Thursday, March 19, 2015

FOR INDIA GOING NUCLEAR AT SEA: MURKY WATERS-NAVAL NUCLEAR DYNAMICS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN

Source:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/national/going-nuclear-at-sea/ar-BBipsNc





MURKY WATERS:

NAVAL NUCLEAR DYNAMICS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN
 
@CarnegieEndow

facebook.com/

CarnegieEndowment
 
I S K A N D E R R E H M A N




More than five years have passed since India launched its first ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) in July 2009. Meanwhile, Pakistan formally inaugurated a Naval Strategic Force Command headquarters in 2012 and has declared its intent to develop its own sea-based deterrent. As India and Pakistan develop their naval nuclear forces, they will enter increasingly
murky waters. By further institutionalizing relations between their navies and by insisting on stronger transparency with regard to naval nuclear developments, both countries may succeed in adding a greater degree of stability to what otherwise promises to be a dangerously volatile maritime environment.
 

Ongoing Naval Nuclear Dynamics in South Asia


India’s pursuit of a sea-based nuclear strike
force is the next logical step in its quest for an assured retaliatory capability.
 
India has conducted a series of test firings of
Dhanush-class short-range ballistic missiles
from offshore patrol vessels. It appears that
for the Indian Navy, the Dhanush program
is a stopgap measure until the SSBN fleet
comes to fruition.
 
The submarine-based leg of India’s nuclear
triad will have a major impact on the nation’s
existing command-and-control arrangements.
 
•   To enjoy an effective sea-based deterrent vis-a-  vis China, India’s other prospective nuclear
adversary, New Delhi has to develop larger
SSBNs with greater missile carriage capacity
and more powerful nuclear reactor
 
Pakistan’s naval nuclear ambitions are
fueled primarily by the sense of a growing
conventional, rather than strategic, imbalance
between New Delhi and Islamabad.
 
 By dispersing low-yield nuclear weapons
across a variety of naval platforms,
Islamabad aims to acquire escalation
dominance and greater strategic depth and to
reduce the incentives for a preemptive strike
on its nuclear assets.


Takeaways for India and Pakistan

 
Naval nuclear operations during the Cold War hold an immense value in terms of thinking more deeply about issues such as conventional operations under a nuclear shadow, naval nuclear signaling, and escalation control

 
In order to avert misunderstanding, India’s nuclear management would gain from clearer
communication and greater transparency, particularly with regard to the Dhanush program.

As Pakistan seeks to nuclearize its fleet, it will encounter a number of challenges. Chinese assistance could provide a way for Islamabad to more rapidly alleviate some of these difficulties. Considering the potential risks, however, Beijing may wish to maintain a greater distance from Pakistan’s military nuclear enterprise.

Over the past decade, India’s and Pakistan’s coast guards have enacted a number of confidence building
measures. Going forward, decisionmakers in New Delhi and Islamabad might consider
extending initiatives to their navies as well


 

              FOR INDIA: Going Nuclear at Sea

The Indian Express
 
                                          
Going forward, the Indian navy will face three sets of nuclear challenges.

The first set is in the technological domain, as the navy struggles to acquire the capability for continuous at-sea deterrence.
 
The second set of difficulties will need to be addressed within the navy itself, as its officers begin to grapple with the importance of their service’s new nuclear role.

Finally, Indian naval planners will also have to contend with their Pakistani counterparts’ development of what can best be described as a “naval nuclear force-in-being”.

When the Arihant is finally commissioned, it will be fitted with 12 Sagarika K-15 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The Sagarika, however, only has a strike radius of about 750 to 800 km, which many analysts rightly consider inadequate.
Indeed, with such a short range, the Arihant could not reach Islamabad, let alone China’s strategic centres.

 
The DRDO is currently working on two longer-range SLBMs: the 3,500-km range K-4, which recently underwent a successful test launch from an underwater pontoon, and the 5,000-km range K-5, which is still in the design phase. According to sources, the Arihant is fitted with four universal tube launchers, which can each carry either three K-15 missiles or one K-4 missile.

 
Observers have raised questions, however, over the compatibility of the K-4’s height with the submarine’s 10.4-m hull. If the length of the K-4 cannot be shortened, the Arihant may need to be retrofitted with a hydrodynamic outer development, or “bump.” Even if the DRDO’s engineers do succeed in squeezing the K-4 aboard, the missile’s range remains somewhat unsatisfactory.
It would require India’s nuclear submariners to operate on the northeastern fringes of the Bay of Bengal in order to effectively target China’s major metropolises, rather than within the more sanitised waters abutting India’s eastern seaboard. The K-5 is rumoured to stand at a height of about 12 m, which rules out its deployment aboard the Arihant.

 
The second major technological limitation is that of the Arihant’s nuclear reactor. Reportedly based on first- or second-generation Soviet technology, the 83-megawatt pressurised water reactor has a short refuelling cycle, thus limiting the length of the Arihant’s deterrent patrols.

 
In short, in order to enjoy an effective sea-based deterrent with regard to China, India will need to deploy larger SSBNs with greater missile carriage capacity and more powerful nuclear reactors. The fourth planned submarine in the series is projected to possess such characteristics, but it may take more than a decade for it to be successfully developed and launched, and even longer for it to be commissioned.

 
While India’s submarine fleet has been taking shape, Delhi has also conducted a series of test firings, starting in 2000, of Dhanush-class short-range ballistic missiles from surface ships. For the time being, however, it appears that the Dhanush programme is merely a stopgap measure until the SSBN fleet comes into full fruition.

 
Second, history has shown that all newly nuclear navies face some difficult tradeoffs. As India’s SSBN fleet gradually grows in size and importance, the challenge will be to ensure that the navy’s new nuclear role develops alongside, rather than to the detriment of, its conventional missions.
As in all nuclear navies, a debate will no doubt unfold within the service as to how many resources and platforms should be devoted to the ballistic missile submarine fleet’s protection. Tough decisions may need to be made, particularly if India’s underwater environment becomes more contested. India’s nuclear command and control procedures will also almost certainly undergo a revision, as the SLBMs will be canisterised and ready for launch, rather than de-mated.
 
As India’s nuclear submarine fleet gradually grows in size and importance, the challenge will be to ensure that the navy’sp new nuclear role develops alongside, rather than to the detriment of, its conventional missions.
© Provided by Indian Express As India’s nuclear submarine fleet gradually grows in size and importance, the challenge will be to ensure that the navy’sp new nuclear role develops alongside, rather than to the detriment of, its conventional missions. 
            
Finally, India’s naval and nuclear planners will also have to contend with the progressive materialisation of a nuclearised Pakistani navy — albeit one with much less orthodox characteristics and undergirded by a very different nuclear posture. Indeed, Islamabad aims to eventually disperse nuclear-tipped cruise missiles across a variety of naval platforms, ranging from surface ships in the short term to conventional diesel-electric submarines in the long term. Unlike India, Pakistan’s naval nuclear ambitions are fuelled primarily by the sense of a growing conventional imbalance in the maritime domain.
By nuclearising — or by appearing to nuclearise — a large portion of their fleet architecture, Pakistani military planners hope to neuter India’s growing naval power, inject ambiguity and acquire escalation dominance in the event of a limited conflict at sea. Since Independence, Indian naval officers have been accustomed to operating within a purely conventional maritime setting.
Dealing with such a prospective adversary will no doubt necessitate a fundamental rethinking of the navy’s operational concepts. Perhaps more importantly, it will also require an effort on the part of both countries to further institutionalise the maritime component of their relations so as to ensure that in future, isolated incidents don’t spiral out of control.
 
The writer, a nonresident fellow in the South Asia Programme at the Atlantic Council, is author of the report ‘Murky Waters: Naval Nuclear Dynamics in the Indian Ocean’.
 
SLIDESHOW: India's military might
 
 
military                        
India's military might packs a mean punch
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

India’s Maritime Awakening? Modi Endorses A Blue Revolution

Source:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/18032015-indias-maritime-awakening-modi-endorses-a-blue-revolution-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29





The Indian Ocean is bounded by India's Lakshadweep Islands to the north
The Indian Ocean is bounded by India's Lakshadweep Islands to the north


India’s Maritime Awakening? Modi Endorses A Blue Revolution – Analysis

                                      By
                            C Uday Bhaskar*









The three island-nation trip that took Prime Minister Modi to Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka in mid-March may well mark the beginning of India’s long overdue maritime awakening. For a nation so richly endowed with a distinctive maritime geography, the paradox has been the tenacious indifference, often veering towards inexcusable sea-blindness, that has characterised Delhi’s policy orientation as regards the Indian Ocean.


However the very fact that Modi embarked upon such a trip to three strategically important island states in the Indian Ocean which have been long neglected by way of a summit visit reflects a political determination that has the potential to become the beginning of the end of this self-inflicted strategic myopia.



In Mauritius, Modi handed over an Indian built off-shore patrol vessel (OPV) to that country’s Coast Guard and this marks the first such export of a naval ship designed and built in India. Christened the MCGS Barracuda, the 1350 tonne ship, valued at US $50, million was commissioned by Modi on March 12 and his speech at this ceremony could well be described as the most lucid and comprehensive articulation of India’s resurrected maritime vision for the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).


Highlighting the centrality of a cooperative strategy to manage the vast water body of the Indian Ocean and the role of the smaller island nations, Modi drew attention to the strategic significance of the IOR and noted: “Because, the Indian Ocean is critical to the future of the world. This Ocean bears two-thirds of the world’s oil shipments, one-third of its bulk cargo; and half of its container traffic. Over three-fourths of its traffic goes to other regions of the world.”


 
 
PM Shri Narendra Modi speech at Civic Reception in Mauritius: 12.03.2015  


This overview is familiar to the professionals but what is instructive is the manner in which Modi invoked rich symbolism related to the national flag and endorsed the need for India to embark upon a Blue Revolution. In the course of his remarks at Port Louis, Modi observed: “To me the blue chakra or wheel in India’s national flag represents the potential of Blue Revolution or the Ocean Economy. That is how central the ocean economy is to us.” The speech writers in the prime minister’s stable warrant praise for the manner in which form and substance have been leavened.


India has witnessed two seminal revolutions that transformed the profile of the nation and the well-being of its people – namely the Green Revolution that began in 1963 and transformed India from a ‘basket-case’ to becoming self-sufficient in food production; and later the White Revolution (also referred to as Operation Flood) of 1970 that made India into the world’s largest milk producer.


The Blue Revolution endorsed by Modi, if realized in its entirety, has the potential to transform India in similar manner and both the normative vision and the policy clarity are laden with deep import. Asserting that the “Indian Ocean Region is at the top of our policy priorities”, Modi added that the regional vision “is rooted in advancing cooperation in our region; and, to use our capabilities for the benefit of all in our common maritime home.”


The five elements prioritize the core security interests of India and yet combine the collective well-being of the IOR. Inter alia, they include: “We will do everything to safeguard our mainland and islands and defend our interests; we will deepen our economic and security cooperation with our friends in the region, especially our maritime neighbours and island states; collective action and cooperation will best advance peace and security in our maritime region; we also seek a more integrated and cooperative future in the region that enhances the prospects for sustainable development for all; and those who live in this region have the primary responsibility for peace, stability and prosperity in the Indian Ocean but we recognize that there are other nations around the world, with strong interests and stakes in the region.”


This maritime pentagon provides the foundation for the Modi vision of the IOR and is in many ways a logical extension of the modest but relatively still-born ‘sagar mala’ (ocean garland ) enunciated by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in August 2003 that sought to revitalize the moribund Indian ports sector and inland connectivity.


India’s comprehensive national power that includes the economic and trade sinews and the military component can be robustly advanced by sustained investment in the maritime sector. This is a well-trodden path taken by many major powers before India and the symbiotic relationship between ship-building, port efficacy and inland cum coastal connectivity lie at the core of such national endeavor.


China, which is the most recent of the major powers to focus on the maritime sector, offers many policy cues for India. One of the first priorities is to review and rationalize the myriad ministries and departments that have sectoral and insular responsibility in managing India’s maritime assets.


This is a subject worthy of immediate cabinet and legislative attention and Modi would be well-advised to fast-track the implementation of the Blue Revolution. Furthermore, the coastal states need to become committed stakeholders in this national endeavor and this in turn will strengthen the federal character of the Indian polity – an often stated Modi objective.

The Indian Ocean is not India’s ocean alone but the Modi vision is laudable:

“We seek a future for the Indian Ocean that lives up to the name of SAGAR – Security and Growth for All in the Region.”


Acronyms are addictive but the challenge now is to walk the talk and convert rich rhetoric into tangible reality.




*C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at cudyabhaskar@spsindia.in

IANS, March 17, 2015








 

IANS on March 17, 2015 at 1:58 pm
Indian MARCOS perform at Ramakrishna Beach in Visakhapatnam

India’s maritime awakening? Modi endorses a Blue Revolution






















 

INDIAN DEFENCE AND ( Mr babu) THE ABOMINABLE NO MAN









MORE THAN PAKISTAN & CHINA BABUs ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE INDIAN DEFENCE & SECURITY.  FOR EVERY ILLEGITIMATE  CHILD BIRTH OF MILITARY RULE IN PAKISTAN THE  INDIAN BABU FEELS THE PANGS OF LABOUR PAIN & INDUCES THE SAME IN THE INDIAN   POLITICIAN & HARBINGERING THE INDUCED HOSTILITIES TOWARDS THE INDIAN ARMED FORCES.--- VASUNDHRA







                     INDIAN DEFENCE
                                   AND 
                               [MR Babu]
              THE ABOMINABLE NO MAN

                                  Claude Arpi                    





Claude Arpi is an expert on the history of Tibet, China and the subcontinent. He was born in Angoulême, France. After graduating from Bordeaux University in 1974, he decided to live in India and settled in the South where he is still staying with his Indian wife and young daughter. He is the author of numerous English and French books including ‘The Fate of Tibet,’ ‘La Politique Française de Nehru: 1947-1954,’ ‘Born in Sin: the Panchsheel Agreement’ and ‘India and Her Neighbourhood.’ He writes regularly on Tibet, China, India and Indo-French relations. In the present article, he analyses the pathetic state of the country's defence sector. 


                                        
India’s defence sector is today facing one of the grimmest times since the debacle of 1962. Many will infer that it is because India is a democracy governed by the rule of law and not a totalitarian regime. It could be, let us first have a look at the facts. 
 On July 10, A K Antony, the Defence Minister, announced that the 155-mm artillery guns fielded by Bofors and Israel’s Soltam had not met the Army’s parameters during field trials. The government had decided to refloat a global tender.


  He explained that the Army was not satisfied with the field trials over four years. “We will issue fresh tenders at the earliest and ensure that these guns are inducted into the Army within the shortest possible time”. Euphemism! Four rounds of trials had been conducted between 2002 and 2006.The then Chief of Army Staff, General J JSingh confirmed that the guns from Bofors and Soltam had not met qualitative requirements. The deal estimated at Rs 4,000 crore was for 400 155-mm 52-calibre guns with India showing her interest to manufacture more than a thousand guns under the transfer of technology. The Pakistani newspaper Daily Times commented: “The real reason for issuing the fresh global tender is to avoid buying the guns from the company that supplied the Bofors guns in 1979, resulting in a political turmoil with allegations of kickbacks to the then Prime Minister, late Rajiv Gandhi. Fears that the Opposition would link the two deals, re-ignite the Bofors scandal, and use it against the Congress in upcoming elections, led to the move.” They might be right.



Next episode. The website, DefenseNews.com on September 3, announced: “The Indian Air Force’s planned purchase of 18 Spyder Low Level Quick Reaction Missiles (LLQRMs) from Israel’s Rafael Armament Development Authority may be in jeopardy. Defence Ministry officials have asked that the estimated $325 million procurement plan be reviewed by the Central Vigilance Commission.”




 Rumors spread that the ministry would cancel the contract with Israel following allegations of illegally influencing the purchase process. The site commented: “The decision of the government has come out at the time when India has just started the process of major upgradation of its air defence systems.” Analysts thought that the Ministry was keen to diversify its procurement and that Israel would emerge as one of the major Indian partners, bringing a balance in the over reliance on Russia. 




 Two months later, the news broke that the order from the European consortium Eurocopter for 197 helicopters for the Indian Army had been cancelled in an abrupt communiqué. The Defence Ministry spokesman Sitanshu Kar gave no reason for the decision. Here again this comes after several long years of tenders and trials, during which the Eurocopter emerged as the front-runner for the deal. Kar just stated: "A fresh RFP will be issued shortly." Strange! Some press agencies quoting sources in the defence establishment said that the negotiations were terminated because of “major deviations in the approved parameters of the helicopter and procedures.” It was later denied by the representatives of the European company in a press conference in Delhi. The Franco-German-Spanish Eurocopter Group is a Division of European Aerospace and Defence Systems (EADS), a world leader in aerospace (of Airbus fame) and defence. The only competitor in the race for the deal was Bell of the US.




  It was murmured that the Bush Administration had more clout in the corridors of South Block than its French or German counterparts. It is possibly true, but the next question is, what will happen to the selection process for 126 fighter planes? Will it follow the same fate?



An interesting article appeared in the Business Standard written by Ajai Shukla, a journalist with an army background. He asked a very pertinent question: Did the babus, who cancelled the deal, have a thought about those who valiantly fight to defend India’s borders? He particularly mentioned the troops on the Siachen glacier: “For those jawans, and for tens of thousands of others like them who have already been cut off by the snows, this decision means a clear reduction in chances of survival.” George Fernandes had set up the good tradition of sending senior officers of the Ministry to the glacier to get direct knowledge of the consequences of their decision; this has probably been abandoned. 



 We all know the unfortunate way of planning in the land of Bharat. It is only after a soldier dies that someone starts thinking that coffins are urgently needed. Coffins are then quickly purchased, but soon after the CAG enters into the picture and objects: “Illegal! The three statutory quotations were not obtained and field trials not conducted”. It becomes a major scam and the Ministry decides to draft new rules and regulations, more rigorous to avoid future scams. The new rules are so stringent, that hardly any deal can pass through the net.




  In the chopper case, Shukla rightly points out: “The cancelled purchase from Eurocopter had taken six years to fructify. Whether another selection procedure will end in a perfectly objective decision is already well known: it will not”.


As a result of “some pending decision in acquisitions”, last year the Ministry had to return almost 3,000 crore in the capital outlay section itself. Under the fiscal responsibility law, the ministries, which are unable to spend the money allocated to them in the prescribed timeframe, have to return the unspent funds. Every year, money has thus been returned to the Consolidated Fund of India. 




 You will tell me: what can India do? True, the babus are ruling India. An IAS officer that I encountered in the past was nicknamed ‘The Abominable No Man’. This person would write ‘no’ to any proposal and find rules to justify his decision; during his long career he had discovered that it was the safest way to never be caught one day by the CAG, CVC or the dreaded RTI.



 Even if politicians had the will to change this state of affairs, they probably won’t able be able to. Babudom is too engrained in India’s working pattern and even the CAG is said to have admitted: “The emphasis seems to be on technical compliance through a multitude of detailed rules and regulations rather than on creating a new organisational culture, which focuses on results.” The only solution would be to leave such decisions to the Army, but you will be told that it is extremely dangerous; we could end up the Pakistan way. “Better to rein in the Generals! And the Army is not what it used to be!”




Shukla also reveals that India is the only major country that plans its defence one year at a time. India is supposed to have a 15-year Long-Term Integrated Procurement Plan (LTIPP), now the CAG has reported that the LTIPP 2002-2017 was finalised in 2006 only. What about the years between 2002 and 2006? Lost! In any case, with only a year left for the 10th defence plan, a revised LTIPP has now been ordered. It should be ready in 2009. But similar fate will probably await the new avatar. True, it is not in the Indian psyche to think so much in advance. The gods are supposed provide on a daily basis for our basic requirements (including defence?), so why to bother?




 The problem is not faced by the Army alone. The Navy has its share of misfortunes. Will the diplomats able to salvage the sinking deal for the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. Purchased for one dollar (or rouble, I don’t remember), the ship was to be refurbished in the Sevmach dockyards in Russia for $650 million. It was supposed to be ready in 2008, but Russia has now announced that it would cost $1.2 billion and the transformation work will be completed in 2111 only. The Naval Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta had to speak bluntly: India might have to look elsewhere for hardware if contractual obligations are not respected. Whether India cancels the deal or not, the Navy is in a difficult situation today. 




 This sorry state of affairs of India’s preparedness became even more apparent when Antony visited the Sino-Indian border in Sikkim: “It is an eye-opener for me. There is no comparison between the two sides. Infrastructure on the Chinese side is far superior. They have gone far in developing their infrastructure".


  The minister honestly admitted that China was far ahead. After visiting Nathu La, he however promised that he would take vigorous steps to develop the frontier areas to match China.


Indeed, India can be proud to be the largest democracy in the world and the armed services can be proud to have an honest Minister, but it is today clearly not enough. India should be ready for any eventuality and for this, drastic changes in the bureaucracy are required. Will the Government will bold enough to take the necessary step is another question.







  By the same author:

 As Dalai Lama gains, Tibetans lose |

  Burma's freedom cry |  

 India-China: Imperfect harmony

At Long Last There Will be CDS

Source:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/at-long-last-there-will-be-cds/55441.html






               At Long Last  There Will be CDS

                                     By
                           Inder Malhotra


Also the much sought after one rank, one pension

 
 
 
At long last there will be CDS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mar 19 2015
 
 
AMIDST a glut of deeply depressing goings-on across the country there is good news to cheer not only the Indian military but also all those concerned about national security. It is now almost certain that there will soon be a Chief of Defence Staff like other established democracies, such as the United States and Britain, have had for ages. Here the very idea has been rejected summarily when presented to successive governments for some reason or the other. It is no secret that in the early years the fear of a military coup played its part in official thinking, especially after 1958 when Gen Ayub Khan took over as Pakistan's first military dictator and his example was followed in Burma (now Myanmar) by Ne Win two years later. This apprehension was unreal in any case. For democracy had taken roots in this country right from the first general election, and leaders of the armed forces were as divided as the Indian polity or Indian society. Indeed, those in the know used to say: “If you lock up the Army Chief, Vice-Chief and commanders of the fighting Army commands in a room they won’t be able to agree even on the time of day”.  Yet the mindset on the subject remained so woolly that even in the mid-nineties an otherwise intelligent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence made the fatuous statement that a
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or a CDS was needed only by those countries which had global interests; the Indian military’s role was defending Indian borders and shores, according to him.



 It was only after the Kargil war in 1999 that the country woke up to the need for a CDS. The credit for this must go to the Kargil Review Committee, headed by K. Subrahmanyam, India’s pioneering guru in strategy and security. Its other members were eminent journalist George Verghese and Lt-Gen K. K. Hazari (retd). Satish Chandra of the Indian Foreign Service was its member-secretary.  The committee's case for having a CDS, integrating the three services with the Ministry of Defence — at present they are only “attached offices” of the MoD — and making the chiefs of the three services part of the government and not mere commanders of the service to which they belong - was  strong and persuasive. No wonder that a Group of Ministers, headed by L. K. Advani, endorsed it. It seemed that the appointment of the CDS was a done deal. But, at the last minute, the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, held up a decision on this recommendation while approving all others. 




 Asked privately why he had deferred the most important decision, he gave two reasons. First, there was too much bad blood over the issue, as no fewer than nine Air Chiefs had met him to demand the rejection of the CDS concept. Secondly, Mr Vajpayee said, he had consulted former President R Venkataraman and former Prime Minister P. V.  Narasimha Rao, both of whom had been defence ministers during their political careers. They both had advised him to think the matter through. Atalji assured me, however, he would take a decision, one way or the other, within a year. That, alas, was not to be.




 Ten years passed and the UPA-2 government, headed by Manmohan Singh, realised that a comprehensive review of national security was overdue. So it appointed a Task Force, chaired by Naresh Chandra, a former Cabinet Secretary and Ambassador to the US, for this purpose. Judging by the evidence the various ministries and other relevant official entities gave it, the task force concluded that the idea of a CDS would not pass muster even now.


 Therefore, it suggested a step in the right direction. It recommended that there should be a permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee with a fixed tenure of two years.

 [ if implemented it will be a BIGGEST & CRUEL mockery of INDIAN ARMED FORCES & HE WILL BE PLACED SUBORDINATED TO Defence Secretary & this is what the Babus want - Vasundhra]

At present the chairmanship of COSC is rotational and goes to the senior-most serving chief. Consequently, the term of the Chairman is usually short — in one case it was precisely 30 days — and because the Chairman has to run his own service, he has limited time to devote to the task of promoting inter-services coordination and cooperation. 



 The task force took care to prescribe that the permanent Chairman would leave the operational functions of the three service chiefs well alone and concentrate on the entire spectrum of inter-services matters that include determining the priorities in the acquisition of weapons by the three services. Even more important is the supervision of the Strategic Command. Several former chairmen of the COSC have confessed they seldom had enough time to confer with the head of the Strategic Command. Sadly, the UPA-2[ read  BABUs ] government sat on the task force's report for two years and rejected it just before its inglorious exit.




 What an irony it is therefore that in the current discussions on the subject, the civilian bureaucracy of the Defence Ministry, a bane of the national security architecture, is arguing that instead of having a CDS the country should have a permanent chairman of the Chiefs of Staff. These “abominable no-men” are unlikely to get their way. For, instead of the do-nothing A. K. Antony a very decisive and doer Manohar Parrikar is the Defence Minister. Some of the decisions he has already taken had been hanging fire for close to a decade because to preserve his enviable image for probity, Antony did nothing throughout his eight-year tenure as Raksha Mantri.




 For the same reason one can be sanguine about the welcome announcement by the Army Chief, Gen Dalbir Singh, that the “long-pending” one rank, one pension scheme would be implemented by the end of April. 


 Over long years we have witnessed tragic scenes of gallant ex-servicemen demonstrating at Amar Jyoti at India Gate and then marching to Rashtrapati Bhavan to return their gallantry awards to the President, their Supreme Commander.


 Let this not be repeated ever again.



             ALAS THIS WILL BE REPEATED AGAIN & AGAIN


                                                              BECAUSE 

    MOD IS AN OBSOLETE & ANTIQUE ORGANISATION





  


                  STAFFED WITH  SICK MENTALITY
                                    
                                                   &

                     ORGANISATIONALLY   NOT EQUIPPED  

                                                       TO

                             WITHSTAND &    DELIVER 








      IN THE  CIRCUMSTANCES OF MODERN WARFARE   



           Please read also:

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2015/03/indian-defence-and-abominable-no-man.html












 

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Gurgaon is no Smart City, it is an example of Failed Urbanisation

SOURCE:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/national/mr-jayant-sinha-gurgaon-is-no-smart-city-it-is-an-example-of-failed-urbanisation/ar-BBilzbB










GURGAON IN PARTICULR & HARYANA IN GENERAL HAS SCARCE WATER & RAPID URBANISATION IS BEING DEVELOPED ON UNRELIABLE CANAL SYSTEMS --A classical example of 'DISASTER'   IN MAKING-

                                                            Vasundhra






 Now read what    Firstpost FirstPost has to say

Mr Minister Jayant Sinha,Gurgaon is no Smart City, it is an example of Failed Urbanisation

                                    By

                         K Yatish Rajawat


Firstpost
 


© Provided by Firstpost
There seems to be serious disconnect between reality and budgetary allocation for developing smart cities.

In a recent interview Jayant Sinha, Minister of state for Finance, when asked about the pittance of Rs 6,000 crore allocation for smart cities, had this to say, "There are many different ways of getting smart cities off the ground. If you look at Gurgaon, for example, and you ask how artfully and how strategically was it developed on the " 'PRIVATE' SIDE".

Gurgaon was certainly artfully developed so much so that the major business district did not have roads until very recently and that it does not have parking for thousands of cars that clog it every morning. Artfully? Yes, and it shows on top of every building with the large chimneys of diesel gensets jutting out from top of glass buildings.

Artfully developed indeed, with the complete absence of public transportation between commercial areas and residential. This has lead to heavy dependence on cabs pushing up costs for companies. It has also resulted in traffic jams and this, in turn, in loss of productivity.


It is so artfully developed that the city still has not connected hundreds of residential area to SewerageSystem.

The art in this development is so obvious that global visitors see these shiny buildings and dug up streets right in front.


If ever there was a failure of urban development,

 Gurgaon is a shiny example of it.



Now, let us consider the strategic part of Gurgaon development. Neither the government nor the private sector had a strategy in developing it whatsoever. The city happened as a result of GE deciding to set up its back office here. The Business process outsourcing (BPO) industry that mushroomed as a result attracted several other companies, none of which followed any strategy. They just followed GE.

If the honourable minister is referring to the strategy followed by the real estate developers then he must be joking. Almost every developer in the city has court cases going on with its tenants or buyers for failure to develop, deliver or hand over premises.

The lack of any strategy handing over development to the private sector has created such a mess of Gurgaon that companies are exiting the city. If this is a vision of development that the government has, then we are heading towards a doomsday scenario very fast.


The failure of urbanisation is the failure of the government to deliver. It is the failure of policies and it is the biggest sign of corruption. The abdication of the responsibility of the government is so clear and it is also the reason why the BJP lost the Delhi state.


Now the finance ministry seems to be again pushing the envelope for development of cities to the private sector. The real estate lobby would certainly rejoice at this manna from heaven, even politicians would be happy.
 As the biggest corruption emanates from land its conversion and by giving it away to the private sector.


Every commercial file for land conversion, building plan, completion certificate in Gurgaon used to be cleared by the Chief Ministers office. If the land rehabilitation bill has given ammunition to the opposition imagine what will be the reaction if the government was to handover the development of smart cities to the real estate lobby.

Expecting that the real estate sector will develop cities that are actually liveable and smart is expecting too much. The sector does not inspire very high expectations of trust or corporate governance from its customers.

The challenge is that if the government looks at a warped up model of Gurgaon where the state abdicated all responsibility for development on the private sector. Especially, at a time that the Ministry of Urban development is busy giving final touches to its urban renewal plan.

After the JNNURM there has been no funds allocated for cities, even states do not consider it important enough to allocate budgets for cities. Cities fall through the cracks when it comes to planning or development.

The only political party that doesn't have this gap is the AAP which is developing urban citizens as its core.

Technically, the urban renewal can be a mission for a longer term. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission ...JNNURM had a seven-year term that was extended as the budget was not exhausted. It was the first time that several cities got funds for developing urban infrastructure, hope it is not the last.

The finance ministry has to keep this in mind while devising its urbanisation policies.

K Yatish Rajawat is a senior journalist and policy commentator based in Delhi. He tweets @yatishrajawat