affairs and institutionalisation of the post of Chief of Defence Staff are momentous reforms, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Wednesday.
Congratulating General Bipin Rawat on his appointment as the country’s first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Modi said he is an outstanding officer who had served India with zeal.
Narendra Modi✔@narendramodi
I am delighted that as we begin the new year and new decade, India gets its first Chief of Defence Staff in General Bipin Rawat. I congratulate him and wish him the very best for this responsibility. He is an outstanding officer who has served India with great zeal.
Narendra Modi✔@narendramodi
Creation of the Department of Military Affairs with requisite military expertise and institutionalisation of the post of CDS is a momentous and comprehensive reform that will help our country face the ever-changing challenges of modern warfare.
New Delhi, January 1
The Congress on Wednesday apparently distanced itself from the critical remarks of party leaders Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Manish Tewari on the appointment of General Bipin Rawat as the Chief of Defence Staff, saying it does not oppose any step taken by the government to strengthen the security of the country.
Party spokesperson Sushmita Dev said actions speak louder than words and soon the country will know how the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) will work.
Commenting on it before that will not be right, she told reporters here.
Dev also refused to comment on Chowdhury and Tewari’s critical remarks on the appointment of CDS.
“But I would like to say that the decision of appointing chief of (defence) staff is of the government. We only expect that he (General Rawat) will fulfil his responsibilities as the chief of staff. Any step taken by the government to strengthen the security of the country, the Congress does not oppose that,” Dev said.
Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari, in a series of tweets on Tuesday, had raised several questions over the appointment of Gen Bipin Rawat as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), saying the government has started on a “wrong foot” on the issue.
He had also asked whether the country was headed on a portentous path.
“With great regret and fullest of responsibility may I say that the government has started on a very wrong foot with regard to CDS. Time alone unfortunately will reveal the implications of this decision,” Tewari had said on Twitter.
He had also asked why the appointment of a CDS is fraught with difficulties and ambiguities.
Chowdhury had also taken to Twitter to say, “At the end, Mr Rawat become the 1st Chief Of Defence Staff, government certainly taken all his performances into cognizance including his ideological predilection, Indian Army is an apolitical institution for which each & every Indian irrespective of caste, class, creed, community is proud of.”
“Let Mr Bipin Rawat Ji’s ideological predilection should not affect the apolitical institution of India, our ‘ARMY’,” the Congress’ leader in Lok Sabha had tweeted. — PTI
Jammu, January 1
Two army personnel were killed in a gunfight with heavily-armed Pakistani infiltrators along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Rajouri district on Wednesday, officials said.
The infiltrators were intercepted in the Khari Thrayat forest when they were trying to sneak into India from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), they said.
“Two army soldiers martyred during cordon and search operation in Nowshera sector. The operation is still in progress and further details are awaited,” Jammu-based Indian Army Public Relations Officer (PRO) Lt Col Devender Anand said in a statement.
The search operation was launched following information about the movement of suspected terrorists, the officials said.
The infiltrators opened fire on the troops and during a fierce gunfight the two soldiers were killed, they said.
HT Correspondent
letterschd@hindustantimes.com
JAMMU : Two soldiers were killed in a gunbattle with suspected Pakistani terrorists as the army foiled an intrusion bid along the line of control in the Nowshera sector in Rajouri district of Jammu & Kashmir on Wednesday.
“On the intervening night of December 31 and January 1, a contact was established with infiltrators in Nowshera’s Kalal area. The heavily armed terrorists retaliated and in the ensuing exchange of fire, two soldiers were critically injured and later succumbed to their injuries ,” defence spokesperson Lt Col Devender Anand said. The officer identified the soldiers deceased as Naik Sawant Sandip Raghunath, 29, and Rifleman Arjun Thapa Magar, 25.
Naik Sawant, who hailed from Satara in Maharashtra, is survived by his wife Smita. Rifleman Arjun Thapa, who was resident of Nepal’s Gorkha district, is survived by his wife Sarita,
“Naik Sawant and Rifleman Arjun Thapa were brave, highly motivated and sincere soldiers. The nation will always remain indebted to them for the supreme sacrifice and devotion to duty,” said the defence spokesman.
Officials said the army had launched a cordon-and-search operation following information about movement of suspected terrorists. Reinforcements have been rushed to the area and a massive operation is on to track down the terrorists, they said. Eighty-three security personnel had lost their lives in anti-terror operations in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018, according to J-K Police
On Tuesday, J&K director general of police Dilbag Singh had said there are 250 militants active in the state, of which 100 are foreigners and the rest are locals.
Will the CDS as Permanent Chairperson of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee outrank the three service Chiefs even though theoretically all are four-star officers?’ Congress MP Manish Tewari.
On December 30, 2019, the BJP-led NDA government announced the appointment of the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). With this appointment, a new institution has been created not only in the Ministry of Defence, but also in the Indian Republic. This may well have Constitutional implications.
In order to fully appreciate the importance of this decision one needs to look at history. Between 1861-1947, there were 20 Commanders-in-Chief of the Army in India or the British Indian Army as it was then called. The Headquarters of the Army in India — AHQ India– shifted to Delhi in 1911 when the capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi. During summer, some components of the headquarters would further move up to Shimla, concurrently with the colonial government as the imperialists could not stomach the Delhi heat.
At the commencement of the Second World War, the AHQ was re-designated as the General Headquarters –GHQ India Command. GHQ India remained in actuality up till August 15, 1947. It was disbanded upon the partition of undivided India. A new headquarter of the Pakistan Army was formed out of the Northern Command of the Army in India, and a new headquarter of the Indian Army took over the HQ in Delhi. Field Marshal Auchinleck, the last Commander-in-Chief of the Army in India, was appointed as the Supreme Commander of the Army in India and Pakistan to transfer responsibilities to the new armies, and to organize the withdrawal of British Army units, former officers and men of the British Indian Army.
On August 15, 1947, both India and Pakistan assumed operational control over their respective Armed Forces. From August 15, Auchinleck was re-designated as the Supreme Commander in order to avoid abstruseness with the new Commanders-in-Chief of the two Dominion states. Vide the Joint Defence Council Order of August 11, 1947, Auchinleck was vested with limited authority. He had no responsibility for law and order or operational control over any units except those in transit from one Dominion to another. Even in the exercise of his limited authority he was dependent on co-operation of the two Dominions. Although he represented a legally constituted authority, his position was at best tenuous.
The office of the Supreme Commander attained quietus on December 1, 1947 upon the formal retirement of Field Marshal Auchinleck. Major General L. G. Whistler was appointed the General Officer Commanding British Troops in India in 1947 and remained in the saddle until the last British unit — the 1 Battalion of the Somerset Light Infantry -Prince Albert’s –left on February 28, 1948. The 2nd Battalion — The Black Watch -Royal Highland Regiment — was the last British Army unit to leave Pakistan on February 26, 1948.
The position of the chief of the Indian Army was also known as Commander-in-Chief from 1947–1955. There were four officers who served in this position. However, in 1955, a conscious decision was taken by the government and this designation was renamed as the Chief of the Army Staff. General Rajendrasinhji Jadeja was the last Commander-in-Chief and the first Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army.
It may be pertinent to note that while the Army Chief was called the Commander-in- Chief till 1955, the designation was limited to the Indian Army and Air force and the Navy continued to be headed by their respective commanders.
Sixty-four years later, on December 24, 2019, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) put out a press release about the Cabinet clearing the appointment of a CDS. The communiqué inter-alia stated: “The following areas will be dealt by the Department of Military Affairs headed by CDS: The Armed Forces of the Union, namely, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence comprising Army Headquarters, Naval Headquarters, Air Headquarters and Defence Staff Headquarters. The Territorial Army. Works relating to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Procurement exclusive to the Services except capital acquisitions, as per prevalent rules and procedures”.
It further read that “The Chief of Defence Staff, apart from being the head of the Department of Military Affairs, will also be the Permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. He will act as the Principal Military Adviser to Raksha Mantri on all tri-Services matters. The three Chiefs will continue to advise RM on matters exclusively concerning their respective Services. CDS will not exercise any military command, including over the three Service Chiefs, so as to be able to provide impartial advice to the political leadership”.
Herein lies the contradiction. As Secretary to Government of India (GoI), in-charge of the Department of Military Affairs and having superintendence over the Army, Navy and Air Force, there would be an implied subordination of the three service chiefs to the CDS notwithstanding any declaration to the contrary. Moreover, the President of India is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Article 53 (2) of the Indian Constitution declares: “Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law”. What then would the position of the CDS be qua the Supreme Commander – the President of India? There are also other questions that need to be looked at.
What implications does the nomenclature Principal Military Advisor to the Defence Minister qua the three service chiefs have in relation to Military advise tendered to the government? Will the advise of the CDS override the advise of the respective Service Chiefs as he heads the newly created Department of Military Affairs? Will the CDS as Permanent Chairperson of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee outrank the three service Chiefs even though theoretically all are four-star officers? Would the three Chiefs now report to the Defence Minister through Defence Secretary or CDS? In theory, the service chiefs report directly to the Defence Minister while in practice all files and decisions are routed through the Defence Secretary.
What will be the position of CDS qua the Defence Secretary? Would the Defence Secretary, in terms of Rule eleven of Transaction of Business Rules, continue to be the administrative head of the Defence Ministry? What is the remit/ mandate of the proposed Department of Military Affairs? Would the CDS override the Service Chiefs with regard to operational command and control of tri-service agencies and organizations. And finally, what are the implications of the appointment of a CDS for Civil Military Relations? The last part is profoundly serious, for the singular success of India going back to 1947 has been the supremacy of the civilian leadership over the Military even in military matters.
For all the reasons that have been articulated by the Kargil Review Committee, Group of Ministers that went into the report of the Review Committee to make its own recommendations, and subsequently the Naresh Chandra Committee , all of whom looked at higher Defence Management issues, there still remain a lot of grey areas as far as the institution of the Chief of Defence Staff is concerned. Are we down another portentous path?
(The author is a lawyer, MP, Member of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Defence, and former Information and Broadcasting Minister, GoI. Views expressed are personal.)
