By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 13th Feb 18
Mohan
Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), was on the button when he
declared on Sunday that, if war broke out, the military would not be
ready for at least six to seven months. The RSS chief did not mention that
those months would fly past in emergency procurement of weaponry for the army,
probably at usurious prices. And he was laughably naïve in boasting that the
RSS could fill the gap while the army prepared for operations. Yet, Mr Bhagwat
perceived the worrying lack of defence readiness, even though it apparently
escapes those whose primary responsibility is the defence of the country —
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his defence minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, and her
predecessors, Arun Jaitley and Manohar Parrikar. The situation was no different
under the previous government.
That the
military is unprepared for war is no secret. Beyond the political bluster,
threats from generals and warmongering from television warriors, this is
evident from plenty of thoughtful commentary, and from a conveniently leaked
letter written in 2012 by former army chief, General V K Singh, to his defence
minister, A K Antony, listing equipment shortfalls. There is also a less advertised
shortfall in training and alertness that has gifted adversaries with
operational successes like in the terrorist strikes in Pathankot and Uri, and
in Jammu over the weekend. An editorial in this newspaper noted that the
government’s miserly defence allocations are not in sync with its tough posture and with a deteriorating
security environment. It concluded that Mr Modi probably does not expect a
war.
What are the
messages from last fortnight’s defence budget? Seen alongside the last
few Budgets, it highlights
an unimaginative incrementalism, with each year seeing broadly the same
percentage of funds distributed between services and departments, with the
absolute allocation gradually rising in tandem with the 6-10 per cent annual
rise in the overall budget. In each of the last three years, the army has been
allocated 68-69 per cent of the services’ budget, with the navy getting about
12.5 per cent and the air force 19.5 per cent. In the years before that, i.e.
2014-15 and 2015-16, the army got only 64-65
per cent, with the navy and air force getting an additional 2 per cent each.
But the grant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) in 2015 and the implementation
from 2016 of the Seventh Pay
Commission’s salary recommendations disproportionally raised the manpower-heavy
army’s requirement for money, at the cost of the navy and air force. The
noteworthy point here is that even this unusual shift in allocations was
occasioned not by strategic imperatives, but by a perceived political need to
raise military pensions and salaries.
In countries
that are serious about defence, each service is allocated funds based on
perceived security priorities, operational roles in dealing with those threats,
and the equipment, training, and manpower needed to discharge roles. However,
the unchanging percentages in the service allocations bear no reflections of the
security debates and environment changes of recent decades. There is no funding
for the changed approach to warfighting in a nuclearised backdrop that has
birthed the Cold Start doctrine — lightning strikes by forward deployed
armoured formations to respond to serious provocation by Pakistan. Nor is there
any budgetary recognition of the pressing need for additional Special Forces,
or aerial strike capabilities as viable retaliatory options — think
surgical strikes. The repeated public affirmations about India taking on the
role of “net security provider” in the Indian Ocean, or building up coastal
security mechanisms along a highly vulnerable 7,500 kilometre coastline, is not
validated by any increased outlay in the navy budget, which has in fact shrunk by
two per cent in overall terms; and from over 30 per cent of the defence capital
budget in 2014-15 to just 25 per cent today. With smaller maritime adversaries
like Pakistan increasingly relying on countering India’s more powerful navy
through “sea denial”, which means laying mines and prioritising submarine
warfare, the naval allocations remain grossly insufficient for India’s planned
response — to buy 12 mine counter measure vessels and 16
anti-submarine warfare shallow water craft, torpedoes and sonars for a range of
vessels, and build six new submarines in India. Instead, procurement
bottlenecks have forced the navy to surrender billions in unspent money: ~25 billion in 2012-13; ~36 billion in 2013-14; ~53 billion in 2015-16; and ~44 billion in 2016-17.
Similarly, an
already depleted air force, which must urgently conclude a “single engine
fighter” contract to replace ten retiring MiG squadrons with fighters that are
built in India, has been allocated a capital budget that would barely cover
“committed liabilities”, the phrase for installments on purchases in earlier
years, like the Rafale fighter.
Another major
dichotomy is the pittance allocated for “Make” projects, which senior defence
ministry officials talk up as locomotives for India’s defence industry. “Make”
projects involve consortia of Indian defence firms coming together to build
complex defence platforms with the defence ministry reimbursing 80-90 per cent
of the development cost. Yet, despite its obvious industrial and technological
benefits, the government spent nothing under this head in 2015-16; ~2.5 billion in 2016-17; ~ 0.2
billion last year; and has allocated ~1.4 billion this year, a mere drop from the capital budget
ocean of ~940 billion.
The government
must ensure that defence spending — which will account for 16.5 per cent of
government spending and 2.16 per cent of the gross national product in 2018-19, inclusive of
pensions — buys bang
for this very considerable buck. This will require thoughtless incrementalism
to give way to holistic planning and a steady hand at the tiller. With three
changes of defence minister in four years, the Modi-government’s entire
term will have passed in ministerial learning. The defence ministry cannot
afford this game of Musical Ministers.
Budget
distribution between the three services
|
Total
service budget^^
|
Each
service’s share of
|
||||||
Personnel
costs^^
|
Running
costs
|
Capital
budget**
|
||||||
|
Rs crore
|
%
|
Rs crore
|
%
|
Rs crore
|
%
|
Rs crore
|
%
|
2014-15
(Actual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Army*
|
166,539
|
64%
|
115,987
|
84%
|
32,216
|
65.5%
|
18,336
|
25%
|
Navy^
|
38,235
|
14.5%
|
8,075
|
6.0%
|
7,891
|
16%
|
22,269
|
30.5%
|
Air Force
|
56,304
|
21.5%
|
14,299
|
10%
|
9,209
|
18.5%
|
32,796
|
44.5%
|
TOTAL
|
261,078
|
100
|
138361
|
100%
|
49316
|
100%
|
73,401
|
100%
|
2015-16
(Actual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Army*
|
174,893
|
65%
|
119,468
|
83.5%
|
34,823
|
65%
|
20,602
|
29.0%
|
Navy^
|
37,178
|
14%
|
8,501
|
6.0%
|
8,802
|
16.5%
|
19,875
|
27.5%
|
Air Force
|
55,993
|
21%
|
15,061
|
10.5%
|
9,734
|
18.5%
|
31,198
|
43.5%
|
TOTAL
|
268,064
|
100%
|
143,030
|
100%
|
53,359
|
100%
|
71,676
|
100%
|
2016-17
(Actual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Army*
|
220,712
|
69%
|
154,894
|
83.5%
|
37,587
|
65%
|
28,231
|
36%
|
Navy^
|
40,709
|
12.5%
|
10,736
|
6.0%
|
9,976
|
17.5%
|
19,997
|
25.5%
|
Air Force
|
59,823
|
18.5%
|
19,442
|
10.5%
|
9,995
|
17.5%
|
30,386
|
38.5%
|
TOTAL
|
321,244
|
100%
|
185,072
|
100%
|
57,558
|
100%
|
78,614
|
100%
|
2017-18
(RE)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Army *
|
231,368
|
68%
|
168,607
|
82.5%
|
37,555
|
64%
|
25,206
|
32%
|
Navy^
|
42,398
|
12.5%
|
12,560
|
6.0%
|
10,490
|
18%
|
19,348
|
25%
|
Air Force
|
67,836
|
19.5%
|
23,700
|
11.5%
|
10,580
|
18%
|
33,556
|
43%
|
TOTAL
|
341,602
|
100%
|
204,867
|
100%
|
58,625
|
100%
|
78,110
|
100%
|
2018-19
(BE)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Army *
|
250,714
|
68%
|
185,232
|
82.5%
|
38,794
|
64%
|
26,688
|
32%
|
Navy^
|
45,255
|
12.5%
|
13,470
|
6.0%
|
10,937
|
18%
|
20,848
|
25%
|
Air Force
|
72,609
|
19.5%
|
25,785
|
11.5%
|
11,068
|
18%
|
35,756
|
43%
|
TOTAL
|
368,578
|
100%
|
224,487
|
100%
|
60,799
|
100%
|
83,292
|
100%
|
(Source: Ministry of Finance budget document)
*
Excludes budget for Border Roads Organisation, but includes Rashtriya
Rifles and National Cadet Corps
^ Excludes Coast Guard, but includes Joint
Staff budgets
^^ Includes pensions to all three services
**
Capital budget for three services only, excludes allocations for DRDO
and Ordnance Factories
Wow, absolute shambles. Army getting close to 70% of the budget of which its spending pretty much all of it on paying salaries for its 14 corps (37 Divisions) and 1.2 million personnel. This is NOT WW-2 anymore! What is the Army's obsession with personnel numbers? Even with 3% of GDP there will be no modernization this way.
ReplyDeleteSecretly, I wish the Army is reduced to around 300,000 (yes, a 75% cut in manpower). Or 300,000 active + 200,000 TA. Half the Armoured regiments can be turned into formation reconnaissance regiments. Halve the number of infantry regiments and reduce one rifle company in each that remains. Reduce size of ASC. Finally, no point keeping 37 divisions, have to move to another model with 20 or so divisions. So many ways we can downsize!
This will release so much money to equip and train the Army to Western levels and at the same time give us the opportunity to expand our Navy and air force with supercarriers, more mid air refuellers etc. Critically, more resources will be available for Make projects. Just bite the bullet and cut the Army down to size.
Hello Ducky! this is RSS replying to you.
ReplyDeleteEvery since the HQ at Nagpur issued the historic long pant decision, we have stopped wearing the short khaki, but the Sarshangchalack has told us, along with the long pant comes great responsibility. we are supposed to be proactive, this is why I am bothering to reply to your foolish article.
Mohan Baghwat Sarsangchalak (Affectionately known by us as the Great Chaalak)
meant this.
(A) We know every state ensures that it has a monopoly on the use of violence in order to impose law and order.
(B) We, with our militia merely share this monopoly with the state.
(C) We are Modiji’s army and Modiji is PM, We challenge you to say there is anything wrong in helping the state out as long as you are patriotic.
Besides Militias like ours are nothing new, Herr Savakar drew inspiration from 1930 Germany.
Millions of patriotic people all over India are now embracing the Khaki Pant, the great Chalaak is planning a great future for everyone. (by everyone I don’t mean Muslim).
Wait and see the greatness of India.
Vande Mataram
PS: you Congress Bas**ard, Don’t you dare write such a bias article against our Great Chalaak ever again.
We know where you live.
There is only one real solution. Improve the tooth to tail ratio.
ReplyDeleteWhat else can any govt do? Newsroom warriors, defense analysts want(ed) OROP, new mountain divisions, increase defense capital expenditure. But one needs to understand India is a poor developing country where the government has allocated most of its budgetary expenditure on infrastructure and socio-economic issues and rightly so.
Now you can increase the capital expenditure by raising fiscal deficit from existing 3.3% to 3.5% and grant the extra $5bn(~32,000 cr) to defense capital expenditure. But then it will have a very negative effect on the exchange rates/ rates on new govt issued bonds and not to mention that opposition will be screaming and howling.
And we cannot be like China where they lowered army count by 300,000 to allocate money to capital expenditure. Those are 300,000 jobs lost. Plus China does not have to allocate a lot of its armymen like India does in Kashmir, red belt(Maoist) or NorthEast.
So the only true solution left. Increase the tooth to tail ratio. Rest all is noise to complicate things.