Despite strategies on paper, our capability to face battle on two fronts is far from being achieved.
ARE we ready for a 21st-century war? The Army chief, General Deepak Kapoor’s reported comment on the revision of India’s “cold start” military doctrine to achieve the capability to take on China and Pakistan on two fronts at the same time might tempt us to answer in the affirmative to the above question.
But, as a nation of dreamers, our record in translating ideas into action has not been a happy one. Our well-crafted plans often remain just fine print on paper. Even in matters of national security, we have been lagging in giving life to our strategic concepts.
The Cold Start Doctrine was drawn up in 2004 when the bitter experience of Kargil was fresh in military planners’ minds. The war had laid bare our weaknesses in fighting wars in which terrorism and conventional operations are seamlessly interwoven. It also drove home the real possibility of a confrontation with Pakistan turning into a nuclear one.
The Doctrine focused on multiple offensive strikes against Pakistan, using battle groups of mechanized forces. The Doctrine was designed to cut down mobilization time after the hiccups during Op Parakrama in the wake of the terrorist attack on Parliament.
For any offensive doctrine to succeed, close air support, greater density of mechanized forces, heavier artillery firepower and high mobility are key elements. Most important, a forward-thinking political leadership with the mental strength to give a green signal is the fundamental requirement for pro-active offensive strategy.
Since 2004, the Army and Air Force have carried out a number of joint exercises with troops to test the doctrine. Similar joint exercises with the Navy have also been held. So the three services were on the ball in implementing the Cold Start strategy.
Sadly, the political leadership appeared to be cold to the Cold Start. Either it is not conscious of the key role it has to play in making a success of the doctrine or it is indifferent to the strategic requirements. It is difficult to understand Defence Minister AK Antony’s readiness to apologetically proclaim India’s peaceful intentions instead of chastizing the Pakistani Army for belligerently commenting on the two-front strategy. It was left to Pakistani columnist Ayaz Amir to do that. He said, “If an Indian Army chief were not to envisage the possibility of a two-front war, and mull over the means of waging it, he would deserve to be sacked.”
The Minister’s response brings home the truth that the leadership’s political priorities would always outweigh national security considerations. If the government had been serious about its role as per the 2004 doctrine, the three services would not be having huge backlogs today in their basic tools of trade. They are in bad shape for no fault of their making. In the words of veteran journalist Shekhar Gupta, “The larger state of our armed forces has begun to resemble 1962.”
The complacency seems to be all-pervasive. It is typical of the national attitude to security that it was left to the Comptroller and Auditor General to critically comment about the battle-worthiness of the armed forces!
Though as many as 12 well known defence manufacturers have been blacklisted for corrupt practices, not more than a handful at home have been indicted. Therein hangs a sordid tale of defence procurement. This is taking a toll of our combat readiness more than any strategic plans of adversaries.
The Army is still in the quest for tanks. Its missiles are not even of late 20th-Century vintage. Since 1987, new guns for the artillery have not been procured. Both the projects to manufacture 155 mm ammunition as well as buying 155 mm guns are in limbo. As a result, by 2008 the Army had to make do with just 400 plus Bofors guns as against its long-term plan for 3,600 artillery guns by 2025.We seem to be endlessly short listing weapons for procurement and not going beyond that. Then there is the manpower shortage with nearly 25 per cent deficiency in officers.
In spite of all the hype about the increasing Chinese naval presence in the Indian Ocean, the Navy is not in happy shape. More than half of India’s submarines are not battle-ready. The CAG says 63 per cent of the submarine fleet would be ready for phase-out by 2012. The radars are too old and too few to provide any credible defence against an air attack. Submarine procurement and production are facing perpetual hiccups. And overall naval strength is at an alarming low of 135 ships!
The Air Force fares no better; from a 45-squadron force it is down to 32 squadrons. It is deficient of 136 fighters. The IAF’s radar acquisition plans have not been cleared due to repeated delays in the tendering process and objections by the CVC on the purchase of Israeli radars has led to a lowering of air defence capabilities. The Air Force’s story of woes seems endless.
The last straw was the report by a group of 13 scientists about the failure of the fusion test (H-bomb) during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests of 1998, contrary to official claims. This has cast grave doubts about our nuclear bomb capabilities. Even the service chiefs have expressed their concern on this.
Defence research and public sector responsible for manufacture of weapons and ammunition have been holy cows of successive governments. It is high time these cows are tethered and milked for accountability and productivity.
The two-front strategy is to handle an emerging strategic scene in which China is increasing its strategic reach in our neighbourhood in Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. And the Pakistani Army is being modernized with American cash with obscurantism having come to stay.
The two-front doctrine is the strategic expression of India’s aspirations as a regional power graduating to a global power status. It envisages short and swift operations. As analyst Subhash Kapila says, “With a nuclear overhang with both Pakistan and China, the Indian military operations to neutralize the Chinese and Pakistani threats has to be fast-paced, facilitated by a high degree of synergy” between the Army, Navy and Air Force. That is why the Army chief has emphasized technology-oriented inputs of C4I2 (this is military acronym for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, and information technology) for activating the new doctrine.
Twenty-first Century military technology has compressed to minuscule proportions our reaction time in readiness for war. In a nuclear setting, even to survive, nations have much more to do in much less time. We have already wasted too much time; as a result, our two-front strategy is starting with its feet hobbled by outdated mindsets and methodologies, and indifferent political leadership.
But the silver lining is the increasing public awareness on these issues thanks to the media reach and hype. Our battles are here and now with ourselves to give the wherewithal to the armed forces to deliver what they promise.
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” It is time we accepted the truth and got ready.
Couresy: GFiles magazine, February 2010, Vol 3, Issue 11
URL http://gfilesindia.com/title.aspx?title_id=80
No comments:
Post a Comment