Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 11, 2008
There are other ways of saving money
For some time now strategic affairs 'experts'
and their political mentors, known for their proximity to the Washington establishment,
have been peddling the theory that India needs a technology-intensive 'lean-and-mean'
Army, not a large force of 11 lakh soldiers and officers. On paper this sounds
good. But shorn of hyperbole, it simply means downsizing the Army and thus
automatically reducing the deployment of troops, especially along the Line
of Control and in Jammu & Kashmir, apart from our frontier with China.
This would definitely suit the purpose of those who wish to see India's military
might emasculated -- not all of them are based in Rawalpindi and Muridke.
Those pushing the 'lean-and-mean' theory will, of course, argue that any reduction
in the number of soldiers and officers will be more than made up by the induction
of 'high-end technology'. What they do not mention is that the technology
will have to be imported at a high cost - both literally and metaphorically
-- and supplies can be stopped without either explanation or notice. While
we would be left high and dry, the suppliers, who need not be named, would
be laughing all the way to their banks. All this and more must have weighed
heavily on the Army top brass, which has now decided, as reported by this
newspaper on Saturday, that there cannot be a reduction in the size of the
Army. For a country with troubled borders, insurgency-affected regions and
a population of more than a billion people, ours is not a large Army. Unlike
in most countries, especially those who preach the need to trim the size of
our military, the Army in India is not restricted to barracks or fighting
other people's wars. Our soldiers and officers have to maintain constant vigil
in the west and the east; they have to perform security-related duties in
Jammu & Kashmir (no, these cannot be left to the State police); they have
to hold the peace in the North-East; and, given the wretched state of our
infrastructure, for which our political class is to blame, they have to be
deployed in sufficiently large numbers throughout the year along the LoC and
the frontier with China. Those who argue against this would do well to revisit
the incursion by Pakistani troops in the Kargil sector in 1999 because of
the hare-brained decision to keep posts vacant during winter.
There is no doubt need to rationalise the
present 'field force' and 'non-field force' to the extent that useless flab
can be got rid of. But this is an exercise best left to the Generals who alone
can assess where cuts can be made to make the Army more efficient without
depleting its inherent strength. In any event, there cannot be any roll back
in the number of troops deployed at the ground level to secure our borders.
To do so would be suicidal -- in the event of an emergency, by the time we
move troops it may prove to be too late. Let the Government not eye the Army
to reduce its expenditure. If it is truly interested in cutbacks, it should
begin by scrapping cockamamie social welfare projects, conjured by barefoot
'economists' and jholawallahs, which are bleeding the public exchequer and
enriching corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and contractors, and stop promising
freebies to entice voters. Since the people of India do not grudge the Army
its expenses, politicians and strategic affairs 'experts' who look West-ward
for inspiration and patronage should stop bothering their silly heads about
it.
