The aim of this article is not to degrade the government nor to deride the Defence Ministry as it has attempted to produce the best with limited resources. I have immense respect for the leadership of the nation and believe that it can still deliver, though elections are around the corner.
However, the press conference by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on 5 June, in which she projected her government’s progress in the last four years was, in some cases, a classic example of twisting facts and details to justify her ministry’s mistakes.
Unaminity Between Ministries
While there are a few instances projected by the minister that are indisputable, there are others that sound incredulous. Sitharaman’s statement that there were no scams in the Rafale deal is correct and should be respected, despite all claims by the opposition. The inter-government approach adopted in all defence deals is a lesson for all future governments.
However, her claim that talks with Pakistan cannot be considered so long as they continue to export terror and support terror groups, is noteworthy. This was a statement that Sushma Swaraj had also made.
It shows unanimity between ministries. Sitharaman’s other noteworthy comment for which the government deserves praise is its decision to move ahead with the S-400 Triumf missile deal, despite the US clause under CAATSA. It indicates that India is willing to challenge the US’ illegal sanctions. Her remarks that Indian forces would respond to Pakistan’s misadventures, and that India’s relations with China are on track, are not unexpected.
Attempt to Subvert Army
On the assessment of NICO (Non-Initiation of Combat Operations) in the Valley, Sitharaman stated that it is the responsibility of the Home Ministry, and that she supports the same. Surprisingly, two days before the Home Ministry announced NICO, in a press conference the defence minister had stated, “Indian Army has to firmly handle terrorism which threatens the peace and harmony of J&K. The Army’s position is that it has to be firm on terrorism.”
She had clearly rejected Mehbooba Mufti’s call for a ceasefire, but was forced to change her stance once the Home Ministry made its announcement.
Thus, the Army was probably not consulted when the initial decision was made.
Two issues where her comments twisted facts and sought to project the wrong picture need clarification. The first is her comments on the opening of cantonment roads.
In her statement, Nirmala Sitharaman read out multiple dates of meetings held between the MoD and Army officials, apart from those held between political representatives and vice presidents of cantonment boards, seeking to arrive at a consensus before the final orders were given. Therefore, she sought to project that the final decision arrived at was a collective one, not a unilateral one, as the media is projecting.
She even gave figures of closed roads to prove her point, stating that out of the 850 roads which were closed, only 119 were done without following due rules and regulations.
Of these 119, 80 have been opened, 15 partially, and 24 remain closed. She claimed that her insistence has been that due procedures be followed prior to closure. Her final comment was that it would be the Local Military Authority which would take the final call.
If her claims above are to be believed, why did her ministry issue a letter on 28 May, stating that sanction for closure of roads in the future would rest with the MoD? Did it want to send a message that senior military officers, who are capable of security decisions at the national level, are incapable of taking decisions at the local level? The letter also indicates that the decision must have been pushed down the Army’s throat solely to appease vote banks, rather than being a joint one.
It further directed the Army to issue a letter removing all barriers and check posts, and to pass orders for no vehicle to be stopped and checked. This absurd letter was issued on 31 May, and is against even the basic tenets of security. This letter, released to the press, led to the biggest divide between the Army and civilian authorities.
Her own party, the BJP, celebrated by distributing sweets and taking convoys of hundreds of vehicles with party flags inside cantonments, symbolising the leading political party’s victory over the Army. Ironically, it was an insult to the Army, that its own populace, whom it has always supported, were celebrating a victory over its increased vulnerability. There were no comments against it by any political hot shot, including the defence minister in her press conference.
Creating a Civilian-Army Divide
This haphazard, so-called ‘joint decision’ has led to the Army being exposed to possible security threats. Her comments on ensuring the safety of Army families are already crumbling with reports of miscreants targeting residential accommodations in Khadki, and locals demanding opening of roads moving through separated family accommodation in Secunderabad.
She has broken the fabric which bound the military to civil society. Such a deep civil- military divide has not been seen in India in 70 years. The title of an article in the Deccan Chronicle on 6 June reads, ‘Army defiance of def min exposed’. Is this what she had desired and now defends as a joint decision?
The other aspect where her statements were incorrect was on the issue of shortage of funds and ammunition stocks of the Army. She quoted figures to justify her ministry’s stand. The previous Vice Chief of the Army, General Sarath Chand, had told the parliamentary standing committee, “The 2018-19 budget dashed our hopes. The marginal increase barely accounts for inflation and does not even cater for taxes.”
Even Maj Gen BC Khanduri, the head of the parliamentary committee of defence stated:
We are aghast to note this dismal scenario where the representatives of services have themselves frankly explained the negative repercussions on our defence preparedness due to inadequate fund allocations.
I wonder if she labels the statements of both General Sarath Chand and Khanduri, as ‘misleading’.
Latest reports suggest that the Army is already planning to cut down demands of its assault rifles to 250,000 from 800,000, solely due to a shortfall of funds. I would accept the words of Army officers who call a spade a spade, rather than just quote figures to indicate that there is no shortfall. The budget may have increased, but not when inflation and other commitments have been factored in.
Army’s Ammunition Shortfall
A shortfall of ammunition is a problem inherited by this government. It was such that former defence minister Manohar Parrikar had to revise the holdings of ammunition from 30 days to 10, solely to enable the government to meet this requirement.
Sitharaman’s claim that presently there is no shortfall, may again be just a quote on figures. Press reports in April stated that the Army has identified ‘certain types of expensive ammunition which it will not procure even though their stocks are insufficient.’
‘Make in India’ was supposed to be a take-off point for the manufacture of ammunition. MoS Defence, Subash Bhamre, had stated in a presentation to the PMO in November 2017, “It continues to languish at the alter of procedural delays and has failed to demonstrate its true potential.”
He added, “Of the 144 schemes contracted in the last three years only 8-10 percent have fructified. The average time taken was 52 months, which was twice the laid down time.” I had hoped Sitharaman would address this issue, but it was left to the defence secretary (who is part of the delay) to justify.
In the overall context, major irritants were ignored or brushed aside, while issues that the public are already aware of (mostly positive) were given excessive importance. I do hope that the MoD tries to fill the gaps in its press conference and issues a rejoinder on its erroneous comments.
(The author is a retired army officer based in Lucknow. He can be reached @kakar_harsha. This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)