Custom Search Engine - Scans Selected News Sites


Sunday, 14 October 2012

From Today's Papers - 14 Oct 2012
Army to get air firepower
Existing fleet of attack copters to stay with IAF
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, October 12
The Ministry of Defence has agreed “in principle” to split the helicopter force between the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army. The MoD has “accepted” the projected requirement of the Army for having attack helicopters - so far being operated only by the IAF.

In a letter yesterday, the Joint Secretary (Ground and Air) in the MoD conveyed to the Army that the attack helicopters procured in the future will go to the Army.

The existing fleet of 22 Russian-origin Mi-25 and Mi-35 attack helicopters will continue to be operated by the IAF, while the next lot of helicopters will go to the Army.

It is yet be decided if the forthcoming purchase of the 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters will go to the Army or stay with the IAF. The IAF has selected the future attack helicopters at the cost of $ 1.4 billion but the deal is yet to be inked. The MoD will lay down a detailed policy at a later stage which will list out the operating procedures, force strength among other things.

The MoD, in its letter, has clarified that the medium-lift helicopters - Mi-17 - will continue to be operated by the IAF, but it will review the prioritisation of tasks, sources said. The Army had highlighted the need for having a squadron of attack helicopters at each of the three ‘Strike Crops’ based at Ambala, Mathura and Bhopal.

These three corps have their forward formations along the Western border with Pakistan. The Army had also projected the need for having light combat helicopters for each of the six pivot crops based in the North and North-West. This has also been “accepted” by the MoD.

These pivot corps will get the armed version of the Dhruv helicopter produced by the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The Army has been demanding attack helicopters for its strike corps formations, as these support tank and ground troops. The IAF helicopters are currently attached with the Army formations.

This also means that the IAF will now have an increased number of attack helicopters. The light attack helicopters are already being test-flown and their weapons are being tested.

So far, the helicopter assets have been divided under the Joint Army and Air Implementation Instructions, 1986. The Army Aviation operates utility helicopters like the cheetah/chetak, while the IAF operates the attack helicopters, medium-lift helicopters and heavy-lift helicopters. The Navy helicopters are separate from this division of assets.

The decision has come after dramatic developments over the issue in the past one week. At a press conference on October 5, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne had said it was not possible to have “little air forces”.

On October 9, Defence Minister AK Antony, termed the tussle between the IAF and Army a “family problem”.

More teeth

    Next lot of attack helicopters will go to the Army
    Six pivot crops based in North and North-West to get armed version of Dhruv helicopter
    Medium-lift helicopters - Mi-17 - to be operated by IAF
    No decision on operational control of 22 Boeing Apache attack helicopters yet to be procured

Division of assets

    The Army Aviation operates utility helicopters like cheetah, chetak
    The IAF operates attack helicopters, medium-lift helicopters and heavy-lift helicopters
    The Navy helicopters are separate from this division of assets
India to hold defence talks with Indonesia
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, October 13
As part of its announced ‘look-east policy’, India will conduct the first ministerial-level biennial defence dialogue with Indonesia. Beginning October 15, Defence Minister AK Antony will embark on a three-day visit to Indonesia.

The defence dialogue mechanism at the highest level was agreed upon during the visit of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to India in January last year.

Defence ties between India and Indonesia have been progressing steadily ever since the two sides signed the Agreement on Defence Cooperation in the year 2001. The Armies of the two countries held the first-ever joint exercise in India this year. There are regular training interactions between the armed forces of the two countries.
‘NSG’s regional hub expansion pointless’
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, October 12
Former National Security Adviser MK Narayanan today expressed concern over the manner in which multiple hubs of the elite National Security Guard (NSG) have been created. There was no point in such an expansion as this would mean diluting the “special force” and its operations, he said.

Narayanan, who is now the Governor of West Bengal, has been a former Director of the Intelligence Bureau. Delivering a lecture on “Internal security role of special forces”, he elaborated on what was needed from the force and its readiness.

Four additional hubs of the NSG had been created during the tenure of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram following a media-driven public outcry over the “delayed response” of the NSG in reaching Mumbai during the November 2008 terror attacks. The NSG teams, headquartered at Manesar, near Gurgaon, had boarded an IAF plane requisitioned from Chandigarh and reached Mumbai after 12 hours of the commencement of the attacks. Besides its main facility near Gurgaon, the NSG now has regional hubs at Hyderabad, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. Narayanan said the expansion has diluted NSG’s mandate.

According to Narayanan, the NSG should be prepared and be aware of the challenges it could face. For this, it should have a very close coordination with external and internal intelligence gathering agencies. He voiced concern over NSG having a special rangers group (SRG) that provides security to VIPs. “Does the NSG want to be special force or is it a force that guards people,” he asked.
Poor military leadership, not equipment, led to 1962 debacle: Report under wraps
There is no reason why the Indian Army cannot rise again and give a much better account of itself. I hope when the day comes, it happens under my escutcheon.

This was what Gen J N Chaudhuri wrote in a 40-page covering note while forwarding the Henderson Brooks-PS Bhagat report on the 1962 military debacle to the Defence Ministry.

Fifty years after the Sino-Indian war, the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report remains under wraps but

The Sunday Express has learnt that around four pages of this covering note focus on wartime Defence Minister V K Krishna Menon’s interference in military matters, particularly on the shuffling of senior generals in the run-up to the month-long war.

The covering note, according to sources aware of the contents of the report, is the only place where there is a comment on the political leadership of the Defence Ministry. There is no direct comment on then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru anywhere in the letter or in the report, which confines itself to the conduct of military operations.

The important revelatory aspect of the Brooks-Bhagat report is its conclusion that shortages in ammunition and equipment were not among the primary reasons for the defeat.

In fact, the report, sources said, makes it clear that much has been stated about the “poor quality” of equipment and weapons making the Army unfit for battle. The authors have put on record that in their considered view “the levels of stores and equipment didn’t constitute a significant handicap”. Instead, they have identified poor military leadership as the main reason for the Army not having fought better than it did.

The report is in four volumes, but its main operative content is less than 150 pages, typed single space in foolscap paper with corrections made by hand in ink. The rest of the report comprises essentially annexures, minutes of meetings, operational maps and key pieces of communication.

The report was commissioned by Gen Chaudhuri, who took over as Army Chief after the war, as an internal Army report to look into just the conduct of military operations since hostilities began in early October 1962 till November 20 when China announced a unilateral ceasefire.

For the job, he picked Lt Gen Henderson Brooks who was GOC 11 Corps in Jalandhar and had not participated in the operations. The report was submitted in April 1963 and sent to the Defence Ministry with Chaudhuri’s detailed covering note.

The language of the report reflects the strong emotional fervour of the moment, especially the anger and frustration. Coming down heavily on the military leadership, the report is particularly critical of the then Chief of General Staff Lt Gen B M Kaul, who was made GOC of the newly created 4 Corps just before the war. He was based out of Tezpur, but was evacuated to Delhi on account of illness just as hostilities broke out in what was then called NEFA.

The report records him “dashing in and out” of his York Road (now Motilal Nehru Marg) residence, issuing orders from his bed, and the top brass letting him do so instead of finding a successor. These have all been cited as examples of poor generalship.

Similarly, a copy Kaul’s letter to Nehru at the height of the conflict, urging him to approach the Americans for assistance, has been mentioned and included in the annexures to underscore the loss of nerves among senior officers.

Significant space, sources said, has been given to the retreat of 4 Infantry Division which had been quickly reconstructed after the Namka Chu defeat and posted to defend the fallback line along the Se La-Senge-Dhirang axis in Arunachal Pradesh. This was after Tawang had been overrun by advancing Chinese forces. It was decided that this axis is where the Army would fight a dogged and prolonged defensive battle for which resources and logistics had been built up. The idea was that longer the campaign stretched, the more difficult it would get for the Chinese to sustain operations.’

But 4 Div withdrew without fighting, a fact that is officially confirmed and documented in the report. This entire episode of the “collapse and rout of the 4 Infantry Division” has been described in the report as “a shameful incident” of a “renowned division collapsing and retreating without putting up a fight”.

The GOC of the Division, Maj Gen Anant Singh Pathania, has been severely criticised and shown up as another example of poor generalship. The loss of nerves among key military commanders is again emphasised by citing an inland letter that Pathania wrote to Harish Sarin, Joint Secretary in Defence Ministry. He asked Sarin to give him another chance, volunteering to be even deployed as a “sepoy” at the front.

Pathania’s appointment itself has been commented upon as an example of poor decision-making by the military hierarchy. He was pulled out as Director General, National Cadet Corps and foisted on the 4 Infantry Division as the GOC, which the Brooks-Bhagat report criticised given that he had not been involved with combat troops for a considerable length of time. The report, sources said, is also critical of his predecessor Maj Gen Niranjan Prasad under whom the Division lost at Namka Chu.

The report highlights indecision at Army Headquarters and how field formations would faced problems getting clear orders or clarifications from the top brass in Delhi. In this context, Western Army Commander Lt Gen Daulet Singh, who was responsible for the campaign in Ladakh, has come in for praise. In fact, the report firmly concludes that the campaign in the western sector of the boundary was conducted far better than the eastern theatre.

The specific instance about Lt Gen Singh relates to his decision to move two battalions deployed on the Indo-Pak western front to the site of battle in the north. The report, sources said, recounts how Singh kept writing to Army Headquarters to seek approval to move troops from the Pakistan border but received no response.

Finally, he took the initiative and moved the battalions on his own to Chushul. This has been highlighted by Brooks-Bhagat as a rare example of better military leadership.

To an extent, the report also clarifies the famously known orders from the government asking the Army to “throw out the Chinese” by also putting on record the second line “at a time and place of Army’s choosing” . The report, however, does not get into the events of previous months leading up to the conflict, especially aspects like the much criticised ‘forward policy’ that led to creation of several frontline posts without the logistics to sustain them — an act deemed provocative by the Chinese.

Besides these details, the report reflects the pain over the loss of thousands of soldiers; and ends on a very sombre note, quoting a few lines from a poem by First World War soldier-poet Wilfred Owen — lines which no one is able to recall.

‘Ops in North were better than East’

The operative portion of the report is less than 150 pages. It concludes with lines from World War I English soldier-poet Wilfred Owen.

The report says levels of stores and equipment did not constitute a significant handicap. Poor military leadership was the main cause for the debacle.

The campaign in the north under Western Command was better conducted than operations in the east.

4 Infantry Division retreated “without putting up a fight”. Maj Gen A S Pathania wanted a second chance to fight as a sepoy after withdrawing his division in panic.

4 Corps Commander Lt Gen B M Kaul criticised for his poor command.

Western Army Commander Lt Gen Daulet Singh praised for showing better initiative.
Indian BrahMos using Russian GPS system
India's newest cruise missile, the BrahMos, is using the latest Russian cruise missile satellite navigation technology, Russian defense sources said.

The systems are from Russia's older Kh-555 cruise missile and the upgraded version, the Kh-101 strategic long-range cruise missile, to be inducted into the army next year.

Russia's GLONASS satellite navigation technology has been added to the Doppler-inertial platform already in the BrahMos, Izvestia newspaper reported.

Izvestia said the unnamed defense sector sources claimed the integration of the Russian navigation systems will allow the BrahMos to hit targets more than 300 miles away, one-third farther than without the systems.

The BrahMos, which can be fired from sea, land and air launchers, can be armed with a nuclear warhead, the source said.

The missile is being developed by Brahmos Aerospace, a joint venture between India's Defense Research and Development Organization and Russian defense contractor NPO Mashinostroyenia.

Earlier this week, The Times of India reported that the navy successfully test-fired a BrahMos missile from a new warship, the Teg, off India's Goan coast.

The Teg was built by the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad, Russia, and commissioned in April 27. It is the first of the second batch of Talwar-class frigates to be built for India.

The BrahMos performed high-level maneuvers and successfully hit a target ship, the Times said.

The two-stage BrahMos missile -- the first stage being solid-fuel and the second one with a liquid propellant ramjet engine -- was inducted into the navy in 2005 and later into the army, while the air force's version is undergoing final flight trials, an Indian defense official said.

More than 200 air-launched versions are expected to be installed aboard the air force's fleet of 45 Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter aircraft under $1.16 billion program announced in August.

India also has to decide whether to sign a $3.77 billion deal for around 40 upgraded Su-30MKI aircraft, a report by Russia and India Report said.

Upgrades include a head-up display, a Sigma-95 integrated GPS and ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system, radars, LITENING targeting pods and electronic counter-measure systems.

The deal for the fighter aircraft "is all set to be sewn up" when Russian President Vladimir Putin meets his Indian officials Nov. 1 in New Delhi's Hyderabad House, used by the government for high-level meetings.

Delivery of the upgraded Sukhois could start in late 2014 or early 2015, Russia and India Report said.
Army plays pivotal role in nation building: Pallam Raju
India Blooms News Service

New Delhi, Oct 12 (IBNS) Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju on Friday said that the Army has always in the past and also in the future will continue to play a pivotal role in the nation building and for that it must emerge as a national symbol and represent the nation’s unique characteristics which is ‘Unity in Diversity’.

Delivering Field Marshal KM Cariappa Memorial Lecture on ‘Army’s Contribution to Nation Building – The Way Ahead’ here, Raju said the military virtues of sacrifice, loyalty and discipline have always remained and must serve as objects of veneration for the rest of the nation.

Following is the text of the speech delivered by the Minister :

“I am deeply honoured to be invited to deliver this year’s Field Marshal Cariappa Memorial Lecture on the occasion of Infantry Day to such a distinguished audience. I consider it a privilege, because it gives me an opportunity to pay homage to the memory of one of the most distinguished Military leaders of our country.

Field Marshal Cariappa, the first Commander-in-chief of the Indian Army, laid the foundation of India’s Army on the cherished ideals of our leaders at the time of Independence, as also the collective wisdom of the Armed forces. These ideals have since long remained the corner stone of Nation Building , and the armed forces have proved to be amongst the most important national institutions ensuring security of the nation so that we could transform our country into a democratic and plural society.

Therefore, none other than the topic for today’s lecture could have been more apt to pay homage to Field Marshal Cariappa, because after taking over the reins as the first Chief of Army of Modern India he not only taught the Indian Army to be apolitical but was a firm believer that Indian Army will continue to play a pivotal role towards Nation building. Today I intend to re-emphasise the same belief of his and their continued relevance as India shapes its destiny as it increasingly gains greater stature in the comity of Nations.

Firstly, what does Nation Building imply? Originally, nation-building referred to the efforts of newly-independent nations, notably the nations of Asia and Africa, to reshape territories that had been carved out by colonial powers or Empires without regard to ethnic, religious, or other boundaries. These reformed states later on became viable and coherent national entities because of their nation building efforts aimed at establishing a national identity for themselves. This was needed to be deliberately constructed by moulding different ethnic groups into a nation, especially since in many newly established states colonial practices of divide and rule had resulted in ethnically heterogeneous populations.

Today in a globalized and interdependent world Nation-building has become even more relevant. Nation states are political units in an international system and they represent the citizens aspiration to be grouped in a single political unit that would in turn act as an instrument to achieve, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So the process of Nation Building by any nation aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run.

The 21st century looks towards security, justice, economic development and a democratic polity as the pillars of nation building. Security comes first in the pecking order because the other three pillars function effectively only if the security threshold on the nation, both internal and external, remains intact. This in turn facilitates smooth functioning of democracy and brings in its wake social justice and economic development. Unfortunately, in states where the roots of democracy are not firmly embedded, security becomes a victim of inefficient, parochial and dithering attitudes that form the essence of the difficult business that defines democracy. This in turn opens windows of opportunity to the armed forces to take over the reins of governance. In the Indian sub-continent, the armies of some states littoral to India have, instead of providing the security umbrella to their countries, exploited the system to seize power and have effectively stagnated the flow of the polity towards democracy.

In India, democracy however tenuous, has managed to hold and the constitution as initially introduced continues to be sacrosanct. This has been facilitated, by no small measure, by the armed forces who have maintained, most scrupulously, the ideals enshrined in the constitution and have made a great contribution towards nourishment of democracy in the nation. The strength of the armed forces lies in their high standards of discipline and morale supported by a secular outlook and an apolitical demeanour. They have, in the highest spirit of nationalism, stepped forward to face all challenges posed to the nation and have been a pillar of support to the people who look up to them in times of crisis. The capability of the nation to maintain its most significant pillar of security, has contributed significantly to the progress that it has recorded post-independence.

Economic interdependence among India’s varied regions has undoubtedly made considerable progress and can surely be cited as contemporary India’s prime achievement. Economic interdependence has also brought in its wake economic integration and is therefore one of the enduring foundations of the Indian nation state. How strong then is the Indian nation state today? Undoubtedly, India’s progress has been considerable. Politically, the nation has demonstrated that it is a stable and indeed a vibrant parliamentary democracy. Economically, we are the second fastest growing nation in the world. Cultural integration has made progress and is definitely oriented in a positive direction. Social integration is however still a distant goal and its conflicts manifested in religious fundamentalism, caste and the ever-growing gap between the `haves’ and the `have-nots’ is certainly a cause for concern. However when viewed in the historical perspective and the global context, the problems, deficiencies and inadequacies are transient and inherent to the stage of development that India is passing through. The Armed Forces with their ingrained spirit of Nationhood can certainly play a significant role in fostering the spirit of ‘inclusive growth’ as enunciated by Government.

After Independence, the Indian nation inherited a battle experienced and an apolitical force. It played virtually no role in the freedom struggle and though at partition it was deprived of nearly one third of its manpower and assets, it played a commendable role during the horrendous communal violence that was witnessed at partition. It was also immediately involved in defending Kashmir and its performance was no less commendable. Since independence the army has fought four major wars with Pakistan and one with China. It was also involved in Hyderabad, Junagadh and Goa to facilitate their entry into the Indian Union. The army has also been involved extensively in internal security duties including fighting insurgencies in J&K and North East States. The military has also always played an intensive role in human assistance and disaster relief in various parts of the nation in the direst of circumstances and at all times.

In India, though the military forces are a substantially big institution, it has so far played no role as an institutional power group in the country’s politics. The military forces have in fact steadfastly remained loyal to the elected government and been its obedient servant. In comparison to other developing countries, it can now be very safely concluded that it is because of this non-role in politics by the military forces of India that the nation has been able to establish and maintain its democratic foundations. This non-role in governance has helped the Indian military to achieve a high degree of professionalism and concentrate its efforts on readying itself for its main task of defence of the country. The military however plays its traditional role for rendering advice on matters concerning national security.

The Indian military has always devoted itself to being able to successfully carry out any of the roles that the elected government has allotted to it. The prime and major role is clear--defend the nation against its potential enemies. This per se is not a nation building function but it is the absolute pre-requisite for nation building. To fulfil this primary role, the requirement is that the armed forces are in readiness to defend the nation at all times. In a rapidly changing security matrix this role of the Armed Forces needs to be further strengthened.

The Armed Forces have been a symbol of unity and secularism through turbulent times faced by the country and have fostered the spirit of One-India, like no other organ of the state. Be it the sectarian clashes, terrorism or insurgency, the Armed Forces in general and the Army in particular have maintained their ethos; an ethos that has proved to be a strong fabric for National Integration.

The Army continues to play a critical role in bringing peace to regions where misguided youth choose to take up arms against the nation. This onerous responsibility has been undertaken by the army with utmost responsibility and maturity. Not only have many areas been rid of violence and fear of terrorism, succour has also been provided by undertaking extensive public support programmes like Operation Sadbhavana and Operation Samaritan. From building of roads, schools, public health facilities, vocational facilities, sporting facilities and provisioning essential supplies, the army has been at the forefront of nation building in these troubled areas. I shall also seek to highlight some of the other significant areas where the Indian Armed forces play a stellar role in Nation building and where in the coming years there portends a larger role for them in shaping the destiny of India, a Nation with a young demographic profile and an increasingly aware and aspirational young population.

The army has also been at the forefront of helping build the country through developmental initiatives. Amongst some of the most important contributions to the task of nation building, has been the untiring efforts of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in connecting the far flung areas of the country with the national mainstream. Areas which were considered distant and desolate are very much a part of the network of roads created by BRO. Working in the most difficult and harshest of conditions, the efforts put in by these dedicated men of the BRO have linked the hearts of the people of the country through thousands of kilometers of roads paved and maintained despite life threatening conditions. Peering into the future, the task ahead is colossal and requires a great deal of focus, resources and disciplined manpower to execute this humongous task that shall shape the infrastructure in the remotest and inaccessible parts of the country.

The Territorial Army has contributed immensely to the task of nation building through the years. These battalions have assisted in securing vital interests in threatened regions. They have undertaken re-forestation initiatives and have transformed large swathes of land which had been ravaged by natural and man-made disasters. The home and hearth battalions have been at the forefront of soldiering in some of the most sensitive areas of the country. They have not only fought against difficult military odds, but have also provided a helping hand to the local administration, helping bring peace and stability in their areas of responsibility.

A more visible manifestation of the army’s nation-building role is the National Cadet Corps. It is engaged in grooming the youth, imbibing in them the qualities of discipline, selfless service and the spirit of nationalism. All the ideals that shape our forces are instilled in the young minds to develop their character, through qualities like comradeship, discipline, leadership, secular outlook, spirit of adventure and ideals of selfless service. This according to me is and shall remain a core activity for the times to come that shall shape the value system of the future generations and hence has a direct bearing on the moral quotient of the nation building effort!

The military due to its functional impera¬tives is a centralised organisation, hierarchical structure, with stress on discipline and leadership. It thus becomes an ideal organisation where national policies can easily be implemented and nourished. The direct consequences of military service are manifold. The soldier is trained, disciplined and has a character that bravely faces the challenges of life. In service, he serves as an obedient soldier that specializes in the application of force. It is in his utility after service that the military can contribute to nation building. So far, the ex-serviceman’s qualitative contribution to civilian life, by way of invigorating its culture and character and their quantitative contribution especially to rural economy is something which has not been assessed so far. But significant though this contribution is, it is only a very small part of the contribution they can make to national economy if their services are utilized in agriculture and industry in an organized manner. This highly disciplined and patriotic human resource should be utilised in the capacity building efforts of the nation in various spheres through a focussed approach to employable training and other vocational skillsets that can be leveraged for the nation building effort. There is also immense scope in deploying this manpower in playing an integral role in the harmonising of efforts of Government, NGOs and CSR activities towards improving the quantitative and qualitative deliverables at the ground level.

A nation such as ours with its diverse internal and external threats calls for a higher degree of operational preparedness and armaments and capabilities that can be optimally acquired given the restricted amounts that we spend on Defence due to the various economic and social challenges that are inherent to our nation. There are no runners up in war. It is therefore axiomatic that we seek the best capabilities and technology for our armed forces. We started with nearly no capability of indigenised capacities and yet we were confronted with conflict at the outset of our journey as an independent country. As a country we created a capability through our Defence Public Sector Undertakings and Ordnance Factories. The Defence Research Development Organisation brought about the scientific support. We all realize that the permeation of technology is not constrained by ownership and spreads its reach to all areas of human endeavour. Therefore it goes without saying that the spin off effect of this process towards many aspects of nation building has been immense. Looking ahead the trends are obvious that the Defence Industrial base would be further strengthened with wider participation by the vibrant private sector enterprise of the nation. Here again there is a greater need for the armed forces to work in close coordination in leveraging all the capabilities towards our security and Defence preparedness. Our indigenous efforts have indeed yielded results in increasing the nation’s self-reliance but there is a case to do much more by harmonising the efforts of all the stake holders.

The military organisation by virtue of its inherent disciplined and cen¬tralised nature can act as a vast model of national development. This serves to project the image of the military as a national organisation that embodies the aspiration of its citizens and in whose effectiveness the nation is fully confident. It thus ensures the prime requirement of existence: security, on a planet so easily vulnerable to strife and insecurity.

In the ultimate analysis the contribution of the Indian military to the nation building process is dependent on its quality of leadership. As it happens in all democratic countries with a volunteer military force, a situation has developed primarily due to the various other attractive options thrown up by a growing economy, where the military is finding it difficult to attract youth of the requisite quality needed to officer the fourth largest military force in the world. This phenome-non poses a problem vis-a-vis the quality of leadership. Therefore a conscious push is needed to attract the right kind of talent and human resource to the Armed forces.

The military by itself is also in a process of transformation and development along with the rest of the nation. The change however has to be deliberate and carried out after visualising its long term implications. The relationship between officers and other ranks should adjust to change in the socio-economic scenario of the country. The growing levels of education and increasing awareness of the enlisted man call for dynamic qualities of leadership and man management. This is a major `in house` problem of the military that has to be tackled. Nothing can be accom¬plished by the military institution, in any role, if the leadership is weak. With growth in regional and communal tendencies in the country, the need for insulating the military forces against them cannot be over emphasised. It will require a motivated leadership, to be able to prevent subver¬sion of its personnel.

It is apparent that the military’s role in nation building is inherent in the fulfil-ment of its primary function. The spin-offs from the role are many and varied with a fairly extensive coverage. Democracy can only flourish with strong military forces which are under civilian control. This has been accepted and was never questioned by the military leader¬ship. However problems of civil-military relations have and still exist in the nation. But these are problems that are inherent in the democratic structure of the country and call for a mature Military leadership to ensure that such matters do not prove to be detrimental to the larger cause. Parallelly, civilian leadership should realise that there is an increasing need to leverage and integrate the rich wisdom of military experience of our Armed forces in the Nation’s Management, Governance and Diplomacy.

To conclude I would once again like to re-emphasise the beliefs of Field Marshal Cariappa ,that the Army has always in the past and also in the future will continue to play a pivotal role in the Nation Building and for that it must emerge as a national symbol that represents the nation`s unique characteristic which is “Unity in Diversity”. The military virtues of sacrifice, loyalty and discipline have always remained and must serve as objects of veneration for the rest of the nation.”

No comments:

Post a Comment


Mail your comments, suggestions and ideas to me

Template created by Rohit Agarwal