The Hindu : Where is the strong defence?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 26, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Where is the strong defence?

By Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Whatever the rhetoric of the BJP-led Government, it is actually quite weak on the nuts and bolts of Defence. Its attention is focussed on the big gimmicks.

THE INSTALLATION of a BJP-led Government at the Centre was supposed to have a profound impact on at least one area of governance: Defence. Here was a Government committed to a more self confident and aggressive foreign policy posture, unencumbered by idealistic pieties in international relations, openly confrontational in its approach to Pakistan, and given to a shrill rhetoric of militarism. When India conducted its nuclear tests, many feared that it would be engulfed by a rising tide of militarism, a security obsession that would adversely affect its development priorities. The rhetorical postures of the Government, its open commitment to "coercive" diplomacy, and loose and wild talk threatening war, all seemed to signal the onset of a new militaristic state. Both its supporters and detractors agreed that a strong Defence policy would be a hallmark of a BJP-led Government.

But ironically, it is in Defence matters that the gap between rhetoric and reality is most pronounced in this Government. The 19th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence makes sobering reading. It is extraordinary that supposedly the most militaristic of Governments is presiding over the lowest level of Defence expenditure in recent Indian history. Defence expenditure as a percentage of Central Government expenditure declined from a high of 18.39 per cent in the late 1980s to 13.86 per cent in 2002-2003. It is at its lowest level since the 1970s at 2.28 per cent of the GDP. There is much to the argument that India does not need, and can ill-afford, enhanced Defence expenditures. More expenditure does not necessarily buy you greater security. Even so, the fact that the present Government has continued lower levels of Defence spending comes as a surprise.

Take some other parameters. According to the report, about 30 per cent of the total capital expenditure earmarked for Defence for 2002-2003 remains unutilised, weakening the modernisation of the forces. The Committee notes with the "gravest and utmost concern that the Tenth Defence Plan has still not been finalised along with indications of rough financial commitment, even though two years of the projected Plan are already over. This is indicative of the ad hocism and non-serious approach which still seems to prevail, notwithstanding the trauma of Kargil and other assaults on national security". So much for commitment to Defence planning and procurement.

The Government imposed two taxes on us in the name of national security in 2002-2003: a five per cent surcharge on taxpayers in general and a 10 per cent surcharge on taxpayers earning more than Rs. 8.5 lakhs per annum. The Committee says that it is "surprised to observe that the funds collected for the specific purpose of national security have become part of the general revenues of the Government". Even funds earmarked for security purposes are being siphoned off elsewhere.

Read any of the Parliamentary Committee Reports available on Parliament's website and you will come across one dismal finding after the other. The Army is still short of 16,000 officers: perhaps, there is an inverse relationship between militarism and the rush to join the military. Many of the problems — slow pace of research, difficulty in procurement, and the cumbersome administrative structure that make policy implementation tawdry, predate the BJP Government. Even so, the extent of inattention to Defence matters portrayed in these reports comes as a shock.

Take other incidental facts. We lose about Rs. 800 crores a year in munitions accidents. Most glaringly, we are losing more aircraft and pilots to accidents than we did in wars. In any other country, this would be a scandal of overwhelming proportions. In India, the Ministry of Defence seems to deal with it as if it were just another routine omission — a product of so many bureaucratic slips we are used to. This is supposedly a Government that revels in the rituals of militarism. Yet, all the plans proposed for war memorials remain on paper.

In short, whatever the rhetoric of the Government, it is actually quite weak on the nuts and bolts of Defence. Its attention is focussed on the big gimmicks: nuclear explosions, casual war talk, etc., and not on the administrative, organisational and technological sinews that make a modern Defence force. Much of the militarism that the subcontinent is subject to is needless and dangerous. It is undoubtedly a good thing that we are a society and Government not keyed up to genuine militarism. Even then, the fact that Defence has done so dismally under a BJP Government calls for some reflection.

The most obvious lesson is that no Government can transcend serious fiscal constraints. Our runaway budget deficits are a real constraint on Defence expenditure, and even a Government ideologically committed to undue militarism will soon be caught in a fiscal trap.

Second, no state can transcend the general limitations imposed by the weakness of its organisational structure, even in matters of Defence. We are under an illusion if we think that the Defence department will remain immune from the pathologies of the Indian state: lack of long-term planning, inefficient use of resources and so forth.

Third, even the BJP's militarism is more bark than bite. The three indicators of genuine militarism, a society's willingness to mobilise resources, to join the armed services, and to genuinely honour its war dead, are sorely absent even in this Government.

Fourth, in purely strategic terms, the public probably overestimates our military capabilities. An Air Force that cannot save its own pilots from accidents and an Army that cannot keep order and prevent deaths in its own recruitment exercises are probably in no position to undertake complicated strategic operations. This is not a reflection on the abilities of our soldiers who serve with honour and under hardship. But it is an indictment of the Government and people in whose name they act. Finally, George Fernandes is perhaps too preoccupied with the politics of a coalition government to be able to initiate real change in his Ministry.

For all of our security bluster, we actually pay little attention to genuine military matters. If there was one issue which ought to have brought Parliament to a standstill, it is the deaths of our airmen in accidents. Those deaths are so symptomatic of our weaknesses: our inability to genuinely care for those who serve the nation, our inattention to serious matters, and the organisational disrepair of our Defence. That even the Opposition is so hesitant to make a political issue of a genuine security matter speaks volumes about our interest in Defence, if not the limited political imagination of our political class.

And the fact that the Air Force has not made an even greater fuss about it suggests perhaps that even our military establishment, at its very top, has internalised the society's indifference to organisational details, and the needless death of our servicemen. Any wonder why we are so short of officers?

There are good arguments for resisting the militarisation of Indian society, but if it is only inefficiency that is preventing it we at least ought to own up to it. It is important to recognise that this Government's "strong-on-Defence" argument in its own favour is mostly bluster, unsubstantiated by any real application. For all its claim of having instituted a paradigm shift in security matters, we are still subject to old sloppiness in Defence thinking. In Defence matters, the BJP is not as different as it claims to be or as we, supporters and detractors alike, would like to think it is.

(The writer is Professor of Philosophy and of Law and Governance, JNU.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

The politics of travel

A major tragedy on the rails

Where is the strong defence?

U.S. role in Indo-Pak. ties

A quantum leap?

Under the ground, behind the curtain

Civil services reform