The Tribune Wednesday, December 22, 2010, Chandigarh, India
Malfeasance in the military: It can be relied upon to apply the correctives
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)
For some time the military has been much in the news for almost all the wrong reasons. With the increasing number of scandals and scams being reported by the media, one cannot help but suffer the sinking feeling that the Indian military, too, along with almost every other constituent of the government is on the downward slide. Some may argue that the military can be no other than a mirror image of society from which it draws its manpower. Even so the ethos, the sense of honour and discipline in the military make it apart from society at large and as such can be relied upon to apply the correctives and stay on course.
It may be instructive to put in the right perspective some of the scams which have in the recent past drawn attention of the media and seem to tarnish the military’s fair image. Take the case of Sukna scandal. It relates to the issue of the No-Objection Certificate ( NOC ) to a private party for building a school on a piece of land outside the cantonment (not Army land). This NOC contravened a law that no civil construction can be allowed within 1000 yards of the cantonment boundary, but there has to be a notification to that end by the civil authority. In this case,there was no notification. Even so, the NOC issue was taken as an improper act and disciplinary action initiated against the officers concerned, including three general-rank officers.
In the Tehelka episode, one senior officer was put behind the bars and the career of another general came to an end for merely accepting dinner from a Tehelka team. Some others suffered various degrees of punishment. As against this, those from the Ministry of Defence and involved in the case are yet to be punished. The additional secretary who accepted a gold chain from the Tehelka team was soon promoted. One defence secretary charge-sheeted in the Bofors case, instead of facing proceedings against him, was given the assignment of a Lt-Governor, placing him outside the reach of the long arm of the law. Another defence secretary was indicted by the Delhi High Court for altering the annual confidential report (an official document) of an air force officer. He was merely shifted to another ministry. Then there was the case of a defence secretary who on his own went ahead and entered into a dubious deal for the purchase of one lakh rifles for the Army for which no ammunition was available in the world market. Nothing happened against him. It would be interesting to note that none of these cases were brought to light by any internal mechanism of the Ministry of Defence. This was done by outside agencies.
In the case of some other scandals and fake encounters by Army men, which have been in public domain, action was taken and those involved were arrested, including a few senior-level officers, while some others were given a range of punishments. A number of cases reported later have not seen timely disposal, as the officers concerned have been seeking relief from civil courts, resulting in delays. They may be able to buy time, but in no way will they escape the wrath of the military law.
In the high-voltage case relating to the Adarsh Housing Society flats in Mumbai, the malfeasance is far more serious than the Sukna scam. In this particular case, the land (named Khukhri Park) was given to the Army by the civil administration a few decades earlier in exchange for some land of the Army elsewhere, taken by the civil administration to make a bypass, etc. Since this land was given to the Army, in the first place it should have come on the land records of the Defence Estates Department (a department of the MoD). This was obviously not done and the land remained on the records of the civil administration, though ipso facto the land belonged to the military and was in its possession. There is no provision under which this piece of land could be given to anybody, even to Kargil widows/heroes, without sanction from the Union Cabinet in Delhi. Putting the label of “Kargil war widows/heroes” on the Adarsh Housing Society appears to have been a later-day innovation.
It was the implied ambiguity in the ownership of the land which was exploited by RC Thakur, a functionary in the Defence Estates Office ( DEO ) at Mumbai. Though the military was the de-facto and de-jure owner of this land, slip-up, intentional or otherwise by the Defence Estates office, in not taking it on its records was of little consequence. While the military land records are maintained by the Defence Estate Office, it is the Army Commander who is the custodian of all kinds of military land within his command.
The sub-area commander of the military station at Colaba (who later came back as area commander after an NDC course), the subsequent area commanders and some others most shamefully collaborated in this nefarious scheme. They also roped in some of their greedy seniors. Not to be left out, those in the politico-bureaucratic set-up who were to give various clearances for the project picked up slices of the cake for themselves, friends and relatives. Eventually they formed the majority. Some others who could and were equally desperate for that piece of cake too joined in. Since this building was originally meant to have only six floors, its foundation would have been laid to cater to that requirement. Therefore, how could the building with the same foundation be raised to 30/31 floors? The mischief runs deeper.
From the large number of cases that have been brought to light, the impression seems to prevail that the military, too, has gone under. With officer-strength of over 35,000, even dozens of cases should not cause any alarm. The environment in the country is conducive to corruption, and an increasing number of Army men are not able to resist the temptation. It would be interesting to note that only the military organisations that come in contact or deal with the civilian contractors and wheeler-dealers of civil organisations are affected by the corroding influence of corruption. All the others in the military abide by high standards of integrity and honesty.
Therefore, it would be seen that it is the military’s own internal mechanism which invariably brought these cases to light and then proceedings were launched against the suspects. One can be certain that in the Adarsh Housing Society case, too, those whose actions are still governed by the military law (military law continues to operate in the case of an individual up to two years after retirement ) will face the military’s music.
While the military can be relied upon to routinely deal with the rot that seems to be creeping into its system, more vigorous and determined efforts will have to be made by the top brass to dig out every suspected case of corruption and misconduct and promptly dealt with. The exaggerated notion of scale and scope of privileges which supposedly go with higher ranks needs to be curbed. The present Army Chief is known for high integrity, probity and moral values and will surely clean up the Augean stables.
The writer is a retired Deputy Chief of the Army Staff.
Malfeasance in the military
Showing posts with label Kickbacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kickbacks. Show all posts
Friday, December 24, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Where’s the defence industry?
By Shailesh Dobhal , 05/09/2010
The Indian automobile industry is the seventh largest, and the second fastest growing in the world after China. Its auto components manufacturers are globally competitive, and every manner of automaker is already here or is in the process of setting up a base here.
Even till early 1980s, the country was an auto backwater, with just about a handful of manufacturers. The industry maturing followed, in a manner of speaking, the market. With domestic demand for anything from two-wheelers and cars to light and heavy commercial vehicles exploding in the last two decades, India has emerged as the global small car hub, and a big exporter of both finished cars and components.
In the last six years, while production doubled, from 7 million to 14 million, exports more than tripled, 0.5 million to 1.8 million last fiscal.
A big consumer market for cellphones made the world's biggest cellphone maker Nokia set up its largest manufacturing plant here, to meet the domestic requirements as well as to build an export base. The story of a big and growing domestic market spawning a vibrant domestic industry repeats itself with consistency across sectors -- apparels, consumer expendables, packaged food, pharmaceuticals, etc.
In fact, it is difficult to think of any industry sector where a huge domestic market is not a prelude to a vibrant domestic industry. Perhaps, only in God-gifted natural resources like oil, gas and minerals can a country be a big consumer and a big importer at the same time. Can there be any other such exceptions?
Well yes, if you consider the country's experience with defence equipment like submarines, ships, fighter planes and artillery guns. India is one the world's biggest consumer of defence equipment, having spent $50 billion in the last 10 years and estimates of over $100 billion in the next decade or so.
And historically we have relied on imports to fulfil over two-thirds of this requirement, as the public sector monopoly of DRDO, 8 PSUs and 39 ordnance factories have failed us squarely. Our defence exports are pathetic, even compared to other big arms importers like South Korea and Singapore. For every dollar worth of export of defence equipment, India imports $200 worth, compared to $20 for Singapore and under $9 for Korea.
Even after almost a decade of opening up of private participation and 26% foreign investment, just about 130 companies have entered the fray, and very little foreign funds have flowed in. Now the defence industry is a sensitive, highly technological one, with governments and graft never far from the scene. And you can't exactly extend the arguments of the plebeian cars and cellphones industry to as highly geo-strategic sector as defence, goes one argument.
Well, maybe not, but the logic of the market is finally inexplicable -- one who pays the piper calls the tune. True, existing big boys of the global arms club will hold back the change, and foreign governments will withhold cutting-edge technologies and newer versions for itself. But purchasing power has to be leveraged to change the old order, and a beginning has to be made somewhere.
Consider what China is doing. The authors of a paper, Leveraging Defence Offset Policy for Technology Acquisition, in the Journal of Defence Studies, January 2009, argue that China is launching its large civilian aircraft industry on an aggressive leverage of transfer of production technology from other countries in the form of outsourcing and offsets, primarily from the US and other aerospace companies.
So why can't India? The reasons are not hard to find. Our much touted defence procurement policy, which inter alia provides for an offset policy, is somewhat unclear in its objectives. The 4-year-old 'Offset Policy' requires a foreign arms vendor winning a contract of more than Rs 300 crore to offset a minimum 30% of this value in the domestic market through purchase of products/services from Indian companies or investments in setting up a joint venture with an Indian partner.
Already, in the absence of a robust monitoring mechanism, some experts have started flagging offsets as the country's next big scam in the making, with unscrupulous foreign vendors using it as a means for kickbacks.
Best practices in offset management can be gleaned from countries like Israel and South Korea that have used it to kickstart their domestic industries. Israel's offset policy explicitly emphasises acquisition of technology and not the product, for that alone can have a technology spillover effect that can spawn related ancillary industries, the backbone for all big manufacturing successes.
Ditto South Korea, where the approval of the offset contract is subject to the foreign arms vendor assuring 'approval' of technology transfer to the importing country.
Or take the example of Saudi Arabia. It realises that some cutting-edge technologies won't be shared or transferred and therefore its offset programme has evolved to harness commercially exploitable (transferred) technology, which has helped its offset-related domestic industry to already clock in billions in export sales.
Gunnar Eliasson, a professor of industrial economics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, in his recently released book, Advanced Public Procurement as Industrial Policy, argues that there are four waves of spillovers of any technology, such as fighter aircraft manufacturing -- core, related, engineering and industrial technologies.
The value for country procuring high technology-led armaments is how its organises its industrial systems' absorptive capacity to leverages on such spillovers that can have long-term economic benefits in terms of spawning related industries, dual-usage commercial technologies.
Our offsets system, which has become virtually a government dictait-led windfall for big and small domestic players alike, should instead strive to create a defence industrial ecosystem of technology absorption, assimilation and innovation.
Source:Financial Express
Where’s the defence industry?
The Indian automobile industry is the seventh largest, and the second fastest growing in the world after China. Its auto components manufacturers are globally competitive, and every manner of automaker is already here or is in the process of setting up a base here.
Even till early 1980s, the country was an auto backwater, with just about a handful of manufacturers. The industry maturing followed, in a manner of speaking, the market. With domestic demand for anything from two-wheelers and cars to light and heavy commercial vehicles exploding in the last two decades, India has emerged as the global small car hub, and a big exporter of both finished cars and components.
In the last six years, while production doubled, from 7 million to 14 million, exports more than tripled, 0.5 million to 1.8 million last fiscal.
A big consumer market for cellphones made the world's biggest cellphone maker Nokia set up its largest manufacturing plant here, to meet the domestic requirements as well as to build an export base. The story of a big and growing domestic market spawning a vibrant domestic industry repeats itself with consistency across sectors -- apparels, consumer expendables, packaged food, pharmaceuticals, etc.
In fact, it is difficult to think of any industry sector where a huge domestic market is not a prelude to a vibrant domestic industry. Perhaps, only in God-gifted natural resources like oil, gas and minerals can a country be a big consumer and a big importer at the same time. Can there be any other such exceptions?
Well yes, if you consider the country's experience with defence equipment like submarines, ships, fighter planes and artillery guns. India is one the world's biggest consumer of defence equipment, having spent $50 billion in the last 10 years and estimates of over $100 billion in the next decade or so.
And historically we have relied on imports to fulfil over two-thirds of this requirement, as the public sector monopoly of DRDO, 8 PSUs and 39 ordnance factories have failed us squarely. Our defence exports are pathetic, even compared to other big arms importers like South Korea and Singapore. For every dollar worth of export of defence equipment, India imports $200 worth, compared to $20 for Singapore and under $9 for Korea.
Even after almost a decade of opening up of private participation and 26% foreign investment, just about 130 companies have entered the fray, and very little foreign funds have flowed in. Now the defence industry is a sensitive, highly technological one, with governments and graft never far from the scene. And you can't exactly extend the arguments of the plebeian cars and cellphones industry to as highly geo-strategic sector as defence, goes one argument.
Well, maybe not, but the logic of the market is finally inexplicable -- one who pays the piper calls the tune. True, existing big boys of the global arms club will hold back the change, and foreign governments will withhold cutting-edge technologies and newer versions for itself. But purchasing power has to be leveraged to change the old order, and a beginning has to be made somewhere.
Consider what China is doing. The authors of a paper, Leveraging Defence Offset Policy for Technology Acquisition, in the Journal of Defence Studies, January 2009, argue that China is launching its large civilian aircraft industry on an aggressive leverage of transfer of production technology from other countries in the form of outsourcing and offsets, primarily from the US and other aerospace companies.
So why can't India? The reasons are not hard to find. Our much touted defence procurement policy, which inter alia provides for an offset policy, is somewhat unclear in its objectives. The 4-year-old 'Offset Policy' requires a foreign arms vendor winning a contract of more than Rs 300 crore to offset a minimum 30% of this value in the domestic market through purchase of products/services from Indian companies or investments in setting up a joint venture with an Indian partner.
Already, in the absence of a robust monitoring mechanism, some experts have started flagging offsets as the country's next big scam in the making, with unscrupulous foreign vendors using it as a means for kickbacks.
Best practices in offset management can be gleaned from countries like Israel and South Korea that have used it to kickstart their domestic industries. Israel's offset policy explicitly emphasises acquisition of technology and not the product, for that alone can have a technology spillover effect that can spawn related ancillary industries, the backbone for all big manufacturing successes.
Ditto South Korea, where the approval of the offset contract is subject to the foreign arms vendor assuring 'approval' of technology transfer to the importing country.
Or take the example of Saudi Arabia. It realises that some cutting-edge technologies won't be shared or transferred and therefore its offset programme has evolved to harness commercially exploitable (transferred) technology, which has helped its offset-related domestic industry to already clock in billions in export sales.
Gunnar Eliasson, a professor of industrial economics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, in his recently released book, Advanced Public Procurement as Industrial Policy, argues that there are four waves of spillovers of any technology, such as fighter aircraft manufacturing -- core, related, engineering and industrial technologies.
The value for country procuring high technology-led armaments is how its organises its industrial systems' absorptive capacity to leverages on such spillovers that can have long-term economic benefits in terms of spawning related industries, dual-usage commercial technologies.
Our offsets system, which has become virtually a government dictait-led windfall for big and small domestic players alike, should instead strive to create a defence industrial ecosystem of technology absorption, assimilation and innovation.
Source:Financial Express
Where’s the defence industry?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
MOD blacklist barrel grows longer
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi November 17, 2009, 0:19 IST
Over this last decade, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has “blacklisted” so many foreign arms corporations that the military’s modernisation plan has virtually stalled. The MoD “blacklist” is not a formal document; an arms vendor is mostly embargoed unofficially, when senior bureaucrats agree that it is playing dirty.
The hit list reads like a who’s who of global weapons suppliers, including corporations with good records of delivering arms to India. Starting with Bofors in the late 1980s, the list grew to include Denel of South Africa; Israel Military Industries (IMI); Singapore Technologies Kinetic (STK); and now Thales of France. Earlier this year, the world’s biggest defence contractor, Lockheed Martin, was on the blacklist. Now another global giant, BAE Systems, seems headed there after problems with setting up an assembly line in HAL Bangalore for the Hawk jet trainer.
It is hardly news that arms sales and corruption walk together. Arms vendors routinely bribe political leaders, bureaucrats and senior military officers, not just in India but worldwide. BAE Systems allegedly bribed Saudi Arabian royals with hundreds of millions of dollars in the infamous Al Yamamah contracts. Thales, credibly accused of bribing South African presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma, is also being sued by Taiwan to recover US $590 million allegedly paid in kickbacks to win a deal for six warships. Most arms companies maintain multi-million dollar slush funds to ease the way for their giant deals.
But the Indian MoD is wholly wrong in behaving as if the problem is just one of predatory arms corporations. All those bribes are being paid to somebody; but no MoD official is in jail for having accepted a bribe. Instead South Block’s vendor blacklists grow longer and longer. These blacklists are now choking defence procurement.
Read the full article from Business Standard: Ajai Shukla: No thanks, you're blacklisted!
Over this last decade, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has “blacklisted” so many foreign arms corporations that the military’s modernisation plan has virtually stalled. The MoD “blacklist” is not a formal document; an arms vendor is mostly embargoed unofficially, when senior bureaucrats agree that it is playing dirty.
The hit list reads like a who’s who of global weapons suppliers, including corporations with good records of delivering arms to India. Starting with Bofors in the late 1980s, the list grew to include Denel of South Africa; Israel Military Industries (IMI); Singapore Technologies Kinetic (STK); and now Thales of France. Earlier this year, the world’s biggest defence contractor, Lockheed Martin, was on the blacklist. Now another global giant, BAE Systems, seems headed there after problems with setting up an assembly line in HAL Bangalore for the Hawk jet trainer.
It is hardly news that arms sales and corruption walk together. Arms vendors routinely bribe political leaders, bureaucrats and senior military officers, not just in India but worldwide. BAE Systems allegedly bribed Saudi Arabian royals with hundreds of millions of dollars in the infamous Al Yamamah contracts. Thales, credibly accused of bribing South African presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma, is also being sued by Taiwan to recover US $590 million allegedly paid in kickbacks to win a deal for six warships. Most arms companies maintain multi-million dollar slush funds to ease the way for their giant deals.
But the Indian MoD is wholly wrong in behaving as if the problem is just one of predatory arms corporations. All those bribes are being paid to somebody; but no MoD official is in jail for having accepted a bribe. Instead South Block’s vendor blacklists grow longer and longer. These blacklists are now choking defence procurement.
Read the full article from Business Standard: Ajai Shukla: No thanks, you're blacklisted!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
