- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
There is no doubt that a change in geopolitical and geostrategic equations can leave a contract hanging leading to great disruption of the defence preparedness of India.IT IS GOOD TO BE PREPARED
Abhijit Bhattacharyya
The present piece may look unconnected to macro Indian geopolitical strategy, but it can be potentially valuable for the future course of action or for a course correction, should the need arise. It is well known that in spite of the breakup of the Soviet Union, the new Russia never ceased to be self-sufficient in defence equipment production. However, that did not go on for long as the Russians, for the first time in the post-1945 World War II era, placed an import order worth $1.2 billion for two French made Mistral class amphibious assault ships, with a future option for further two vessels, in 2011. This perhaps signalled the way of the future, as Russia clearly thus fell back from its Soviet-era 100 per cent indigenous defence production capability.
Indeed, this paradigm shift in Russia's defence production, procurement policy and performance stood out in the midst of the latest figures made available by Military Balance 2014, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London. Of the latest 28 "selected arms procurement and deliveries" programme of Moscow, 27 are in the process of being "Made in Russia"; the only exception being the two French vessels referred to above.
The question is, what is the significance or the "news value" of this Russo-French defence import-export deal? Is it not normal business in terms of world armament transaction, trade and industry? Indeed, it is. However, the point to be noted from India's perspective is that banking too much on Western arms producers may not be a sound proposition at a time of unexpected crisis with one's neighbouring country.
Russia had issues with its neighbour, Ukraine. Ukraine sought assistance and help from the West, led by the United States of America. The latter, in turn, put pressure on its European allies, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, to impose sanctions on Moscow. This contaminated the Russo-French defence contract. Although reluctant initially, the French could not withstand the US pressure. Hence, in spite of trying not to be seen for something which could be construed as a breach of bilateral commercial contract between Moscow and Paris, the French government succumbed to the collective pressure of the West and announced in September 2014 that it is halting the delivery of the first of two Mistral class amphibious assault ships planned for the Russian navy. This happened in spite of the contract of 2011, which is still in place, with the understanding that Western sanctions imposed in response to Russian actions in the Ukraine crisis are not to be applied retrospectively.
As an Indian, one's knowledge emanates from the modern information technology highway on Moscow and Paris and the bilateral defence deal thereof. However, my mind goes back to the brazenly unethical and "one-way traffic" sanctions imposed in the recent past on India by the West when India had issues with its militant and terror-infested neighbourhood. What is the guarantee that what the West is doing to Russia today, will not be done to New Delhi in future? In fact, as far back as in March 2014, when the Moscow-Kiev crisis was at a nascent stage, one recalls having seen a report in Jane's Defence Weekly, quoting the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, as saying that he "could envisage scrapping the contract" if Russia attempted to annex more territory from Ukraine.
Although one is not privy to the details of the Russo-French arms deal of 2011, what is in the realm of open-source information is that "the extant European Union arms embargo against Russia specifically excludes pre-existing contracts such as the Mistral accord". And here is the potential danger for India. As is universally known and acknowledged, India's Western neighbour, in the words of the former US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is the "epicentre of world terror". What happens in case of a sharp deterioration in the future security scenario in the Indian subcontinent? What if the French stop supplying Rafale fighters to India, at the behest of the biggest Western brother, as is being done to Russia?
One is neither a supporter nor an admirer of Russia — as the monopoly manufacturer-supplier of defence equipment to India for more than three decades, Russians have made enough profits and occasionally embarrassed India with unjustified price hikes and avoidable delivery time overrun. However, to be fair to the Russians, it must be admitted that unlike the Western manufacturers and suppliers of defence equipment, Moscow never resorted to any trick of sanction/embargo tamasha on India. In fact, ever since the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1971, Moscow has been a steady contractual partner and an all-weather friend in India's endeavour for defence preparedness.
There is another important factor which is often overlooked. Western equipments, at times, are known to have been supplied to India on the basis of "end use inspection certificates", for which the manufacturer nation goes deep into operational areas of Indian defence to check and verify. Is it not sufficiently humiliating for a nation of 1.25 billion people? Should India continue to accept that, at least in the times of the present dispensation? At a time when India wants to be self-reliant with the brand, "Made in India", is it not necessary to revisit the existing scenario and explore future options?
Compare this with the Chinese position. Like India, China too imported military hardware mostly from the former Soviet Union and a few successor States, like Ukraine. It is well known that the Chinese accept no end use inspection certificate from any foreign supplier and does not allow the entry of any outsider into their military operational arena. The Chinese, being adept at reverse engineering, have taken to indigenous manufacturing of military hardware in a way that is unknown outside the Western military industrial complex. There is lot to learn from China — how to stand up and be counted upon in front of the condescending West.
India today is only 67 years old, and that is too young an age for any nation. But one needs to take a cue from successful nations. And one such successful nation undoubtedly is the US. How did the manufacturing come up there? It began in the late 18th century when the first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, resorted to banks, which he described as "nurseries of national wealth", followed by "protection". Hamilton defended protection on grounds of national security. India needs to remember the words of an American to counter the Western bullying: "Not only the wealth; but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation... ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defence."
It is good to be prepared
What should be done is to simultaneously get the TOT and start the indigenous production line. And that should be in the contractual agreement before it is inked.
