Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
'It should not be a trial by media' (Interview with Gen Shankar Roychowdhury)

'It should not be a trial by media' (Interview with Gen Shankar Roychowdhury)

Author: Amit Bhattacharya
Publication: The Pioneer (web edition)
Date: March 17, 2001

Q.: Should middlemen be legalised?
A.: 'Middleman' has come to mean the type of people you saw on the Tehelka tapes. There are also the manufacturer's authorised representatives. Several foreign firms do not maintain offices in India, but authorised Indian entities to do business on their behalf. These are Indian companies. The Tehelka tapes showed fixers. They should not be allowed to operate. But middlemen, meaning representatives of foreign firms, should be allowed to function, subject to certain conditions. Why not? After Bofors, Indian Government does not recognise middlemen. But there are manufacturers' authorised representatives who function. The funny thing is, as long as the person is European, it is fine. But the moment a representative is recognised as an Indian, there's a problem.

Q.: How corrupt are the armed forces?
A.: The procurement process in Armed Forces is complex, elaborate and time-consuming. The way it is structured, it's very difficult for an individual to influence a deal. Unless you can influence everybody up and down the line, good luck to you! The characters we saw on Tehelka tapes, saying 'I cancelled that deal and I went to Poland', etc, they do exist. But there's no way they can influence the process. Equipment quality is never compromised, including the Bofors gun. In the process, if there is a kickback, which affects an equipment's price, it's not known to reach at least the Services.

Q.: Would you like the role of MoD minimised and let the Armed Forces run its own affairs?
A.: In a democracy, military must be under civilian control. But it must be civilian political control and not bureaucratic control. In India, bureaucracy has the authority without the responsibility, and the Services have the responsibility without the authority. Bureaucracy thinks it is superior when decision-making is involved. But when things go wrong, it's not responsible. In 1962 (after the Sino-Indian war), the Defence Minister resigned, the Army Chief resigned, but what happened to the Defence Secretary? Nothing. You dismissed the Navy chief, Admiral Bhagwat. The Defence Secretary was equally responsible for what happened. He got a plum posting. This rankles.

Q.: In the Tehelka affair, the user trial paper was issued by the trial directorate. So you can obviously influence procurement...
A.: Human failures, as they have happened very clearly on Tehelka tapes, cannot influence the entire process. In Tehelka's case, the trial of the equipment would have had to take place. It may well have passed the trial, but it could have failed also. It might have been a good piece of equipment for all you know. But no person can guarantee that a particular equipment would be bought. Human failures can only take a product up to a certain stage.

Q.: By human failure you mean corrupt men...
A.: Yes, those four-five men you saw on the tapes are prime examples of corruption. Of course, there is corruption. But the vast majority of the armed forces personnel are still dedicated to the nation. For these sensitive posts, we really try and put people whose integrity is beyond doubt. I know this chap, PSK Choudhary and was startled when I saw his name. He was the last possible person I would have expected to do this. I don't know what the reason is, temporary insanity or something else. He was a good officer. But he has done what you saw on the tapes.

Q.: How old is such corruption in the Army?
A.: You can go back to 1948 or so, to the Jeep scandal. So there were people at that time also, who were corrupt. Whenever the Army finds out about such men, it takes harsh and quick action. In the Tehelka affair too, the Army people will get punished, and action has already been initiated. I only hope that the others are also treated equally harshly.

Q.: What steps are necessary to clean up the Services?
A.: One must understand the long-term implications of Tehelka tapes. They happened because from time to time, there has been a crisis in the Services. Under the impact of that crisis, they go to the market on a buying spree. This happens because the nation has totally neglected its Defence planning. As a result, shortages have mounted. You are given funds, but the procedure is such that you can't spend it within the time allotted.

The Army is starved of equipment. When there's an emergency, you somehow get through it, as you got through the Kargil war, with the lives of so many young men. After such a crisis, they say, 'quickly get it, get it'.

Now, the hand held thermal imaging binoculars that the Tehelka reporters had selected - we have been asking for it for 10 years. The T-90 tank project that has happened now, has been pending for six years. The AJT has been pending for 15 years. If these had progressed systematically, there would have been little room for these scandals. When you suddenly have an urgent requirement for a lot of things, the costs go up and you give opportunities to unscrupulous people to operate. So, the first implication of Tehelka, which people are not realising yet, is answering the question: Why did this happen? Panic buying happened after 1962 and 1965; this is happening after Kargil. We have to have an implementable long-term Defence plan.

The Bofors scam paralysed the entire Defence decision-making and procurement process. Who would put his hand on a piece of paper which he knows could implicate him five years later? That contributed to overall shortages. Kargil came. Now the projects which have been pending for years are coming up. My fear is, post-Tehelka, the crisis will return. Instead of looking at those wretched tapes again and again, please have a proper defence planning procedure in place. Ensure accountability as well as speed of procurement.

Q.: Over the years, the profile of people joining the Army has changed. Is this one of the reasons for corruption?
A.: Definitely not. People say, persons with good background are no longer coming into the Army. What is a good background? All these young officers who died, what background did they come from? The father of one such officer, who got the highest award for gallantry, is a small shopkeeper in a town. The bedrock of the officer class in armies of all countries is the middle/lower middle class. That's true of India too.

Q.: What punishment would you advocate for the officers accused in the Tehelka tapes?
A.: The Army is seized of the matter. But, it's increasingly going to be a trial by the media. That should not be allowed to affect the verdict.

Q.: What do you think of entire Tehelka episode?
A.: Tehelka has served its purpose. It has jolted the system and the system needs a jolt from time to time. However, there's a perception that the Army establishment was penetrated. Now, you see officers in their homes or in hotels on the tapes. Nowhere was the Army establishment penetrated physically. I hope people make that distinction. You can't be simplistically judgmental about these things.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements