Looking beyond Kargil

IN the context of Mr Hari Jaisingh’s article of July 16 (“Looking beyond Kargil: defence needs vital correctives”) it would be pertinent to quote Lt-Gen (retd) Satish Nambiar: “The core of the problem is that the bureaucracy has all the authority and power without any responsibility.

At a day-to-day level, this means that clearances are required for everything from military exercises to the most routine matters. There is much devastating delay. Several schemes remain a pipedream for years together with the result that they cost much more later on. The responsibility for the force rests with the Chief, who has little financial power. The Defence Secretary who has financial powers has no responsibility in a war. Adds Rear Admiral (retd) Raja Menon: “Even the Chief cannot get the money allotted for a particular requirement without an Under-Secretary’s okay.” Army Chief Malik, while addressing IAS probationers the other day, expressed anger about having to surrender Rs 109 crore from a modernisation grant of Rs 431 crore because of delays. The military did not understand the ramifications when in the fifties, Field Marshal Cariappa expressed an aversion to “babugiri”.

The final choice of equipment too is in the hands of the civil servant, who also calls the shots in price and technology negotiations. Not to forget promotions and appointments, the MoD’s approval is required for promotion to colonel and brigadier, and their equivalents, while the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet must okay promotion to major-general and above. Irritants arise when the Chief’s recommendations are not honoured as in the Admiral Bhagwat-Harinder Singh case.

There is a growing service sentiment seeking involvement in foreign policy as well. Isn’t foreign policy an extension of national security? This is the age of specialisation. It may be better to have the Defence Secretary from the Foreign Service.

Besides, there should be a larger number of officers in the MoD in accordance with the specific requirements of the defence forces which they are expected to serve. Thus visits to Kargil, Siachen or elsewhere should take place routinely, without melodrama.

K.M. VASHISHT
Mansa

Diplomacy & military might: India, which is about eight times bigger in population and about five times in area than Pakistan, has hardly twice as much army as Pakistan has got. On the other hand, China, which has more or less the same level of population as India, maintains a three times bigger army.

Even service conditions of the defence forces were ignored. Yet if our armed forces have done so well in Kargil, the entire credit goes to the defence officers and jawans. One hopes the Vajpayee government would correct the past mistakes committed by the Congress governments.

It must be understood that diplomacy works only when backed by strong defence. This is specially true while dealing with a rogue state like Pakistan. Therefore, a very strong defence force is the only remedy to avoid Kargils in the future.

ANAND PRAKASH
Panchkula

Congress record: India may have to face many more Kargils in the days to come. It is only Phase II of the General Zia’s “Operation Topac”. Vital correctives also need to be applied to India’s antiquated surveillance and poor intelligence systems right now.

Professional politicians are locked in a dog-eat-dog situation. Mrs Sonia Gandhi says: “Pakistan dared to intrude the Indian land only because the government at the Centre was weak and unstable.” Her shadow Foreign Minister, Mr Natwar Singh, has been appearing on TV and berating the government and its ministers as “inexperienced and immature.”

One look at the experienced and stable Congress governments. In the 1947 Indo-Pak war we lost 78,000 sq km (one third of Kashmir) to Pakistan despite the brilliant performance of the armed forces which were capable enough to secure the entire territory in days. We faced the 1962 fiasco and national shame because of our ill-equipped forces and total intelligence failure. Then came Rajiv Gandhi’s colossal misadventure through the IPKF known as “India’s people-killing force” in military circles.

It is time the Sonia-led Congress stopped politicising the Kargil issue and talked sense at this hour when India needs one nation, one leader, one objective.

S.S. JAIN
Chandigarh

Time for introspection:It is true that hardcore mercenaries can mount another aggression soon because of the drawbacks in our system of defence. The ISI colluding with Osama bin Laden has planned multifarious disruptive activities to bleed India in the Terai belt. Remember what Mr Nawaz Sharif has said: “Today we have calmed down the volcano of Kargil but tomorrow the volcano can erupt somewhere else as the lawa is still boiling.”

The article has not only highlighted the threat but also defined the bare minimum task to be undertaken to change the structure of the MoD.

The moot point is: how to control bureaucratic manipulations and operations in the MoD? This process has to be reversed by giving more powers to the defence authorities. Radical measures alone can help the defence authorities.

The truth is that Pakistan was able to invade us because of our own weaknesses. Is it not a fact that there has been an intelligence failure on our part? Some specific information was available in advance, but we failed to visualise the larger picture and take appropriate measures. Certainly we have perfected the art of rationalising our mistakes and blaming everything on others.

We have to introspect. Why was such a situation allowed to develop in the first place? What were our failings? What needs to be done to ensure that in future Pakistan does not try to repeat its misadventure. We owe this to the nation and certainly to those who have died in the war.

India must initiate a campaign to portray the issue of Kargil as a symptom of the struggle to defend secularism against the divisive two-nation theory. Today India has more Muslims than Pakistan has, and hence the change in the ground realities.

Let us not continue our reactive policy. Let us be pro-active for the required change.

UMED SINGH GULIA
Gohana