Reality of Power and Media in India

Reality of Power and the Media in India

Let me first revisit one of the cherished delusion of common people, that is, the Chiefs of Indian Armed Forces are so powerful that they must always be kept under most stringent checks lest they transgress their sphere of influence. Remember the outcry which has gone up when they requested the government to rectify anomalies in award of Sixth Pay Commission to the soldiers. This was touted as height of disloyalty and disrespect for the constitutional authority. Well reality is quiet different. Real power in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) lies with the bureaucrats. Let me elaborate with the example of recent scandal involving erstwhile head of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Mr Sudipta Ghosh. The fellow has been arrested by the CBI for what it calls “one of the biggest corruption scandals in recent times”.

As per the official website of the MoD, `The Ordnance Factories Organization is the largest and oldest departmentally run production organization in the country and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of Defence hardware. The organization functions under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies and is a dedicated facility for manufacture of Weapons, Ammunitions, Vehicles (Armoured and Transport), Clothing, General Stores and Equipment for Defence Services. Apart from supplying to Armed Forces, wherever adequate capacities are available, the Ordnance Factories also fulfill the requirements of Paramilitary & Police Forces/Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Civil Trade and foreign customers. There are 39 Ordnance Factories geographically distributed all over India at 24 different locations. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) the corporate headquarters of these factories professes to follow the values of Integrity, Transparency, Fairness & Trust. India Today describes the OFB as `the world’s largest government production department’.

Mr Sudipta Ghosh was the head honcho of OFB for two years has been accused of amassing huge fortune through shady deals involving foreign firms. For the sake of appearances the OFB is supposedly an autonomous organization but in reality head of OFB reports to the Additional Secretary Defence Production in the MoD who in turn is subordinate to Secretary Defence Production, who reports to Defence Secretary MoD. These worthies control the OFB through a system of checks and balances wherein the MoD representative is always present on the various committees formed to progress major proposal. So the common sense syas that Mr Sudipta Ghosh could not have acted alone.

But when the scandal blew up, the bureaucracy, in a classic move turned the adversity into opportunity through a two step approach. First it immediately assumed the role of honest broker by declaring that the matter would be fully investigated and the guilty would be punished. Second, it made public it’s decision to exercise greater control over OFB by, hold your breath, having a Joint Secretary attend all important meetings of OFB and by making additional secretary Department of Defence Production available to OFB for closer interaction. Since these worthies were already on committees formed to progress OFB proposals how will they get closer? And, what will this closeness achieve? More corruption! Masterly case of `movement being passed off as action’.
Real culprit in the whole messy game are the bureaucrats in the MoD. Since the OFB is a rich source of all kinds of perks and privileges, the bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the functioning of the Ordnance Factories under warps because secrecy allows them to run a most inefficient conglomerate at the cost of lives of soldiers and taxpayers money. Sub-standard items produced by the OFBs are forced down the throat of Services by first getting the item quality cleared from Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an in-house minion of Secretary Defence.

So-called national press has been conspicuous by its absence from this important issue. It is time for concerned citizen to take matters in hand and demand that OFB be immediately turned into a fully autonomous public holding company open to norms of transparent corporate governance. The bureaucracy in MoD must be divested of any power over the supplier (OFB), Quality Controller (DGQA) and Services. Why not have a regime similar to the one constituted for tele-services.

Red Herring of AFSPA

Revoking AFSPA is nothing but a red herring. Legally a police constable has more powers in normal course of his duty than those given to and Armymen under AFSPA. For example in course of his routine duties (say in the state of Rajasthan or Tamilnadu) a police head constable can open fire without awaiting clearance from his superior and stop and search a suspect. Those opposing AFSPA are seeking to deny these powers to a Naik of the Army (equivalent rank to Head Constable) even in an area infested with insurgents and terrorists. How strange!

AFT and after

I agree with the concept of having a `Military Appeals Court' but I am not sure if AFT in present form is the answer. I also do not agree with our learned friend Navdeep's description of present army act as British Legacy for a `native army'. We need to remember that before the british there was no Army Act in India nor did any of our great Maharajas deem it necessary to enact one to match and surpass the British. LAstly if the present Army ACt was so bad why has it not been thrown away for last 60 years. Sexcond I also do not agree with our learned friend on the issue of `customs of war'. He suggests that thse are best done away with. The fact is that such customs provide basis to every law. For example the present civil code which forms the bedrock of Indian jurisprudence is based on `catholic customs and beliefs' by virtue of being carbon copy of Eurpoean jurisprudence and that is the reason why Indian Law many a times runs counter to social norms and hence observed in denial (case of marriages between cousins of same gotras in Haryana). AFT in present form is nothing but imposition of civil judiciary on the military. This will slowly but surely destroy very uniqueness of the military. What we needed was a `military system of justice presided by military judge, based on jury system free from command influence and JAG influence. Having provision for appeals but totally manned by Jury composed of people with proven combat record.

Inaction is the Best Policy

As an Indian I have no love lost for the Pakistan Army who have been implacable foes for us but again as an Indian I have greatest interest in getting the Taliban defeated. Hence when someone who has been the COAS of Indian Army analyses ongoing operations (Rah-e-Rast) in Swat I sit up and take intense interest in his writings.

But I am sorry to say that Gen Malik in article ` Pak offensive against Taliban’ The Tribune 03 June 2009, fails to enthuse me. Because his analysis smacks of defeatism. It criticises for the sake of it and fails to offer any worthwhile alternative course of action. Every point he makes is totally pessimistic.

First he pontificates that while `it will be easy for the army to enter cities, towns and villages...civil administration will take time to establish’. This is nothing but stating the obvious because the fact applies to all wars. So what is the general suggesting? No operations!

Second, the general claims that if army operations succeed it may act catalyst for consolidation of Talibs for neighbouring regions and in case of stalemate it may encourage Talibs to claim victory’. A strange kind of argument. The good general seems to be suggesting that `if you try you are sure to fail' thus `inaction is best'. How in keeping with his quick acceptance of governmental caveat that LoC not be crossed!!

Third, He claims that Pakistan army has no experience of counter-insurgency because it was focussing on conventional war with conventional tactics against India. So the deduction to me is that it must use the tactics it is good at. But when it is using conventional tactics Gen Malik criticises it for the fear of alienating local populace (as if they are any better now). Pray what is the answer? None so far as Gen Malik is concerned. Inaction perhaps!

Fourth, some of the points he makes about the tactics also seem to be quite premature or subjective. He criticises the policy of retaining certain control over media reporting from combat zone. But we all remember that US Policy of having embedded journalists (whose reports were vetted before airing) paid good dividends during Gulf War and on the other hand unrestricted reporting on Kargil did raise some controversies!

He again states the obvious that defeating Pakistani Taliban is intimately linked to success of operations in Afghanistan. This is true and as one gathers from press reports there seems to be certain synergy between NATO operations in Afghanistan and Pak operations in Swat.

Notwithstanding this, the broader question is what should a country do when faced with extra-territorial linkages to terrorism. Answer was provided by the Indian Army (in post Malik era) by fencing the LoC and thereby isolating and defeating terrorists in Kashmir.

Role of any Army is to fight and win, winning hearts and minds is for other organs of the state as conclusively proven by Sri Lank. Any attempt to divide soldier's attention by engaging him into non-military tasks should be seen for what it is - ploy by a weak military leadership hell bent on securing political patronage. How much harm such leadership has caused to Indian Army is a subject for historians.