Purists may not like frequent public assertions of Army Chief Bipin Rawat regarding Pakistan, Kashmir and other insurgencies, which they think are loaded with political overtones, but few would grudge General Rawat’s attempts at undertaking the much-needed military reforms in the country. As the chief of the world’s second-largest Army, he has guided four comprehensive studies led by his topmost generals. These studies suggest major changes in the complexion and direction of the 1.2 million-strong force so that it becomes a deadlier fighting machine. When implemented, the suggestions will reduce the number of troops by about 1,00,000 on the one hand and make the Army more technologically empowered on the other.
Of the four studies—Reorganisation of the Army Headquarters, Reorganisation and Rightsizing of the Indian Army, Cadre Review of Officers, and Review of Terms of Engagement of Rank and File—the first was implemented last month with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s approval. As many as 206 officers—three Major Generals, eight Brigadiers, nine Colonels and 186 Lt Colonel and Major rank officers—were moved out of the Army HQ in Delhi to field-units in various parts of the country to sharpen the combat-readiness.
ALSO READ | Wars and arms: A tale of two ministries
The other three suggestions are undergoing the approval process. The basic theme is to restructure all parts of the Army, including the administrative and support wings. When General Rawat says that right-sizing the Army is needed to strengthen its capabilities, it means that modernisation and expansion of the forces do not go together.
The Army needs modern weapons and technologies as the future wars will be fought differently, involving space-age weapons, precision targeting and battlefield transparency. But in defence budgets every year its capital outlay to purchase new weapons, platforms and military hardware is only one-third of its revenue expenditure that includes salaries, pensions and maintenance. So, with the bulk of the budget spent on manpower, the Army simply does not have enough resources to purchase or build sophisticated but vital ammunitions and supporting systems to win wars.
In the last 20 years, all major armed forces of the world have made deep cuts in manpower. Way back in 2003, China decided to trim down its then 2.5 million-strong force. In 2012, Great Britain announced a 20 per cent cut, reducing its Army to 82,000 combatants by the end of the decade. Under President Vladimir Putin, a once-moribund Russian military has been turning into a lean and quick-strike force. Now, Russian soldiers fight out of brigades, not large divisions.
Similarly, the US has decided to have smaller and leaner armed forces, given the financial constraints that the country is facing. The Pentagon has been asked to massively cut its budget running into several hundred billion dollars, and this, in turn, has forced the Department of Defence to come out with a new strategic review document that would shape its defence policy with smaller and leaner forces.
ALSO READ: The diaspora power
Like the military trimming in the armies in China, the US, Russia and Britain, a similar attempt is being made in the Indian Army, as the Navy and the Air Force do have optimal manpower. In fact, a leaner Army in India was overdue. The Narendra Modi government should be credited for realising this need. General Rawat has a responsive government in that sense. Credit is particularly due to late Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar who had advocated “the need for some downsizing in areas which are not of operational importance” due to budgetary constraints.
“The flab will be reviewed and removed... there is a requirement to re-think all aspects for a drawdown. The money saved can go towards the new mountain strike corps,” Parrikar had said in a newspaper interview while explaining why the Modi government had temporarily frozen the raising of 17 Mountain Striking Corps with 90,274 soldiers at the cost of `64,678 crore over seven years. “Manpower costs are also eating into the capital allocation of the armed forces to cover revenue demand,” he had lamented.
It must be emphasised that a leaner Army does not mean a weaker Army. As already mentioned, the reduced manpower will leave more resources for the capital expenditure so as to have new technologies and smarter systems such as ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and unmanned systems, in space and, in particular, in cyberspace capabilities. With better hardware, the Army can be more agile, flexible, lethal, innovative and creative.
Similarly, there are no reasons why nonessential functions such as military farms (numbering 39, were mercifully closed down by the government in 2017) and Army postal service cannot be outsourced. There are no reasons why medical, intelligence, pay and accounts, and supplies personnel in our three Services should not be merged. There are no reasons why we should not induct more short service recruits (say five years), thus reducing the pension bill. All this will make our armed forces stronger.
( The author can be contacted at prakasnanda@gmail.com )