Corona-induced cuts shouldn’t mar army capabilities

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on every organisation, from the smallest private sector company to the large government agencies, and forced a rethink on their future strategies. This is apparent even in the military, where we have seen a slew of recent proposals concerning the ‘men’ and the ‘machines’ of the armed forces.

Most of these proposals have come to our knowledge through media reports, and while we may not know the fine print, the overall thrust is clear. There is an attempt to find ways to alleviate some pressure on the already stressed defence budget that could see a further coronainduced reduction. The idea is laudatory, but we must also not lose sight of the longterm impact of decisions taken today on the overall effectiveness of the military.

Looking first at the proposals concerning the ‘men’ or our human capital of men and women in the military. Two schemes under consideration are the increase of retirement age and the introduction of a three-year ‘Tour of Duty’ in the Indian Army.

The Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat, recently announced, “We are soon bringing a policy to extend the service profile of the men and have an increased minimum retirement age” as the defence pension bill was becoming “unsustainable”. With this proposal, almost one-third of the military personnel would retire at the age of 58.

This is a practical move given the much better physical and medical standards that our soldiers enjoy today. Extension of service would prevent a premature haemorrhaging of trained and experienced workforce, particularly in technical services. There will also be a positive effect on the pension bill.

The Army’s proposal on the ‘Tour of Duty’ needs a more serious deliberation. The Army’s internal note has cited a “resurgence of nationalism and patriotism” and the “rising unemployment” to propose a three-year “internship” for those who “do not want to make defence services their permanent vocation, but still want to experience the thrill and adventure of military professionalism”. With this scheme, the Indian Army seeks to save on the training, pay, and gratuity costs of a regular officer or soldier.

In my view, this proposal raises some fundamental questions about the very character of the profession of arms. The military service is a vocation, a higher calling, and a way of life where selfsacrifice is the highest duty. It should not be considered a place for adventure and thrill seekers or a steppingstone for lucrative corporate careers. I have no doubts about the motivation of the young men who will join this “internship” but putting inadequately trained officers and men in combat situations is unfair to both them and their comrades.

Every nation has its unique military challenges, and comparison with other countries that follow a two to three-year conscription model would be inappropriate. In case we require some young talent in specialised areas for a temporary period, we could suitably modify our existing provisions for Short Service Commission and Territorial Army.

The reference to patriotism and nationalism in the Army note was utterly unnecessary. Walter Berns, in his book Making Patriots, defines patriotism as the devotion not only to the country but also to its principles, and equally importantly, an understanding of these principles. Donning the uniform is not the only criteria for displaying your patriotism. It is also a reality, as many studies have shown, that the primary motivation for soldiers in combat is not some higher national ideal but the cohesion of your small unit and the trust in your comrades.

Turning now to the ‘machines’. In giving a push for ‘Make in India’, General Rawat asked the military to stop “misrepresenting our operational requirements” and accept indigenous weapons even if they met “70 percent of the specifications the military ideally required”. There is no doubt that India is one of the biggest arms importers in the world, and this fact is a severe matter of concern. self-reliance in the defence sector is an absolute imperative if India is to become a truly global military power.

However, this will require substantial structural reforms. There is a need for policy changes to encourage the private sector by financial support and preferential treatment over foreign vendors. No company will spend crores in developing weapon platforms if there is no guarantee for purchase by the government. There should be a complete revamping of the Defence Public Sector Undertakings and an overhaul of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, which have shown little innovation in high technology areas.

Asking the military to accept weapons that do not fully meet the operational requirement, only because they are produced in India, is dangerous. In a life and death situation, a soldier’s best friend is his equipment. I have heard many frustrated soldiers express their anguish when their grenades would not explode, or the rifle jammed during an encounter with terrorists.

The problem of inadequate quality is even more critical in equipment-intensive services like the Navy and Air Force. When a pilot is flying a single-seater fighter aircraft, he is highly dependent on the performance of his machine. Lord Moran, in his classic work, ‘The Anatomy of Courage’, writes, “When I ask a station commander what strengthens the resolve of his pilots he answers ‘always leadership’ and then after a pause often adds ‘and the quality of their equipment’.”

The senior military leadership undoubtedly needs to deal with the challenges posed by the size and shape of the defence budget. However, in finding solutions, it must be ensured that the efficiency of the force remains unimpaired.