prasad1
Active member
Yet another prime ministerial visit is being accompanied by big-ticket defence purchases. This time it is in the deep winter of Moscow, and deals worth over $10 billion are expected to be finalised, bringing Russia back on the list of top defence suppliers after a break of several years.
Earlier, a few hours before the Prime Minister took off for the U.S. in September, the Cabinet Committee on Security cleared deals worth over $3 billion, approving the long-pending purchase of Apache and Chinook helicopters.
The story was not very different in April in Paris, when Narendra Modi surprised many by announcing a decision to buy 36 Rafale fighters from Dassault through a government-to-government deal, overriding years of ongoing negotiations with the same company to buy 126 fighters under the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) open tender.
While the big-ticket defence purchases help improve atmospherics of the Prime Minister’s high-decibel visits and immediate military preparedness, they also raise troubling questions about the honesty behind the ‘Make in India’ slogan of the government. If anything, these purchases are only affirming the fact that the Modi government is only following the legacy of past several decades in defence procurements — import-dependent, risk-averse and corruption-riddled.
A missing military-industrial complex
India is probably the only large democracy without a robust military-industrial complex. According to data released earlier this year by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India accounted for 15 per cent of the volume of global arms imports in the previous five years. In terms of financial value India was only second to Saudi Arabia in 2014 on military purchases from the global bazaar, said IHS Jane’s.
India’s imports are three times that of China, which in the early 1990s took a dramatic turn towards indigenisation after following a pattern very similar to that of India. Between 2010 and 2014, China also turned into a major exporter of arms, increasing exports by 143 per cent over the period. China is the world’s third-largest military exporter today; India does not even figure in the top ten. Realists would argue that even if stolen from foreign countries and reverse-engineered, China has rapidly built itself a very robust military-industrial complex.
.............................................
Ultimately, the creation of a robust military-industrial complex would require an overhaul of higher education to create well-trained manpower. A 10-member committee set up by the MoD in May this year to evolve a policy framework for facilitating Make in India in the defence sector has come up with several recommendations. Among its most significant recommendations is that Make in India should not end up being “assemble in India with no IPR (intellectual property rights) and design control”. The comment comes against the backdrop of what has happened to the defence sector PSUs, which have largely become local integrators for foreign systems.
A committee under Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, then scientific adviser to the defence minister, had recommended that India should look at increasing its defence acquisition from within India from 30 per cent to 70 per cent by 2005. The year was 1995. However, today indigenous acquisition is still hovering around 35 per cent. The MoD expert committee has now suggested that 2027 should be the target year to achieve 70 per cent self-reliance.
The defence budget is 13 per cent of the Central government’s total expenditure, and almost 2 per cent of the GDP. Discussions about guns versus butter (defence versus civilian goods) can be endless, but it would be practically stupid to wish away the merits of an indigenous military-industrial complex, especially given its repeatedly proven ability to better lives beyond the military realm, its criticality for securing the nation state, and ability to bring down corruption in purchases.
For now, ‘Make in India’ is a mere slogan.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-...-mere-slogan/article8022380.ece?homepage=true
Earlier, a few hours before the Prime Minister took off for the U.S. in September, the Cabinet Committee on Security cleared deals worth over $3 billion, approving the long-pending purchase of Apache and Chinook helicopters.
The story was not very different in April in Paris, when Narendra Modi surprised many by announcing a decision to buy 36 Rafale fighters from Dassault through a government-to-government deal, overriding years of ongoing negotiations with the same company to buy 126 fighters under the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) open tender.
While the big-ticket defence purchases help improve atmospherics of the Prime Minister’s high-decibel visits and immediate military preparedness, they also raise troubling questions about the honesty behind the ‘Make in India’ slogan of the government. If anything, these purchases are only affirming the fact that the Modi government is only following the legacy of past several decades in defence procurements — import-dependent, risk-averse and corruption-riddled.
A missing military-industrial complex
India is probably the only large democracy without a robust military-industrial complex. According to data released earlier this year by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India accounted for 15 per cent of the volume of global arms imports in the previous five years. In terms of financial value India was only second to Saudi Arabia in 2014 on military purchases from the global bazaar, said IHS Jane’s.
India’s imports are three times that of China, which in the early 1990s took a dramatic turn towards indigenisation after following a pattern very similar to that of India. Between 2010 and 2014, China also turned into a major exporter of arms, increasing exports by 143 per cent over the period. China is the world’s third-largest military exporter today; India does not even figure in the top ten. Realists would argue that even if stolen from foreign countries and reverse-engineered, China has rapidly built itself a very robust military-industrial complex.
.............................................
Ultimately, the creation of a robust military-industrial complex would require an overhaul of higher education to create well-trained manpower. A 10-member committee set up by the MoD in May this year to evolve a policy framework for facilitating Make in India in the defence sector has come up with several recommendations. Among its most significant recommendations is that Make in India should not end up being “assemble in India with no IPR (intellectual property rights) and design control”. The comment comes against the backdrop of what has happened to the defence sector PSUs, which have largely become local integrators for foreign systems.
A committee under Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, then scientific adviser to the defence minister, had recommended that India should look at increasing its defence acquisition from within India from 30 per cent to 70 per cent by 2005. The year was 1995. However, today indigenous acquisition is still hovering around 35 per cent. The MoD expert committee has now suggested that 2027 should be the target year to achieve 70 per cent self-reliance.
The defence budget is 13 per cent of the Central government’s total expenditure, and almost 2 per cent of the GDP. Discussions about guns versus butter (defence versus civilian goods) can be endless, but it would be practically stupid to wish away the merits of an indigenous military-industrial complex, especially given its repeatedly proven ability to better lives beyond the military realm, its criticality for securing the nation state, and ability to bring down corruption in purchases.
For now, ‘Make in India’ is a mere slogan.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-...-mere-slogan/article8022380.ece?homepage=true
