Jan 11, 1999
|
|
|
|
DEFENDING INDIA Defence Needs an Economic Doctrine Among the more damaging charges against the BJP has been that for an allegedly right-wing party it lacks an overarching conservative agenda -- and seems to channel much of its ideological initiative along religio-political currents. Jaswant Singh's forthcoming book -- Defending India (Macmillan) -- should go some way in contesting that notion. A former soldier with a keen sense of history, strategic affairs and diplomacy would appear to be Jaswant's natural calling. In his book, which is as much a history of strategic culture and compulsions as an agenda for the future, Jaswant points to the fact that national security can only flow from economic well-being and seems to make a case for greater liberalisation as a step in this direction. The man who now heads the Ministry of External Affairs adds a twist to the entire debate between free trade and economic nationalism by referring to "this era of diffused sovereignties". Later in the book, Jaswant calls for an overhaul of the Defence Ministry, with a more participatory role for the armed forces. This, he suggests, is imperative if the armed forces are to retain their cutting edge in a time of new verities and new technology. While his motives are obviously different, the divergence of views between the Defence Ministry and Naval Headquarters leading to the dismissal of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat makes Jaswant's suggestion that much more piquant. All in all, the book reflects a profundity and rigour which should be apparent in the following extract. Nothing is more dependent on economic conditions than precisely the army and the navy. --Engels Currently the principal global dynamic for change is the economic, along of course with technology; and these two being supportive fuels, are interdependent. An intermix of these two (the economic and the technological) impact differently on different societies, variations being determined by the political, economic and the strategic cultures involved. The velocity too of this change, though unprecedented in its totality, varies from one country to another, dictated largely by different individual applications of it. One constant alone remains: the vital importance of the economic.
That is where a dilemma confronts nations. If they be economically weak, or poor, or if their economic strength declines in direct relation to the challenges they face, then obviously the authority of that nation is enfeebled both internally and also internationally. This then compels them "to allocate more and more of their resources into the military sector, which in turn squeezes out productive investment, and over time leads to the downward spiral of slower growth, heavier taxes, deepening domestic splits over spending priorities and a weakening of the capacity to bear burdens of defence". This is a cruel spiral, relentless in its logic. It is also precisely the dilemma that India faces. The choice is not between security or economic growth, it is really security through economic growth. The challenge to India is direct: how to achieve greater national security through a more dynamic and distributionally equating economic growth. There has to be a recognition by the political leadership of the country that the more India pushes ahead with economic growth and expansion, the more will such a development by itself generate a "power-political" dynamic. This alone can give the nation the kind of security that is its just and due destiny. Two other economic aspects merit reflection and some comment. The first is about economic sovereignty, while the other is about combining social justice with economic growth. In this era of diffused sovereignties, nations have to be far more flexible in their attitude, and in their approach to where exactly the line of pure sovereignty (if there be such a line) lies. Yet again, the only measuring mechanism is that of vital national interests; short, however, of that falls an enormous area, largely grey, in which the choice of nation states is influenced directly by the factor of economic self-interest. As national interests, in respect of trading rights, for example, assert themselves, inevitably then some of the larger tend to swallow the smaller. India is currently passing through a phase of shifting from one to the other; as a nation it has changed its economic gear, but only just. A great deal more remains to be done. On the question of harmony between economic growth and social justice, there cannot be a standard formula. It is yet again a challenge to the management of change that India's national leadership faces. The question that needs to be addressed centres around economic growth and social cohesiveness. In the process of growth, should India lose social cohesion, will it not be diluting its national will? Enhancement in gross national product must result in an increase in gross national contentment too, not in any exacerbation of disparities; for the commitment of citizens to a state is altogether more material in this age. The radically different nature of warfare that has been brought into relations in the subcontinental region, has placed demands upon the Indian state to respond with innovation and alacrity. That the policy-making structures have yet not instituted the changes required is amply borne out by the continuing conflicts in various regions of India. The fundamental point, however, resides on the premise that the future political-military leadership in India must address itself to institutionalising decision-making. The practice of taking, and undoing, decisions simply on the basis of a personality-based regime has to come to an end. At the onset, therefore, this unworkable separation between the services headquarters from the Ministry of Defence (mod) has to be undone, and in place of this, the current inefficient structure, there shall have to be an integrated mod. The three services have to be given the responsibility of handling the affairs of their organisations, rather than let that remain at the desk of a generalist bureaucracy. This responsibility carries with it accountability. The frequently fractured relationship between the military and the civilian bureaucracy will not then be the subject of comment, for then each will rely on the other to produce results. The onus on efficiency, then, that confronts the mod, in general, and the armed forces, in particular, demands the establishment of a rational and a more current manpower and equipment policy. This by itself calls for the revamping of the entire force structure of the Indian Army, Navy and the Air Force. In the decades to come India shall have to continue to contend with covert operations or clandestine war. These are the changed face of combat, and they are the reality in the Indian subcontinent. The response mechanism and methodology, therefore, of the past 50 years will not work. Rapid advances in technology beckon India to look at other dimensions in the methods of clandestine wars being fought all over the globe. Information technology is not merely an office tool, it is now a core element of combat, and in every spectrum of conflict. The military is not the only user to require this medium for efficacy in the field; there is just as much need for the political class and civil services to understand this weapon and master its usage. Only then will information technology or the cyber-space function in India as a major force multiplier. For, in the conflict environment that currently prevails, the leadership's ability to cope with India's already overstretched forces, (which in turn are shackled by decreasing resources) will have to be made good by rapid and continuous introduction of force multipliers. Given its high expertise in computer software, where the country excels, can India engage in information warfare or be a participant in the revolution in military affairs that has been set in motion by the United States? That is the real challenge to the future generations of military and political leaders of India. |
|
Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY © Living Media India Ltd |
 |
 |
Though evident that economic prosperity does not
"always and immediately translate into military effectiveness; still, all the major
power shifts in the world's military power balances have (always) followed alterations in
the productive balances" of nations; but much more important that "victory has
always gone to the side with the greatest material resources". 
