January Was a Momentous Event
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EDITOR’S NOTE The last three months have been as significant as any in the recent history of our country. The year 2014 ended with the drawdown of US-NATO forces from Afghanistan with many opining that the ‘job’ was only half done or less. There are legitimate fears of instability in the region that could spill over to other parts of South Asia and Central Asia. India is naturally concerned that the situation does not take an ugly turn that will be of detriment to us. The internal and external pulls and pressures are many that encompass terrorism, trade, diplomacy and power politics. The situation merits continuous monitoring for some time to come. Some contingency planning will also be in order. The visit of President Obama in January was a momentous event. Apart from the fact that he was the first US president to be the chief guest at our Republic Day parade, the visit signalled that the strategic partnership was well on track. There was the very apparent bonhomie between the leaders of the two countries and the mutual understanding on a host of different issues, including the “vision document”, was clearly noted by our friends and possible adversaries. President Obama’s commitment to support our “Make in India” programme was very welcome and so was the desire for furtherance of the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative. However, the Americans, once again, were insistent on our signing the three “foundation pacts” viz the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA). Our signing the three agreements has been debated for over ten years now. The implications are self-evident. Our reticence is understandable as the agreements could impact our relations with other countries. Also, there is some danger that our security interest could be compromised. On the other hand, not signing the agreements will mean that equipment and services that would be operationally advantageous would be denied to us. Indeed, that has happened in the recent past. If we v AIR POWER Journal Vol. 10 No. 1, SPRING 2015 (January-March) edItoR’S note are not to deny ourselves the full gains of a strategic partnership, it may be advisable to start a dialogue on the subject and accept only those conditions that we can live with. Some compromises will be necessary but we could insist that we will sign the required agreements, with modifications as agreed to, on a case by case basis. Such an approach should be acceptable. The 10th edition of the biennial International Aerospace Exhibition “Aero India”, was held in February 2014. The exhibition attracted considerable interest and a record number of aerospace companies participated. There were as many as 328 foreign companies and 266 Indian companies that took part. The corresponding figures for the last such exhibition, “Aero India 2013” were only 212 and 266 respectively. The presence of so many well known companies was encouraging but, unfortunately, no orders or contracts ensued. Apparently, our “Make in India” call has been heard but much work still needs to be done. On the last day of February, the annual budget was duly rolled out. By and large, the budget was well received but the defence budget excited comments that were to be expected from those who have neither the professional expertise in, nor the responsibility for, any aspect of national defence. It is true that the defence budget is a mere 1.74 percent of projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and only 11 percent of government expenditure. However, such figures can be misleading and it is necessary to determine how we intend to spend the moneys and whether the incremental capabilities that should result will best meet the projected threats to our national security. A more detailed examination of how we spend the defence budget is long overdue. One wonders when such an exercise will become the necessary prelude to the fashioning of the defence budget. As usual, this edition of the Journal addresses a number of issues related to national security. National security is a complex subject and comprises a vast number of varied considerations. It is our hope that we continue to raise issues that merit examination and study. Happy reading AIR POWER Journal Vol. 10 No. 1, SPRING 2015 (January-March) vi CONTENTS Vol. 10 No. 1, Spring 2015 (January-March) Editor’s Note v 1. CHANGING NATURE OF WAR 1 Shekhar Sinha 2. INDian AIR Power: ITS IMpact IN INDIA’S Strategic NeighBourhooD 17 Manmohan Bahadur 3. GENESIS AND EARLY GROWTH OF THE INDIAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY 41 Vivek Kapur 4. The Threat of Nuclear TerroriSM 61 Arjun Subramanian P 5. INDIA’S STAND ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE: OXYMORONIC OR OPPORTUNISTIC? 81 Ashish Gupta 6. INDIA anD the UniteD StateS: Reinvigorating the ‘Energy’ RelationShip 99 Stuti Banerjee iii AIR POWER Journal Vol. 10 No. 1, SPRING 2015 (January-March) CONTENTS 7. INDIA-US Nuclear Pact: How Strategic PartnerShip got entangleD IN DoMEStic PoliticS 121 Poujenlung Gonmei 8. INDIA’S Policy OptionS to Change PAKIStan’S Behaviour 145 Ankit Kumar Index 169 AIR POWER Journal Vol. 10 No. 1, SPRING 2015 (January-March) iv CHANGING NATURE OF WAR SHEKHAR SINHA Beyond the immediate, we are facing a future where security challenges will be less predictable; situations will evolve and change swiftly; technological changes will make responses more difficult to keep pace with. Threats may be known but the enemy may be invisible. Control of space becomes as critical as that of land, air and sea. Full scale wars may become rare, but force will remain an instrument of deterrence influencing behaviour and the duration of conflicts will be shorter. We should remember that what matters is the capability of the force………….. When we speak of digital India, we would also like to see digital armed forces. – Prime Minister Modi to the Combined Commanders To my mind, this sums up the present and the future direction for the armed forces and other security and intelligence agencies. The concept of nationhood is not very old in India and, therefore, one has to learn from history: after all, the human race is essentially the same except that it is evolving all the time, refining its way of thinking all the time. Let me attempt to provide a canvas of the historical perspective of warfare. One example is the Iraq War, not the present one. The USA swept away the Iraqi Army in a few days, and thought victory had come; unfortunately, Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha, PVSM AVSM NM & BAR (Retd) was C-in-C Western Naval Command from August 2012-April 2014. He is an alumni of the Defence Services Staff College, College of Naval Warfare, National Defence College and Member of the Aeronautical Society of India. 1 AIR POWER Journal Vol. 10 No. 1, SPRING 2015 (January-March) CHANGING NATURE OF WAR Rapid the assumption about the nature of this war was technological a faulty one. The planning was done based on the change also experience of previous wars. Lessons from past radically altered wars have limited utility in the future. Were the the nature of how Americans intellectually impaired, institutionally wars were to be misdirected or, perhaps, constitutionally impaired fought. to act decisively? If you have read Clausewitz, you will be familiar with what he has often said, “War is politics by other means.” I would say war and politics are expressions of sociology, they grow out of the social conditions of their time and place though the reasons may never be identical. Let me explain why I say this: the theme of the modern world has been shaped by the English Civil War, which marked the end of wars of religion and the beginning of secular ones. Science helped fuel the intellectual and industrial revolutions, and, as a consequence, emerging doctrines of individual conscience and governments based on social content rather than divine right; the establishment of the idea of the sovereign state within a system of states, birth of nationalism, of an idea of countries based on common, shared identity rather than as personal holdings of dynastic families. Changing sociology produced a new style of warfare which was demonstrated by the American Revolution. Rapid technological change also radically altered the nature of how wars were to be fought. Added to that, the industrial revolution and innovations put vast powers into the hands of states, particularly in the areas of mobilisation, communication, transportation and logistics support, enabling the creation and sustainment of mass-based armies, equipped with a bristling array of weaponry whose inherent efficacy forced further innovation in tactics, techniques and procedures in a self-reinforcing process that has marched down the intervening years. THE TRIUMPH OF MODERN WARFARE The apogee of this process was World War II. It was the highest expression of the art of modern war. Many technological changes have taken place but very little has changed since World War II as far as sociological AIR POWER Journal Vol. 10 No. 1, SPRING 2015 (January-March) 2 SheKhaR SInha underpinnings are concerned. It is the paradigm Sociology is of modern war and experience of it that shapes a changing and country’s strategic military thinking and planning, so is the nature particularly the Western model. If you examine it of warfare. We closely, you may conclude that despite all the talk generally plan to of transformation, this is old wine in a new bottle. refight the previous Sociology is changing and so is the nature of war. This is what warfare. We generally plan to refight the previous we understand as war.