India’s military is forecast to spend at least USD $30B by 2012 (USD $100B by 2017). Of this, a sizable outlay is for 126 fighter jets, in what constitutes the world’s largest military tender in recent years. Predictably, the IAF is fielding execs from Lockheed, Boeing, European Aeronautic Defence, MiG Corp etc. Lockheed actually set up office in Mumbai this month.
Military spending is ostensibly to ensure the safety of the country’s citizens. Our army force consists of 1.3 M active troops, staffed overwhelmingly from the country’s poorest citizens (but that is de-rigueur of most countries (excepting countries with military drafts like Israel, Lebanon, Singapore etc). Groundstaff in India is in some ways disposable: lax admission criteria; poor training; sucky work conditions; and on death a paltry compensation to surviving family members. I remember once tailing an infantry truck, its scrawny occupants lulled to stillness (perhaps a long journey), vacant expressions on face. The thought that these men will be armed and sent out to kill/die unsettled me – the power of a few over so many to compel extreme action without agreement or even understanding, something is clearly terribly awry. The other poorest die like flies anyway, but that’s okay – our stock is abundant and replenished perpetually. So here we have, a country where the poorest die to protect the interests of the rich: internally as cheap, disposable labor, and externally, as cheap disposable military rank and file. The rich of course don’t feel any compulsion to contribute to economic development of the poor. But we digress.
Going back to the original premise: military spending for citizen safety. So let’s view the (external) threat to India. This investment in fighter jets etc is relevant only in combat with a formal army, not guerilla insurgency. So credibly, which countries pose a threat to India? Nepal, Burma, Bhutan and Bangladesh are largely harmless. Sri Lanka is dealing with LTTE but other than few skirmishes in the south, India remains uninvolved. Let’s examine the remaining three: Afghanistan, Pakistan and China.
Sure, Afghanistan is a hot bed of islamic extremism but for the moment that is being combated by the American (and under coercion) by Pakistan. India’s involvement is largely limited to development activity there, which seems to be good strategic thinking. Pakistan of course has repeatedly demonstrated a proclivity for under-the-table support to insurgency. Given the country’s schitzophrenic government (civilian/military at odds with each other) and their recent pussyfutting in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks, it seems unlikely that the country will instigate a full-on war. Neither will we. Even after the Mumbai attacks, all the war talk and the amassing of artillery and soldiers on the border was just for show.
Th only real threat is China. We have disputed territory with China (and a war over it). China’s 2008 military budget is $59 (US estimates put China’s budget at $138B) and it has the largest active force (2.25M) in the world. China’s government is clearly not keen on either transparency, civil dissent or human rights as evidenced by its investment in Sudan oil, censorship including online news, tamp-down on its own citizens demanding accountability after the school collapses. Plus there’s always something in the news about tainted Chinese produce – poisonous toothpase, lead in toys, melamine in milk blah blah. Hence, China bad! Yet, what are the odds of a full throttle war between China and India (a more likely scenario is India supporting America in its war with China). While I can kind of see covert support (in alliance with Pakistan) for insurgency in India, I don’t see China initiating a war with India over a little piece of Arunachal Pradesh (China is already going to have a hard time dealing with its billion plus population with the global economic downturn, and dwindling market for its manufacturing exports). China’s GDP is export-centric, and in the trade agreements era, China is unlikely to want to divide its trading partners into supporters or non-supporters. Anyway, America/Europe is unlikely to side with China. Russia could swing either way, leaning towards China. Everyone else is inconsequential (Middle-East is good for oil, but they are unlikely to engage).
So this brings us to the question: what the hell are we doing floating the world’s largest military tender at this time, with the global economy in recession, our budget with a disastrous (growing) fiscal deficit and enormous public debt?
Hmmm, maybe it will be an interesting RTI exercise to see how AK Antony and Inc personal assets fare in the next year or so after the contracts have been awarded.
So this brings us to the question: what the hell are we doing floating the world’s largest military tender at this time?
Ans: Because there are fortunately some more intelligent people out their who know about how this world works not by sitting in front of blogs but being out there. So respect their judgment for now. Sometime you need to respect elders you know.
“Pakistan of course has repeatedly demonstrated a proclivity for under-the-table support to insurgency”
Wow, Thanks for this. We wouldn’t know. Proclivity you say!! We agree. Pakistan would be happy at use of this word.
“Bangladesh are largely harmless”
Absolutely. They are messengers of peace. 1 million illegal Bangladeshis to be precise. Ok. so now you will say where I got these figures!!.. lets make it half a million. Ilegal Bangladeshis. Check what they have done in Assam.
“Our army force consists of 1.3 M active troops, staffed overwhelmingly from the country’s poorest citizens”
Umm…somebody get to work and provide food to his family. Poorest is too extreme term though. You should say poorer….you see, like between poor and poorest. Thats where they are. But unlike you and me they don’t think too much. They just know that there is duty to be done. if everybody was to become an intellectual, well…what would happen…bliss.
And BTW, Chinese are are best friend. They have been since times of Dr. Kotnis.
More comments on this post at http://desicritics.org/2009/02/13/072058.php and http://mutiny.in/2009/02/13/you-scratch-my-back-ill-scratch-yours/
My response on Mutiny is copied below:
I admit that this was in some ways a predictable knee-jerk liberal response to large-scale military spending. I should back-up my assertion with some research and stats. Having said that, some defense of my current perspective.
The underlying premise of this post is that the security threats facing India are more likely to be widespread guerrilla insurgency than combat with the formal army of another country. I am still inclined to believe this, despite all war talk by our home ministers and/or media. Administrations of various countries use terrorism/war as a fear mongering tactic to increase support for their invasive legislation. Guerrilla insurgency is often conducted in close quarters with the civilian population, and fighter jets will probably be less effectual than other methods. I am not debating technological advancements or efforts to enable the lower ranks of the army – however excessive investments in high-level interventions concentrates power and holds all of us hostage in the hands of a few
Despite whatever Chinese incursions in East India, I am still resistant to the idea of an all-out Indo-China war. India is not Tibet (Dalai Lama is feted around the world, yet remains ignored), and a full-scale Chinese trespass (prereq for war) will draw in the developed world, either to support India or place sanctions on China. Moreover, economically it doesn’t make much sense – both India and China are arms importers, and a war is unlikely to boost their economies (unlike the US, which benefited from WW-II cause of the orders from Europe, and its own large scale fiscal stimulus via arms producing factories)
About the minimum sanctioned level of 39.5 squadrons (and hence the 126 jets etc): while I understand that we currently stand below the sanctioned number, I am unable to understand how we arrive at this number. I imagine that if the number is made public, the logic should be too. Can someone provide detail or link to a relevant resource?
“A war with Pakistan after terrorist attacks on India’s financial capital, Mumbai, was never an option”, Pranab Mukherjee
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aaT0BpTdInJ0&refer=india
I think your heart is in the right place but you have a made a few blanket statements. The army does do more than just fight wars, it has to enforce border laws, help during natural disasters, events of extreme civil disorder and of course, be prepared for war.
So yes this arms tender idea is brainless. What we need is a better trained, more organized and professional army. Especially since our major security threats now are non-traditional.
I find your accusations towards the elites in India in this particular post off the mark. They are certainly apathetic to the political decay in the country, but to claim that “the poorest die to protect the interests of the rich” is way off the mark.
@Ruchi, A.K. Antony is a politician, alright. Corrupt, no.
Compare him to George Fernandes -tried to make money in coffin purchases as well.
Bofors brought down a govt. but we used them successfully in Kargil.
If Kargil happens again, should we wait years till we acquire hardware (fighter planes, etc) to retaliate, or should we be prepared?
Modernizing our planes is a necessity, or stop training fighter-pilots. Improportionately high number of pilots die flying Migs.