NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Putin and after

The $ 4 billion defence agreement signed between India and Russia during President Putin's visit is certain to make India's armed forces "feel good". After the starvation diet of the early nineties, it is indeed a good tonic for the services. However, reading between the lines, it underlines three distinct developments in Indian defence.

Firstly, it confirms the growing arms race in the subcontinent as a reality. Secondly, it perpetuates our continuing dependence on Russia for arms supplies. Finally, it, once and for all, exposes the futility of our drive for self-reliance.

The massive Rs 16,000 crore defence agreement involves the purchase of T-90 tanks, the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and the production of Su-30 aircraft in India. It closely follows the Rs 6,500 crore agreement for purchase of Su-30 aircraft in 1996 and the 4,500 crore order for three frigates and two submarines in 1997. India's massive arms purchases are sure to be matched by similar mind-boggling expenditure by Pakistan.

Undoubtedly, some of the arms purchases have become necessary due to the neglect of the arms replacement programme in the nineties. The Army's tanks are today more than 20 years old. Similarly, the Air Force is still carrying on with the Mirages and MiGs purchased in the eighties. Even so, expenditure of such a large amount cannot but make India's economists a little uneasy. Although one would not think so considering their arms sprees, India and Pakistan are two of the poorest countries in the world, perpetually finding themselves at the bottom third of any table of GDPs or standards of living.

Pakistan is in dire economic straits with less than $ 500 million in FE reserves. It has frequently come close to defaulting on its debt payments. India is a little better off but not much. Apparently, the well-publicised success of its IT sector, the sizeable FE reserves thanks to inflows from NRIs, some flattering articles about its growing clout in the world and the recent success in Kargil has made the finance ministry "feel good" and generous enough to dole out thousands of crores for purchase of arms. Unfortunately, beneath the bravado there still lie 400 million people below the poverty line, a still dismal literacy rate, the uncontrolled growth of population and a creaking infrastructure. No one can "feel good" about these statistics.

Two years ago, after both countries came out of the closet and exploded their nuclear devices, many people supported the events in the hope that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons would lead to the next logical step, a reduction in conventional forces. These hopes have been belied. Indeed, the Kargil episode has put paid to the fervent hopes that possession of nuclear weapons by both sides would end conventional conflicts once and for all. Rather, recent purchases by both countries indicates a strengthening of conventional forces, equipment and weapons.

Surprisingly, there has not even been a debate leave alone a protest against such enormous expenditure. Political parties and the common public have been brought up to believe that any questioning of defence expenditure is unpatriotic.

The agreement also confirms that ten years after the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia remains our major arms supplier. During the Cold War, the Soviets had built up an enormous defence industry, which not only supplied the country's own armed forces but also its Warsaw Pact allies and other friendly countries. The Soviet Union was one of the largest exporters of arms during the 70s and the 80s.

The end of the Cold War and break-up of the Union saw that market dwindling rapidly. Most countries in Europe downsized their defence forces and cut down on equipment purchases. The limited arms market had many suppliers, both from the East and West, and few takers. The Russian arms industry was facing a crisis as even traditional customers like India had put brakes on their arms spending. The industry was facing large scale closures when massive orders from India in 1996, 1997 and now, ensured its survival. The new orders are sure to bail out the Russian arms industry, at least in the foreseeable future.

In a way, the intransigence and short-sighted policy of the United States is responsible for our continuing dependence on Russia. For a while, in the late nineties, due to declining demand at home and pressure from its arms manufacturers, it appeared that the US would make its arms freely available to other countries. The 1998 nuclear explosion and subsequent sanctions put an end to that hope. In fact, reports indicate that some Indian Navy fighters and helicopters sent to UK for repairs are held up due to their parts not being made available by US firms.

Lastly and most importantly, the arms deal blows sky high the claims which originate at a steady pace from India's defence R and D establishment. In the 60s, India, setting out to become self reliant in arms, established a defence R and D set-up and a defence industry to back it up. Today the DRDO boasts of more than 50,000 employees scattered though nearly 20 laboratories. The defence production set-up has a number of Public Sector undertakings to manufacture ships, aircraft, tanks, guns, rifles and every conceivable form of weapon and equipment. Yet despite this enormous organisation, purchases from abroad continue.

In the eighties the DRDO promised to develop and produce a tank to end all tanks. It was to be the finest, the sturdiest and the fastest in the world. Its armour was meant to be invincible. Twenty years down the line that tank, the Arjun, is a failure. Not more than a handful have been inducted into service. Army officials are unhappy with it and hence our purchase of the Russian T-90.

Not learning anything from the Arjun debacle, the DRDO embarked on the development of a combat aircraft. Once again while on paper, the aircraft was to be the finest in the world. Thousands of crores later, the aircraft has yet to take flight. The first flight keeps getting delayed and what was supposed to have taken place in 1995 has not yet happened. Once again we have had to go abroad for more aircraft.

The same sad story can be told many times over. The Indian Navy is still waiting for its Trishul missile for the Brahmaputra type frigates. The missile was to be delivered in 1992. Eight long years since, the missile is still undergoing "successful trials". In the meantime the Brahmaputra has been commissioned and is presumably going around with an empty space where the missile should have been.

India boasts of three defence shipyards and two commercial yards, a luxury not enjoyed by many countries. These yards would have been more than sufficient to meet our naval needs. In fact, the Cochin shipyard would have delivered an aircraft carrier to replace the Vikrant by now. Our need to order from abroad is an indication of the failure of our planning to make full use of our facilities.

Any attempt at accountability results in cries of 'foul' from the powerful DRDO lobby. The frequent and damning reports from the Auditor General are shrugged off. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was censured for rightfully calling for a performance audit on the ATV submarine project. In fact, we are not much near self-sufficiency in meeting our defence requirements than we were 30 years ago. Until that is achieved it would be best to keep at least one reliable supplier like Russia on our side.

Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd)

The Putin visit: The full coverage