At the end of a week when
India has been agonizing to little effect about how to deal with a deadly
attack on an army camp near the Pakistan border in Kashmir that should never
have been allowed to happen, the government has signed a US$8.66 billion deal with
Rafale of France for 36 fighter jets that will have only a limited effect on
the under-equipped Indian Air Force’s lack of readiness.
The link
between the two events is that they both underline the deplorable state of
India’s military defenses, and demonstrate how inadequately it tries to improve
them, despite tough talk by successive governments and especially by prime
minister Narendra Modi before he was elected, and despite his promise to make
the country work more efficiently.
Eighteen
Indian soldiers were killed in the army camp attack that was carried out at Uri
on Sept. 18 by four men – dubbed “militants” by the international media but
“terrorists” in Indian reports. It has led to outrage in India against
Pakistan, whose army or ISI secret service is blamed for instigating the attack
allegedly by Jaish-e-Muhammad, a Pakistan-based group named by the US as a
terrorist organization.
Yet the
real horror of the event is not that Pakistan dare do such a thing, but that
India is so lackadaisical and inefficient at maintaining security that the four
men were able to cut a boundary fence, move 150 yards inside the base and set
fire to tents before they were detected. Unprotected soldiers were having early
morning showers in a camp whose its operational troops were patrolling on the
disputed “line of control” (LoC) border with Pakistan just 10 km away.
If no
Indian soldiers had been killed, the outrage against Pakistan would have been
far less and Delhi could have congratulated itself on the excellence of its
defenses. Yet there is scarcely any public outcry against the government and
defense ministry for failing to secure its bases and protect the lives of its
soldiers.
More horrifying
Even more
horrifying is that the camp was so unprotected despite a similar incident
last January at an air base, near the Pakistan border at Pathankot in
the Punjab, which had no defenses against a terror attack. Border patrols and
thermal imaging were inadequate, and the initial police responses were confused
and slow. Floodlights were not working in some
areas and buildings were located against perimeter walls, making access easy.
Shyam
Saran, a former Indian foreign secretary, has said this week that “India
will remain vulnerable unless it does a better job of managing and securing its
long land and maritime borders”. He lists numerous defense failings and warns,
“Unless we turn the searchlight on our own failings….we will remain at the
receiving end of terrorism”.
And as
Omar Abdullah, a former Kashmir chief minister has tweeted, “While we work out
who is to blame for Uri, and what an appropriate response will be, do
we not owe our troops flame retardant tents & huts?”
Manohar
Parrikar, India’s defense minister, admitted this week that “something
must have gone wrong” at Uri, adding that “we will definitely find out
what went wrong and take steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again”. He was
speaking at a management conference (above) and said he believed in “zero
errors”, a term his audience would use in their own companies but must have
heard with incredulity in this context.
“Air
defense units field antiquated Soviet-era guns and missiles that
should have been retired long ago,” said an editorial in the Business
Standard, the next day. Talking about “serious deficiencies “ in India’s radar
network, fighters squadrons and ground defense units, it continued: “The
mechanized forces, too, rely on Soviet-era air defense systems from the 1980s,
which are ineffective, given the advanced electronic warfare equipment in
modern fighters….Obsolescent radars with inadequate coverage ranges leave gaps
along the border that enemy aircraft can exploit.”
None of
this is new. Senior armed forces officers have been complaining about the lack
of readiness for combat for years – which makes today’s signing of the Rafale
order inadequate. In 2012, India decided to order 126 Rafale jets from Dassault
of France, but negotiations became deadlocked, and Modi suddenly
substituted an order for just 36 of the planes “in fly-away condition”
when he was on an official visit to Paris in April 2014.
Red tape
That was
seen at the time as an astute move by Modi, cutting through the red tape and
ordering the urgently-needed jets for quick delivery, even though this would
undermine his Make in India manufacturing campaign. The decision
was taken by the prime minister’s office without Parrikar being privy
to the discussions, as Ajai Shukla, a leading defense journalist, explains
today in the Business Standard.
Parrikar
was instructed by Modi to speak in favor of the new deal, which he did, saying
that the planes would be in service within two years of April 2014, yet they
will not now begin to arrive till 2018. The negotiations became bogged down in
detail, partly because India insisted that Rafale agree “offsets” for 50 percent
of the Rs58 billion (€7.8 billion, US$8.66 billion) deal. That will be done by
Rafale spending in India 30 percent of the total on aero research programs and
20 percent on components, though it is not yet known how that will be done.
The main
point here however is that the jets (right) will do little to solve the air
force’s overall shortage of fighters, despite its superior capability and its
advanced missiles, because it will add only two squadrons to the current total
of 32 squadrons when 42 are needed. The Rafales will also complicate
maintenance and support services because there will be seven different types of
aircraft from various countries. The air force’s concerns have been spelt out
today in the Shukla article, including worries that the Rafales cost twice as
much as Russian Sukhoi jets that are already in service.
Now India
must decide what to do about the 90 aircraft that are needed following the
unexplained reduction from 126 to 36. Two more aircraft types – the US’s F16
and the Swedish Gripen – are reportedly being considered.
India’s
defense orders are awash with corruption allegations and, significantly, Shukla
notes that Indian MoD officials, fearing graft allegations over deals, draw
some “comfort” in US deals because of the country’s foreign corrupt practices
legislation.
Such is
the muddle with which India runs its defenses, both in terms of its internal
security and its ability to strike at its neighboring and hostile nuclear
neighbors, China and its client state, Pakistan.
The focus
this week has been on how India should fight back against Pakistan following
the Uri attack, which the prime minister has said “will not let go unpunished”.
Diplomacy has so far been the main weapon, at the United Nations and elsewhere.
Other possibilities aired in the media have included selected strikes across
the border, cyber warfare, cutting off river waters that flow from India to
Pakistan, and cancelling trade pacts.
It would
however be much more effective to strengthen India’s domestic security because,
as Shyam Saran said, India will otherwise “remain at the receiving end of
terrorism”
John Elliott is Asia Sentinel’s New
Delhi correspondent
Did you know that you can make dollars by locking selected pages of your blog / website?
ReplyDeleteSimply join AdscendMedia and use their Content Locking tool.