Crisis in Ukraine: Conflicting Narratives

Russia has amassed about 100,000 troops on its border with Ukraine, sparking off fears of an invasion. In addition, on 11 February, amidst the ongoing tension, Russia moved 30,000 troops into Belarus—a close ally of Russia—for a 10 day joint military exercise. This is widely being seen as yet another attempt to coerce Ukraine to toe the Russian line.

To defuse the crisis, French President, Emanuel Macron, on 7 February, held a meeting with President Putin in Moscow and thereafter flew to Kyiv, where he held talks with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy for over three hours. As expected, there was no breakthrough achieved in the talks. While Macron stated to reporters that he was "reasonably optimistic but I don't believe in spontaneous miracles," the spokesperson from Kremlin was blunt: "the situation is too complex to expect decisive breakthroughs in the course of one meeting," he said. 

The US has warned of a “very distinct possibility” of a Russian invasion of Ukraine and has asked all US citizens to leave the country. Moving beyond rhetoric, President Biden, in a video call he had with president Putin on 11 February, warned that the US and its allies  would respond “decisively and impose swift and severe costs" if Russia invades Ukraine. The response is unlikely to be a military one and will most likely involve sanctions. This could, inter alia, include some or all of the following:

• Imposing sanctions on the secondary market in Russian bonds.
• Closing the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to northern Europe, which though completed, is yet to receive certification for use by the German energy regulator. 
• Impose full-blocking sanctions on large Russian banks, energy companies, defence firms and also on investment and provision of services to conventional Russian oil projects.
• Sanctions on oligarchs and their families, where sanctions could be imposed on Putin-friendly oligarchs.
• Exclude Russia from Swift, the global electronic payment system, based in Belgium. This perhaps would only be used as a last resort.

Background

The situation that has developed and led to the face-off between Russia and the West over Ukraine can perhaps better be understood through a historical lens. The territory which comprises present day Ukraine has had a contested history. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, following the partition of Poland and the Russian conquest of the Crimean Khanate, the area came under the control of the Russian Empire and Hapsburg Austria. The Russian Revolution of 1917 led to a period of chaos and instability in the region. It was during this time that the Ukrainian Bolsheviks defeated the national government in Kiev and established the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which on 30 December 1922, along with Russia, became one of the founding republics of the USSR. Post the Second World War, NATO was created in 1949 as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. It comprised the US, Canada and several western countries.  

In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, the then Premier of the Soviet Union, transferred Crimea to Ukraine. Crimea had been a part of Russia since 1783, when it was annexed after Tsarist Russia inflicted a defeat on the Ottoman Turks in the Battle of Kozludzha. The reason for the transfer was stated to be the “unity of Russians and Ukrainians” and to the “great and indissoluble friendship” between the two peoples. The real reason, however, had possibly much to do with Khrushchev seeing the transfer as a way of fortifying and perpetuating Soviet control over Ukraine.

In 1990, to get Russian support for the unification of Germany, US diplomats spoke about the non-expansion of NATO beyond East Germany. Russia, accordingly, supported the reunification, which took place on 3 October 1990, but no formal agreement exists which states that NATO will not expand eastwards. In 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became an independent country, like other constituents of the erstwhile USSR. Subsequently, many countries which were earlier part of the Soviet Bloc, sought and were granted membership of NATO. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO despite Russian opposition. In 2004, seven Central and Eastern European countries, viz Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovenia joined NATO. Albania and Croatia joined NATO on 1 April 2009 and more recently, Montenegro and North Macedonia joined NATO on 5 June 2017 and 27 March 2020, respectively. The present face off is a result of Ukraine expressing its intent to join NATO.

Opposing Viewpoints

Russia believes its security interests have been comprised by the refusal of the West to honour its pledge. President Putin spoke of this in a speech he delivered at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, especially as the Baltic countries had joined the alliance by 2004, when he asked, "What happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?" Here, President Putin was referring to the famous “not one inch eastward” assurance given by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker on 9 February 1990, in his meeting with President Gorbachev. This was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, which made Gorbachev agree to German unification. Gorbachov was also of the view that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor.

This is however not viewed in the same light by the western powers, who state that the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time as no one could have predicted the collapse of the USSR and the historic upheavals that followed. In a major speech in Warsaw, Poland, on June 15, 2001, President Bush lent support to Clinton's policies, when he stated: “all of Europe’s new democracies, from the Baltics to the Black Sea, should have an equal chance to join Western institutions", thus forcefully making the case for NATO's eastward expansion. Putin at that time stated that if NATO were to continue “becoming more political than military” Russia might reconsider its opposition to enlargement. While this was hardly an expression of Russian support for enlargement, it did indicate a Russian desire to accommodate a development that it did not like, but lacked the means to stop. But Putin has drawn the line with attempts to make Ukraine a member of NATO.

What Now

For Putin, the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union under his predecessor Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s is viewed as “a decade of humiliation” in which Bill Clinton’s US “imposed its vision of order on Europe (including in Kosovo in 1999) while the Russians could do nothing but stand by and watch”. If NATO enters Ukraine, then Russia loses a buffer and will be directly confronting NATO. This is perceived to be against the vital security interests of Russia.

NATO, on the other hand,  has an open door policy, which is central to the NATO alliance. The policy, enshrined in NATO’s original 1949 treaty, grants any European nation the right to ask to join. If Ukraine were to become a NATO member, then the alliance would be obligated to defend it against Russia and other adversaries. However, grant of membership has to be by unanimous consent and in the past, both France and Germany as also other European countries have opposed the inclusion of Ukraine into NATO. A war over Ukraine will hurt both Russia and NATO and in the long term, benefits only China which will be watching from the sidelines.

There will be consequences for NATO too. Russia can fuel insurgency in the Donbas region as seen by the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine and NATO will have to grapple directly with ongoing Russian-fuelled conflicts. Russia could also impose other costs on Europe, such as withholding gas exports.

India, while not being directly involved, will, nevertheless be seriously impacted. It has close relations with both the US and Russia and would not like to placed in a situation where it would have to choose sides. It's close relations with the US as well as its dependency on Russian military hardware, including the recently concluded S-400 deal, make the situation more complicated. A rise in energy prices would hit India hard as the country is just recovering from the after shocks caused by the pandemic. More importantly, a conflict in Europe shifts the focus away from Chinese intransigence in the Indo-Pacific, the South China Sea and the India-Tibet border, where Indian and Chinese troops are facing each other in Eastern Ladakh.

An end to the tension prevailing in the region can perhaps only come about with the US and its NATO allies giving a firm assurance that Ukraine will be kept out of NATO, and that the matter could come up for discussion after a period of time—say ten years. This would give enough time for all sides to cool down and review their respective positions. But there is no guarantee that better sense will prevail and we could well be looking into a European conflict which will bruise all the actors involved. Diplomacy is stalling and the threat of war is no longer a distant mirage. 

LEVERAGING SPACE FOR THE SUCCESS OF GROUND OPERATIONS

Geography has placed India between two neighbours, both of whom are hostile and inimical to India’s interests. To the West, India faces a belligerent and antagonistic Pakistan, with which she shares a 3,310 km long land border. To India’s North lies Tibet, which, when it came under Chinese occupation, saw for the first time, Indian and Chinese troops, facing each other across the high Himalayas separated by a 3,448 km long Line of Actual Control (LAC). Chinese hostility against India is premised on keeping India confined to the backwaters of South Asia and towards that end, China actively colludes with Pakistan. As of now, while relations between India and her two antagonistic neighbours remain troubled, the possibility of full scale war is unlikely. In the near to middle term however, China may attempt to annex her claimed areas by force, if the Chinese political leadership is confident of achieving a quick military victor.

In the event of hostilities breaking out with China, the key to victory for either side will lie in information dominance, battlefield transparency and air superiority. Inter alia, both sides will leverage space to get that edge. Space is thus, the final frontier. The criticality for India will lie in monitoring in real time, Chinese troop movement, build up of artillery and logistic nodes, command and control centres, missile bases and aerial assets. This would require continuous satellite coverage over the Tibetan plateau, for which India would need adequate satellites of its own or leveraging information from satellites of friendly partner countries.

Hostilities with China will in all probability begin with a series of non kinetic responses through the cyber domain, where China will aim to cripple India’s network centric warfare capability and neutralise command and control centres. Non military targets such as financial centres may also be disrupted through cyber attacks. Prior to this, however, there will be a concerted attempt at shaping opinion, both within China and across the world. While China has been carrying out perception management operations through its ‘Three Warfares’ doctrine, encompassing media or public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare, there will be a ratcheting up of such activity in the weeks and months prior to the outbreak of hostilities. The cyber attacks would be followed by a series of missile attacks on military targets, before ground operations commence.

India will have to counter Chinese cyber capability by both offensive and defensive means. To counter Chinese ground operations, India would require precision strike capability and a measure of air superiority over the Tibetan plateau. Here is where leveraging space comes into play, to achieve both battlefield transparency as well as precision strike capability. 

Pakistan is no longer a major conventional threat to India, but in conjunction with China, it will impose on India the threat of a two-front war. The criticality here will be to determine the movement of Pakistan’s strategic reserves, which again would require leveraging space capability. 

Whether it is hot war or cold war, or the grey zone in between, the cyber domain will continue to offer almost cost-free opportunities, especially to rogue nations to carry out attacks on non-military targets. This makes cyber-space the most critical domain of future warfare. With rise of AI enabled deep fakes, the cyber frontier is heading for sci-fi like cold war scenarios that is already covertly an active line of conflict for India. India needs to ready herself to counter both hot-war and grey-zone conflict scenarios.

Synopsis for Milit - 19 Jan 2022.

SECURING INDIA'S RISE: A VISION FOR THE FUTURE: Book Review

Since the beginning of 2020, the world is grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic which originated from Wuhan in China sometime in the last quarter of 2019. India too is severely impacted and is currently confronting the third wave of the pandemic, which has hit economic growth across the world. The Indian economy too has suffered, the impact being harshest on the poorer segments of  society, especially in the unorganised sector. India was aiming to be a USD 5 trillion economy by 2025, but the pandemic has delayed that time line. India will, however, eventually not just achieve that landmark, but will thereafter aim to be a USD 10 trillion economy—and India will get there too. India's rise is inevitable and as the 2022 report of the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) has stated, the Indian economy will overtake Germany by 2031, and with an anticipated GDP of USD 6.8 trillion, be the third largest global economy after the US and China. But there are many challenges to India's rise, some of which are related to geo-political factors and some to the fractious nature of the Indian polity and society.

The book, "Securing India's Rise: A Vision For the Future," edited by Lt Gen. Kamal Davar, looks into the challenges that India has to grapple with. The collection of 19 essays by well known personalities in their respective domains highlight some of these challenges and is a welcome addition to the available literature on the subject. The 19 essays cover a reasonably wide gamut of ideas ranging from the idea of India, to geopolitical considerations, internal and external threats, decision making at the apex level, economic concerns, the digital divide and the fourth estate.

The opening chapter by Shashi Tharoor on 'Law and the Idea of India' delves into some aspects that went into the making of the Constitution and his views on what he believes to be the 'idea of India'. But many of his assertions are debatable. For instance, he states that the 42nd Amendment brought two key principles of India formally into the Constitution—Socialist and Secular. The implication here is that Socialism and Secularism are key principles of the idea of India. But Socialism, as an economic philosophy, has few takers anywhere in the world. As to the insertion of the word Secular into the Constitution of India, it would be naive to think that India is secular because of such insertion. India's secularism derives from its Hindu majority which is accepting of all faiths. The 42nd Amendment was pushed through by Indira Gandhi during the emergency when the entire opposition was in jail. To hold this up as a model to be emulated strikes at the very idea of what India should be and is a contradiction in terms. Tharoor also speaks disparagingly of 'Hindutva', calling it a mirror image of Pakistan. That indicates either a poor understanding of India's civilisational ethos or a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. An essay on Hindutva as a counter to Tharoor would perhaps have set the tone for a more balanced view. The book, The Hindutva Paradigm, by Shri Ram Madhav makes the point most eloquently.

The geo-political terrain has been neatly mapped by Mr Shyam Saran, who has served as India's foreign secretary as also by other authors. The regional and global environment impacting India brings out the challenges that India would continue to face in the foreseeable future. India's security challenges emanating from China and Pakistan have been covered in depth by Prof Kondapalli, a well known authority on China and by Sharat Sabharwal, who has served as India's High Commissioner to Pakistan. With respect to West Asia, the region is important for India to meet its energy requirements as also for the fact that close to eight million Indians live and work there. The subject could have been dealt with in greater depth by KC Singh, especially as the region remains mired in conflict, the more serious being the split on sectarian fault lines. India's foreign policy has been remarkably successful as seen in the growing friendship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and the nuanced relationship with Iran, which bodes well for the future.

Two former Service Chiefs, General VP Malik and Admiral Arun Prakash have written very succinctly on India's security concerns, both on land and in the maritime domain. Internal security challenges have also been covered in depth by domain experts. Together, they chart out a course for managing internal fault lines as well as addressing external security challenges. 

Mohan Guruswamy has painted a rather bleak picture of India's economy and the trajectory of its future growth. Seema Mustafa, in her article on Indian journalism, laments the fall in journalistic ethics. And Samir Saran, along with Akhil Deo, writes about the emergence of unevenly governed spaces in the technology and digital domains, which have become new theatres of military and economic confrontation. Manish Tewari in his essay on the Covid 19 challenge, posits the need for regulatory frameworks. This is a lacuna in our system, not just in tackling health emergencies but also in dealing with technological advancements which have transformed the way we communicate with each other, how we conduct business and even impact on how future wars will be fought. The wide range of articles on multiple sectors which impact our lives are thought provoking, but finding solutions to many of the challenges is still a work in being.

The Editor of the book, Lt Gen Kamal Davar has juxtaposed a variety of ideas into this very comprehensive book. It is indeed a labour of love. It should be of interest to all those who deal in international relations and security issues and is a welcome addition to the available literature on the subject.

Published in IF Web: Chintan: Feb 2022

 

A Pragmatic Defence Budget in a Pandemic Year

The Defence Budget announced by the Finance Minister of ₹ 5.25 lakh crore marks an increase of 9.82% over the allocations made in the last fiscal. Even after taking inflation of 5.5% into account, the budget marks an increase of over 4% in real terms over the previous budget. This is indeed credible as the defence allocation has to be viewed in terms of the overall rate of growth of the economy following two years of a  pandemic which has impacted growth in which the poorer section have been badly hit and whose concerns and needs had to be dealt with on priority. The defence allocation is hence a strong signal of the governments commitment to the defence of the country in the prevailing security environment.

Of the defence expenditure of ₹5.25 lakh crore, a sum of ₹2.33 lakh crore has been allocated to Revenue Expenditure and ₹1.52 lakh crore to Capital Expenditure. The balance, ₹1.19 lakh crore goes to defence pensions with ₹20,100 crore going to Civil expenditure. This represents a BE (Budget estimate) to BE increase of  9.8% and a RE (Revised Estimates) to BE increase of 4.43% over the previous fiscal. It is important however to see how the Capital revenue is being addressed as this has a bearing on the modernisation of the military and the expenditure being incurred on Research and Development (R&D).

The Capital allocation of ₹1.52 lakh crore reflects a 12.82% BE to BE increase and a 9.89% RE to BE increase over the last fiscal. This is significant in terms of the modernisation effort for the Armed Forces. The Service allocation of Capital Expenditure is Army: ₹32,015.26 crore, Navy: ₹47,590.99 crore and Air Force: ₹55,586.65 crore. 

The Indian Air Force, like in the previous year, had the largest budget allocation for Capital expenditure and is about 4.5% over the allocation in the previous fiscal. This level of support has to be continued over the next few budgets to cater for the shortage of fighter aircraft squadrons and other needs of the IAF, which are now being made up in an incremental manner. The India Army has, however, seen its budget share going down from ₹36481.9 crore in the previous fiscal to ₹32,102 crore in the present budget—a decrease of 12.2%. However, data for 2021-22 shows that the Army has returned around ₹11,100 crore in the last fiscal, which possibly indicates challenges in expending the amount allotted which need to be looked into, the lacuna identified and corrected.

The Naval budget, on the other hand, has seen a massive jump of 43% from the previous fiscal. This reflects the governments concern on maritime security and its renewed emphasis and focus on the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The Naval budget of the previous fiscal saw an increase of ₹12,767.99 crore (from BE ₹33,253.55 crore to RE ₹46,021.54 crore). In the present budget, the Naval budget at ₹47,590.99 crore reflects a massive increase over the previous years BE and a nominal increase of about 3.5% over the RE over the last year. This indicates the Navy's ability to absorb the funds required for modernisation and its focus on building its capabilities in the IOR, based on the threat assessment.

Another important aspect of the defence budget is the push being given to promote indigenisation through policy changes which will encourage self reliance in defence production. This includes reserving 68% of the Capital procurement budget for the domestic industry and ₹3,810 crore for the seven new Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs). This should spur both the private sector and the public sector to manufacture locally, both for the domestic market and to make a push for renewed exports in the defence sector. Inter alia, this will also result in reducing the heavy import bill in the defence sector. 

Despite the pandemic, the defence budget has seen a hike in both Capital and Revenue expenditure. This has to be seen in terms of the ongoing threats which India continues to face over her land borders and in the maritime domain and reinforces the thrust on capital acquisitions for force modernisation and building infrastructure for quick and speedy deployment of forces in the required theatres and for maintenance of existing equipment.  

An important highlight of the defence budget was the announcement by the finance minister that Research and Development (R&D) will be opened up for the private industry, start-ups and academia. Of the R&D budget of ₹11,981.81 crore, 25% is being earmarked for the purpose. The private industry will be encouraged to take up the design and development of military platforms and equipment in collaboration with the DRDO and other organisations through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) model. An independent nodal umbrella body for meeting wide-ranging testing and certification requirements has also been announced. 

In the overall analysis, the budget is long-term, looking at force modernisation in a holistic manner. While the budget is focussed on modernisation, it would need to ba accompanied by institutional reforms. For example, the seven defence public sector undertakings need to be put under dynamic management. It may be better to get talent from the corporate sector to head these organisations rather than relying on the civil and military bureaucracy to provide leadership. The emphasis on start ups and R&D is a positive step, but would once again require an enabling bureaucracy for the sector to grow. 

India is at an exciting cusp in its history. The budget is positive. It is now up to the nations bureaucracy to play its part in making India a vibrant defence economy. 

(Sent to Organiser on 2 Feb 2022)

Can We Take Pride in India for One Day at least

This years celebrations of India’s 73rd Republic Day were conducted with the customary aplomb despite the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. As the 125th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose fell on 23 January, the Prime Minister announced that henceforth, the Republic Day Celebrations will commence on 23 January, the birth anniversary of Netaji and end on 30 January, the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. This was befitting and symbolic as both Gandhi and Bose were the tallest figures of India’s struggle for independence.

On this Republic Day too, controversies over mundane issues cropped up which is symptomatic of schisms within the Indian polity and in India’s larger cultural milieu. The merger of the eternal flame at the ‘Amar Jawan Jyoti’ at India Gate on 21 January, with the eternal flame at the National War Memorial, located 400 meters away, led to allegations that the legacy of Indira Gandhi was being undermined and that those who had laid down their lives for the country in the Liberation war of 1971 were being disrespected. Both the allegations have little substance.

The Amar Jawan Jyoti, inaugurated on 26 January 1972, was conceptualised soon after India’s victory in the 1971 Liberation War. The simple yet elegant structure was a temporary measure to serve the purpose of a National War Memorial, till a proper memorial was constructed. The eternal flame which was lit on 26 January 1972, would thereafter shift to the New War Memorial, as and when it came up. The merging of the flame at India Gate with the flame at the National War Memorial was therefore a correct decision as having two eternal flames, 400 meters from each other, was incongruous, to say the least. The names inscribed on India Gate are of the soldiers who laid down their lives in World War I and in the Afghan wars. The National War Memorial, spread over 40 acres and unveiled in 2019, has the names of all soldiers who have laid down their lives for the country, in all the wars fought since independence. The debate should not have been on the merger of the flames but why it took the country 48 years after the Liberation War to construct a National War Memorial. This is a question which still begs an answer.  

The announcement by the Prime Minister that a statue of Netaji Bose will be placed in the central canopy at India Gate was greeted with applause by many but with scepticism by some. The central canopy earlier housed a marble statue of King George V, dressed in a flowing robe, complete with globus cruciger and sceptre—a Christian symbol of authority since the middle ages. This was removed only in 1968 and since then, the canopy, located 150 meters East of India Gate, has remained empty. The sceptics questioned the move, saying that the ruling dispensation was trying to appropriate the legacy of Bose. Others said that Gandhi’s statue should be placed there. On 23 January, Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled a hologram of Subhas Chandra Bose in the central canopy, as a stop-gap measure till a proper statue could be placed there. But here too, there were nay-sayers! Why spend so much money on a hologram, wrote the Print, saying that the hologram was “neither a technology demonstration nor functionally sensible, but a symbol of the inaccessibility of high technology for the vast majority”. Once again, however, the wrong questions were asked. What should have been on top of every Indian mind was a fundamental question: Why was the statue of King George V not removed from the central canopy immediately after independence? Even if the argument is that India was still a dominion, then the statue should have been removed on 26 January 1950 when India became a Republic. The fact that we let this symbol of colonial subjugation remain for 21 long years reflects a servile and slavish mentality. This is a mindset which unfortunately, some in India continue to exhibit. 

On 29 January, the Beating Retreat ceremony, as always, was a treat to watch. The massed band display ended with a moving rendition of the iconic song, “Ae mere Watan ke Logo”. This was a fitting tribute to all our soldiers who have laid down their lives for the motherland and was a passionate call for remembering their sacrifice. This iconic song replaced a hymn “Abide With me,” which was played in earlier years to mark the close of the ceremony. The hymn is undoubtedly appealing and touching, especially to those schooled in western traditions, but it was not a tune which the Indian masses could relate to. Being a religious hymn, playing it to mark the end of the Republic Day celebrations was in a sense not appropriate for a nation with secular credentials. There was no need for some to decry the change as an assault on India’s composite culture or on the Army’s traditions. There is, in any case, a difference between customs and traditions. The latter refer to attributes which we must imbibe, such as a tradition of valour, courage and honour. In the military, we have a tradition that we do not leave our comrades behind. We have a tradition that officers lead from the front. Such traditions are eternal, but customs are subject to change, like the uniform we wear, the songs we sing or even the parades we hold.

As India marches confidently ahead to find its rightful place in the comity of nations, we would do well to remember that every issue does not necessarily have to be viewed in binary terms. There is a time and place for everything, but sometimes, it would do all of us a world of good to just sit back and take pride in our country—even if it is for just one day.

The author is an Army veteran and is presently, Director, India Foundation. 

Published in the Daily Guardian dated 1 Feb 2022.

BUILDING THE RIGHT NARRATIVE

Introduction

We are living in the information age. The advent of the smartphone and the internet has placed information at the tip of our fingers and communication has never been so easy. In India, smart phone penetration stands at over 66 per cent, and is expected to be as high as 95 per cent by 2040. An individual today is instantly connected with family and friends—indeed with the whole world through the social media. Today, mobile devices enable practically everything a person wishes to do, from listening to books, taking pictures, playing games, editing documents, getting medical opinion or carrying out financial transactions. While this has empowered the individual like never before, it also comes with certain risks. Information consumed may not be true. It may be used to incite target groups to violence, create social discord, subvert populations and create anarchy. The Armed Forces too are not immune from this phenomenon.

India’s military has traditionally been viewed with great respect in the country. In a study carried out by market research firm Ipsos, over 70 per cent of Indians in urban areas stated that the armed forces were the most trustworthy, followed by scientists and teachers. Even in areas where the Army has been deployed for a long time in Counter Insurgency and Counter Terrorism (CICT) operations, the local population has always held the Armed Forces in great esteem. That goes to the credit of the Armed Forces personnel and to the military leadership. It is essential that the trust level between the people and their Armed Forces be maintained at the highest level. It is also essential that nothing should be done to dent the morale of the soldier, as the military is the final bastion in the nations defence structure. Service grievances, hence, need to be dealt with expeditiously, as these can be exploited through the social media to create tension. Personnel also need to be protected from fake news and false narratives. This is a matter of serious concern that would require focussed attention by the military and political leadership.

Concerns of the Armed Forces: Parity in Pay and Allowances

Over the years, concerns have been expressed by both serving personnel as well as by the veteran community of a perceived dilution in the status and entitlements of the Armed Forces. While the people of India have great respect for the Armed Forces, the same cannot be said of the nations bureaucracy. An example is the manner in which successive pay commissions have handled the issue of pay and allowances of Armed Forces personnel.

As equivalence in seniority between armed forces personnel and the civilian bureaucracy is equated with pay scales, the manner in which pay and allowances are looked into by each pay commission, plays a critical role in determining such equivalence. The first pay commission was established in 1946 and it gave its report in May 1947 to the interim government of India. The commission was set up with a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India as the chairperson and with members from the Indian Administrative Service. There was no representation from the military, and this has remained the trend since then, in all the pay commissions that have been held thereafter, at intervals varying from 11 to 12 years. However, the gap between the sixth and seventh pay commissions, established in 2006 and 2013 respectively was only nine years, perhaps to leverage electoral advantage in the 2014 general elections. 

It was the third Central Pay Commission (CPC) that for the first time was tasked to enquire into the structure of emoluments of both the civilian employees of the Government and the Armed Forces. Prior to this, the matter was entrusted to departmental committees. It was the third CPC which resulted in pension anomalies  for military veterans. The fact that military personnel retired at an early age was not given due consideration. The fourth CPC came out with the concept of rank pay, but deceitfully deducted the amount from the basic pay. This led to a decrease in basic pay, which created huge anomalies in equivalence between military officers and their civilian counterparts and was akin to a fraud being committed on the Armed Forces. 

The fifth CPC recommendations for lateral transfer of Armed Forces personnel remained on paper and were not implemented. The seventh CPC recommended Non-functional Financial Upgradation (NFU) for IAS and other Group A Services, but denied the same to the Armed Forces as well as to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). the seventh CPC also mandated time-scale promotions to defence civilians from audit and account services, police, and other officers at regular intervals of 4, 9, 13, 14, and 16 years of service but did not do so for the armed forces officers. This has created absurd equivalences, with very junior officers from the civil services being equated with senior officers from the Armed Forces and throwing up functional problems where both have to work in the same organisation.

In the matter of allowances, the seventh CPC, recognising the need for compensating soldiers who served in difficult areas like the Siachen Glacier, increased the allowance for serving in such areas to Rs 31,500 per month for officers and Rs 21000 for JCO’s and below. However, they at the same time, gave a Special Duty Allowance to civilians serving in the Northeast amounting to 30 percent of basic pay. Group A officers posted in state capitals like Aizawl, Guwahati, Shillong and Kohima were entitled to such allowance, which in real terms was more than what the military got for serving in the hardest battlefield like the Siachen! The Service Chiefs wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri pointing out these and other anomalies but no action was taken and the 7th CPC was implemented without rectification.

The issue of One rank One Pension (OROP) has also caused a lot of heartburn to the Armed Forces fraternity. Promised more than five decades ago, it was conveniently brushed under the carpet. The BJP led NDA government finally granted OROP on 7 November 2015 and to a large extent, met the requirements of the Forces. However,   there are still some issues which need resolution and it is hoped that a more constructive approach is adopted to resolve the issue in its entirety.

The issue of NFU, parity in allowances and anomalies in the seventh CPC also need to be addressed. It would be best to have a service member as part of the next CPC, which is likely to be held in 2026, to ensure that the interests of the Armed Forces are not compromised in future. 

Counter Insurgency and Counter Terrorism Operations

The long periods in which the Army has been engaged in Counter Insurgency and Counter Terrorism (CICT) operations has also led to an increasing spotlight being focussed on the military with respect to its functioning, especially on the issue of Human Rights. Many activists as well as some members of the judiciary, the media and others, continue to question the conduct of the Army in CICT operations, mostly due to a lack of understanding of the environment in which the Army has to operate as well as on the nature of the threat and response mechanisms required to negate the same. More insidious is the attempt by a coterie which deliberately targets the Army as part of an agenda to denigrate India’s Armed Forces. 

On 9 April 2017, Maj Gogoi used a civilian as a human shield to extricate some security forces personnel from stone pelters in Kashmir. This incident received a lot of media attention, with political parties in J&K castigating the Army and calling its action inhuman. A few senior veterans who should have known better also got into the bandwagon to criticise the incident. The central point however, was that the extrication was carried out without any loss of life or injury. The officer acted in good faith in terms of the law, in the circumstances then prevailing, but it suited a section of people to politicise the incident. A former judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Devi Prasad Singh however put the incident in the correct perspective when he said that the action taken by Major Gogoi was correct and in conformance with Sections 76, 78, 79, 80 and 81 of the IPC. 

On 3 November 2014, military personnel manning a vehicle check post fired on a car which did not stop when asked to do so. There were five occupants in the car, all teenagers, two of whom were killed in the firing and two were injured. The incident was extensively covered in the media and given a political hue. To defuse tensions the Army, after conducting a swift inquiry, indicted nine soldiers who were part of the vehicle check post. This was unfortunate. All vehicles have to stop at check points as a security measure in the prevailing environment and firing on the car which was speeding away was in order as the occupants of the car could well have been terrorists. Indicting the military personnel sent a wrong message to the security forces that a person can be punished for simply doing his duty. Military personnel would be loath to act in future which would result in worsening the security situation.

The recent incident of 4 December, 2021, wherein troops of 21 Para SF fired on a vehicle in the Tiru-Oting area of Mon district in Nagaland after receiving wrong intelligence inputs about move of a terrorist groups, highlights the challenges faced by security forces in CICT operations. Six villagers were killed in the ambush, which was unfortunate, but such occurrences are rare and need not be blown out of proportion. In high intensity operations carried out over many years, there will be cases where human error comes into play. This has to be understood both by the judiciary as well as by political parties. India’s enemies will try to make political capital of such incidents, but these have to be effectively countered with facts. The Indian Army has consistently focussed on ensuring that the civil population suffers no collateral damage during CICT operations and its record has been exemplary, but there will be times that mishaps will occur. Such incidents are rare and the Army takes immediate corrective action. Interference by the judiciary in the Army’s conduct of CICT operations will have long-term negative consequences and will simply embolden terrorists and their sympathisers. The judiciary hence must be sensitised to this aspect as passions will be whipped up to stigmatise the Army and seek the repeal of AFSPA. In any case, if the security situation can be handled by the state police, then AFSPA will have no relevance. On this issue, the Army Chief, Gen MM Naravane was quite candid in an interview he gave to a news channel. “We are only the instruments in implementing AFSPA” he said. “I will be most happy if a call (to repeal AFSPA) is taken as the Army can focus on the conventional role of the Army” he added.

Shaping Perceptions and Attitudes

There is evidently a need to shape the perceptions and opinions of the citizens along with ensuring the morale and welfare of the Armed Forces. The two issues are complementary and aren’t mutually exclusive.

With respect to issues which impact the Armed Forces and veterans, there should be a degree of circumspection exercised by the veteran community on matters which impact on the Armed Forces. It is inappropriate, to say the least, for veterans to pass critical comments on the senior military leadership or on military operations which the Armed Forces undertake. Those at the helm in the military should also tread carefully when dealing with issues that concern the veterans. Perhaps institutionalised interaction on a quarterly basis between the veterans and the serving personnel could smoothen matters to a great degree. This would keep the serving personnel informed of the concerns of veterans, and the veterans would likewise be sensitised to the working environment of the decision makers and the challenges therein. 

The military fraternity functions on trust, camaraderie and morale. Ill conceived words and actions can greatly damage the military’s internal cohesion. This is not to state that disagreements should be swept under the carpet. Rather, it is a call to the veterans, to develop circumspection in the manner in which they deal with the media and it is an appeal to the military leadership for empathy in policy decisions impacting both serving and retired personnel.

The creation of the office of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), has met a long-felt need of the Armed Forces. The CDS has also been made a Secretary in the newly created Department of Military Affairs (DMA). There has been uninformed criticism of making the CDS also don the hat of the Secretary, DMA. The criticism is focussed on protocol issues, but what is not appreciated is that earlier,  the services had no say in decision making and now, with the CDS being Secretary, DMA, this lacuna is finally addressed. Now, being a part of the government and not just a mere department of the Ministry of Defence, the Armed Forces have a much greater role to play in their own affairs. This will impact positively on the modernisation process, and hopefully should lead to better civil-military coordination. Also, it can now be expected that when the eighth CPC is constituted in 2026, it will have a representative from the military. This will eliminate discrimination against the Armed Forces as seen in the seventh and earlier CPC’s. The office of the Secretary DMA as well as the CDS will henceforth play an important role in the modernisation of the Armed Forces as also in ensuring that soldiers are not short-changed in future.

There is also a need to sensitise the judiciary as well as civil rights groups and the public at large on the issue of the Army’s functioning in CICT operations. Think tanks can play a great role in this regard. The veteran community can also play a major role in shaping perceptions and attitudes in this regard in TV debates and discussions and through their writing on the subject in the print media, especially in the regional language. For this, the serving fraternity should be upfront in providing data so that the facts can be presented in a timely manner and in the correct perspective.

Let us remember that we are now living in the information age. Information is being weaponised to bring out a sense of insecurity within the military fraternity and create a wedge between the Armed Forces and the civilian population. Such actions can be countered through a proactive approach, by laying the correct facts before the people and allaying their misgivings. The Armed Forces are the final instrument of the state and have served the nation with distinction. We must be cognisant of the attempts being made by the enemies of India to blunt the instrument of last resort. The consequences of the same can seriously impact our independence as Indian history since the 8th century CE has shown. We cannot afford to go down that path again.

Published in Scholar Warrior, Spring 2022

A SHAMEFUL NATIONAL SECURITY BREACH

The events which unfolded on the morning of 5 January 2022, over a period of five hours, are indeed very troubling. India’s Prime Minister was on an official visit to Punjab where he was to  pay homage at the National Martyrs Memorial at Hussainiwala and thereafter lay the foundation stone for the PGIMER’s satellite centre in Ferozepur along with some other projects. Later in the day he was to address an election rally. The Prime Minister landed at the Bhatinda Air Force base at 10.30 am, but could not move by helicopter to Hussainiwala due to bad weather. Prime Minister Modi thereafter decided to continue the journey by road via the Faridkot-Moga Highway, a distance of 120 km, which takes about two hours. 

Leaving Bhatinda at 10.50 am, the PMs cavalcade proceeded smoothly without incident for over a 100 kilometres, when a large group of protesters, squatting on the flyover near Piareana village in Ferozepur district prevented them from going any further. The time was 1.40 pm and after waiting for about 20 minutes on the road, the Prime Minister’s convoy turned around and headed back for Bhatinda at 2 pm, reaching the Air Force base at 3.20 pm. The Prime Minister thereafter left by air and returned to Delhi.

What is shocking about this whole sordid affair is the total apathy and incompetence displayed by the Punjab government and its administration. The Punjab Chief Minister, Mr CS Channi,  attempted to wash his hands of the affair, when he told the media that his government had no intimation that the Prime Minister would move by road. In the same interview, he contradicted himself saying that he worked till 3 am in the night, convincing farmers to clear all routes! Was Mr Channi really so naive or was he simply incompetent? Or worse still, was he complicit in what transpired? There are well laid down drills whenever a VIP movement by helicopter takes place and one of them is to cater for bad weather. A road convoy is always kept at stand by, to enable move by road should the weather not permit move by helicopter. This was known to all in the Punjab administration, which was why the road move had been catered for earlier, as part of contingency planning. 

The lackadaisical attitude displayed by the civil administration and the Punjab police is equally baffling and suggests utter indifference and total incompetence. Why was the route not sanitised and picketed? This should have been done as part of contingency planning, even if the Prime Minister was moving by helicopter. But there are two more breaches which defy comprehension. Was the administration not aware of what the protesters were up to? And how did the protesters come to know that the Prime Minister was moving by road? The first implies intelligence failure and the second a security breach, wherein someone in the know, informed the protesters of the Prime Minster’s move to include the route and time plan. Both these aspects need to be thoroughly investigated.

It is also surprising that protocol was not followed when the Prime Minister landed in Bhatinda. As per protocol, when the Prime Minister visits a town outside the state capital, the Chief Minister or a minister nominated by the state government must be present to receive the Prime Minister. The two senior most executives and police officers of the district must also be present to receive the Prime Minister. In this case, anticipating the possibility of a road move, there should have been a senior police officer present to accompany the Prime Ministers cavalcade to Ferozepur. It was his duty to see that the road was clear for the Prime Minsters move and he should have moved ahead of the Prime Minster’s cavalcade. The SPG Act empowers the Director SPG to issue directives on all authorities to assist him in providing fool-proof security to the P.M. It was thus the responsibility of the Punjab administration to have ensured that the route taken by the Prime Minister was clear.

The Prime Minister of India was stranded on the middle of a highway for about 20 minutes, with 200 odd protesters blocking his route. Anything could have happened, for even the public moving on the road below, knew the Prime Ministers cavalcade had stopped. And if Khalistani groups were also involved, then, as they are in cahoots with Pakistan’s ISI, the possibility of a drone attack on India’s Prime Minister, on the lines of what happened in the Air Force Base in Jammu was also a possibility. The Punjab administration must be held to account for the multiple lapses that have occurred, for it was not just the Prime Minister who was exposed to unnecessary risk, but the entire edifice of India’s democracy.

What is needed is a quick investigation into the lapses that occurred and holding to account, all those who compromised the security of the Prime Minister. In the charged security environment in which we are at present, only quick and firm action will send the right signals, both to India’s external enemies as also to those who continuously undermine India’s security from within.

The author is a retired Major General and is presently Director, India Foundation.