What India's New Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar Needs To Do

This article was first published by Tehelka (www.tehelka.com) on 14 November 2014 under the headline What Parrikar Needs To Do

The new defence minister must give some thought to defending India against a two-front aggression, says Ramesh Ramachandran

I

f Manohar Parrikar wants unvarnished advice, he need not look beyond the late Brajesh Mishra, who served as the national security adviser to former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Or he could remind himself of what George Fernandes, who was defence minister in the Vajpayee Cabinet, used to think aloud about bureaucratic inertia and its impact on defence preparedness. For, what they said then remains valid today.

In the winter of 2009, Brajesh Mishra sought to impress upon an audience comprising some of the best minds in the Indian strategic community that a disproportionate emphasis on economic growth could blindside New Delhi to the threat posed to it by the possibility of a two-front war with China and Pakistan. The government-of-the-day’s single-minded focus on achieving and maintaining a near double-digit annual growth would be rendered meaningless if it is not able to defend itself from external aggression on two fronts, was his blunt advice to decision-makers.

Mishra looked at defence preparedness against China, for instance, in conjunction with acquisition of military hardware and capabilities. In his estimation, if the gap continued to widen, militarily and economically, between India and China and it got reflected in Chinese adventurism or belligerence along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that separates the two countries, then it behoved of India to take pre-emptive measures. The recent skirmishes along the LAC only seem to reinforce some of Mishra’s concerns.

Another of Mishra’s worries was a perceived lack of defence preparedness, which he attributed in no small measure to the ghost of the Bofors scam, which discouraged successive governments from making timely military purchases. “(Decades) after Bofors, the burden is still on the shoulder of politicians (and they are) afraid to take decisions,” this writer recalled Mishra as saying — a view that has been endorsed by some of those who were privy to the shortage of military hardware during the 1999 Kargil conflict with Pakistan.

Mishra’s remarks echoed George Fernandes’, who famously said that the fear of attracting allegations of corruption was to be blamed for the delays in procurement of military hardware. A Tehelka report (Defenders of the indefensible, 25 September) quoted Fernandes as saying in 2003, “There is hardly any official in the ministry who would like to put his signature for anything that has to be purchased. He would like to postpone it. He would like to put it off. He would like to do whatever he has to do because he thinks that is the best way for him to survive.” He amplified the political class’ anxieties by saying that “the court is not going to listen to that and if a political activist or minister does it, then the man who is his rival or opponent is not going to accept that. It is a terrible world”.

Former army chief Gen (retd) VK Singh, who is now the minister of state with independent charge of the statistics and programme implementation ministry in addition to being the minister of state in the ministries of external affairs and overseas Indian affairs, had presented a grim picture of India’s defence preparedness and cautioned the UPA government to act without delay.

Parrikar’s predecessor Arun Jaitley had sounded a note of caution, too. He warned the defence ministry apparatus against being “very defensive” and asked it to shed its conservatism in the acquisition of weapons. Jaitley sought to make amends for the erstwhile UPA government’s questionable track record on defence acquisitions by okaying certain key projects worth several tens of thousands of crores, such as the indigenous development of six submarines at a cost of Rs 50,000 crore, a Rs 3,200 crore deal for the purchase of Israeli anti-tank guided missiles, procuring surveillance aircraft from the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and inviting the Indian private sector to participate in the production of transport aircraft. In the Union Budget, Jaitley had raised the cap for foreign direct investment (FDI) in defence from 26 percent to 49 percent in order to give a boost to the indigenous defence-industrial manufacturing base. Jaitley had hoped that not only would the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) turn into a manufacturing hub but regular meetings of the Defence Acquisition Council could go a long way towards speeding up the purchases, besides giving a fillip to Modi’s “Make in India” slogan.

For his part, Parrikar has said that it would be his endeavour to fast-track defence purchases. Top on his list could be to take the multi-billion dollar medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) project to its logical conclusion by okaying the purchase of 126 French Rafale jets for the Indian Air Force. “I have realised that if someone properly heads the defence ministry, then we need not worry about Pakistan and China. We are strong enough… we have to build our capability over the next two-three years,” he said upon his return to Goa after assuming the office of defence minister.

Parrikar attributed the delays in some acquisitions to vested interests or corruption. For the metallurgist from the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, restoring the delicate civil-military balance would be an important task, too.

Defenders of the indefensible

This article was first published by Tehelka (www.tehelka.com) on 25 September 2014 under the headline "Defenders of the indefensible"


Paralysis grips the armed forces as justice remains elusive in cases of tainted defence deals, says Ramesh Ramachandran

In the infamous Bofors scam, a Swedish investigator said that many innocent people were punished while the guilty got away

Epiphany struck George Fernandes at 11,700 feet on the icy slopes of Siachen Glacier, the world’s highest battlefield, in the eastern Karakoram range of the Himalayas.

Cover of Tehelka magazine, for the week from
24 September 2014 to 4 October 2014

“If there is need for prosecution, there should be prosecution… no matter who. That alone will cleanse the system. In our country, we never prosecute. We institute a case and let it die or let the man (against whom there is a case) die,” Fernandes told Shekhar Gupta in the summer of 2003, when he was defence minister and the latter editor-in-chief of The Indian Express.

Fernandes was replying to a question about how and why there still was no closure to the decades-old Bofors scandal.

That was 2003, but what Fernandes said then rings true even today. There have been many cases, including, but not limited to, the Bofors scam, the HDW submarine scam, Barak missile scam and the Tatra trucks scam, but many of the guilty are yet to be punished, either on account of insufficient evidence or lack of political will or both.

The Price Of Delay

George Fernandes (left) with Shekhar Gupta

As someone who was caught in the eye of a storm following TEHELKA’s exposé, code-named Operation West End, in 2001, Fernandes claimed in his interview to Gupta that bureaucrats would delay making purchases for the armed forces for fear of inviting an adverse reaction or being guillotined, if there was even as much as a whiff of a scam.

It didn’t matter to them that the soldiers, guarding the icy frontiers in Siachen or the searing deserts of Rajasthan, and the defence capabilities could suffer on account of the delay in procurement of, say, a snowmobile or a multirole combat jet. (Compare the reluctance of the officials to make purchases that would help a soldier with the eagerness of the Assam Rifles personnel to take money in lieu of approving a tender.)

“There is hardly any official in the ministry who would like to put his signature for anything that has to be purchased. He would like to postpone it. He would like to put it off. He would like to do whatever he has to do because he thinks that is the best way for him to survive,” Fernandes said, explaining the “psychology” of the bureaucrats in the defence ministry.

But is it not for the political leadership to give the armed forces what they need without worrying about scandals and controversies? Gupta persisted.

To which Fernandes replied: “The court is not going to listen to that, and if a political activist or minister does it, then the man who is his rival is not going to accept that. It is a terrible world.”

The UPA’s decade-long rule saw two defence ministers in Pranab Mukherjee and AK Antony; as it turned out, the latter became the longest-serving defence minister in the history of India, having held the office from 24 October 2006 to 26 May 2014. Much like Manmohan Singh, Antony has the reputation of being honest to a fault, but it is one of life’s ironies that they presided over ministries where scams took place, especially in the UPA’s second term.

 AK Antony copped the blame for stalling
vital military acquisitions

With Antony at the helm, the defence ministry was witness to an unprecedented situation when the chiefs of the armed forces were allegedly involved in one unsavoury incident after another.

If Gen VK Singh dragged the government to court over his age, he also claimed to have been offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore by a retired army officer for clearing the purchase of certain trucks for the army. Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi, now retired, was accused of involvement in the purchase of VVIP helicopters, while Admiral DK Joshi decided to step down after a series of accidents aboard naval warships.

According to Admiral (retd) Raja Menon, Antony ruined India’s defence preparedness by stalling vital military acquisitions. All because he, like some of his predecessors, came to suffer from what is called the Bofors syndrome. “He was unable to take decisions. The problem was his own personality,” says Menon. The bureaucrats, taking a cue from Antony, chose not to decide one way or another. Consequently, no one spared a thought for the soldier at the frontier or cared for India’s national security imperatives.

Whither Justice

The investigation into various scams left much to be desired, too. Similar to the officers and contractors in Operation Hilltop, the Tatra trucks case allegedly involved certain unscrupulous individuals who pocketed a certain percentage of the total cost of the purchase.

Recently, the CBI filed a closure report in this case, involving the State-owned beml (Bharat Earth Movers Limited) and Tatra Vectra Motors Limited, a joint venture between the UK-based Vectra Group and Tatra Trucks of the Czech Republic, on the grounds of “insufficient prosecutable evidence”.

Gen VK Singh (Retd)

Similarly, the Sukna land scam was in the news four years ago for a no-objection certificate given to a private builder for constructing an educational institution on a plot of land near the Sukna cantonment area. An Armed Forces Tribunal, which inquired into the matter, recently quashed the court martial of an officer, but the controversy refuses to die down with the Union minister of state for development of north-eastern region (independent charge), Gen VK Singh, himself a former army chief, describing the verdict as “dubious”.

In the case of the VVIP helicopter deal, too, money had changed hands. In 2013, Antony accepted as much, saying: “Yes, corruption has taken place in the helicopter deal and bribes have been taken.” Antony didn’t hazard a guess on the outcome of the various investigations that were going on except for saying that defence procurement almost always seems to be beset with controversies and that even an Integrity Pact for vendors was proving to be inadequate for checking malpractices. He wanted the Central Vigilance Commission to be roped in along with independent external monitors to plug the loopholes in procurement.

The words of Sten Lindstrom, a former head of police in Sweden who investigated the Bofors deal, should serve as a chilling reminder to one and all. In an interview to Chitra Subramaniam, which was published by the New Delhibased website The Hoot, Lindstrom said, “Many Indian institutions were tarred, innocent people were punished while the guilty got away.”

Also, in an apparent reference to the Indian authorities, he told Subramaniam, who exposed the Bofors scam: “Can you imagine a situation where no one from India met the real investigators of the gun deal? That was when we saw the extent to which everyone was compromised. Many politicians who had come to my office claiming they would move heaven and earth to get at the truth if they came to power, fell silent when they held very important positions directly linked to the deal.”

India and its soldiers deserve better.

Scam After Scam

A quick lowdown on defence scams in Independent India would take us back to 1948 when the Jeep scam took place. The focus was on VK Krishna Menon, the then Indian high commissioner in London, who finalised a deal with a foreign firm for around 1,500 jeeps without following the normal procedure. India required around 4,600 jeeps for its Kashmir operations. Nine months later, in 1949, 155 jeeps of poor quality reached Madras. The scam amount, which has not been officially revealed till date, was around Rs 80 lakh. The aftermath was ironic. In 1956, Menon was inducted into Jawaharlal Nehru’s Cabinet.

1987 - HDW SUBMARINE SCAM

Deal In 1981, India bought four submarines from the German company HDW. In 1987, it asked for two more

How was it exposed When India asked for a discount on the fresh order of two submarines, the shipyard declined, saying it had to pay a 7 percent commission. VP Singh heard about it when he was defence minister in the Rajiv Gandhi government. In March 1990, when VP Singh was the prime minister, he ordered an investigation

Kickbacks Rs 20 crore

Aftermath The case was closed in 2005

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

1987 - Bofors Scam

Deal 400 155-mm field howitzer guns worth Rs 6,994 crore were bought from Swedish company Bofors

How was it exposed Swedish National Radio reported that bribes had been paid to top Indian politicians to secure the howitzer gun contract. Geneva-based journalist Chitra Subramaniam did an investigation

Kickbacks Rs 64 crore

Suspects AE Services, the shell company operated by Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, a family friend of Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, who also represented the petrochemical firm Snamprogetti, suddenly intervened in the Bofors deal on 15 November 1985. At that time Bofors had existing contractual arrangements (going back several years, even decades) with two strands of companies in which arms agent Win Chadha and the Hinduja brothers — GP Hinduja and Srichand Hinduja — had interests

Aftermath Over two decades, 250 crore was spent in the investigation, but it was inconclusive. Swedish investigator Sten Lindstrom said Rajiv himself did not receive any pay-offs in the deal, but that Quattrocchi received commissions. Lindstrom also confirmed that Rajiv knew of and was complicit in the elaborate cover-up that his government orchestrated to protect Quattrocchi

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2002 - Coffin Scam

Deal The Central government bought 500 coffins, each costing $2,500

Scam It turned out the real price was $172 per coffin. To make matters worse, the quality was very poor

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2005 - Denel Scam

Deal Denel, a South African governmentcontrolled company, supplied antimaterial rifles to the Indian Army

How was it exposed Allegations emerged in South Africa that Denel had paid bribes to Varas Associates, the alleged intermediary, for the Indian contract

Kickbacks Rs 20 crore

Aftermath The CBI filed a closure report in September 2013. The agency claimed to have received responses of judicial requests from South Africa, the UK, Isle of Man and Switzerland, which did not show any evidence that could substantiate the allegations of corruption

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2006 - Barak Missile Scam

Deal Seven Barak missile systems costing Rs 1,150 crore were bought from Israel

How was it exposed Former president APJ Abdul Kalam, who was the scientific adviser to the prime minster when the deal was being negotiated, had opposed the weapons system. The CBI registered an FIR in the case, questioning why the system was purchased even after the DRDO had raised its objections in 2006

Kickbacks NA

Aftermath Former treasurer of the Samata Party RK Jain was arrested but no major breakthrough in probe till date. The CBI has closed at least one of the cases for lack of evidence

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2007 - NTRO Scam

Deal Hyderabad-based National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), an intelligence agency working under the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister’s Office, bought Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)

How was it exposed The Comptroller and Auditor General said rules were flouted in the purchase of UAVs from Israel Aerospace Industries

Kickbacks Rs 450 crore

Aftermath A letter was sent to the then National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon complaining of the irregularities in the recruitment of officers in the NTRO. It was said the probe was handed over to the man who was accused in the first place

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2007 - Ration Supplies Scam

It was discovered that numbers were being fudged while supplying rations to army personnel posted in high-altitude areas. Army Service Corps chief Lt Gen SK Sahni was found guilty of corruption and dismissed from service

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2007 - Frozen Meat Scam

Army Service Corps officer Lt Gen SK Dahiya was indicted in a case involving irregularities in the procurement of frozen meat for troops posted in Ladakh and discrepancies in procurement of dry rations

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2008 - Abhishek Verma Scandal

Abhishek Verma, the son of former MP Srikant Verma, is in jail, and he and his wife are accused of stealing defence secrets and accepting bribes from defence firms. Investigations are continuing into the affairs of Verma, who may have also had a role in the VVIP helicopter deal. Over the past five years, Verma is said to have made a comeback to the defence consultancy business and re-established his contacts. Some highly classified defence ministry files have made their way to his firm Ganton. The secret files relate to the IAF’s acquisition plans. He has unsuccessfully tried to flaunt his proximity to several politicians from the top Congress leadership down to Jagdish Tytler

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2009 - OFB Scam

Deal Former Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) chief Sudipto Ghosh and several of his associates were accused of fixing contracts

Aftermath After the CBI found evidence of bribery, the government in March 2012 blacklisted six companies for 10 years: Singapore Technologies, Israeli Military Industries, Germany’s Rheinmetall Air Defence, Russian firm Corporation Defence, Indian firms TS Kisan & Company and RK Machine Tool

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2009 - Sukna Land Scam

Two senior lieutenant generals and a major general were accused of converting a 70-acre land adjacent to Sukna military station in Siliguri, West Bengal, into an educational institution by handing it over to a private trust. The controversy involved issuing of no-objection certificate for the private trust to buy the land for construction of the educational institution on the condition that wards of army personnel from the military station would get to study there. The then army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor’s military secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash and the then 33 Corps commander Lt Gen PK Rath were indicted in the case. Lt Gen Rath has since been acquitted of all charges by an Armed Forces Tribunal Bench. A court martial dismissed Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash from service after finding him guilty in the case

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2010 - VVIP Chopper Scam

Deal In 2010, Anglo-Italian helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland agreed to supply 12 VVIP choppers to the Indian Air Force for Rs 3,600 crore

How was it exposed An Italian intelligence agency started to investigate the deal on the suspicion of corruption

Kickbacks AgustaWestland paid a commission of more than Rs 350 crore to a Switzerland-based consultant

Aftermath The head of the company was arrested in Milan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2011 - Adarsh Society Scam

In 2001, land was allotted to the widows of personnel killed in the Kargil War and retired defence personnel. Over a period of 10 years, top politicians and bureaucrats bent several rules, committed various acts of commission and omission, and finally, got themselves allotted with flats at a much cheaper cost

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2014 - Tatra Trucks Scam

Deal Bengaluru-based Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) bought components from Czech company Tatra for its all-terrain vehicles, which are the backbone of the army’s artillery and transportation wings. The BEML was accused of flouting guidelines by buying components for the 6×6 and 8×8 trucks from a middleman in London

How was it exposed Army chief Gen VK Singh told the the defence minister that he was offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore

Kickbacks Rs 750 crore in bribes and commissions

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

HOW A DEFENCE DEAL IS SIGNED

• Contracts worth more than Rs 500 crore have to be cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security. The armed forces have financial powers of Rs 150 crore

• The military formulates a qualitative requirement of the weapon it wants

• The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), headed by the defence minister, accepts or rejects the necessity for the proposed procurement

• The DAC approval is followed by the ministry floating a global tender

• The Technical Evaluation Committee studies the technical bids and shortlists them for trial

• Field trials are carried out by the user service, which then recommends those that meet requirements

• The Technical Oversight Committee scrutinises the procedure to ensure fair trial and selection was done

• The Contract Negotiation Committee recommends conclusion of a contract at a negotiated price. The proposal is sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security, headed by the prime minister, for approval after which a contract is signed

Online or E-voting in India: An idea whose time has come

If we are banking and shopping online, why can’t we vote online?

For the largest and vibrant democracy that is India, we have made a smooth transition from paper ballot to electronic voting machines (EVMs.) The EVMs were first used on a trial basis in 50 polling stations of Parur Assembly Constituency of Kerala in May 1982. Since November 1998, EVMs have been used in each and every general- and bye-election to Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the country. India can proudly claim to have turned into an e-democracy in the 2004 General Elections when 10.75 lakh EVMs were used across all polling stations in the country. Today, EVMs are used in all elections without exception.

If we could embrace EVMs long before the world did, there is no reason why we cannot graduate to e-voting now. It goes without saying that it cannot be accomplished overnight, not least because internet penetration is not uniform throughout the country yet. Only about 200 million of the 800-odd million voters in India today have access to internet and only half of the 200 million are reported to be active on social media. But it is in vogue in some countries and it could become a reality in India, too. Switzerland and Estonia are good examples of how technology can be put to best use for voting. Estonia, in particular, introduced online voting in 2005: All that voters there had to do was to prove their identities using an electronic national identity card in order to be able to vote online. Norway is another European country that harnesses the power of technology in conducting elections; it even allows the less tech-savvy voters among them to vote telephonically.

In the UK, its Electoral Commission has said that reforms such as allowing internet voting should be considered to engage younger voters who are turning out in declining numbers. Only about 44 per cent of the eligible voters in the UK under the age of 25 exercised their franchise, according to some polls. Jenny Watson, the head of the Electoral Commission in the UK, is reported to have said that “we plan to look at a variety of options [such as e-voting], assessing how they will help citizens engage more effectively.” She explained her decision thus: “By doing so we could by proxy help address some of the issues with turnout, particular amongst an increasingly disenfranchised younger generation[.] Unless our electoral system keeps pace with the way many voters live the rest of their lives – where the way they bank and the way they shop has been transformed – it risks being seen as increasingly alien and outdated, particularly to young voters as they use it for the first time.” The Electoral Commission in the UK plans to launch online voter registration this year.

Online voting has its benefits: For instance, it could encourage more young voters to exercise their franchise, thereby increasing the voter turnout. The Election Commission of India is already overseeing the implementation of the Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation(SVEEP) scheme for the last few years in order to encourage more voters, particularly women, first-time voters and voters living in remote areas, to exercise their franchise. According to the Election Commission, more than two crore voters in the country are aged between 18 and 19 years. Out of a total of 81-odd crore voters in the country, 2.3 crore are between 18-19 years, thus constituting 2.8 per cent of the national electorate. Also, e-voting could come in handy for the defence personnel who otherwise have to rely on postal ballot. “Transmission time can be cut down if blank ballot papers are sent electronically, providing more time for their return. Better still would be to develop online voting and what better way than to provide it to the group that deserves it the most? We certainly owe it to our Armed forces personnel to do all that is possible to enable them to exercise their franchise,” wrote Mr N Gopalaswami, a former chief election commissioner, in a signed newspaper article. He was referring to the Supreme Court directing the Election Commission (EC) to allow defence personnel to vote as general voters in peace stations. In the future, online voting could benefit non-resident Indians (NRIs), too, after making the required legislative and/or logistical amendments.

Online voting is not without its concerns, though. Fears of rigging or manipulation abound. Also, insulating it from hackers and cyber-criminals could pose a challenge but it is not insurmountable. The Aadhaar card devised by the Unique Identification Authority of India can be among other things a valid proof of identity for online voting.

Fortunately for India, its Election Commission has not been one to shy away from putting technology to use. According to reports, it plans to webcast voting live from some of the 1.4 million-odd polling stations in the country in this year’s general elections. The move will help the EC to keep a check on sensitive polling stations. In the past, it has co-opted technology to make Indian elections free, fair and transparent.

So to come back to my original question: If we can bank and shop online, why indeed can’t we vote online?

Author's Note:
You may also like to read:
1. Polls 2014: EC mulling option to allow NRIs to vote via the net in future; and
2. Indian expats divided over option of voting online

Declassify 1962 India-China war report, reappraise the civil – military relations

The release of a portion of the ‘top secret’ T.B. Henderson Brooks – Premindra Singh Bhagat inquiry report on the 1962 India-China war by an Australian journalist Neville Maxwell has come at a time when the civil – military relations are under the scanner all over again, due in no small part to the allegedly inappropriate conduct of a former Chief of Army Staff who dragged the government to court over his age row and how an otherwise routine movement of troops coinciding with the date of court hearing gave rise to fears in the government of a possible ‘coup’; the unseemly controversy surrounding the frequent crashes by Soviet-era MiG fighter jets; and most recently, a series of naval mishaps that eventually led to the resignation of the Navy chief Admiral DK Joshi.

Let us look at the substantive portions of the 126-page section of the report that was released online by Neville Maxwell, who was the Delhi correspondent of the Times of London during the war. For one, the report squarely attributes the debacle to an unsound military plan. It goes on to blame the then army leadership, the intelligence apparatus, the bureaucrats in the ministries of defence and external affairs, and the political class, not necessarily in that order, for the humiliating defeat at the hands of the Chinese. The army leadership, for overruling the field commanders; the intelligence chief, for assuming, erroneously, that the Chinese would not resort to use of force; and the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership, for pushing for a ‘Forward Policy’ of establishing military outposts in areas claimed by China and launching aggressive patrols without the necessary army wherewithal.

The report notes, among other things, the following:

* The government who politically must have been keen to recover territory advocated a cautious policy whilst Army HQ dictated a policy that was clearly militarily unsound.

* The Chief of Army Staff did not present the correct military assessment to the political leadership on the forward policy in spite of the fact that the military intelligence believed that China would retaliate against any move by India to reclaim territory.

* A meeting was held in the Prime Minister’s Office on 2 November 1961 which was attended among others by the defence minister, the foreign secretary, the Chief of Army Staff and the director Intelligence Bureau (DIB). It appears that the DIB was of the opinion that the Chinese would not react to our establishing new posts and that they were not likely to use force against any of our posts even if they were in a position to do so.

The Ministry of Defence has sought to take refuge under the pretext that the inquiry committee report remains top secret because of the extremely sensitive nature of its contents “which are of current operational value.” Some scholars have debunked the government’s claim, saying that declassification of the report would not hinder or jeopardise in any manner the contemporary political and military attitudes and affairs. On the contrary, they have argued, it was necessary in the interest of generating an open and honest debate in the country about the circumstances leading up to the war so that the right lessons could be drawn. It has been pointed out that the government ought to take the nation into confidence and encourage a critical analysis of what went wrong and how to avoid a repetition in the future. As a newspaper editorial said, “There needs, instead, be a thorough reading of the report and the manner of its eventual public availability for a tutorial on India’s inexplicably ostrich-like approach to archival material. If today we are reacting to the report as if it were still 1963, given the lack of clarity on military assessment of operational details, it reflects the state’s reluctance to allow access to material essential for proper history writing, the kind of history without which there cannot be coherent and informed public debate.”

The release of a section of the report is a wake-up call of sorts for the Indian political and military leadership. To quote a former diplomat Hardeep S Puri, “The contents of the report point to three extremely disturbing trends that were in evidence in the 1960s. Some of these have continuing relevance even 52 years later. These merit a full national debate in order to prevent the recurrence of a 1962-type fiasco. They relate to a continuing civil-military disconnect, serious gaps in training and provisioning of equipment, inadequate or flawed intelligence which contributed to bizarre decision-making at the army headquarters and by the political leadership in the ministries of defence and external affairs, and at the PMO.”

India would do well to reappraise its civil – military relations unless, of course, it wants to go down the path that George Santayana so eloquently warned against: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Indian minister calls for beefing up infrastructure at China border, moots a national rail policy

From The Asian Age, New Delhi edition of 15 March 2012

Hyderabad

14 March 2012

Dinesh Trivedi made an impassioned plea for augmenting rail infrastructure in the border areas, in an implicit reference to China building a network of rails and roads in areas bordering India's north-eastern states.

In the same breath, he pitched for evolving a national policy for Railways, so that there is continuity of policy across successive governments and policies can be executed without them falling a victim to partisan politics.

"... the time has come to think of a national policy for Railways, just as we have one for defence and for external affairs," Mr Trivedi said Wednesday in his budget speech in the Lok Sabha.

Uncharacteristically for a railway minister, Mr Trivedi spoke about how the geopolitical situation on borders arising out of building of state-of-art road and rail network by neighbouring countries "requires a matching response."

The Railways, he continued, must remain in a state of preparedness to move men and machines to border areas.

Mr Trivedi sought to impress upon the relevant ministries of the government, not least of all the ministry of finance, that it was therefore necessary to undertake projects of national importance on priority and to ensure adequate funding.

Similarly, he argued for liberal funds for connecting the remote and backward areas in Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states, without worrying about the return on investment or such other factors.

He warned that the projects in J&K and in the north-east, which required more than Rs 4,000 crore for the current year, may get delayed for want of adequate funding.

"The budgetary support to Indian Railways has been pegged at a modest level of Rs 24,000 crore as against a projected requirement of Rs 45,000 crore. The national projects in Kashmir and northeast region have also to be funded out of this," he said.

In his speech, Mr Trivedi also dwelled on how the Indian Railways was contributing its bit for improving India's relations with her neighbours. He cited the proposed Tripura-Bangladesh railway link, and the new Jogbani-Biratnagar line and Jaynagar-Bijalpura-Bardibas to provide connectivity to Nepal as a case in point.

Hillary Clinton - SM Krishna strategic dialogue long on intent, short on strategy; US makes it clear to India that it will not dump Pakistan

Indian delegation led by external affairs minister SM Krishna and US delegation headed by Hillary Clinton participating in the second India - US strategic dialogue at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi on Tuesday, 19 July 2011

New Delhi

19 July 2011

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton interspersed her conversations in New Delhi with ifs and buts, conveying to a discerning Indian audience that the US was hedging on its commitments and, in the process, reinforcing a suspicion that the second edition of the India-US strategic dialogue was long on intent but short on strategy.

Ms Clinton's remarks during the course of her talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna on Tuesday, and a joint media event which followed it, were littered with qualifications: The US will support full civil nuclear cooperation with India but the bilateral pact has to be "enforceable and actionable in all regards"; the US stands by the clean Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver to India but the Indian nuclear liability law needs to be aligned with global practices; and, the US government cannot tolerate safe havens for terrorists anywhere but "we do see Pakistan as a key ally" in the war on terror and "we want a long-term relationship with" it.

There was no express commitment from Ms Clinton to either sell or to allow the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India following the NSG decision to bar their sale to non-NPT signatories such as India. There was no mention of it in the joint statement either. All she would venture to say in response to a question posed to her at the media interaction was that Washington supports the September 2008 clean waiver for India and it will push for India's membership of multilateral export control regimes such as the NSG.

Instead, Ms Clinton hastened to remind India of its commitment to ensure a level playing field for US companies seeking to enter the Indian nuclear energy sector. She voiced Washington's desire to see the Indian nuclear liability law tweaked to protect American corporate interests.

"We would encourage engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the liability regime that India adopts by law fully conforms with the international requirements under the convention[.] We are committed to [the nuclear pact.] But we do expect it to be enforceable and actionable in all regards," Ms Clinton noted.

She also reminded New Delhi to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation by the end of 2011. The treaty will allow foreign companies supplying nuclear material and technology to India to tap into a global corpus of funds in order to pay damages in the event of a nuclear accident.

Amplifying Ms Clinton's remarks, the joint statement said that the participation of US nuclear energy firms in India should be on the basis of "mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions that enable a viable tariff regime for electricity generated."

Dwelling on regional issues, Ms Clinton said that Pakistan has "a special obligation to [cooperate] transparently, fully and urgently" in the interest of justice for the victims of the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. She iterated that the US will continue to urge Pakistan to bring the 26/11 terrorists to justice but she qualified it by saying that "there is a limit to what both the United States and India can do".

Ms Clinton said that sale of defence technologies will help the Indian and American militaries to work together on maritime security, combating piracy, and providing relief to the victims of natural disasters. She also pushed for market access, reduction of trade barriers, and US investments in India, indicating that Washington viewed its ties with India in transactional, not strategic, terms.

For India's part, Mr Krishna sought to impress upon the American delegation that it was necessary for the US to factor in Afghanistan's ground realities and work closely with President Hamid Karzai's government so that conditions could be created where terrorists did not make any more advances in Afghanistan.

Mr Krishna said that India and the US had agreed to resume negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. He urged the US to consider a "totalisation agreement" with India for the purpose of avoiding double taxation of income with respect to social security taxes. The agreement is essential for determining whether an Indian national is subject to the US social security or medicare tax or Indian social security taxes.

A bilateral aviation safety agreement and a memorandum of understanding on cyber security were the two tangible outcomes of the India-US dialogue.

Ms Clinton called on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and met with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and national security adviser Shivshankar Menon, among others.

With eye on China, India to host trilateral talks with Japan, US this year; Japan does not fancy the Quadrilateral with Australia

New Delhi
29 June 2011

For Japan, three is not a crowd. Four maybe. While it agrees that a more robust Asian security architecture will be required if China's opaque military modernisation continues, for now it will be content with trilateral or three-way security dialogues involving India, Australia and the United States, without giving it the shape of a Quadrilateral or resurrecting notions of containing China. Currently, Japan has trilateral dialogues with the US and India; with the US and Australia; and with China and South Korea. India is the third country, after the US and Australia, with which Japan has the two-plus-two talks involving foreign and defence ministers. New Delhi is expected to host the inaugural India-US-Japan trilateral dialogue later this year. It will be conducted by officials, and not by foreign ministers as was mentioned in the April 8 press release issued by the ministry of external affairs after foreign secretary Nirupama Rao's talks in Tokyo. Besides discussing anti-piracy cooperation and maritime security, the talks could progressively extend to cover security and defence cooperation.

China's military rise has caused concerns in the region and beyond. Without naming China, Australian defence minister Stephen Smith recently said, "All we ask in terms of a growth of military capacity is that one is transparent as to its strategic intentions". That view is shared by Tokyo. "We keep asking the Chinese what is your intention

[but] unfortunately we have not received a convincing explanation," AKITAKA SAIKI, Japan's new ambassador to India, said Wednesday in an interaction at the Observer Research Foundation here. "While Japan has no intention to undermine good neighbourly relations with China, I hope China will be a little more sensitive to concerns expressed by its neighbours. Actions need to match words, that's my view," he observed. Mr Saiki cautioned that the future trajectory of trilateral talks would depend on Beijing's attitude.

The current Japanese sentiment stands in contrast to the churning in Australia, which has instituted a Defence Force Posture Review for addressing issues such as "the growth of military power projection capabilities of countries in the Asia Pacific" -- an indirect reference to China's reach and influence. In a recent interaction with this newspaper, Michael Auslin from the US-based American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said that Australia, not post-tsunami Japan, could be the lead partner in the Quadrilateral. Dr John Lee from the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, in turn, cited the increasing possibility of Australia lifting the ban on uranium sale to India to suggest that the perception of Australia drifting towards China was not true.

The Quadrilateral was an initiative of Shinzo Abe, who was the Japanese premier from September 2006 to September 2007. On September 4, 2007, the navies of India, Japan, the US, Australia and Singapore conducted joint naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal. However, later that year, Australia's then newly elected prime minister and current foreign minister Kevin Rudd unilaterally withdrew from the Quadrilateral Initiative. The strategic pact has remained stillborn ever since. It suffered another setback after Abe's Liberal Democratic Party lost power to the Democratic Party in 2009. India did not show any particular interest, either. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Beijing in January 2008 that India was "not part of any so-called 'contain China' effort".