Soldier, Heal thyself : Ajai Shukla

Col Ajai Shukla is a retired officer of the Indian Army, and is one of the best known Defence Correspondents in India. His stint with NDTV resulted in numerous highly acclaimed reports. He currently writes for Business Standard.

 

Figuring out the state of an army’s morale is easy. All it takes is a couple of drinks with two groups of people: the officers and the enlisted men. If the chatter is mainly about sports and professional competitions; ongoing training; and about how much tougher and smarter they are than their rival units, morale is high. On the other hand, if talk centres on pay and allowances; promotions and postings; and on the world outside the army, you can bet money that morale is low. Applying this yardstick to the Indian Army I believe the morale of officers is low, while that of the jawans is high.

In this gloomy assessment I have illustrious company. The new Chief of Army Staff, General VK Singh, on assuming office on the 1st of April, has wisely identified the army’s “internal health” as his key focus. Pointing out that an internally vibrant army would easily swat aside external threats, the army chief has promised to revitalize traditions, core values and the army’s ethos.

Earlier chiefs, some as well-intentioned as General VK Singh, have embarked on similar paths. General K Sundarji, on taking over as chief in 1986, wrote to army officers individually, urging them to follow their professional convictions and promising to tolerate dissent. But that led nowhere as actions failed to follow words. Today, as the new chief implicitly accepts, the army has become a personality cult where officers either conform to the inclinations of the boss or get weeded out. Originality and eccentricity, those priceless attributes of a successful military leader, have been rendered extinct by a dull, humourless routine that is set --- Congress Party fashion --- by what the boss thinks his boss wants.

Keeping the officers in line is a terrible God called the Annual Confidential Report before which even the brightest and most capable officer must kneel or be scythed down. While annual reports are an evaluation tool in many professions, the army has accorded the ACR absolute control of an officer’s career. Considering that this primacy is born of the army’s laudable quest for an impartial, empirical evaluation system, it is ironic that the ACR has turned into a monster of subjectivity. If the boss is unhappy with an officer --- for any reason whatsoever --- a single lukewarm ACR can sink a brilliant career.

Dismantling this tyranny, and unlocking the potential of his officer corps, is the task ahead for General VK Singh. This is easier said than done. Blocking any radical change is the tribal ethos of the Indian Army. An officer belongs first to his regiment or battalion; only after that is he an Indian Army officer. An army chief’s first duty is towards the regiment and battalion that nurtured him; reforming the army conflicts with the role of regimental patriarch.

When General JJ Singh, an infantry officer from the Maratha Light Infantry, took over as chief, the honour guard that welcomed him to South Block was from the Marathas. So was his aide-de-camp and most of his personal staff. During his term Army Headquarters strengthened the infantry-friendly promotion policies of his infantry predecessors. The tenure of his artillery successor, General Deepak Kapoor, saw the Corps of Artillery quickly muscling out the infantry as the flavour of the month. Promotion policy tilted in favour of the artillery. Upwardly mobile artillery officers were quickly posted into friendly environments, under “friendly” superiors, to ease their paths towards higher rank.

These are only the most recent examples of the army’s longstanding patriarchal tradition that General VK Singh can now embrace or dismantle. A key step would be the creation of a clearly enunciated promotion policy, printed as a manual and sanctioned by the government, to ensure that each successive chief cannot tinker with the policy to suit his constituency. Today, 63 years after independence, the military has no promotion manual; policy exists only in a constantly revised torrent of letters from the Military Secretary’s branch.

The other major change that General VK Singh could implement is the reversing of promotion quotas to higher rank: the “Mandalisation” of the army as it is evocatively referred to. From the institution of the Prussian General Staff in the early eighteenth century, professional militaries have employed the criterion of merit alone to select their senior command. For over half a century, so did the Indian Army; but recently, in a burst of patrimonial fervour, quotas were instituted to ensure that each combat arm got its share of the senior ranks. Initiated by artillery and infantry chiefs to safeguard the interests of their officers, the quotas are now favouring less talented officers of other arms.

Few chiefs would voluntarily divest themselves of power but, paradoxically, the institution of the COAS would be greatly strengthened by transparency and the absence of discretion in promotions and postings. It would also free army chiefs from accusations of prejudice; a lever that MoD officials --- and in one well-known case, a defence minister --- have successfully employed to demand favours for their own candidates.

 

Source:http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajai-shukla-soldier-heal-thyself/390930/

Air Force gives Gripen fighter a second chance

 Image Courtesy: http://www.canit.se

By Col Ajai Shukla: Sweden’s futuristic medium fighter, the Gripen NG, has been given a second chance in the $11 billion contest to select a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has asked Gripen International, which last month failed to send the Gripen NG fighter for trials in India on the dates allotted by the IAF, to send the fighter for trials in the middle of May.

Business Standard had reported, on March 9, that Gripen International had sent older Gripen-D fighters for trials because the Gripen NG was held back in Sweden for improvements for the Swedish Air Force. Technically, that was a violation of the terms of the competition.

But senior IAF officers have told Business Standard that they would not allow a legalistic interpretation of rules to narrow their options. Explains a senior air marshal who is involved in the decision-making, “We have a time window until the middle of this year, during which each of the six fighters in the tender are undergoing three stages of trials and inspections. As long as the Gripen NG is ready for trials within that period, we will evaluate the aircraft. All six vendors will have a level-playing field”.

Besides the Gripen NG, the other fighters being evaluated by the IAF are — the F/A-18 Super Hornet; the F-16IN Super Viper; the Dassault Rafale; the Eurofighter Typhoon; and the MiG-35. While all but the MiG-35 are already in service, the Gripen NG is still under development. Just a single ‘demonstrator’ aircraft has been built to prove its capabilities. Next year, Gripen will build the first Gripen NG prototype.

Gripen International has welcomed the MoD’s decision. Gripen’s India campaign head, Eddy de la Motte, told Business Standard, “Our plan was always to bring the (Gripen NG) demonstrator to India. The Swedish government’s sudden tasking is being completed right now. We will soon be ready to go to India and we will provide the IAF with maximum opportunity to evaluate the fighter”.

The first of these opportunities will come next week, when an IAF team travels to Sweden to evaluate the Gripen’s firing of a ‘Beyond Visual Range’ air-to-air missile. It is learnt that Gripen International will make the Gripen NG demonstrator available to IAF pilots, if they wish to fly it in Sweden next week. If the IAF accepts the offer, it will be the first time an Indian pilot flies the Gripen NG, albeit with a Swedish ‘safety pilot’ in the rear cockpit.

While Gripen International expresses confidence in their fighter, it now faces trials in conditions hotter (and, therefore, more unfavourable) than all the other contenders. IAF sources reveal that the Gripen-D performed well in last month’s trials; despite that, the Gripen NG will be put through a full battery of tests, including high altitude testing in Ladakh.

The Gripen NG is significantly more capable than the Gripen-D. It has a more powerful GE-414 engine; it carries more fuel and, therefore, has greater range; and, with 10 hard points for weaponry, the Gripen NG has extra teeth. It will also come with a new AESA radar, electronic warfare equipment, and upgraded avionics.

Senior IAF officers, while happy with these features, also highlight the Gripen NG’s downside: A high level of US electronics, weaponry, and the GE-414 engine. And, the F-16IN and the Gripen NG are the only two single-engine aircraft in the contest, which places them at a disadvantage in terms of reliability.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/air-force-gives-gripen-fightersecond-chance/390634/

Ajai Shukla: The cost of Antony's halo

Sarojini Naidu famously observed that it cost India millions to keep Gandhi in poverty. It is harder to determine what this country pays to perpetuate Defence Minister AK Antony’s reputation for honesty, but the monetary penalty alone is thousands of crores per year. Here’s how it adds up. Antony’s obsessive quest for unblemished weapons procurement has delayed the acquisition of artillery and anti-aircraft guns, fighters, submarines, night fighting gear and a host of equipment upgrades.

With arms inflation at 15 per cent per annum, a five-year delay means that India pays twice what it should have. And when that equipment is obtained through government-to-government purchases and other single-vendor contracts, the cost is about 25 per cent more than it would have been in competitive bidding. Conservatively estimating that delays afflict just half of the defence ministry’s Rs 50,000 crore procurement budget, India buys Rs 25,000 crore worth of weaponry for 125 per cent more than what it should have paid.

Over and above that figure is the cost to national prestige and the devaluation of India’s military deterrent when — as in the wake of the 26/11 terror strikes in Mumbai — India’s armed forces are unprepared for immediate strikes. That happened on Antony’s watch.

To inconvenient questions about procurement delays, Antony declares that “India is a democracy” and “we have to ensure full transparency”. Point out to him that many democracies manage timely procurement in a transparent manner, and you will get a patronising, “Don’t worry, we are doing all that is necessary to safeguard the security of the country.”

After five years of insensibility to Antony’s disastrous custodianship of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Congress party seems to be realising that in India’s deteriorating security environment, Antony’s functioning might leave the party with having to account for a military embarrassment. Last week, Congress party spokesperson Manish Tewari wrote an opinion piece in a national daily, arguing for all the changes that Antony has assiduously blocked during his five disastrous years in office.

Tewari called for “reforms that are visionary”; treating Indian private industry on a par with the public sector; and “drastically retooling” the Department of Defence Production. Though qualified as his personal views, the article represented growing opinion within the Congress party.

Is it fair, Antony’s defenders will ask, to pin the blame entirely on him? After all, George Fernandes had publicly declared that fear of the three C’s — the CAG, the CVC and the CBI — held back MoD bureaucrats from making decisions. But Antony, like no other defence minister before him, endangers national security by his otherwise laudable fetish for probity. The message that flows out of Antony’s office and seeps through the procurement department is: cancel an ongoing procurement at the first hint of irregularity. It does not matter whether the suspicion has been planted by a rival arms dealer; a paid-for Parliamentary question; or a letter from an MP which has clearly been dictated by someone who possesses every detail of the tender in question. Just put the process on indefinite hold.

One MoD official asked me: Point out one official who has been punished for delaying the procurement of even the most vitally needed equipment. But if I am seen to move a file quickly, the defence minister’s office will ask, “What is the hurry. It seems almost as if you have a stake in that deal.”

Then there is Antony’s obvious bewilderment about the technical issues of the military, a crashing ignorance that cannot be condoned in India’s top military decision-maker. Antony’s apologists cite his preoccupation with party matters; but that is hardly convincing. His predecessor, Pranab Mukherjee, who had an immeasurably larger role in the party and national affairs, handled the MoD with skill and knowledge.

At a lunch, three years ago, I asked the Australian defence minister why his air force was buying F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters when Australia was already in line for the futuristic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which was nearing completion. His answer: Australia’s ageing F-111 fighters would be retiring in 2010; since the F-35 project was running a couple of years late, 24 new Super Hornets would be inducted to retain Australian capability. (The Super Hornets are reaching Australia next month.)

Contrast that urgency with Antony’s “we-will-consider” approach, even though India faces a greater chance of military confrontation with Pakistan or China than Australia does with New Zealand or Papua and New Guinea.

Antony’s personal image and goals are damaging national security and the image of his party. If electoral seat adjustment and managing state-level dissidence is his particular skill, let him move out of that crucial corner office in South Block and give him a place in the Congress party office.

After Neville Chamberlain had miserably failed to reign in Hitler in 1939, British MP Leo Amery echoed the words of Oliver Cromwell in calling for Chamberlain’s head at a memorable session of the British Parliament: “You have sat here too long for any good you are doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Mr Antony?

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajai-shuklacostantony%5Cs-halo/386534/

Ajai Shukla is an Indian Defence Analyst who is a retired Colonel from the Indian Army. He currently writes for Business Standard.