A call for change : higher defence management in India

Page 31-35.

2008

Conventional wisdom is that the fighting potential of the defence forces of India has decreased over the last two decades. There are many reasons for this, including a lack of vision and knowledge of security-related issues amongst the political leadership, as also the bureaucracy; decreasing budgetary allocations; antiquated procurement procedures; a costly research department, whose output has been much below expectations and which has prevented the entry of private enterprise in the defence sector; antipathy to change; narrow parochial interests; hesitancy to take risks at the senior leadership level and a status-quo mentality amongst the decision-makers.

Despite being faced with myriad and complex challenges to national security, India's defence structures have not kept pace with changing times. The defence reforms that were undertaken periodically were reactive in nature and, in many cases, responses to crises as well as being sporadic, piecemeal and often ad hoc. The most recent review of security challenges undertaken occurred close to two decades ago, in the aftermath of the Kargil conflict of 1999. This was the Kargil Review Committee, and a subsequent Group of Ministers committee was appointed to study its report and suggest urgent measures for implementation of its suggestions, especially focussing on intelligence reforms, internal security, border management, and defence management. While many of the suggestions made by the Group of Ministers committee were accepted and have been implemented, a key reform-the establishment of the Chief of Defence Staff-is yet to see the light of day. Keeping in mind the necessity as well as the urgency of such reforms, this volume brings together practitioners as well as researchers on defence issues, on the key issue of defence reforms. The aim is not just to interrogate the status of reforms in current times but to also place the issue before a wider, interested readership. The 14 incisive chapters herein cover the broad spectrum of defence reforms and provide perspectives on similar reforms in other militaries, structural reforms, those dealing with budgets and procurement issues, and, finally, education and communication. The volume would be an indispensable guide to practitioners, scholars and researchers working on the area of defence and military studies, strategic and security studies, India's defence and security policies as well as to the informed reader.

In July 2011, India appointed the Naresh Chandra Committee to re-visit the issue of defence reform. Addressing such fundamental problems as poor institutional knowledge, confused civil-military relations and a lack of inter-service and interagency co-ordination will help India to realise its ambitions on the world stage. However, the committee may find it difficult to define reforms that are acceptable to all of the principal actors: the military, politicians and civilian bureaucracy.

The Round Table

This article gives an overview of the state of the Indian military by assessing its overall performance, current debates, and future challenges. While doing so it covers three main subjects-the role of the military in nation-building, contemporary challenges, and defence reforms. This covers a wide range of issues, from the military's historical role-in wars and domestic counter-insurgencies, current threats, and missions to preparing for the future. In the penultimate section, it describes debates on defence reforms and military transformation triggered by the creation in 2019 of the post of Chief of Defence staff. It concludes with an overview of state-military relations and identifies some areas for future research.

2017

The Handbook of Indian Defence Policy aims to provide an authoritative, compelling and comprehensive survey of India’s defence policy since it gained its independence in 1947. Raj Verma finds it an essential read for students, scholars and especially policymakers interested in the external and internal security challenges facing India, the numerous problems and limitations which might stymie India’s rise to great power status and possible solutions to overcome these.

2015

How do conceptions of war drive defense and military reform? Most commentators have observed for the past decade that the paradigm of war is shifting. However, what the “new paradigm” is, and how force structure, doctrine and operations should evolve to meet this new paradigm is less clear. The Indian security community has had a lively debate about defense reforms since the 1999 Kargil War. Interventional events have been closely watched in India, including the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Russia’s interventions in Georgia and Ukraine. Of critical importance to India are events closer to home, like the 2008 Mumbai Terrorist attacks, the on-going Naxal insurgency, instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the rise of China. For decades the focus of the Indian military was clear: maintain a conventional advantage over Pakistan, secure India’s contested borders, and assist domestic security forces with internal conflicts and violence. 1 Recently, new issues and threats have...

idsa.in

The article analyses military change in the context of the Indian Army, with specific focus on organisational innovation and change. In doing so, it analyses two case studies: restructuring of the army after the Sino-Indian War of 1962; and mechanisation based on the 1975 expert committee recommendations. On the basis of these case studies, the article assesses the drivers and desirables for organisational change in the Indian Army, with the further aim of deriving policy recommendations which are especially apt in light of the ongoing transformation of the army. It identifies operational environment and technology as the principle drivers for change, with doctrine and strategic culture having a limited impact. It further concludes that successful change requires long-term strategic assessment, supportive political leadership, visionary and committed military leadership, strong institutional structures and follow-up action.