Could it be to replace the aging fleet of fighter jets prone to failure and crashes? Just wondering.

Amit, I'm not sure I understand your question. Could it be [what] to replace the aging fleet of fighter jets...?

Anyway, as I said in the post, I'm not opposed to this particular purchase, which might well be a necessary one. I'm wondering about the emphasis overall.

I'm wondering about the emphasis overall.

i dont see anything in principal wrong with increasing a countries mimlitary strength as its economic and soft ower increases. also, why should india just sit back and end up chinas whipping boy in asia (as they were before).

i dont see anything in principal wrong with increasing a countries mimlitary strength

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm wondering whether India is increasing its military strength in the right way.

Is it getting better at handling the real problems it has at present, and the problems it is likely to have going forward in a nuclear-armed subcontinent?

Is it getting better at handling the real problems it has at present, and the problems it is likely to have going forward in a nuclear-armed subcontinent?

well, one view of this may be that they are not doing this to arm up against pakistan, but to implicitly tell china to "back off", and hence be able to develop economicly without any kind of hyper destructive asian conflict (threat of mutually assured destruction and all that)

Amardeep, [what]=necessary/justified.

Agree with Amit. The new fighters are to replace an old fleet. Also,
the linkage between the two (military hardware and internal security)
is a bit tenuous. The reason is that the effectiveness of internal
security efforts are strongly influenced by political and logistical
factors. For example, the police did not act on intelligence received
about possible attacks in Hyderabad prior to the actual acts. I agree
that the police forces in India need considerable improvement (salaries,
modernization etc), but I think their ineffectiveness in these matters
is often as much a result of the choices made by local politicians as
their ineffectiveness. This cannot be fixed by money alone.

As for the maoist problem, the current govt has been very ineffective
in its policies, this after a previous home ministry report (during the
NDA govt) which identified the Maoist problem as the primary internal
security threat in the future. I think a lot of this is plain incompetence
at the home ministry. I suspect that things will be allowed to slide for
the worse until the govt is forced to act, and then we will see extended
counterterrorism operations against them with accompanying military
deployments as in the past with Punjab and J&K.

Finally, a word about using military options for internal security duties.
This really should not be the military's job since the military is not trained
to fight the citizens that it is sworn to defend, and generally there is a
strong distaste in the army for internal security duties. In the long term,
it can also severely undermine the military's morale and create divisions (c.f
Bluestar and its aftermath). This is also why special paramilitary groups like
the Rashtriya Rifles have been formed. They are not quite military and are
specifically trained for internal security duties.

Amardeep,

in controlling terrorism in its cities I think it has been relatively unsuccessful

Security measures to prevent repeat attacks are generally not instituted

While I see where you are going with this : I still think thats an unfair position to take. None of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai( stockmarket bomb blasts in the 90s , Gateway of India blast) and now Hyderabad could have been forseen.What would you have the authorities do ?

Take attacks on public transport: In Mumbai , for example, given the population and number of people who use local transport, I do not think it is feasible to put in place security measures such as pat -downs, screening etc. What can be done is what is only now(post 9/11) seen in Public transport in larger cities in the US - signs exhorting the public to be vigilant about abandoned bags etc.These signs have been part of public transport for years in India.

Similarly, security checks in airports increased in the US to include patdowns, baggage checks etc only post 9/11 - These checks have also been instituted in India for years.

I was also surprised to find that upon coming into power in 2004, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram sharply increased military spending. I would have expected the opposite, given that the current UPA government is a left-center coalition, while the previous NDA government was more hawkish in tone.

Amardeep,

I am a little confused. Can you please clarify

1. Do you think we should not spend more than we do currently?
Given Russia and China's amibitions in the region I think this would be foolish.

2. Do you think we should be spending more on law enforcement/intelligence to tackle immediate threats?
Can't we do both or limited finacial resources prvents us from doing both.

3. why compare Education and Defense ?

Runa #9, in this case I remember seeing something on NDTV a couple of weeks ago along the lines of "Impending terror threat in South." Vkrishna (in #7) states that no actions were taken in response to the intelligence before the bombing. (Actions could entail a greater police presence in public places, for starters. In this case, the clocks used in the timers were bought locally -- that might also be something to keep in mind for future reference.)

Vkrishna (#7), your point about the incompetence of the Home Ministry is not so different from the point I am trying to make, which is that the Indian govt. (whether it's the military or the home ministry) is failing to respond adequately to its *real* security problems.

But your mentioning the Rashtriya Rifles and the need for strengthening paramillitary police force (rather than simply deploying the army) is a good objection. I have also heard of a special anti-Naxal force called the "Greyhounds," though what I have heard there is pretty sketchy.

Please do not put Russia along side China as enemy. Chinese are 100% enemies and only want to see India in ruins. Russian have been our allies and have provided most of our weapons & technology. Russians I have come into contact with love India and Indians, many older ones grew up on Bollywood movies.

Americans love us now because they see $$$$$, Russians were there to defend us against Pakistan and also China.

BG

Nara, 1) Spending *levels* are not a huge concern for me, esp. since the economy is growing so quickly overall. 2) Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. and 3) Because I was curious to know, and thought others might be as well. (The same imbalance is very much present in the U.S., where the 2006 defense budget was more than $400 billion)

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm wondering whether India is increasing its military strength in the right way.

I think it's hard to know what exactly would be the right direction for defense rupees, regarding a focus on addressing the risk of smaller-scale conflicts and terrorist attacks in population-dense areas. I've underwritten a few start-up companies using microwaves to map out hidden objects in a large crowd of people to a fairly good degree of accuracy and precision. That being said, it seems like an ultimate solution would involve creating something akin to Bentham's Panopticon but modernized--a goal the Chinese government has been working towards (towards which London has made far greater strides, with its camera network) with the assistance of western tech companies like Cisco (among many many others).

Do you think a virtual Panopticon is a worthy goal for Indian defense funds?

Do you think a virtual Panopticon is a worthy goal for Indian defense funds?

I don't know about a panopticon, but I think a network of cameras could make a huge difference. Instead of releasing a useless sketch (suspect is fair-skinned, glasses -- wow, big help), they could possibly be releasing a photograph right now. They would also be able to track both subsequent and prior movements of the same suspect(s) around the city...

But I don't think anyone has publicly talked about copying the London model in any of India's cities, and I don't see why not.

I hope Indian defence purchasing continues to expand its sources. And I think the emphasis on in-country production is the right thing to do. Self-reliance plus multiple suppliers. India should never become over-reliant on one any country for its defence needs. That's the slippery slope to Pakistanisation - when the supplier country wants to exert power, it can withold military hardware as did the USA with Pakistan. India was lucky that in the past, the principal supplier, Russia, was a steady partner and not only agreed to in-country production of weapons but also never pulled the rug out from under the Indian armed forces by witholding supplies for political quid pro quo reasons.

but I think a network of cameras could make a huge difference.

A Panopticon works by virtue of the subject citizens believing that they are always under surveillance--whether they actually are, or not. This is basically what London's camera network achieves. It may just be that my irrational Libertarian hackles are raised because although I see the benefits of having such a network in densely populated areas, I fear for the civil rights of urban populations who must trust that their leadership is infallible, with regards to taking undue advantage of the perspective afforded by occupying the top-most position in a Panopticon-styled security network.

another reason -
it's no secret that america, japan, australia and india are creating an alliance to counter the rise of china and to contain islam-ic terrorism.
modernization of indian defense infrastructure [read, compatibility with american and western equipment and forces] is the first of several measures to be taken in order to operationalize the quad.

Also, London's camera-network can certainly get stills and video for the relevant authorities (a big help in tracking down a potential bomber), but it also did not stop them from identifying an innocent man as a potential bomber and summarily executing him on the street (Jean Charles de Menezes--did I spell that correctly?) There are few checks and balances in pre-emptive CT strikes on the general populace.

MM writes: >>It may just be that my irrational Libertarian hackles are raised..by Panopticon ...I fear for the civil rights of urban populations

As a libertarian, I have no problem with security cameras in public places. I fail to understand how it violates any of Libertarianism's principles, or violation of civil rights. Once I step outside the confines of my home, I'm in the public domain. I don't have the right to be not observed.

M. Nam

Sharmishta @16,
I think India makes it's own lightweight fighter aircraft. Munitions and weapons are produced locally also.

I fail to understand how it violates any of Libertarianism's principles, or violation of civil rights

that's why i said my concern seemed, at first blush, to be irrational. Do you know what, "irrational" means?

Also, it would be pretty much impossible for any Libertarian to agree to even an approximation of Bentham's Panopticon but i'm sure that governments of the future will rely on sheep-like citizens, claiming status as libertarians, to validate such security programs.

The solution does lie in better technology, like the aforementioned microwave tech, to seek out threats without subjecting the entire populace to the skin-peeling eye of eternal visual monitoring by the eyes of the Panopticon.

Counter insurgency operations aren't expensive from a procurement standpoint. They require patience, good intelligence, solid training, building relationships with locals, etc. The militaries of nations address not one threat, but several. The key is to have the adaptablility to address those threats as they present themselves without becoming one dimensional.

With India's growing economy and it's needs, strategically it will need to put itself in a stronger position. This requires updating old hardware used far beyond the recommended shelf life of items. The Air Force and Navy of nations is what gives a country 'reach'. In terms of the Armies or ground forces, training money is essentially what is needed to deal with COIN operations, along with political, and social capital.

Big defense procurements also play into world politics by building/strengthening relationships. The big 'stuff' is for external threats, which may not materialize, but you still need technology on par with others to maintain deterrance. Dealing with insurgencies takes patience and political will. It's a far more time consuming effort that isn't sexy at all.

For any Yes Minister/Yes Prime minister aficionados out there, this is quite similar to the argument in the first prime minister episode. You can make the biggest weapons which will make you invincible in conventional war, but what if nobody is fighting conventional war? Where will you use the big planes when inside enemies are bombing your marketplace? I think in addition to totally justified big ticket item spending, we do need to put significant part of our budget to install real time surveillance cameras, allocate more resources to strengthen our informant network etc.

Also I strongly believe that money spent in education and awareness in terrorism prone troubled pocket areas is less of education spending and more of a defense spending. For example one of the suspects in the previous Hyderabad bombings was one of 7-8 children with father hardly having resources to feed them, let alone send then to school. He finally ended up going to one of those madarsa, and things just got worse from there for everyone.

Amardeep (in original post):

India’s Defense spending is still more than three times the budget for Education, according to the numbers given here.

The numbers from the 2007-08 Union Budget:

Defence: 54,078 crores (up from 51,542 the previous year) Social Services (Education, Health, Broadcasting, etc.): 9,321 crores (up from last year's original estimates of 8,546 crores, but down from last year's revised estimates of 9,494 crores)

So the Defence budget is actually more like six times the Social Services budget, which includes education, meaning education is probably much less than six times the Defence budget.

Nara (#10):

why compare Education and Defense ?

Because it's a good indicator of domestic social spending. What's the point of being a citizen of a state which doesn't take care of you?

Because it's a good indicator of domestic social spending. What's the point of being a citizen of a state which doesn't take care of you?

defense is a part of "taking care of you". letting some foreign army run you over and kill you all wouldnt be a good example of "taking care of you"

India should look at the US and take heed. Back in the 50s, when our economy was booming and we were using technology to spread our economic and political influence around the globe, America got caught up in the great Evil of the day, "communism." Among other things, it was an ideology used as a cover against any critique of never ending increases of military and intelligence budgets. Fast forward to today, when despite being a nation of incredible wealth, "our" budget and funding priorities are determined by the "need" to "combat terrorism," primarly by spending more money (on credit, at this point) on programs and weapons that have dubious value at best. Corruption is rife, and those who directly benefit from military spending have an untoward amount of influence on the domestic political process.

Indians should be smart, and recognize that a modern nation "needs" only two things: a couple of well-maintianed nuclear bombs, and a hardly used, ethnically and socioeconomically representative defensive force. wars are for suckers, the only ones who ever win are the arms dealers. India has a chance: become the world's next becon of shining democracy and innovation, or the next Empire. Empires never last, and always consume the nations that spawn them, in the end.

The airforce has been due for an upgrade for quite sometime. I think in the context of the ageing fleet and the need for a certain satisfactory level of military hardware for the armed force to be functional, this seems like a reasonable purchase.

The fight against the naxals isn't ON because of a certain lack of political will. I am positive there is the necessary hardware and resouces. Their deployment is being blocked by, in my opinion, by vested interests in the government. The government also believes in negotiating rather than unleashing the military on its own citizens. Though I think they are a big problem, I don't think the lack of funds has to do with the dreath of funding.

I think the best way to marginalise the Naxalite movement is to do a better job at uplifting the downtrodden. When people get treated like crap, they will be easy recruits for the Naxalites and I do not blame them. You know, Eisenhower was right about the military industrial complex. Some people get more conservative as they age. I am getting more radical as I see a lot of bullshit going on. In college, I used to laugh at the military protestors. What is going on in Africa is a good example of arm sellers enabling the worst tendencies of human beings just like a drug pusher would do for an addict. You got all these idiotic African tribes causing a lot more damage with cheaply made Chinese blades or Western arms than if they were allowed to fight on their own. The only winners in conflict in the Indian subcontinent are the arms dealers.

wars are for suckers, the only ones who ever win are the arms dealers.

No.

The Union won the American Civil war - the people of the United States benefited. The American revolutionary war resulted in independence from Britain and setting a model for future republics.

The Allies won WWII - millions of people were saved from Nazi and Japanese domination. Jews, gypsies, Poles, etc. were spared from death camps after being industrially slaughtered.

The 1971 Indo-Pak war resulted in the creation of a new state - Bangladesh, who seemed to be pretty happy to be independent.

And so on. Lets not get carried away with the idea that 'there are no winners in war'. It is one method used to settle differences. Sometimes there are clear winners and losers, at times nothing much is gained, or in some instances warring parties are worse off than before. Military technology (along with space tech) has spawned plenty of innovation that has filtered down to the civilian world (GPS is one example).

The industry of killing people and saving them have been sources of some incredible innovation. Ying-yang.

defense is a part of "taking care of you". letting some foreign army run you over and kill you all wouldnt be a good example of "taking care of you"

I thought the point was that it's no longer as easy as defending against some foreign army. The problem in the East is in enforcing citizenship on people who don't want to be citizens - is that really a military problem?

Also, I thought the scourge of the homegrown terrorist had come into vogue.

The only winners in conflict in the Indian subcontinent are the arms dealers.

sounds like i should trade in my calculator for a truck full of kalashnikovs....

I thought the point was that it's no longer as easy as defending against some foreign army. The problem in the East is in enforcing citizenship on people who don't want to be citizens - is that really a military problem?

Also, I thought the scourge of the homegrown terrorist had come into vogue

some people out there want to be independant. not all. holding the country together is part of the job.

Amardeep Your Question: I do wonder whether the investment on hardware such as advanced fighter jets is really addressing India’s current (and likely future) military needs.Especially with a serious terrorism problem as well as ongoing internal uprisings, isn’t it possible that other kinds of military expenditures might be warranted? How do fighter jets help with terrorism or guerilla warfare?

Terrorism is not the only threat currently facing India. As people have stated above China and Pakistan (Thanks to Uncles Sam's f-16) are updating their fighter inventory with new top of the line fighters. At the same time the majority of India's fighters are aging Russian planes that need to be replaced soon. As of now Indian Air Force is barely able to maintain its fighting strength of 35 Air Squadrons due to attrition and retirement. In the light of all the above stated facts its very important that we update our inventory.

The last thing that I would like to add is that the 10Billion dollar contract requires the winning company of invest 50% of the contracts worth back into India in form of infrastructure or support contracts. This in turn will go a long way in boosting the local aerospace industry. So all in all it is something that India and Indian Airforce needed yesterday.

The point you make about terrorism is valid. India is not doing much to mitigate the risk posed by terrorism. But asking whether the fighter money should be diverted towards terrorism is not fair either. These are 2 different but equally important issues need that need to be handled by the GOI. India cannot let China or Pak gain the strategic edge in conventional weaponry not can it relax its guard against terrorism.

My 2 cents....

Taking off from what Siddhartha is saying in #34, if you look at the NYT article closely, India is indeed looking at using this to develop a local arms manufacturing industry (which so far is almost non existent). Thus contracts come with the clause that a good portion of the order is to be manufactured in India. I think this is brilliant and will help India move towards better self sufficiency in the arms arena and thus has long term benefits which will also address internal security concerns.

Plus I suspect that the articles don't focus on the relatively minnow sales that are not as impressive like sophisticated artillery and instruments. These will again be more useful for internal security needs.

BTW, Sepia has been very silent on the nuclear deal, something which is of high importance to India and creating quite a stir in local political circles.

Some people get more conservative as they age. I am getting more radical as I see a lot of bullshit going on.

Pravin, I've heard similar sentiments expressed by people (some are my friends) when they became parents. Not becoming radical, but definitely more awareness and a big increase in their concern for what's happening in the world.

BTW, Sepia has been very silent on the nuclear deal, something which is of high importance to India and creating quite a stir in local political circles.

Ardy, see this post two weeks ago -- a pretty interesting discussion, especially once people started to get past ideology and start talking about the specifics of the deal.

"As a libertarian, I have no problem with security cameras in public places. I fail to understand how it violates any of Libertarianism's principles, or violation of civil rights."

As a libertarian, I do have a problem with wasting money on excessive deployment of security cameras - because that money being wasted comes from tax collection. Money needs to be spent for law and order; but, however worthy a cause is, it should not be an infinite sinkhole for money. The first million dollars spent on law and order go a long way further than the 100th time one million dollars is spent on it; there are diminishing returns, and if the returns are too paltry, then we need to stop and rethink whether greater investment is truly necessary.

That aside, I disagree with notions that the Indian bid for fighter jets is somehow trying to establish a panopticon. It's merely the backlog of a much needed modernization effort. Will it help counter-terrorism efforts? Unlikely. Fighters jets are not very useful for counter-terrorism, but the IAF is also obtaining AWACS and low-flying UAVs fitted with infrared sensors, which do help monitor cross-border infiltration.

Amardeep - my apologies. I think I did read this and Siddhartha Vadarajans list too in quite detail but completely forgot about where I read it.

Plus I just see that Siddhartha did actually touch upon the 50% manufacturing stuff too in #34. I think I need some coffee...

With regards to bringing the technical & tactical aspects of our counter-terrorism forces up to par, I think India should look to increase cooperation with Israel.

I think these numbers or Central Govt spending and not at state level. AFAIK most of the spending that comes to high schools comes from state govt rather than central. So these numbers don't reflect the actual money spent on lower & higher education. Can any one confirm?

I completely agree that we need to divert more resources towards terrorism especially in the 'East' but India also need the 126 (probably more) aircrafts. Here are my reasons as to why we need them:

1> Kargil was a wakeup call. We didnt have enof fighters that could fly and fight at 22K Feet level, the French made Mirages did the job pretty well but the F16s or F18s would have kicked ass much better. Plus we didnt have the Air Power to realistically campaign in POK, the Pak F16s were extremely capable and had real combat exp in Afghanistan to kick our ass if we had lingered too long there. If we had Su 30s or F16 back then, the Ground Forces could have easily crossed over the LOC and could have attacked the infiltrators from the rear.

2> We really need to start looking at American planes and invest in our infrastructure to support them. Russian planes (Mig 29s) have served us OK and the new Su30s are for long range strikes ..but we need a real fast interceptor/multi-role type plane to support/eventually replace Mig 29s and Mirages. Its obvious now that US Planes and their Warheads are FAR MORE capable with real world combat experience than anything anyone else (Brits, French, Israelis, Russian, etc) has to offer.

3> Our homegrown LCA is 20 years late and will not see Daylight for a long time. So we need something in between, 'NOW'.

4> We officially claim to have 700 odd planes on active role. But everyone knows thats it not true. More than half of that fleet is Mig21s which are ancient tech and many are not flying worthy.

I think aside from that we need to get rid of half of CRPF unit and the Rashtriya Rifles completely .. they are not well trained and lack the motivation to fight the terrorists. We need to raise more SF Battalions (Paras) and rotate them in CI ops. They have the training and the resources to deal with the terrorists. I am just plain numb these days to hear abt 10-20 policemen/CRPFs being killed by Naxals every week... I mean come on .. deal a lil harshly with these guys..

Dealings with US in Aircrafts will lead to further co-ordination and training with their Army and Special Forces. Meaning collaboration on their tech and equipments for these kinds of operations.

Anyhow .. this is way too long a reply already ..sorry for the rant

A good news article that explains the logic behind the Indian govts reason for spending so much money (though nothing different from some of the above comments)

To quote from the article :
"Our defence modernisation has been stymied for nearly two decades. The direct effect of this has been the rapid drop in the combat force level of the air force from 39 squadrons in 2001 to around 31 now and the number is likely to go down to around 27 in the next few years in spite of the HAL made Su-30 fighters joining the force.."

Only 18 out of the 126 aircraft will be directly purchased whereas the rest will have to be manufactured in India. Also there is an "offset" clause whereby the external vendor has to invest in the Indian defence industry. So the purchase will be leveraged to modernize of the Indian defence/aerospace industry which has had to suffer a lot because of technology restrictions by America and unreliabilty of European, Russian suppliers.

Just as with any defence spending one can always make a case that the money is better utilzed for socio-economic development which probably affects internal security. And I think treading the fine balance between spending for the two is what is probably required.

The unfortunate, perhaps, but inescapable reality is that defense spending (without overdoing it) is good for the economy, so it's not a zero sum game, pitting jet fighters against schoolbooks. But the bigger question is, Can India become a global power without over-militarizing its economy and its society. It's an open question. The answer for the United States and the USSR was No (but times were different). Both countries built vast military-industrial complexes that were (are) cornerstones of the global economy. Is this India's destiny in the coming decades?

But the bigger question is, Can India become a global power without over-militarizing its economy and its society. It's an open question. The answer for the United States and the USSR was No (but times were different). Both countries built vast military-industrial complexes that were (are) cornerstones of the global economy. Is this India's destiny in the coming decades?

The question is .. to be considered a global power do you need to have military bases on all the continents (and oceans) ?
I would think so but in that case India's ambitions are relatively undefined at this point it seems. I doubt India will be able to come close to the military might of existing military superpowers in the next few deacades.
I fully support Indias defence buying spree, Its high time it develops its own defence industry. India's strategy should be to maintain at all times a minimum deterrent of military build up to deter even the biggest superpower againt any misadventures and then slowly build up and modernize that deterrent according to its needs.
As to what constitutes a minimum credible deterrent for external threats, I would think they'll need atleast the following.

1. A Few hundred nuclear bombs
2. Efficient and ready to use nuclear delivery vehicles ( a few hundred long range ICBMS, and fighter planes)
3. Half a dozen Aircraft carriers (including nuclear powerd ones)
4. 4-5 dozen Nuclear subs and other support naval vessels
5. more than a 1000 fighter planes
6. some great ground ammunition
7. Skilled and well trained army, navy and airfoce personnel.
8 Strong naval presence in the Indian ocean

It also needs to encourage the developement if its local defence industry specially technologically. Privatisation would be a great step.

i honestly believe that the "war on terrorism" that the United States is fighting today was greatly influenced by the companies that got the contracts for this undertaking -- the 'lockheed martins' the 'american defenses' and others that build arms, soldier gears, fighter jets, etc. more specifically the perpetrators were the hedge funds that had controlling shares of these companies.

my fear is that these same folks possibly could delegate the future military direction of India. or influence certain war-like decision.

10Billion dollar contract requires the winning company of invest 50% of the contracts worth back into India in form of infrastructure or support contracts.

that's a start. but i think India should also look into the possibility of owning substantial shares of these foreign defense companies.

i honestly believe that the "war on terrorism" that the United States is fighting today was greatly influenced by the companies that got the contracts for this undertaking -- the 'lockheed martins' the 'american defenses' and others that build arms, soldier gears, fighter jets, etc. more specifically the perpetrators were the hedge funds that had controlling shares of these companies.

I thought much of it was influenced by an attack on 9-11-2001. While large companies certainly influence acquisition and they lobby the government to purchase their toys, these companies do not dictate policy of how to fight. Actually, some of the big budget programs have come under greater scrutiny due to budgetary reasons. The big sexy stuff (Navy and Air Force items) are competing against nuts and bolts type programs for the Army and USMC, that are finally drawing more funding. Sec Def Rumsfeld actually canceled the Army's big budget crusader program (an artillery system). The F-22 Raptor has several enemies within government who are more than willing to cancel it. The DOD is a very competitive place internally and program proponents are cut throat/brutal in campaigning for their goods.

If anything, the programs in place when the war started made it very clear that we were not fully geared to fight an extensive land fight with all the gear/contracts in place, despite government and contractors trying to convince people that the stuff being purchased will meet requirements. Also, the contracts stem from government requirements. What items in acquisition do you believe influences the war (as in what is LM, Boeing, GD, et al. selling that concerns you). The F-22, JSF, UCAV programs, etc have been in place prior to the current conflicts.

Can you substantiate your claims. Mind you, I'm no fan of contractors since I come in direct conflict with them as a DOD employee tasked with oversight of such guys. I've got strong opinions about ethics and the military-industrial complex, but don't buy the conspiracy theory type stuff either.

While Kingfisher Airlines and Jet Air are buying new fleets for the safety and comfort of their passengers, it's kind of dumb not to update the air force. You don't want IAF personnel dying from flying old planes. About developing police surveillance for domestic security issues, check what these guys are doing.

India's spending is geared towards China and rightly so. If in fact defense spending is increasing overall, wouldn't that mean more money could be used for jets as well as counterterrorism.

Terrorism just doesn't kill that many people as full-scale wars between countries. If India ever did get into a even a conventional war with China, millions could die on each side.

Amardeep,

Military spending is meant to build and maintain a force structure that addresses a number of different threats and at the same time projects a nation's capabilities to its rivals in a manner that limits the rival's military options. In the case of India all that can be said, to put it simply, is that the country's security needs are vast and varied. Internal security, counterinsurgency, large scale defensive and offensive warmaking, are all of equal importance. Military planners work with a long term perspective and do not react abruptly to sharp changes in the profile of security threats. So while internal security has now become a very serious issue (so much so that after this Hyderabad attack even NDTV and CNN-IBN want some action and aren't talking about 'root causes'), efforts geared towards maintaining the force structure to tackle long term threats that have already been identified are not about to take a back seat. Since the foremost public domain experts on Indian military affairs - the Bharat-Rakshak gurus don't have the habit of visiting SM let me give you an idea of where the Indian Air Force stands today. The IAF is going through its fourth iteration since Independence. The first is represented by the introduction jets in the early 50s replacing the WW2 invetory. The 2nd iteration involved the introduction of the multi-role MiG21 starting the in the early 60s. The 3rd iteration was marked by the introduction of newer offensive aircraft such as the MiG23/27 and Jaguar, post-1971, which marked the transformation of the IAF into a more versatile force. The fourth iteration that has been going on for over 20 years now has involved further beefing up offensive capabilities, air-dominance, reach, and large scale force projection in an area of 6-8 million sq.kms. centered in the Indian subcontinent. Underlying these waves of change are many other plans that involve a number of capabilities such as logistics, maintenance, force security, communication, planning, intelligence etc., that are too numerous to be narrated. Independent India's military strategy has entirely flowed from its national interests that call for certain geographical objectives. Although single party rule at the Centre became history after the 1977 elections, there has been almost no change great enough in the definition of national interest that has forced a change in India's military strategy. If anything geographical objectives have been becoming more ambitious. While the Congress-UPA may seem left-of-centre in terms of its fondness for boondoggles like the NREG, and other assorted harebrained yojanas, it is not a left-of-centre formation in the CPI(M) commie style, by identifying with the interests of a certain entities, or the Arundati Roy blame-India-first style. Which is why the UPA has, if anything, substantially increased military spending.

Kala Pathar

1> Kargil was a wakeup call. We didnt have enof fighters that could fly and fight at 22K Feet level, the French made Mirages did the job pretty...

The Kargil Operation Vijay, is an outstanding achievement for the Indian military and showcases its ability to adapt quickly. No military has conducted artillery or offensive air operations at such heights as during Kargil Op Vijay, simply becuase battlefields rarely get this high. IAF's Mirage 2000s carried out precision strikes after ground level offensive operations proved unsuccessful - one helicopter gunship and one were MiG-27 shot down. No air force has attacked targets at these altitudes, and the IAF simply remains the sole expert in this domain. While the F-16 and F-18 are great aircraft they haven't been used in this operational profile ever. With a few score Mirage 2000s attacking and MiG-29s escorting the IAF had the skies to itself after the first few days and flew unchallenged. The Indian military's capabilities in this sector serve to deter any plans of infiltration through the high passes of the mountains in Ladakh. So there's deterrence for you.

We officially claim to have 700 odd planes on active role. But everyone knows thats it not true. More than half of that fleet is Mig21s which are ancient tech and many are not flying worthy.

Funny you should say that, because MiG21s have taken part in some v.high profile exercises recently! Replacing a fleet of over 300 aircraft cannot be done in a day, it takes years. About three batches of Mig21 have been retired during the last 20 years. Many of the MiG21s in service currently have been thru a comprehensive upgrade. The MiG21 is a fine aircraft, though unforgiving. And no force knows to use it like the IAF does. The IAF has integrated stores across most of its combat fleet and the MiG21 offers it the oppotunity to assemble some very unique strike packages. If anything the IAF is going to be looking for a modern equivalent that possesses many of the capabilities of the MiG21.

You seem to be quite enthusiastic. Why don't you spend some time on the Bharat-Rakshak Forums and bring yourselves upto speed.

The NYT article contains some near howlers. The BR crowd must be in splits over some of the funnier gaffes.

An American carrier, the Trenton, which the Indian Navy bought and renamed the Jalashva...

They will all confront the MIG Russian Aircraft Corporation, which owns the developer of the MIG, the jet that the Indian Air Force now flies.

I wish NYT wouldn't ask Somini Sengupta to report every story from India.

boondoggles like the NREG

You wanna talk a little more about NREG, and please spare the NREG specific neoliberal BS that 'I am such a cool libertarian' Amit Varma and the folks at Indian Economy Blog do.

Amardeep,
One more minor point. It is not surprising that the UPA policy in defense issues is not very different from the supposedly "hawkish" NDA govt. The "hawkish" vs "soft" distinction is a fiction on matters of national defence and foreign policies, and there is usually a consensus across parties. This includes everything from nuclear policy (P.V Narasimha Rao laid the groundwork for the 1998 tests, and the 13 day Vajpayee govt executed them, similarly the later NDA govt of Vajpayee began the talks on the nuclear deal and the current UPA govt is seeing it to completion) down to counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies, and also defense purchases. So the recent orders for new purchases should not be too surprising.

I also think the choices regarding spending are rather difficult ones to make. It is true that counterterrorism mechanisms have to be made more efficient, but this is particularly hard in India due to many political as well as financial constraints. Secondly, given the magnitude of the terrorist infrastructure directed against India and its citizens, it is not entirely surprising that there is on average, one or two major terrorist incidents. Secondly, India does need a conventional force, as Kargil demonstrated clearly. The neighbourhood India is in is one of the most challenging ones in terms of threats to security.

Personally, I am a bit upset that education spending is not as high or higher than defence, and I do hope this is rectified. Much as defence is important, surely education is at least as, if not more important.

Ardy...please spare the NREG specific neoliberal BS that 'I am such a cool libertarian' Amit Varma...

VKrishna,

If anything the NDA has simply followed the 'hawkish' Indian security policy formulated around the late 1940s championed by founders such as Patel and Ambedkar among others. To be secure on land, we must be supreme at sea so said Jawaharlal Nehru, over 50 years ago, and not Vajpayee in 2000. Nobody in the political or administrative establishment has ever believed that India's interests can be secured by force of arms alone. Defence spending is a big chunk of the union budget because even in a mixed/public-sector dominated economy like India's the military sector is the largest cost centre for the union government. But when you look at the GDP that gives you a measure of total national economic activity, defence spending as you can see accounts for 2-3%. But unlike some other economies, development spending too accounts for about as much. Even assuming someone could think of a way for the Centre to spend as much on education and health as it does on defence, no one would know how to spend that much of money! Because at present the Indian government's involvement with the primary education sector is minimal, much of the money being spent by the States and local governments. So the GDP ratios give us a better idea of what we could be spending. But now that revenues are buoyant and the economy is growing there may be more money for everyone. In the days of the Republic the planners believed that the economy would arive at this stage sometime by the mid-60s. Better late than never.

Jyotsana #53

Can you please elaborate on the same since I am curious to hear why you feel the NREGS is such a bad idea. I would concede that it has potential for exploitation in terms of corruption (like everything the great minds of Indian polity come up with), but I would guess your opposition to it has to do with other things. Reasons such as 'It is just an income redistribution scheme and thus bad' or else 'It does not add to the productivity of the nation' do not convince me. Plus I am not as convinced it is a free money giving scheme, based on my conversations with on the ground activist and rural folks using the NREGS.

Ardy,

What are the problems with the NREG? The scheme simply ignores endemic problems. Where shall we start? Leakage due to an 85% overhead being the norm in centrally funded developmental projects - the lopsided employment:sectoral GDP in agriculture (IIANM 60%:30%) - broadcasting from the highest level; worsening an already lopsided economic balance that heavily leans towards the centre; doing nothing about the diminishing ability to manage revenue as one moves from the centre to the periphery; being yet another yojana; coming out of the self-same give-away-hand-out-let's-hold-no-one-accountable school of thought that everyone seems to forget. What difference does it make in spending more on primary health centres or primary schools if the employees who are supposed to run them never turn up for work?

In #53 that should have read

In the early days of the Republic the planners believed that the economy would arrive at this stage sometime by the mid-60s.

Jyotsana - I think (and I may be wrong) you are saying that in terms of what the Govt. is doing, it's not good because it is

- too centralized
- has high overheads
- employment to productivity ratio in agriculture is high and this scheme just adds more manpower

Is my understanding of what you are saying right?

I am not sure if it is that centralized as some other scheme where the big boss controls everything. Primarily because it's the people who are most affected and have the power/knowledge to decide what they need to do to improve their lot, decide so, do their thing and then get paid. I am not as convinced it is such a big issue from the perspective of the people. Sure the money comes from the central coffers and thus plenty of room for things to be less efficient or go wrong. But to think of it, the way the system is can it really change overnight?

Similarly, in comparison to a complete inaction and no productivity or Govt. doing anything, people doing their own thing albeit not as efficiently may be high overheads to you, but I feel an inefficient system is still better than a system doing nothing or being inexistent.

Lastly, with the way the agro economy is with a gap between seasons, this scheme provides for 100 days in a year, the days which are spent doing nothing between seasons by farmers. Thus you are not really employing more people into the agro economy, you are getting those people who sit idle for some amount of time to do things that will improve their efficiency (think canal system development, etc etc) when it comes to main agriculture seasons.

I think the difference is you are coming from a systemic approach which I agree, the Govt. needs to do a lot better. But knowing our Govt. I'll take what it gives and use it to it's full potential. I am coming from a peoples perspective - to me this is at least better than the Govt. doing absolutely nothing. Thus people on the ground are trying to use it to the maximum, they are finding projects that villages can take up which will help the villages themselves in the long term either agriculturally or to improve their own quality of life, they are carrying out peoples audits using RTI to make sure that the money paid in the Govt.s sheets is actually being paid out. To me, this 100 days of Govt. employment for things that the people need most coupled with transparency through RTI is better than schemes that the Govt. came up with in the past.

Ardy,

I have no absolute views (assuming what I think matters at all) on the role of the government or the 'market' and in fact am all admiration for the much maligned US Federal Government. Purely market based economies do not exist. Further only a capitalist society can generate enough surpluses to run a welfare economy. Government intervention works best in times of poor demand, deadlocked markets (as happened with the stagnant US aircraft industry at the eve of WW1), and in fields where uncertainty outweighs risk (which is why you have NIH, NSF, etc.).

I read a comment above talking about pat-downs and other such airport-style security. It reminded me a bit of when I used to take the train to Jammu frequently. If you have been, you know that there is an attempt at trying to keep the place secure. There's those sinister rolls of barbed wire around the whole place that makes it look like the next train is heading straight to Auschwitz. There are the luggage scanners. There are the police standing around everywhere, doing nothing. But in the end, if you wanted to bring a bomb onto a train or onto the platform, it would be a snap. Afterall, its an Indian train station. Checking everyone is just not feasable. All the barbed wire and security measures are accomplishing is increasing the chaos and making little children bleed.
So I have to question these security measures. The intentions are good, but I don't think they are very effective at all. How would you keep an indian train station safe? I haven't a clue. I think it could be done much more easily in Pakistan. But this is Jammu. Imagine if they tried this style of security at Churchgate. I mean, Chhatrapati Shivaji.

I fully support Ardy's views too. I have had the pleasure of being exposed to how NREGA and RTI acts have started delivering better lives for villagers. The social audit scheme of NREGA gives tremendous power to the people in making sure the act is implemented justly. This is a very impressive policy wherein govt is suggesting, we are unable to curb corruption,so we are trying to empower people to come up with ways to find out malpractices and make sure they such people don't go scotfree.
For example see these reports, http://ashaparivar.org/cms/paic/nregs such audits are making sure the money is not going into corrupt pockets, and hence these are not the same old yojanas but they do really empower the people.
Sorry about the threadjacking, but had to spread the awareness about these schemes when it was suggested these are not good schemes.

Churchgate. I mean, Chhatrapati Shivaji

as i was saying in # 18.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070904/images/04operationbig.jpg

do take a note of the other participants