There is a general consensus that India’s defence capability is still ‘credible’. However, senior officers of the three forces believe that the management of the armed forces has to be redefined, strategy evolved and the stranglehold of the bureaucracy over the functioning of the armed forces re-examined. As a senior army general points out, "We are functioning under conditions where the bureaucracy sees us as fund-eating monsters."
Given the fact that India has not gone to war for 24 years now, the defence budget does look staggering. Rs 25,500 crore ($8 billion) has been allotted for defence in the 1994-95 budget when 2.53 per cent of the GDP was set apart for defence. And in real terms, considering the devaluation of the rupee, the money allotted is nowhere close to the demand. According to estimates made by the Institute of Defence Studes and Analyses (IDSA) there has been no significant increase in real terms in defence allocation since the 1986-87 budget of Rs 6,884.89 crore.
No doubt India’s defence allocation is almost double Pakistan’s budget of $4.32 billion for the current year, but as much as 65 per cent of India’s budget is spent on manpower and this expenditure is going up by 7.5 per cent every year. Also, Pakistan’s budget does not indicate the true state of affairs since it is well-known that a significant quantity of the country’s arms procurement is not reflected in its defence allocation. In his book on Afghanistan, Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf of the ISI, who was in cahrge of the Mujahideen operations, talks about how the "CIA spent the American taxpayer’s money by the billions and pumped in arms, ammunition and equipment." According to military intelligence, as much as 60 per cent of the arms meant for the Mujahideen have been added to Pakistan’s arsenal. As a matter of fact, some of these arms have found their way into Kashmir (see box).
Given this scenario, senior officers admit that long-term planning has not been given due priority. According to an IDSA study, the main handicap is the "absence of long-term commitment of resources". It adds that even the Planning Commission’s deliberations do not "extend to any serious consideration of the requirements of defence". As a result, senior officers point out, the present strategy is to react to arms procurement by Pakistan rather than plan long-term development defence capabilities.
A good example of this is the recent move to procure long-endurance, multi-role combat aircraft. This is a reaction to Pakistan’s recent aircraft procurement plans. But this purchase would be at the cost of the Advanced Trainer Jets that the Air Force had requisitioned almost 10 years ago. So, with the immediate need to beef up its air strength, the Air Force will have to put on hold its long-term requirement.
Besides, the role of the chiefs of staff in actual planning has been reduced and the task has been virtually taken over by the bureaucracy. With no full-time defence minister since Sharad Pawar was displaced two years ago, the service chiefs have, according to senior officers, become an ‘enfeebled’ lot. Points out Rear Admiral Singh (Retd), who writes extensively on defence related subjects: "I think the three service chiefs are fine professionals but the power-drunk bureaucracy is totally without even a whimper."
According to him, the chiefs have been rather subdued in taking up issues with the Defence Ministry and there is very little discussion on the shelved projects. From promotions to operations, it is the bureaucrats who call the shots and, as Rear Admiral Singh puts it, there is a general drift in the defence policy. This is a view endorsed by many senior officers.
And with the current budgetary constraints, defence projects have been trimmed. In 1989, as many as 989 R&D projects were given the green signal. In four years, 600 of these were scrapped for lack of resources. Even after the emphasis on R&D and the development of indigenous weaponry, the budgetary allocation for R&D should be raised to 10 per cent to adequately implement defence programmes.
But the Defence Ministry has not been entertaining requests for more finance. At the recent Commanders’ Conference in Delhi, Minister of State for Defence S. Mallikarjun did nothing more than state that his ministry was not ‘unmindful’ of the requirements of the armed forces. But according to some of the officers who attended the conference, nothing concrete emerged from the meeting other than assurances which are routinely given.
In his paper, Affordable Credible Defence of India, IDSA director Air Commodore (Retd) Jasjit Singh notes that indigenous production of weapons has to be given top priority since India cannot depend on supplies from the erstwhile Soviet Union. In his estimate the technical operational life of the country’s defence equipment will end by the turn of the century and more than Rs 2,000 crore will have to be spent every year for the next eight years to upgrade weaponry.
Senior officers admit that it is highly unlikely that the government will increase its defence allocation significantly. However, there is one school of thought which holds that money can be saved by cutting back on manpower by 35 percent and diverting the funds to procure sophisticated weapons. This would also reduce the pension bill. Close to 15 per cent of the defence budget is paid out as pensions. According to figures for 1992-93, Rs 2,343 crore was spent on pensions while the Navy’s budget for the same year was Rs 1,931.4 crore. Also, substantial savings could be generated by employing officers who retire before the age of 58 in government departments.
As defence experts see it, the armed forces need to be trimmed and better equipped. But for this, the chiefs of staff need to play a more significant role and the bureaucrats in South Block have to loosen their grip on the armed force.
Tags