Revitalisation of Defence Industries: A Myth or Reality

 Major General Rajan Kochhar

There has been much talk in recent times on how the Indian Defence Industry can be resuscitated. Unfortunately, whatever policies which have emanated from South Block, have not translated into any tangible improvement of our defence manufacturing capabilities. Self-sufficiency in defence will be the single most important constituent of strategic independence and Atma Nirbharta. In such conditions indigenous industry must step up. In future, Industry must not only meet our demands but also become export oriented.

India allocates about 1.8% of its GDP towards defence spending, of which 40% is allocated to capital acquisitions and only about 30% of India's equipment is manufactured in India, mainly by public sector undertakings. Even when defence products are manufactured domestically, there is a large import component. The Indian defence industry is largely dominated by government-owned/controlled entities; with the private sector playing a peripheral role. The dominance of the public sector is ensured through the nine giant Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and 41 Ordnance Factories (OFs) that are under the administrative control of the MoD’s Department of Defence Production (DDP). There are also 50-odd research laboratories under the umbrella of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the MoD’s premier R&D agency.

Our greatest weakness has been the lack of overall perspective towards defence manufacturing. We have being giving undue importance to institutions such as Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the premier R&D agency of the Ministry of Defence (MoD)and Director General of Ordnance Factories(DGOF) to cater to our defence requirements. These organisations do not have a laid down road map and decisions are taken in a compartmentalised environment bereft of the involvement of stakeholders. Is it not a matter of surprise that Indian Army accounts for more than 80% of its orders on OFB and still doesn’t have any member in the advisory board of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). The absence of stake holders in the decision making process has a catastrophic effect on defence manufacturing and procurement. The Armed Forces are interested in getting the equipment in the shortest time frame, whereas these organisations have scant respect for timelines and the sanctioned budgets.

India is probably the only large country in the world which is overwhelmingly dependent on external sources for its defence requirements. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the latest data on global arms transfer  shows that Indian arms imports have come down significantly (by 32%) since 2015, indicating that the ‘Make in India’ initiative is gaining ground, however, the country is still ranked as the world’s second biggest weapons buyers, just behind Saudi Arabia. The silver lining for India, along with the 32% dip in imports has been the entry into the exporters list. At present, the exports shown are modest – they account for only 0.2% of the global arms market – but the start is significant. India’s biggest clients are Myanmar, which accounts for 46% of exports, Sri Lanka at 25% and Mauritius at 14%.

The dependency on arms import is a stark reminder of how far India is from the objective of substantive self-reliance in defence production that it has aspired to since the early days of independence. The Govt of India had identified 25 sectors including defence manufacturing to further its programme of ‘Make in India’ which was launched almost four years back. What then has been the cause of this entire initiative becoming a non starter? Let us make an endeavour to analyse this.

The need of the hour is to get the private sector involved in defence production. The biggest hindrance in the private sector’s participation so far has been mistrust. When it comes to big contracts, procedural hurdles come in the way, making it virtually impossible for the private sector to get into complex defence manufacturing. Moreover, single source procurement from the private sector is still considered a taboo, whereas import without competition is greatly admired. There is therefore a requirement to change mindsets and treat the private sector as an equal partner. This can only be demonstrated by awarding big contracts, preferably through the ‘Make’ and ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ procurement categories, which hold the key to the success of the private sector’s participation in defence production.

It is therefore distressing to hear that post COVID 19, out of 56 companies which have closed shop in China only 3 have come to India. Maximum have shifted base to countries like Indonesia, Taiwan and Thailand. As per the official estimate of the MoD, India is likely to spend around $130 billion on defence modernisation in the coming seven-to-eight years. While this makes India one of the largest defence markets in the world, the opportunity it offers should be fully exploited for the benefit of local industry. This will not only improve India’s self-reliance in defence production but will have a multiplier effect on the wider economy. The government must ensure that the local industry is geared and incentivised enough to rise up to the expectations and make the government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative a success story.

In order for Make in India to be a success story there needs to be two primary objectives, i.e.

            # Reduce own dependence on imports.

            # Enhance our export potential.

            Therefore, the strategy to ensure that the recent policy changes in respect to indigenisation, strategic partnerships, leasing options and transfer of technologies take place at the earliest, must relate to the following ground rules:-

·         Easy availability of land in State Economic Zones (SEZs).

·         Making all approvals whether related to customs, legal, excise etc time bound.

·         Creating viable supply chain mechanism and tapping existing network such as Pharma, Mobile phones, machinery etc.

·         Focus on medium and small sized enterprises.

·         Budgetary allocation to match the capability building roll on plan.

However, the foreign companies could have a direct and major role if the government decides to float tenders to subsidiaries of foreign defence companies operating in India. With the Modi Government enhancing the defence foreign direct investment (FDI) cap from 49 per cent to 76 per cent under the automatic route, the foreign vendors through their subsidiaries would like to be treated just like any other Indian company and demand a fair chance to participate in the tendering process for certain embargoed items. If this is permitted, it would put the Indian companies in tough competition with foreign subsidiaries and may drive a better price for the armed forces.

It would help if the MoD issues a formal order addressing the concerns expressed by various stakeholders about certain aspects of the negative list, especially its impact on ongoing and forthcoming projects that involve cooperation with the foreign OEMs, as well as the purpose of bifurcating the capital budget without increasing the overall allocation, which is the core problem besetting modernisation of the armed forces.

Let us hope the Atmanirbhar Bharat does not end like earlier self reliance or Make in India paradoxes by successive Governments on indigenisation and strengthening of Defence Industrial Base (DIB) and defence product development which has been overwhelmingly dominated by the Government sector. Their dominance has been associated with inefficiency and lack of accountability on delivery, productivity and quality, etc. Synergizing public and private sector is a must for creating robust indigenous defence industrial capabilities and will thereby lead to gradual and systemic reduction of import dependence. It is time for the Government to be realistic and actionable rather than merely coming out with slogans/statements year on year such as ‘Self Reliance in Defence’, ‘Make in India’ and now the latest one to join the bandwagon is ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

tarun bhardwaj-new year-advt

 

TARUN BHARDWAJ- RAHUL GANDHI- ADVT

 

ramesh chander sharma-advt

 

REVEALING CLOTHES ARE THE CAUSE OF RAPE?

By Deepika Bhardwaj

Time and again, ministers, politicians and other influential community leaders have been telling women and girls not to wear jeans, short skirts, dresses or shorts. Women have also been told not to go out after dark, date, be friends with boys, or even use mobile phones.

We live in a culture that produces girls’ tops with narrower shoulder straps than boys’, girls shorts that expose more leg than boy’s shorts, then shames girls for wearing them.  We live in a culture that tells boys’ it's okay to shed clothes in order to be comfortable, but tells girls that their comfort is secondary to how others perceive them.

 Samajwadi Party leader Abu Azmi said scantily-clad women attracted male attention and that rape cases were on the rise due to "women wearing less clothes".

Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the right-wing Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which is the ideological mentor of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said rapes were an urban crime shaped by westernisation, and were not happening in rural India where traditional values were upheld.

A female politician, Asha Mirje, caused outrage for saying that "rapes take place also because of a woman's clothes, her behaviour and her being at inappropriate places".

The message that we’re receiving isn’t just that more ‘revealing’ clothes are wrong. It’s that our female bodies are wrong. That by having breasts and hips and legs and exposing them, we are less.

It is high time that at least the sane minded people understand that a rapist acts on it juvenile psychological urge to exert dominance on its prey, a way to exert their physical superiority that comes with a complex instilled upon them from childhood perhaps through a faulty upbringing, where they weren’t told right from wrong, but were told to “BE A MAN”.

The irony: It’s funny how some misogynists comment that women should not be at a place of power because they tend to take decisions driven by emotions and hormones but the very first excuse they come up for the rapists is that ‘she was wearing so and so clothes , how can you expect him to control himself?’ Well if lesbians can control themselves in womens changing rooms with butt naked females walking around then men can too. If not then they are mentally and emotionally unfit to be a part of society.

INFIBULATION- Excising the Clitoris

 By Deepika Bhardwaj

Also called FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is the practice of excising the clitoris and labia of a girl or woman and stitching together the edges of the vulva to prevent sexual intercourse. It is the complete scrapping of vagina and stitching it together to prevent the girl from having sex. The vagina is sealed leaving a small hole for the girl to menstruate or urinate.

FGM is usually performed by traditional circumcisers; women who have a high reputation within their societies. It is also performed by traditional midwives and occasionally by healers, nurses or doctors trained in Western medicine. The procedure is usually performed without anaesthetic and under dreadful and unhygienic circumstances. Usually razors, knives, scissors or a piece of broken glass, which are mostly, not disinfected.
.
The girl's legs are tied with rope for days so that the wound can heal. It usually take 15 to 40 days for the wound to heal. During this period the girl's legs remain tied and she is prevented from moving..
Basically, the stitches are meant to be reopen by her husband on the wedding night so he can have intimate with her. Imagine someone opening stitches and immediately having sex with her. Just imagine the pains, I mean serious pains!! Imagine the traumatic experience, the pains the girl will pass through.
.
At birth many women have to be cut again because the vagina opening is too small for the passage of the baby. It also causes urinary tract infections in women, fistulae and infertility etc.
.
This unethical practice is still prevalent in the tribal communities of South Africa. Other than that, people from these communities when migrate to other countries keep this unethical practice alive. As per WHO more than 200 million women suffer from FGM worldwide. According to research, it was also practised in North America, Australia and New Zealand.
.
It's disheartening that it is one of most ignored women issues.