The letter by India’s Army chief last month blasting the state of the armed forces reflected a troubling reality – India’s regional military power aspirations are in danger.
Last month, India’s Parliament was up in arms over the leak of a supposedly top secret letter written by Army Chief Gen. V.K. Singh to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In typical Indian fashion, the uproar – partly spontaneous, partly orchestrated – was at first more about the leak of a highly confidential letter than the critical shortages of weapons and equipment that were pointed to.
Among the problems Singh pointed to were the claim that the Army’s entire fleet of tanks is “devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks,”the suggestion that the country’s air defense were “97 percent obsolete,” and criticism that the Elite Special Forces was “woefully short” of “essential weapons.”
After the initial din died down, however, the import of the Army Chief’s letter gradually dawned on lawmakers asked the government and the Army to explain why the shortages haven’t been addressed. Indeed, the shortages are all the more baffling because India’s Defense Ministry reported it had spent its full quota of funds in each of the last three financial years, while the Stockholm-based International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said recently that between 2006 and 2010, India ranked first in terms of arms imports.
So why all these shortfalls?
The answer lies in the convoluted and often excruciatingly slow acquisition process that exists within the Defense Ministry. By even some conservative estimates, it can take anywhere between three and five years for a proposal mooted by a service headquarters to come to fruition. This snail’s pace has been noted by lawmakers in the past.
The Standing Committee on Defense (2008-09), a cross-party body of lawmakers, said in its report: “In the opinion of the Committee, the present state of affairs in the Ministry is clearly indicative of lack of seriousness towards timely finalization of plans, which ultimately leads to adverse bearing on modernization process in the armed forces.”
In his first interview on assuming office on April 1, 2010, Singh told me bluntly: “Our biggest challenge is how to remove our hollowness in terms of deficiencies in various fields, and the second one is modernization. Both need to be addressed (as a) priority so that whatever the Army requires that makes it battle worthy is there.
“When I talk of ‘hollowness,’ it is when you authorize something, but it may not be there because over a period of time, the procurement (process has) delayed acquisition,” he said, adding that such delays inevitably mean that some of the equipment is obsolete by the time it is available for combat units.
Two years on, and it’s clear that despite the voicing of such concerns, even the day-to-day requirements of many combat units are at dangerously low levels. Singh wrote first to Defense Minister A.K. Antony and then to the prime minister to highlight this fact.
But it shouldn’t have taken a letter from Singh to make clear shortcomings that were already obvious to many. Numerous commentators and analysts had already pointed out the sorry state of India’s air defenses and artillery. Gurmeet Kanwal, until recently director of the Army’s think tank, the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, has written:
“Sadly, the Indian Army has almost completely missed the ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs…The Corps of Army Air Defense is also faced with serious problems of obsolescence. The vintage L-70 40 mm AD gun system, the four-barreled ZSU-23-4 Schilka AD gun system, the SAM-6 (Kvadrat) and the SAM-8 OSA-AK have all seen better days and need to be urgently replaced by more responsive modern AD systems that are capable of defeating current and future threats.”
One of the key reasons for the military shortfalls has simply been the duplication of effort in processing a procurement proposal at both the Service Headquarters and the Defense Ministry, since the two aren’t integrated at the functional level. As a result, files are typically initiated and processed at the service headquarters before undergoing the same process at the ministry.
Photo Credit: U.S. Army
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Greg_D
The three military problems I found with India:
1. India suffers from what lots of countries suffer from and that is equipment over training. India’s general military population is extremely undertrainined. Even with horrible equipment, a trained military can make things work. Colombia took a turboprop fighter and bombed a FARC base in Ecuador without setting off Equador’s air defense system. Many U.S. fighters and helicopters were designed 40 years ago including the F-16 and AH-1. Many countries, including India, buy modern weapons yet don’t set aside the money for training. A modern fighter with a poorly trainined pilot is what is known as a target.
2. India seems to have a quality control problem. More often than not, India has been buying stuff that doesn’t work and that includes stuff made in Europe and even India. The stuff bought from the U.S. is the same stuff the U.S. military uses rather than hand-me-downs and export models so the quality is better, but more expensive.
3. India suffers from mass corruption. A military that suffers from individualism is probably going to crack under any real pressure. Most militaries around the world are like that. The shooting starts and the troops flee like rats in a brush fire. Some of it is because the troops can’t trust their leaders or their equipment because bribe money and not talent was the factor in how those people got their leadership and the troops got their equipment.
Mike
Contrary to perception, buying a thousand aircraft or battle tanks is not like going to the nearest toy store and picking up the latest toys to be the most envied boy in the neighbourhood. The logistics have to be planned BEFOREhand. The Defence procurement policy of India is well laid out and there is a whole Directorate dedicated to this effort. The problem however lies mainly in three things:- Firstly, the complete lack of cohesion between the Three Services and the Ministry of Defence. This lacuna affects even the day to day functioning of the armed forces as it creates a major cesspool of unactioned items ranging from accommodation projects to procurement or manpower issues. The sheer mammoth gestation period that is formed between the time the need for a change is felt and addressed to the time the need is actually resolved is such that it is almost a generation gap of technology. Secondly, India lacks a proper joint planning setup on a tri-services cum Ministry level. The synergy that is an inherent strength which could emanate from such an organisation is missing and therefore becomes the ground soldier’s Waterloo. This is amplified by over dependence on red tape and improper organisation- an outcome of being modeled on the erstwhile British Masters Design. The original British organisation setup was created specially for India as it was a slave country and the Native army was ruled by the British. What should have been followed was the British organisation for Great Britain and not what they followed for some slave country. Thirdly and most importantly, there is not a single bureaucrat in the Indian Ministry of Defence with remotely any kind of Military background. This complete lack of basic military experience keep the decision makers far removed from ground reality. The background need not necessarily be a stint in the Armed Forces, but even a defence studies background is missing. This is the Bane of Indian Armed Forces.
Broncazonk
The problems with India’s ground forces are 100% based on India’s geography. Given the geography of the Himalayas, and the geography farther to the north in China, there is a complete lack of incentive in India’s army to be worried very much about China–the Himalayas form a near impenetrable wall right across India’s northern border. And to the west lies Pakistan, and a military that so inept it cannot defeat a collection of tribes that live in “the tribal areas.”
India needs to concentrate on air and naval power. The police can arrest the Chinese when they decide to invade.
Bronc.
Asoka
As the most powerful superpower of the world, India has the most advanced military in the world. It is qualitatively and technically superior to the Chinese. The reason being we can pick and choose from the best original equipments the all the world can offer, while the Chinese can only make cheap reversely engineered copies of the real things. This is the real reason of Indian dominant edge over China and Pakistan.
We should start negotiation with the Australians to allow Indian troops to be stationed in Australia like the American marines. We could start slowly with 10,000 troops, gradually increase the level until we could turn Australia into an Indian protectorate.
When Australia became part of India, the whole Indian Ocean will become an Indian Lake. We will dominate our extended neighborhood from the coast of Africa to the port Vladivostok.
Kesiqian
@Asoka, You are funny guy! I admire your patriotism! Putting India above America is funny joke! Like putting putting chinese car above german car!
vec
@ venkat
Your delusion about India is commendable.Please read Foreign Affars May/June 2012 under the title India’s broken Promise to wake up by Basharat Peer
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137530/basharat-peer/indias-broken-promise?page=3
Klitch
@Broncazonk: “And to the west lies Pakistan, and a military that so inept it cannot defeat a collection of tribes that live in “the tribal areas.””
Sir, I don’t think you’ve been following the news for the last few years. It’s the United States and her 40 allies that have lost the war in Afghanistan to a handful of hillbilly village hicks, Pakistan’s military operations have been extremely successful and terrorist attacks in Pakistan stopped happening a long time ago.
Just how did you manage to accuse the Pakistani military of being unable to defeat a collection of tribes?
Joseph
just 10000 jet fighters and nukes…. that s too less, isn’t it :-))
indian_jones
well said joseph
venkat s kanakamedala
I sincerely feel India should moderanize its armed forces of navy,army,airforce and coast gaurd.it needs at least 10000 advanced jet fighters like F-16,F-18and good fighter jets from NATO members and also sukoi’s from russia.it needs good nuclear detterent of 10000 nukes of MX typ.Army should be modernized.navy also needs more fleets.India should have strategic alliance with America and NATO ..TMS,DMS and Missile carriers should be aded to the Navy.india needs good effective battle tanks with few thousand of apche helicopters.india needs a ten million army and para military and army reserve.India should have back up of NATO to counter china and its 5 headed dragon head.America and NATO should reinforce its military in asia and pacific.china,pak,north korea,iran and russia are a toxic amalgum.it needs a an antidote.India should need the NATO back up and Modernization for good and to secue india and indians.
Yura
@Venkat: What national security threats does India face that would warrant the acquisition of “at least” 10,000 advanced jet fighters, 10,000 nukes, a “few thousand” apache helicopters, a 10-million-strong military?
No, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Iran and Russia do not in any way justify the need for such a bloated military force that India simply can’t afford, armed with stuff that’s utterly unusable against the 165 armed separatist insurgencies that plague more than half of India’s territory.
And notice that on the one hand you talk of borrowing stuff from Russia but included that country’s name in the “toxic amalgam” of Pakistan, China, Iran and North Korea. Don’t you think you’re being at least *a bit* paranoid and megalomanic?
Now I hope readers can see now from Venkat’s comment why India’s immediate neighbors all fear for their existence and security from this country.
Kristal
@Yura;
I’m afraid your jumping into conclusions too fast. A lone comment in one corner of the vast expanse of the internet CANNOT be the scale on which you judge the entire country! And if you going to make such ill-informed decisions without properly understanding the Indian psyche and mindset, then i’m afraid you’re committing a gross technical and judgmental error.
Mr. Venkat may have many reasons to suggest that preposterous figure up there. But that isn’t important here. Every person/country has a varying degree of assessing a potential adversary’s military potential and therefore they assume that a “certain” defensive/offensive posture from their own side is required. Most of the times that estimate is flawed due to lack of proper intel and reliable data.
Even the defense planners in the US, a country that spends half the worlds total military expenditure on its military, finds its present capabilities insufficient to meet various threats. And that demand-supply gap is still growing. The problem is that, the nature of threats and their effects are so varied and unpredictable – that countries are all forced to keep pace or perish. India’s defense buildup is largely a “belated” response to China’s growing military capabilities, which even the US fears. So what India is basically doing is playing the “catching up” game. Pakistan’s case is all together different. Its a nation, whose military leadership, in order to justify its very existence and “self-declared” extra-constitutional powers, always needs a bogeyman. And that bogeyman is India. By cultivating fear and hatred towards India and attributing India as the source of all their miseries, their army justifies its existence. If its actions in the past are any measure to go by, I’m sure you’ll get my point.
It doesn’t matter how many planes or ships or tanks India needs. I personally believe that history teaches us only one thing about warfare – That size or numbers does NOT guarantee victory! If only India can exploit the inherent weaknesses of its potential adversaries and skillfully use its own advantages to the best possible way, all this talk of inadequate hardware will not be a major problem.What matters is not the machine, but the man behind the machine!
“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious. Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.”
-Sun Tzu
Yura
@Kristal:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I know that Venkat is just one person, but he is very much representative of the typical position Indians on most online forums have adopted on this matter; he does represent a vast portion of educated Indians. True that estimates are flawed sometimes but the figures he presented needed a response.
“Even the defense planners in the US, a country that spends half the worlds total military expenditure on its military, finds its present capabilities insufficient to meet various threats.”
Well, at one point or another throughout the post-World War II era, the United States has had hostilities with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Panama and Nicaragua, and more.
Well, I guess something *must* be horribly wrong with the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Serbs, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Panamans and Nicaraguans… The majority of the countries that have been on the receiving end of American bombs and sanctions over that period never posed any threat to the US.
“[Pakistan] is a nation, whose military leadership, in order to justify its very existence and “self-declared” extra-constitutional powers, always needs a bogeyman. And that bogeyman is India. By cultivating fear and hatred towards India and attributing India as the source of all their miseries, their army justifies its existence. If its actions in the past are any measure to go by, I’m sure you’ll get my point.”
Kristal, you could not be more wrong. Pakistan’s fears about India are based on very real threats India poses it, not imaginary ones. India has repeatedly carried out unprovoked acts of aggression against Pakistan and despite India’s claims about China being its biggest threat, its entire military setup, military doctrine, war plans, military acquisitions, etc. are Pakistan-specific. It is India, not Pakistan, that uses a bogeyman to cultivate historic hatred against in order to maintain control over its own people (one example: see the sheer number of anti-Pakistan movies Bollywood churns out every year, compared to no anti-Indian content at all produced by Pakistan’s entertainment media). It is India that has consistently shown resolute unwillingness to resolve the outstanding conflicts that bedevil its relations with Pakistan, and in fact has a history of orchestrating terrorist atrocities on its own soil in order to blame them on Pakistan. What you have described about Pakistan is typical Indian propaganda and I strongly recommend understanding the whole picture instead of believing only one side of the story.
“It doesn’t matter how many planes or ships or tanks India needs. I personally believe that history teaches us only one thing about warfare – That size or numbers does NOT guarantee victory! If only India can exploit the inherent weaknesses of its potential adversaries and skillfully use its own advantages to the best possible way, all this talk of inadequate hardware will not be a major problem.What matters is not the machine, but the man behind the machine!”
True, what you say, but should India first fix the issues that give rise to the 165+ armed separatist insurgencies that plague more than half of India’s territory before it even thinks about touching its neighbors or should it be the other way around? I hope more and more Indians will start ask themselves that.
S Petal
@Yura
First two comments from Indians and they both mention Pakistan……yet all Indians tell us on almost every forum that Pakistan is obsessed with India!
What's worrying is that unlike in neighbouring countries, where the extremists are uneducated minority holding the majority to ransom, in india the extremists (going by the comments just on here) seem to be the educated ruling/middle classes.