India’s Defence Secretary: Babu or Executive?

For one individual functioning as Defence Secretary, the work load is so enormous that he/she cannot do justice.

It is time that each Service had a separate secretary and abolish the post of Defence Secretary.

Lack of exposure and knowledge of the incumbent makes the matter worse."- Gp Capt TP Srivastava ·

Incoming Defence Secretary has opined that India needs to review its ‘NO FIRST USE’ policy of nukes in view of changing global scenario.

· Defence Secretary has directed HAL/DRDO to focus on meeting deadlines.

· Defence Secretary has advised that for providing greater maritime security Indian Navy’s surveillance capability must be increased and has recommended acquisition of more P8i from USA.

· Defence Secretary has asked HAL to clearly define the timeline for production of AMCA and TEDBF

· Defence Secretary has requested Finance Minister to consider quantum increase in Capital Budgetary allocation for Indian Military

· Defence Secretary has expressed his unhappiness over the quality of equipment being produced by Ordnance Factories.

Alas! For past 60 odd years I have been wanting to hear such statements from exalted bureaucrats, who have adorned the appointment of Defence Secretary but not one individual has even come close to making such demands to improve national security.

Duties/Role of Defence Secretary

While scanning the internet following text emerged, which defines Duties, Role and responsibility of Defence Secretary;

· Defence Secretary in India acts as the administrative head of the Ministry of Defence, advising the Defence Minister on policy and administration, and coordinating activities across the ministry's departments, including Defence, Military Affairs, Defence Production, and more.

· The Department of Defence is headed by Defence Secretary and is responsible for the Defence Budget, establishment matters, defence policy, matters relating to Parliament, defence co-operation with foreign countries and co-ordination of all defence related activities.

· The secretary of defense oversees the Defense Department and acts as the principal defense policy maker and advisor.

Who heads Defence Procurement Board ?

We claim to be among the five largest militaries of the world CONSIDERING MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT but we hardly are a match with any of the top military powers when it comes to status of governing apparatus of military. The most obnoxious practice/provision is that Service Chiefs, the PROSECUTORS OF WAR, have no/little say in DEFENCE BUDGET, PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT FROM FOREIGN/INDIAN VENDORS and are not part of Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). Indeed all three Chiefs are members of Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) headed by Raksha Mantri. But the executive body for procurement Defence Procurement Board (DPB) is headed by Defence Secretary. The three service chiefs are not part of DPB due to protocol considerations. Services are represented by respective Vice Chiefs. Shouldn’t the respective service Chief head the DPB and decide on weapon acquisition?

USA System

On the contrary if we examine US Defence Governing Apparatus, it is evident that due to sheer volume of work involved in managing each service requirement, the Defence Secretary (equivalent to our Raksha Mantri) has a separate independent secretary for each service. Also in USA quite often Defence Secretary and Service Secretaries are former veterans. The secretaries do not work as ‘BABUS’. They voice their opinions freely on national security issues as well as related to their respective service. Latest example is quoted below.

Newly appointed Air Force Secretary Troy Meink had this to say to Senate Armed Services Committee hearing during process of confirmation;

· Troy Meink, a veteran KC-135 navigator has been nominated as Air Force Secretary.

· When asked about his views on US nuclear deterrence he said “Nuclear Modernisation is the ‘BACKBONE’ of the nation’s strategic deterrence.” He added that Air Force will replace land based version of Minuteman III ICBM with LGM-35A Sentinel.

· He expressed his views on existing strategic bomber fleet of USAF and said that one of his priorities will be to continue overseeing the B-21 Raider stealth bomber program, which will be a key portion of the nation’s air-based segment of the nuclear triad.

Military Experience/Background

Should following issues not govern the appointment of Defence Secretary?

· Should our Defence Secretary not be a professional serving Military Officer? If not, why not?

· Should a bureaucrat appointed as Defence Secretary have served as Deputy/Joint/Additional Secretary in MoD?

· Does our Defence Secretary have in depth knowledge about intricate affairs related with each service which are vastly different in respect of each service?

Most or at least quite a few bureaucrats in Defence Ministry have very little military knowledge/background. In any case notwithstanding their lack or shallow knowledge of military, sheer workload of Defence Secretary is so enormous that it is well nigh impossible for one individual to do justice to the job.

An example of their shallow knowledge was experienced by me. The then Additional Secretary Defence came to attend presentation in Air HQ on acquisition of second hand MiG-21 trainers.

I, then a Wing Commander, commanding a MiG-21M Squadron, was presenting the case attended by VCAS and about 30 other persons. My first slide showed number of MiG-21 trainers in IAF. ‘Learned’ bureaucrat was carrying some information, which must have been given to him by his staff. He literally shouted and said ‘Air Force must present correct information to the MoD’. According to information gathered from Air HQ, IAF has ‘so many’ MiG trainers’. I kept shut for few seconds and then I politely asked ‘Sir who collected that data and from where’. He was even more discourteous in his reply. By now my ‘retarded’ brain had arrived at the conclusion that ‘learned’ bureaucrat was given figures for entire IAF fleet of MiG trainers viz Mig-21, 23, 25, 27 and 29. I retaliated in the same manner and told him to get his facts right before interrupting in this manner. Presentation came to an end since he left in a huff. We all enjoyed the lovely snacks.

Reforms Needed

As of now entire Defence Procurement Process needs to be recast. The biggest flaw of DPP is that there is no accountability for delays in approval of proposals. The delays are not in days, weeks, months or years; the delays are in decades. No wonder that present government is resorting to Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) route for acquisition because lethargic and unaccountable bureaucrats cannot resolve acquisition issues in months. Inordinate delays result in huge financial burden because the cost rises exponentially. While complete new look DPP will take time but following reforms can be done within 24 hours provided the I-5s (Intellectually Impoverished Ignorant and Ill Informed Individuals) advising PM on defence matters use their grey matter in larger interest of National Security. The suggested reforms are;

· Abolish the post of Defence Secretary.

· Appoint Independent Secretaries for each Service, who will report to Service Chief.

· Service Chiefs to head the Defence Procurement Board for weapons acquisition for their respective Services.

Future

It is extremely unlikely, at least in foreseeable future, that a professional Military Officer will ever be appointed as Raksha Mantri / Defence Secretary. Gen VK’s induction in the cabinet gave some hope but it evaporated in thin air. It is an irony that one of the largest Military in the world does not have any representation of serving Military Officers in Higher Defence Organisation. Cosmetic and ornamental appointments are of no relevance viz appointment of retired ‘THREE STAR’ as CDS. His contribution to National Security is restricted/limited to parroting archaic policies viz ‘India will continue to follow NO FIRST USE’ policy of nukes. They are merely used as ‘mouth pieces’ and are forbidden to express independent views, which may not be in conformity with the views of ignorant governing apparatus.

Unquestionable example of utterly flawed approach of current government with regard to weapons acquisition on the ‘supposed’ advice of Defence Secretary and other members of I-5 is their continued belief that HAL/DRDO will deliver. For instance HAL Chairman has said that 83 TEJAS will be delivered by 2029 i.e. nearly 20 aircraft per year. With only one GE-404 in the kitty, awaiting for remaining 98 to arrive, if HAL can deliver operationally capable12 TEJAS per year, it will be a miracle. Acquisition from foreign vendors will continue to be afflicted with inordinate delays. Rafale–M is a current example. Depleting strength of Indian Military Air Power well below MINIMUM CRITICAL REQUIREMENT is of no consequence to these ignoramuses.

‘Make in India’ is a great concept but it is 50 years too late. Incompetent HAL with proven track record of delays cannot, should not and must not be expected to deliver. HAL quality control is pathetic. Touted as biggest defence deal, HAL has been given the contract for 156 PRACHAND Helicopters. When this machine will actually emerge as operational platform will be known in few years from now? But what is clear now is that any option of acquisition from foreign vendor is closed. Depending on HAL/DRDO to deliver is risking national security.

Of course there is a SILVER LINING; Buy HAL shares and make money.