European Commission comes to the rescue of the Rohingya Muslims

More than 30,000 Rohingya Muslims have already fled and thousands of stateless Rohingya Muslims are trying to reach Bangladesh amid reports of abuse by the Burmese army. The alleged charges against the Burmese army are very serious – rape, mass slaughter, burning entire villages and loot, all extremely serious human rights violations. However Bangladesh has not labelled the Rohingyas as refugees and the Bangladeshi establishment is drafting policies to stop the Rohingyas from entering their borders. This has given rise to refugee crisis in Bangladesh. A United Nations official was recently quoted saying that Myanmar’s western Rakhine (formerly Arakan) State has been witness to Burmese authorities carrying out a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims with military atrocities continuing in the garb of combating Islamic militants in the region. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims are fleeing the country and entering into Bangladesh to save their clan from getting extinct.



The European Commission is allocating €300,000, equivalent to Tk 24,941,382, to provide emergency humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees, who have recently fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh. “Most of the Rohingya families who have recently crossed the Naaf River have arrived with nothing, and are therefore in critical need of humanitarian assistance,” said Roman Majcher, Head of the European Commission’s humanitarian aid department (ECHO) office in Bangladesh. “The support from the European Commission will not only ensure that their urgent needs are addressed, but will also contribute to help them cope with what they have just gone through by providing them with psychological support.”

The EU-funded financial assistance will focus on immediate relief and assistance to Rohingya refugees in terms of food and nutrition support, as well as the provision of non-food relief items such as sleeping kits, hygiene parcels and warm clothes etc.

The 1.1 million Rohingyas are viewed as one of the worlds’s most persecuted minorities. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been crossing the border for decades to seek refuge in one of several refugee camps near Cox’s Bazaar, a major population centre. However moves to staunch the flow of these migrants continue by the Bangladesh government.

In 1962, after General Ne Win’s Coup, the condition of the Rohingyas worsened. Win’s policy of “Myanmarisation” or racial purity of the Bama ethnic group led to increasing tortures on the Rohingyas. The Burma Citizenship Law (1982), was passed during the Ne Win period wherein the Rohingyas were not listed as one of the country’s 135 “national races” entitled to Burmese citizenship.

The Rohingyas are considered to be illegal immigrants by Bangladesh and there is serious resistance to the Rohingyas mixing with the extant Bangladesh demography.

Aung San Suu Kyi who is considered as the democratic face of Myanmar, has made few statements on the crisis. This is indicative of the tenuous hold on a semblance of democracy that she is maintaining. It is an acknowledged fact that the transition to a democratic set up has been more lip service than anything else, and Suu Kyi is well aware of how quickly things could revert to the earlier military ‘junta’ that ruled over Myanmar for decades and still maintain a stranglehold over politics in the country. The military still controls the key Ministries of Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defence with activists like Suu Kyi playing minor roles in decision making processes. Owing her well known public persona, it is convenient to keep her as the facade for international interactions such as those with President Obama. This gives a tinge of legitimacy to the state of affairs in Myanmar today, which was under crippling sanctions by the international community during the rule of the military junta.

Theorizing Mediatized Conflict as in the case of Rohingya Muslims is an arduous task since there is a very thin line between fact and fiction shown on television news these days. With the commercialisation of the broadcast industry and the entry of corporate houses in mainstream media world, profit making and not ethical news reporting has become the new motive.

Profits are made through sensationalism for which often catchy headlines and news production with images, animations and dramatic recreation of events are used for higher TRP’s. This negative role of media today however is a new characteristic feature of the news industry. Ethical journalism has been replaced by sensational breaking news and exclusive phenomenon.

But the media often referred to as the fourth estate is a powerful tool that can bring about great revolutionary changes in the society.

Conversely, as is evident from the case of beheading cited above, the media’s reach can negatively impact a sensitive society such as Myanmar, with instant reprisals coming forth to the already beleaguered Rohingya community. It is this inherent fear that is stopping the Rohingya Muslims from interacting with the reporters.

In a bid to legitimize its actions in the international media the Burmese authorities have labelled the Rohingyas as jihadists. With increasing focus on the radical Islamic threat in the west, this is a subtle subterfuge to shift the pivot of media attention from the serious humanitarian crisis facing the Rohingyas; being denied food, medical aid and the right to live in dignity in the conflict torn zone, the Rohingyas are staring at extermination in the presence of a couldn’t care (or wouldn’t care) less world.

In a world torn by conflicts perceived as much more serious and apocalyptic, it seems the plight of the Rohingya Muslims has taken a back burner. When reporting from a conflict zone results in barbarous beheadings, then it is high time the world stood up and took notice of what is going on. Highlighting the case of the downtrodden still remains an important facet of media reporting. When their actions result in such extreme reactions, it becomes imperative to do something about it.

Rohingya Crisis- Why Reporters are Scared to Cover the Crisis

“You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies.” — From Language and Politics, Noam Chomsky

The headless body of a Rohingya Muslim man has been discovered days after he spoke to reporters about the unrest in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. The family of the victim had raised concerns after he spoke to Burmese journalists about attacks on security forces (Official Report). Myanmar’s Rakhine province has been under total lockdown for over two months now since militants attacked security posts. The man had spoken to reporters about army repression and how local villagers had been involved in the attack. Amnesty International has accused Burmese security forces of rape, murder and torture in Rakhine, home to world’s most persecuted minority group, the Rohingya Muslims.

Media persons trying to cover the news are scared of more violence erupting post their interactions with the Rohingya Muslims and local Villagers. There is nobody to take a stand.

More than 30,000 Rohingya Muslims have already fled and thousands of stateless Rohingya Muslims are trying to reach Bangladesh amid reports of abuse by the Burmese army. A United Nations official was recently quoted saying that Myanmar’s western Rakhine (formerly Arakan) State has been witness to Burmese authorities carrying out a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims with military atrocities continuing in the garb of combating Islamic militants in the region. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims are fleeing the country and entering into Bangladesh to save their clan from getting extinct.

The alleged charges against the Burmese army are very serious – Rape, mass slaughter, burning entire villages and loot, all extremely serious human rights violations. However Bangladesh has not labelled the Rohingyas as refugees and the Bangladeshi establishment is drafting policies to stop the Rohingyas from entering their borders.

The 1.1 million Rohingyas are viewed as one of the worlds’s most persecuted minorities. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been crossing the border for decades to seek refuge in one of several refugee camps near Cox’s Bazaar, a major population centre. However moves to staunch the flow of these migrants continue by the Bangladesh government.

In 1962, after General Ne Win’s Coup, the condition of the Rohingyas worsened. Win’s policy of “Myanmarisation” or racial purity of the Bama ethnic group led to increasing tortures on the Rohingyas. The Burma Citizenship Law (1982), was passed during the Ne Win period wherein the Rohingyas were not listed as one of the country’s 135 “national races” entitled to Burmese citizenship.

The Rohingyas are considered to be illegal immigrants by Bangladesh and there is serious resistance to the Rohingyas mixing with the extant Bangladesh demography.

Aung San Suu Kyi who is considered as the democratic face of Myanmar, has made few statements on the crisis. This is indicative of the tenuous hold on a semblance of democracy that she is maintaining. It is an acknowledged fact that the transition to a democratic set up has been more lip service than anything else, and Suu Kyi is well aware of how quickly things could revert to the earlier military ‘junta’ that ruled over Myanmar for decades and still maintain a stranglehold over politics in the country. The military still controls the key Ministries of Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defence with activists like Suu Kyi playing minor roles in decision making processes. Owing her well known public persona, it is convenient to keep her as the facade for international interactions such as those with President Obama. This gives a tinge of legitimacy to the state of affairs in Myanmar today, which was under crippling sanctions by the international community during the rule of the military junta.

Theorising Mediatised Conflict as in the case of Rohingya Muslims is an arduous task since there is a very thin line between fact and fiction shown on television news these days. With the commercialisation of the broadcast industry and the entry of corporate houses in mainstream media world, profit making and not ethical news reporting has become the new motive. Profits are made through sensationalism for which often catchy headlines and news production with images, animations and dramatic recreation of events are used for higher TRP’s. This negative role of media today however is a new characteristic feature of the news industry. Ethical journalism has been replaced by sensational breaking news and exclusive phenomenon. But the media often referred to as the fourth estate is a powerful tool that can bring about great revolutionary changes in the society. Conversely, as is evident from the case of beheading cited above, the media’s reach can negatively impact a sensitive society such as Myanmar, with instant reprisals coming forth to the already beleaguered Rohingya community. It is this inherent fear that is stopping the Rohingya Muslims from interacting with the reporters.

In a bid to legitimise its actions in the international media the Burmese authorities have labelled the Rohingyas as jihadists. With increasing focus on the radical Islamic threat in the west, this is a subtle subterfuge to shift the pivot of media attention from the serious humanitarian crisis facing the Rohingyas; being denied food, medical aid and the right to live in dignity in the conflict torn zone, the Rohingyas are staring at extermination in the presence of a couldn’t care (or wouldn’t care) less world.

In a world torn by conflicts perceived as much more serious and apocalyptic, it seems the plight of the Rohingya Muslims has taken a back burner. When reporting from a conflict zone results in barbarous beheadings, then it is high time the world stood up and took notice of what is going on. Highlighting the case of the downtrodden still remains an important facet of media reporting. When their actions result in such extreme reactions, it becomes imperative to do something about it.

India, Russia. United States - The curious case of Transfer of Technology (ToT)

Transfer of Technology (ToT) plays a key role in Defence manufacturing especially under the make in India Program. Mere signing of agreements is not enough.

With the Unites States designating India as a major defence partner Russia is not lagging behind. Prime Minister Narendra Modi met President Putin on October 15 in Goa this year for the BRICS Summit and signed several deals. As per reports Russia has overshadowed the US in the defence partnership. The annual India Russia summit resulted in assessment of a drift or worse India’s concluded a Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) with US and Russia’s joint anti terror drills against Pakistan. Some major defence agreements included a joint venture shareholders’ agreement on the Ka-226T helicopter, manufactured indigenously, an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) on acquisition of the air defence systems S-400 and an IGA on building four naval frigates, made in India. India has inked a 39000 crore rupees deal with Russia for the S-400 Triumf surface to air missiles. The biggest question here is again of Transfer of Technology (ToT).

The Indian Establishment says that the value of the aerospace "self-reliance" initiative was not simply the production of an aircraft, but also the building of a local industry capable of creating state-of-the-art products with commercial spin-offs for a global market. The LCA programme was intended in part to further expand and advance India's indigenous aerospace capabilities. Great breakthrough in defence, compared to China or Pakistan as in the case of AWACS.

The Cabinet Committee on Security has time and again sanctioned several projects, but uneven investments have often defeated the very purpose of rapid military transformations, to tackle new asymmetrical threats. If statistics provided by the defence ministry are to be believed, India has signed five deals of more than Rs 2,500 crore since May 2014. Projects for Tactical Communication Systems (TCS), Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (worth $ 7.5 billion) for the Indian Army, construction of seven Shivalik class frigates (Project 17 A) for the Navy, by Mazagon Docs Limited and Garden Reach Steel Industry, amounting to Rs 45201 crores are currently under consideration. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is currently in the process of building basic trainer aircraft HTT 40 and Sukhoi MK 1 aircraft in line with the 272 target set for 2018 by the Indian Air Force. There are several such deals being planned. But deadlock over Rafale continues to make headlines. Meanwhile, reacting to the commercial deadlock over Rafale prices with Dassault, other players such as Lockheed Martin (F 16), Saab (Gripen) are now streamlining their business strategy, to meet the requirements of the Indian industry under Make in India. Saab is willing to partner with Indian companies, giving India complete software control to build the Gripen fighter in India. Saab is also keen on setting up an aeronautic training academy in India.

For a strong indigenous defence industry both outside support and internal political commitments are very crucial. Integral to any development program, is the need to provide a conducive socio-economic and political environment where any proposed idea can take roots. The liberalisation of the FDI Policy in Defence, which shifted the fulcrum of indigenisation from ‘state of the art technology’ to ‘modern technology’ was indeed a welcome change. The buzz word, Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured’ (IDDM) now stands at 30:70, (Imports 30%) focus remaining on indigenisation. The FDI policy was revised to fill critical gaps in technology aiding job creation and growth if Indian industry. Despite the very obvious reports on project delays, falling production targets in the case of the Ordnance Factories, and sudden inflow of private players such as Reliance and Mahindra for example in the defence arena, ‘Make in India’ is a progressive move aimed to strengthen India’s defence industry.

However, there is no systematic explanation for India’s dialogues with Russia and the US over defence procurements and projects. The very crucial aspect of Transfer of Technology (ToT) especially nuclear propulsion (for example, in the case of nuclear supercarrier) has often caused unnecessary delays in signing of agreements between Original Equipment Makers (OEM’s) and India. Offset policy (2012) allows Joint ventures through the non-equity route. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently stated that the real impact of Make in India will be seen in 2017. Parrikar stressed on the need to outsource certain products in order to maintain a healthy production chain. So the question remains: Can private players deliver better? Is the budget enough to meet the requirements of Make in India? Will the dynamics of a Russia- US power play (add China for good measure), affect India’s position as a strong defence power in South Asia and subsequently on the global stage? It was in 2001 when private players first entered the defence domain, with a 26% FDI bid. But terms and conditions laid out by the government were so stringent, that deliverables were far from being met. Technical education lagged behind affecting human resource availability.

One very important aspect of defence modernization is the ongoing Research and Development (R&D) in the field of security that has been crafted to meet the requirements of the modern day battlefield. Advancement in information technology and the changing nature of threats, whether man-made or accidental, on land, sea, air and even the virtual space now coerces one to assess the outcomes of procurements, acquisitions and mergers, in defence manufacturing sector.

The pace with which technology is becoming obsolete is a real problem. Defence preparedness calls not just for military modernisation but also reforms, which are capable of accelerating the R& D processes in the field of security. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that no one player or OEM can fully manufacture critical equipment. Several components are now procured from various producers, making the procurement procedure lengthy and complicated. These can cause unnecessary delays too. Another point of view currently attracting a lot of attention is that opening the doors of the security sector to foreign players will jeopardise India’s position as a strong defence power.

That foreign players are still not fully convinced with the idea of ‘Make in India’ especially shifting their production bases to India, a market which has inherent haphazard supply chain structures, is a different question altogether. Lastly, more than flooding the market with success stories, the focus should be on the needs of the defence forces and on the operational efficacy of equipment manufactured under Make in India. Positive market trends have indeed widened the horizons of defence manufacturing in India but India still needs a little more political and financial push to achieve a higher degree of self-reliance in defence technology.

Exporting Tejas-Dreams VERSUS Realty

T Suvarna Raju ,  CMD Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has said India is ready to export LCA Tejas in Future. Raju also said that with the ramping up of LCA Tejas from 8 to 16 aircraft per annum and with outsourcing and participation of private players HAL will be able to speed up export process.  Exporting is a bit too ambitious at this stage considering there are so many projects that are delayed or have been delayed due to bureaucratic red tapism, lack of funds, inability to find skilled labour, frequent changeg in designs etc

Interestingly HAL has plans to manufacture a 3 ton class Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) with engines at Karnataka. On May 31 this year HAL successfully conducted the maiden flight of the first prototype Basic Trainer Aircraft HTT-40. About 80% of indigenous content has been used.HAL has also taken up indigenous development of various UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Systems). Hal is also jointly developing rotary UAV with IIT Kanpur and MALE UAV RUSTOM II with Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE).

Marred by project delays and issues of Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposals (RFP) and Transfer of Technology (ToT), licensing issues with Russia, United States, India’s defence sector especially HAL is currently undergoing massive transformation, a natural corollary to Modi’s frequent visits to other countries and subsequent discussions with his counterparts on defence and security. The revised Defence Procurement Policy is also being projected as the game changer. However financial, political and strategic investments in projects meant to modernise India’s defence industry exhibit a very uneven path. Whether it is the MMRCA, Tejas or AWACS statistics reveal that India is yet to achieve a great breakthrough in defence, compared to China or Pakistan as in the case of AWACS.

The Cabinet Committee on Security has time and again sanctioned several projects, but uneven investments have often defeated the very purpose of rapid military transformations, to tackle new asymmetrical threats. If statistics provided by the defence ministry are to be believed, India has signed five deals of more than Rs 2,500 crore since May 2014. Projects for Tactical Communication Systems (TCS), Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (worth $ 7.5 billion) for the Indian Army, construction of seven Shivalik class frigates (Project 17 A) for the Navy, by Mazagon Docs Limited and Garden Reach Steel Industry, amounting to Rs 45201 crores are currently under consideration. HAL is currently in the process of building basic trainer aircraft HTT 40 and Sukhoi MK 1 aircraft in line with the 272 target set for 2018 by the Indian Air Force. There are several such deals being planned. But deadlock over Rafale continues to make headlines. Meanwhile, reacting to the commercial deadlock over Rafale prices with Dassault, other players such as Lockheed Martin (F 16), Saab (Gripen) are now streamlining their business strategy, to meet the requirements of the Indian industry under Make in India. Saab is willing to partner with Indian companies, giving India complete software control to build the Gripen fighter in India. Saab is also keen on setting up an aeronautic training academy in India.

The Indian Establishment says  that the value of the aerospace "self-reliance" initiative was not simply the production of an aircraft, but also the building of a local industry capable of creating state-of-the-art products with commercial spin-offs for a global market. The LCA programme was intended in part to further expand and advance India's indigenous aerospace capabilities.

In the early eighties, it was realised that no organisation existed which had the total capability to develop such an aircraft all on its own. The last time an indigenous fighter aircraft, the HF 24 flew was in 1961. Since then, the HF 24 assembly line had been shut down and the design team had been wound up. The only way left was to develop an aircraft from scratch.

To better accomplish these goals, the government of India in 1984 decided to establish the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to manage the LCA programme. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, (HAL) was to be the principal partner with participation of various DRDO & CSIR Laboratories, Public & private sector industries and academic institutions.

It is still too early to talk about the confluence of events that will lead to export of TEJAS but right now talking about export is not a wise idea. 

Winning The War-Peacekeeping and Conflict Transformation

International Relations focuses more on war than peace. Since the breakup of the USSR Conflicts have taken less lives. The reports in the media are exaggerated.

One of the many dimensions of conflicts today especially ethno-national is that it is one of the biggest challenge to national security of all nation states that are grappling with it. According to statistics, (Horowitz), since 1945, millions of lives have been lost due to such conflicts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had opined that a lot of nations will be born in bloodshed. Such was the outreach of ethno national conflicts. Historically the notorious Nazi leader’s ethnic cleansing madness changed the history and geography of geopolitics forever .To develop deeper insights it is important to understand the concept of nation first. Wolfe defined nation as a concept denoting a common ethnic and cultural identity shared by a ‘single people’. As per the Primordialist approach to understanding nationalism, common dissent plays a very important role in determining ethno-national conflict.

After the Gulf War, President of the US George Bush first introduced the new world order to other states. With the new world order came Ethno National Conflicts as collateral damage, to pre existing history of violence, territorial dispute etc. Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Burundi, Quebec changed the geopolitical dynamics of ethno-national conflicts as we witness today. Strategic realignments have undergone significant changes in the last one odd decade. With the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 the fulcrum of power shifted inexorably towards the United States (US). However the fear of spread of communist ideology even as the cold war was on led to a massive increase in ethno national conflicts all across the globe. This type of conflict arises essentially out of the identity crisis faced by ethnic groups asserting a separate identity for them, to protect the interests of their community. The Tamils in Sri Lanka for example wanted a separate Eelam state for themselves. After the death of their leader Prabhakaran, the strife still continued. Nations are built over centuries. The feeling of nationalism is a strong sense of belongingness to a specified territory. But the building of nation-states was not essentially based on ethnicity.

The aspiration levels of ethnic groups are sometimes so high that clash of interests with the state can lead to violent uprising. According to George de Vos, ethnicity consists of subjective, symbolic, emblematic use by a group of people. Ethno Nationalism is a sub division of nationalism based on ethnicity/race. Language, religion, social norms etc are crucial components of ethno-national conflicts.

The uprising in Syria over Shia Sunni divisions among the Muslims, the rise of ISIS are all linked to ethnic identity assertiveness. Latvians, Kurds etc are all fighting for their identity, for their space in geopolitics. Ethnicity historically was linked to specific territorial areas but with globalisation ethnicity transcends borders of nation states. Migration is an issue along with refugee crisis. Situational and subjective approach studies ethno-national conflicts as sporadic cases of clash of interest over rights and duties.

There are several dimensions of ethno national conflicts. Political deprivation, economic exploitation, hard stands of belligerent leader’s etc. economic development that goes haywire supporting the elites causes a great deal of frustration among ethnic minorities. The quintessential kurds have faced the consequences of economic underdevelopment pursued by the leaders in Iraq.

Demographic pressures have redefined ethno-national movements. The Mujahir Quami Movement in Pakistan focuses n separating Karachi from other states in Sindh. The baloch assertiveness is another example. Recently Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India is with the people of Balochistan and strongly condemns any violation of human rights in that area by the Pakistani establishment. This angered many and after the Uri terrorist attacks and surgical strikes, one thing is crystal. Ethnic conflicts are here to stay and for centuries there will be bloodshed unless diplomatically the leaders of the new political order decide to follow a uniform nation code to tackle ethnic problems and uprisings.

Rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the ISIS, Saffron terror are all examples of how ethnicity plays a pivotal role in determining nationalism today. Refugee crises, bloodshed, disruption of peace are all collateral damages of such a mad fight for ethnic identity assertiveness. Ethno National conflicts are challenging the nation state system and this is a very serious issue the leaders of the world need to address to first. Divisions on the political map of the world will lead to more anarchic interpretation of balance of power with each ethnic group claiming to be superior to the other.

Identifying Bosnia as a nation according to Henry Kissinger was an irresponsible mistake. But in today’s era, it is only wise to focus on larger goals of economic growth, progress, job creation, education, human rights and not on ethnic conflicts. Only then can we have a just stable geopolitical order. Ethno national conflicts consume time and since their legacy is built on the ethos of identity it is important to not ignore it completely as well. A middle path must be taken.

India as ‘Major Defence Partner’ of the United States: Some Reflections

Indian defence minister Manohar Parrikar and US Defence secretary Ashton Carter finalised India’s designation as “Major Defence Partner” of US. This means facilitation of trade and Transfer of Technology at par with closest ally of US and further cooperation in the Future.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his bid to transform the otherwise lackadaisical approach of India’s Defence Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and Defence Research and Development Organisations (DRDOs) as well as Private Companies envisioned a progressive approach strongly backed by a strategy built on the ethos of credibility and immediate deliverables, job creation, thus adding strength to India’s indigenous defence industry under his mission “Make in India”.

Marred by project delays and issues of Request for Information (RFI), Request for Proposals (RFP) and Transfer of Technology (ToT), licensing issues with Russia, United States, India’s defence sector is currently undergoing massive transformation, a natural corollary to Modi’s frequent visits to other countries and subsequent discussions with his counterparts on defence and security. The revised Defence Procurement Policy is also being projected as the game changer. However financial, political and strategic investments in projects meant to modernise India’s defence industry exhibit a very uneven path. Whether it is the MMRCA, Tejas or AWACS statistics reveal that India is yet to achieve a great breakthrough in defence, compared to China or Pakistan as in the case of AWACS.

The Cabinet Committee on Security has time and again sanctioned several projects, but uneven investments have often defeated the very purpose of rapid military transformations, to tackle new asymmetrical threats. If statistics provided by the defence ministry are to be believed, India has signed five deals of more than Rs 2,500 crore since May 2014. Projects for Tactical Communication Systems (TCS), Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) (worth $ 7.5 billion) for the Indian Army, construction of seven Shivalik class frigates (Project 17 A) for the Navy, by Mazagon Docs Limited and Garden Reach Steel Industry, amounting to Rs 45201 crores are currently under consideration. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is currently in the process of building basic trainer aircraft HTT 40 and Sukhoi MK 1 aircraft in line with the 272 target set for 2018 by the Indian Air Force. There are several such deals being planned. But deadlock over Rafale continues to make headlines. Meanwhile, reacting to the commercial deadlock over Rafale prices with Dassault, other players such as Lockheed Martin (F 16), Saab (Gripen) are now streamlining their business strategy, to meet the requirements of the Indian industry under Make in India. Saab is willing to partner with Indian companies, giving India complete software control to build the Gripen fighter in India. Saab is also keen on setting up an aeronautic training academy in India.

For a strong indigenous defence industry both outside support and internal political commitments are very crucial. Integral to any development program, is the need to provide a conducive socio-economic and political environment where any proposed idea can take roots. The liberalisation of the FDI Policy in Defence, which shifted the fulcrum of indigenisation from ‘state of the art technology’ to ‘modern technology’ was indeed a welcome change. The buzz word, Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured’ (IDDM) now stands at 30:70, (Imports 30%) focus remaining on indigenisation. The FDI policy was revised to fill critical gaps in technology aiding job creation and growth if Indian industry. Despite the very obvious reports on project delays, falling production targets in the case of the Ordnance Factories, and sudden inflow of private players such as Reliance and Mahindra for example in the defence arena, ‘Make in India’ is a progressive move aimed to strengthen India’s defence industry.

However, there is no systematic explanation for India’s dialogues with Russia and the US over defence procurements and projects. The very crucial aspect of Transfer of Technology (ToT) especially nuclear propulsion (for example, in the case of nuclear supercarrier) has often caused unnecessary delays in signing of agreements between Original Equipment Makers (OEM’s) and India. Offset policy (2012) allows Joint ventures through the non-equity route. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently stated that the real impact of Make in India will be seen in 2017. Parrikar stressed on the need to outsource certain products in order to maintain a healthy production chain. So the question remains: Can private players deliver better? Is the budget enough to meet the requirements of Make in India? Will the dynamics of a Russia- US power play (add China for good measure), affect India’s position as a strong defence power in South Asia and subsequently on the global stage? It was in 2001 when private players first entered the defence domain, with a 26% FDI bid. But terms and conditions laid out by the government were so stringent, that deliverables were far from being met. Technical education lagged behind affecting human resource availability.

One very important aspect of defence modernization is the ongoing Research and Development (R&D) in the field of security that has been crafted to meet the requirements of the modern day battlefield. Advancement in information technology and the changing nature of threats, whether man-made or accidental, on land, sea, air and even the virtual space now coerces one to assess the outcomes of procurements, acquisitions and mergers, in defence manufacturing sector.

The pace with which technology is becoming obsolete is a real problem. Defence preparedness calls not just for military modernisation but also reforms, which are capable of accelerating the R& D processes in the field of security. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that no one player or OEM can fully manufacture critical equipment. Several components are now procured from various producers, making the procurement procedure lengthy and complicated. These can cause unnecessary delays too. Another point of view currently attracting a lot of attention is that opening the doors of the security sector to foreign players will jeopardise India’s position as a strong defence power.

That foreign players are still not fully convinced with the idea of ‘Make in India’ especially shifting their production bases to India, a market which has inherent haphazard supply chain structures, is a different question altogether. Lastly, more than flooding the market with success stories, the focus should be on the needs of the defence forces and on the operational efficacy of equipment manufactured under Make in India. Positive market trends have indeed widened the horizons of defence manufacturing in India but India still needs a little more political and financial push to achieve a higher degree of self-reliance in defence technology.

Former Indian Air Force Chief Arrested; Black Day for Indian Armed Forces

First time in the history of armed forces , former Indian Air Force  Chief S P Tyagi and two others were arrested by the central bureau of Investigation ( CBI) which is investigating the Rs 3,600-crore Agusta Westland VVIP helicopter deal case.It is indeed a black day for the armed forces which prides itself as a non corrupt organisation.

Investigators from Italy first alleged that the Tyagi brothers received bribes to swing the deal in favour of AgustaWestland, a wholly owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica, by tweaking technical requirements of the tender. Tyagi and others are to be produced before the court today.

CBI spokesperson Devpreet Singh said that it  was alleged that Chief of Air Staff (CAS) entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and in 2005, conceded to change IAF’s consistent stand — that service ceiling of VVIP helicopters 6,000 metres was an inescapable operational necessity — and reduced the same to 4,500 metres.Such changes in operational requirements, Singh said, made the private company (AgustaWestland) eligible to participate in the request for proposal for VVIP helicopters.

The UPA government had signed a contract with AgustaWestland International Ltd (AWIL) in 2010 for supply of 12 AW 101 VVIP helicopters at an aggregated price of Rs 3726.96 crore. The government cancelled the deal in January 2014 “on grounds of breach of the pre-contract integrity pact and the agreement” by AWIL.

The CBI has  alleged that Indians were paid bribes of Rs 362 crore to swing the deal in favour of AgustaWestland.In the probe found that bribes were allegedly paid through a complex web of companies and middlemen based in Italy, UK, Tunisia, Mauritius, Singapore, British Virgin Islands, Switzerland and the UAE. Letters rogatory were sent to these entities and, sources said, the BVI and Tunisia have “partially replied”.The Enforcement Directorate (ED), also investigating the case, too filed chargesheets against Khaitan and alleged middleman Christian Michel.

In 2014 the Italian court investigating the chopper scam had named former chief of the IAF, SP Tyagi in the scam, saying he was bribed by Finmeccanica to sign the deal with AgustaWestland. In 2015, however, Tyagi was acquitted by the Italian court, which said there was no corruption by Indian officials.

The IAF had urged the defence ministry to purchase helicopters capable of flying in high-altitude areas like Siachen and Tiger Hill. After careful evaluation of the AW101, it was ascertained that it was not capable of flying at 6,000 metres above sea level. The alleged middleman in the deal, Guido Haschke, revealed that while AW101 did not meet the technical requirements of the IAF, the deal was signed after Haschke tweaked the contract with the help of his Indian contacts.

The Milan court also took note of conversations between the three middlemen — Carlos Gerosa, Christian Michel and Guildo Haschke — who mention a 'Mrs Gandhi' as being the driving force behind the VIP, and her close aides Ahmed Patel and Pranab Mukherjee. In a letter dated 15 March, 2008, Christian Michel wrote to Peter Hulet, the then head of India region sales and liaison for AgustaWestland, saying, "Dear Peter, since Mrs Gandhi is the driving force behind the VIP, she will no longer fly with MI8. Mrs Gandhi and her closest advisers are the aim of the High Commissioner, senior adviser Prime Minister Manmohan Singh obviously the main figure, then there’s Ahmed Patel Secretary."

The UPA government had then denied all allegations and had claimed it had nothing to hide.

AgustaWestland allegedly paid €30 million in bribes, of which €20 million was routed through Haschke and Carlo Gerosa. A CBI report that came in later said that prior to Tyagi's appointment as Air Force chief, the IAF had "vehemently opposed" lowering of the altitude requirement. This changed after Tyagi came into the picture and the IAF conceded to reduce altitude requirements, allowing AgustaWestland to re-enter the bidding process.

The Indian armed forces prided itself in being a non corrupt organisation serving the nation. The arrest of former Air Force Chief is a big black spot on the armed forces.

With Inputs From Agencies

Why is the new Indian Army Chief still in abeyance?

With less than three weeks for the current incumbent to retire from service, the India government has still not appointed the new Chief of the 1.4 million strong Indian Army. The government claims it does not want alternate power centres. Certain other sources feel that a long pending demand for a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is being considered, and the delay is due the decision in this regard. A third school of thought revolves around the internecine struggle for power within the army itself.

An earlier analysis by this author dealt with the politicization of armed forces ( http://www.eurasiareview.com/02082016-inevitable-politicisation-of-indian-armed-forces-conflicting-interests-oped/ ) in the US in the run up to the Presidential elections and what could be learnt from it in the Indian context. With Donald Trump as the President- elect, he has announced a slew of names, former Generals to key appointments such as Secretary of Defence, National Security Advisor and Secretary of Homeland Security, and the most sought after Secretary of State may also go to a former General. The Indian state is yet to reach that level of trust for it to appoint a former General to such key appointments in Cabinet. In fact it is still unable to decide whether the principle of civilian control over the armed forces can be tested to the extent of having a 5-star General as its Chief of Defence Staff. Certain other factors add to the feisty debate.
The Indian government could not have come up with a weaker excuse as that of alternate power centres. The process of transition in the Indian Army (or the Air Force or the Navy) is meant to obviate just that. Within a reasonable period of the retirement date of the present incumbent General Dabir Suhag, ideally the officer next in line, Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi should have been brought in as the Vice Chief. He would then have had adequate time to learn from his predecessor thus ensuring a smooth transition on 1st January 2017. Instead, Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat was brought in as the Vice Chief, leaving Bakshi to continue as the Eastern Army Commander. Even if for a moment this argument is ignored, with less than three weeks for him to take over, citing 'alternate power centres' seems a bit far fetched at this stage.
To the credit of Prime Minister Modi, he has stressed upon the need for senior defence management reforms and for jointness in command since he has entered office. Therefore if the appointment of the CDS is indeed being considered, would it not work in his favour by at least announcing the step than by keeping it under the wraps? In any case, with the bureaucratic stranglehold on military affairs in India, it may well take more than even the Prime Minister for such a decision. As is well known, the buraeucracy suffers from an inexplicable fear of the power that the military is allowed to wield, and naturally a 5-star CDS seems to be the epitome of this unfounded fear. Unfounded because the armed forces in India have always taken pride on their apolitical stance. Yet the fear remains. And naturally again, the bureaucrats cleverly pass it on the political leadership in order to keep the armed forces subservient to their own will!
If a CDS is under consideration, then it remains to be seen how much clout is the government ready to yield to the office? Would it be a full fledged 5-star General's appointment, functioning as the single point miliary contact to the political leadership, and with the three Service Chiefs being subordinate to him? This would essentially devolve operational powers from the Chiefs, leaving them free to deal with training, equipment and administration; in turn these operational issues then become the forte of the theatre commanders (Army Commanders as they are called). However such a move would require extensive preparatory steps because it would effectively mean a revamp of structures as are known presently. Or would it just be another watered down version? A few years back the appointment of the Chief of Integrated Staff Committee (CISC) was just that- a watered down version to keep the debate at bay, with virtually no role as envisaged for the office.
What could not be a more unfortunate turn of events for one of the finest armies in the world, would be the internecine struggle for power within the army itself that is causing this undue delay. It is well known that an underlying current exists in the form of rivalry between two fighting arms, the Infantry and the Armoured Corps (Suhag is from the Infantry, as is his protege Rawat, while Bakshi is from the Armoured Corps). Much has been documented as well, on this issue, including a deliberate attempt to undermine the service profiles of officers by policies which can be termed dubious at best. The veracity of this claim can be well established by the fact that even Courts of Law have questioned such policies being in vogue. If this were indeed true, it would definitely be the final nail in the coffin. The Indian Army may not have to look outwards for threats; its intrinsic ability to create fissures would suffice then.

Analysing Wars: From Escalation to De-escalation-Break the TV sets

“If we turn off the “screech” of alarmist news and overblown political rhetoric for a moment and look at hard evidence objectively, we may find that many people in this world are working hard for peace, and in fact the world is becoming more peaceful. For this shocking idea to sink in requires either a paradigm shift or at least a broken TV set.” Joshua S. Goldstein –“Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide”

Historically in the 17th century Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke believed that war was unnecessary and hence they crafted the social contract theory which called for peaceful co-existence of all human beings under institutionalised socio political and economic order. A point worth noting here is that there are two connotations of Peace-Positive and Negative. Negative simply means absence of violence and positive means a just social order. Johan Galtung focussed on positive peace and stressed upon the need to have a just social order in place. Justice is an important cog of peace or so believed Galtung.

Foreign policies of all nation states are politically and strategically Peace centric in nature. The legacy of India’s foreign policy is built on the ethos of peace. Peace in pure linguistic parameters means absence of war. Peace comprises of respite from war, freedom from violence and terror, and now in the digital era also suppressions of thought. Maintaining peaceful and friendly relations with its neighbours was a very crucial element of the Panchsheel (Five principles of peaceful co-existence) agreement that sought to strengthen the ties between India and the Dragon. Panchsheel essentially included five basic principles which guided India’s foreign policy makers in determining the extent of socio political, economic and strategic relations with the rest of the world. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, Mutual non-aggression, Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit and Peaceful co-existence were the five tenets of India’s diplomacy and foreign policy.

The problem in geopolitics is that as long as the struggle for power and the need to build nuclear weapons in the name of self defence continues, peace cannot be established. Modernisation of defence forces and increasing defence budgets across the globe clearly indicate how the psychological war is actually going on endlessly. It is ultimately the media, the fourth estate that highlights such PSYOPS (Psychological Operations). Yet again we are totally dependent on the media to tell us what is happening around the globe and with no control on the info attack that goes on, peace goes for a toss.

As long as nations stick to constructive ideology of nation building, peace can give us a stable world order. So long as territorial disputes, disputes over water, child rights violation, human rights violation, gender discrimination and violence against women, violation of Geneva Convention, and ethnic, religious confrontations continue, peace cannot be established. The way forward is diplomatic engagements i. e the task of negotiating with troublemakers to reach a safe point of adjustment. With each nation building up weapons and accelerating its defence modernisation processes, the fear of disruption of peace is inevitable. It is diplomacy that will take us forward. It is important in the upkeep of peace.Machiavelli, Richelieu, Guicciardini, Kissinger and several others were strong advocates of diplomacy.

“We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know about and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.” — Owner of the ‘Washington Post’ Katharine Graham

Theorising Mediatised Conflict is an arduous task since there is a very thin line between fact and fiction shown on television news these days. With the commercialisation of the broadcast industry and the entry of corporate houses in mainstream media world, profit making and not ethical news reporting has become the new motive. Profits are made through sensationalism for which often catchy headlines and news production with images, animations and dramatic recreation of events are used for higher TRPs. This negative role of media today however is a new characteristic feature of the news industry. Ethical journalism has been replaced by sensational breaking news and exclusive phenomenon. But the media often referred to as the fourth estate is a powerful tool that can bring about great revolutionary changes in the society.

The media can play a positive role too. Robert Karl Manoff describes a number of roles which the media could play in preventing and moderating conflicts. He also offers examples of media peace initiatives. The media can publicize the principles of human rights and other moral norms, and can act to enforce those norms by publicizing violations. They can also focus public censure on hate groups. They can publicize and support peace-keeping operations. The media can act as a go-between for parties who lack any other means of communication. The media can educate the parties about each others’ interests, needs, and core values, and help to confirm the parties’ claims of transparency. They can help to undermine harmful stereotypes and promote humanization of the parties. The media can help educate the parties and public about existing conflict resolution resources, and about other successful cases of conflict management.

Technological innovations have changed the legacy of warfare built on the ethos of maximum destruction. Today the digital platform is far more dangerous than a hand grenade or a bomb because of its reach. When Tarek el-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia, the world witnessed the Arab Spring, the downfall of corrupt regimes such as that of Mubarak in Egypt. How did it happen? It was the digital platform that transformed the nature of agitation and converted a sporadic outburst of anger into a widespread revolution. Such is the power of the media. The term mediatised conflict essentially establishes the relationship between the tools of mass communication and the root causes of conflict and how spin doctors twist tales into half hour slots that deeply influence mental constructs of the viewers. Perceptions are moulded and all this leads to a very complicated war matrix. Clausewitz had said that War is an extended version of politics between nations, “On War” is a masterpiece, a case study of war in its totality, but the TRP war is more dangerous. It can in seconds make a fiction a fact. The uncertainty as Clausewitz had described in war is applicable to news reporting too. This makes the whole mediatised war game more lethal.

War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will, said Clausewitz. The corporate houses having complete control on the news rooms are doing the same to their viewers, forcing them to watch their channels through exclusives. Aren’t they? So we do need a broken TV set.