DSA May 2012 by Defence and Security Alert

editor-in-chief

he frequency with which the Ministry of Defence bans organisations and companies from doing business with India is perplexing and worrisome. The latest to suffer the ire of South Block is the Israeli Military Industries. Coming in the wake of bans on some other globally regarded entities, it begs serious attention to the long term vision of the managers of the MoD, or its lack thereof. In this case, however, it raises serious questions about India’s relationship with Israel for IMI is not some small fly-by-night operator. There are serious implications in this ban and they are not restricted to the burgeoning military relationship alone, but to the larger diplomatic one as well.

There are a number of dissimilarities between the two countries, just as there are numerous meeting points in their national interests. Israel, for starters, has been created on a national identity based on a single faith, unlike India. In that sense Israel is more like Pakistan, carved out of a land mass for a people who felt themselves to be a separate nation on account of their faith. India, on the other hand, is rooted in its identity as an inclusive geographically defined entity. It is easy to peg India within the sub-continent and astride the ocean, both which carry its name. Both Israel and Pakistan are carved out of the partition of historical territories, Palestine and India respectively. This results in Israel and Pakistan being uneasy, insecure and unsure of their regional identities. Both Israel and Pakistan, therefore, remain surrounded by neighbours with whom the relationship is testy, acrimonious and rough.

Which is where the relationship between India and Israel enters common ground. And which also makes an enduring one. The rise of global jihadist organisations has resulted in Israel and India being firmly placed in the cross hairs of terrorist operations. While some of the terrorist attacks are certainly home grown in both countries, there is, nevertheless, an element of the ‘international hand’ in a large number of the incidents. The chilling audio tapes of the Lashkar-e-Taiba attack on Chabad House during the November 2008 assault on Mumbai is a reminder of this global threat and thread. The commonality of purpose, therefore, is live and very real when it comes to Indo-Israeli strategic relations.

There is a reality of diplomacy and security that seems to escape the notice of analysts and commentators in India, especially when it comes to the relationship with Israel. All seem to believe that Israel will somehow help India at any cost and in any event. But that is not how international relations work and the same holds good for India as well. The India-Israel-Iran triangle is a case in point. Try as it might Israel has not been able to rein India into its ‘attack Iran’ chorus. For India has a millennia old relationship with Iran and which thus explains its reticence in the face of Israeli and global pressures. Israel remains reticent about taking up cudgels against China or Pakistan, both of which are India’s principal national security challenges and competitors. A dose of realism is, therefore, always welcome and healthy. Especially when it comes to the long term interests of India and Israel.

manvendra singh

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

executive editor

publisher’s view

An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Magazine

Vo l u m e 3 I s s u e 8 M a y 2 0 1 2 chairman shyam sunder publisher and ceo pawan agrawal editor-in-chief manvendra singh executive editor maj gen (dr) g d bakshi SM, VSM (retd) director shishir bhushan corporate consultant k j singh art consultant divya gupta central saint martins college of art & design, university of arts, London corporate communications tejinder singh sales and marketing mayank sinha creative vivek anand pant administration and operations shveta gupta representative (Jammu and Kashmir) salil sharma correspondent (Europe) dominika cosic production dilshad, dabeer webmaster sundar rawat photographer subhash circulation and distribution mithlesh tiwari e-mail: (first name)@dsalert.org info: info@dsalert.org articles: articles@dsalert.org subscription: subscription@dsalert.org online edition: online@dsalert.org advertisement: advt@dsalert.org editorial & business office 4/19 asaf ali road new delhi-110002 (India) t: +91-011-23243999, 23287999, 9958382999 e: info@dsalert.org www.dsalert.org

disclaimer all rights reserved. reproduction and translation in any language in whole or in part by any means without permission from Defence and Security Alert is prohibited. opinions expressed are those of the individual writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher and / or editors. all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of delhi courts. defence and security alert is printed, published and owned by pawan agrawal and printed at graphic world, 1686, kucha dakhini rai, darya ganj, new delhi-110002 and published at 4/19 asaf ali road, new delhi (india). editor: manvendra singh.

Birds of a feather flock together !

“The country comes first - always and every time”.

ature has a way of bringing like-minded peoples together. Humankind separated by vast distances have time and again developed affinities that their special circumstances demand. There are parameters by which such affinities can be gauged – language, culture, religion, geopolitical circumstances and the like. With different cultures and values and thinking, like-minded people or states tend to create affinities based on such circumstances. Common problems too tend to develop friendships and linkages as is the case with India and Israel. Geographically India and Israel are separated by continents and oceans but their security situations are in many respects very similar. Except that where India is assaulted both by external threats as well as externally-inspired internal dissensions, Israel’s homogenous society has shown that notwithstanding its hostile external environment the cohesiveness of its society has brought it through all adversities to a nationhood that has withstood many assaults. It is this circumstance that has inevitably brought us very close to each other in our strategic thought and assessment of our respective security situations. For many years there have been artificial barriers that have stood between us but a certain inevitability has seen us come to a point where Israel is today one of the largest suppliers of state-of-the-art military equipment needed for the defence of Indian territorial integrity. There are many reasons for this friendship between the two but I think that it is more because of the challenges being faced by both and it is very correct that both are strategic partners today. The old adage birds of a feather flock together is very much applicable to the India-Israel entente cordiale. It is a proven fact that the challenges faced by Israel in the past are confronting India currently. It is this situation that has nurtured the like-mindedness and bonding and strategic partnership that exists between the two today. The recent developments that have taken place in West Asia appear to have an Iran versus Israel centricity. It is unfortunate because India has had historical relations with Persia now known as Iran that go back many centuries. It is unfortunate because India is being made to choose between one and the other by circumstances beyond its control. We have commercial links with Iran and the import of oil of up to 12 per cent of the total energy imports from Iran makes a significant contribution to India’s strategic outlook. India which is already facing a crisis becaue of the escalating price of oil will be severely affected if for any reason Iran curtails the export of oil to India. This circumstance puts India in a very cumbrous position. Whereas India is procuring various defence and security products and technologies from Israel to strengthen its internal security and border management its dependence on oil from Iran creates a geopolitical situation it could well do without. For India this situation is very complicated. We cannot afford to ignore the effects of confrontation between them. India needs both oil and the kind of weaponry that Israel is capable of supplying to us. It will take diplomacy of a very high order for India to be able to retain the links with Iran as well as the strategic partnership with Israel. A balance will have to be created and maintained even as Iran needs to be persuaded not to take the road to nuclear weapons even as Israel has a large nuclear stockpile in its arsenal. India has done well so far by insisting that proposed economic embargoes on Iran must be UN-specific. The situation in West Asia has brought to the fore the question of Indian dependence on foreign sources for its energy needs. It is a matter of great concern that we are still dependant on the import of oil from various sources and are not able to increase the extraction of oil both within the country and its offshore oilfields. I am sure if we can develop our own resources of oil within the country we will have some control over prices and our economy will be less vulnerable to the whims and fancies of oil producers and we will not have to choose between friends.

trategic partnerships tend to endure if they are based on a strong commonality of interests and threats faced jointly. The India-Russia partnership has endured so long and is still thriving precisely because it is premised on such a strong mutuality of interests.

The same is the case with India and Israel. The growing tide of Wahabi / Salafi extremism and its outgrowth of Jihadi terror in the Islamic world threatens these two countries most directly and manifestly. Long after the USA and NATO withdraw from Afghanistan, these two countries will largely be left alone to face this rising tide of angst and extremism in the Islamic world. The Strategic logic that impels them to bond therefore is inexorable. Initially India’s oil dependence on the Middle East Arab states had impelled it to side with the Arabs on their dispute with Israel. Anti-colonial rhetoric made India a strong proponent of the Palestinian cause. Despite this, Israel made emergent military supplies to India during the 1962 and 1965 Wars. The two oil shocks delivered by the Arab states seriously hurt the Indian economy. The first oil shock of 1973 had serious political implications for India and led to the Emergency. The Arab support for the Palestinian cause itself waned badly thereafter and for some time India was left being more loyal than the King. The Arabs consistently sided with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. Western counter measures against the first oil shock led to the period of the oil glut in the 1980s. The price of oil fell steeply and this enabled India to make its tentative openings towards Israel in that decade. In 1991 came the second oil shock which derailed the Indian economy. The Soviet Union collapsed overnight and India was desperately left looking for spares to keep its huge inventory of Soviet era equipment going. With the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan Pakistan’s triumphalism was at its peak and it began the Proxy War in Jammu and Kashmir. A combination of these geo-political compulsions led India to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel in January 1992. These really blossomed in the period of the NDA governments in Delhi (1998-2004). However the strong commonality of interests makes the bipartisan political consensus on this relationship fairly strong. The Israelis needed to export arms to India to achieve economies of scale and subsidise prices for their own armed forces. They also see in India a strong, long term ally against Jihadi extremism. People to people relations have always been excellent and recent polls indicated Israel as one of the most popular foreign countries in India.

The Israeli relationship has been invaluable for the Indian Armed Forces. Today Israel is the second largest exporter of arms to India after Russia. It has given us the Phalcon AWACS on the IL-76 platforms, provided us Heron and Searcher UAVs and Aerostats and helped us with Spy Satellite technologies. It has provided radars and HUD displays as also BVR missiles for our LCA as also sensor packages for our ALH. It upgunned our old 130 mm guns to 155 mm specifications. It helped us upgrade the avionics of the MiG fighter fleet as also provided us Electronic Warfare suites and laser guided bombs. It has given us the Barak Air Defence Missiles for our Navy and Air Force and provided the Green Pine radars for our Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence System. Besides it has given us Fast Patrol Boats for Coastal defence. In the past decade India has imported over US$ 10 billion worth of high-tech Israeli equipment including Special Forces Assault rifles, small arms and Night Vision Devices and sophisticated communication and Electronic warfare equipment. Israel has proved to be a thoroughly reliable and time tested military supplier. We are also cooperating in the R&D field and Space based sensors as also in Counter-terrorism and Intelligence sharing. In January 2008, India launched Israel’s spy satellite Tecsar-1. In April 2009 India launched an Israeli built RISAT-2 or Radar Imaging Spy Satellite. It is a relationship of great strategic relevance and mutual gain for both sides. The only hiccup has been over Iran. India’s primary terror and nuclear threat is from the Wahabi strain of extremism. Israel however, now sees it more from the Shia strain. The energy supply constraint and the need for access to Afghanistan make it very difficult for India to cut its ties with Iran. This will need to be ironed out and talked over. Why can’t India use its positive relations with both Israel and Iran to help defuse the current crisis that could turn threats into opportunities? The India-Israel relationship however is bound to grow. It is based on a strong congruence of Strategic interests and common threat perceptions which provide a solid foundation for a stable and beneficial long term relationship. In this issue we focus on Israel and the way ahead in this relationship.

Maj Gen (Dr) G D Bakshi SM, VSM (retd)

Jai Hind!

pawan agrawal May 2012 Defence AND security alert

contents I srael Special ISSUE May 2012

An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Magazine

Vo l u m e 3 I s s u e 8 M a y 2 0 1 2

A R T I C L E S India Israel relations

F E A T U R E S

Maj Gen P K Chakravorty (retd)

Defence and Security Industry Monitor 39, 47, 57, 63,71

India and Israel: common threats 10 divergent strategic cultures

Security Round-up

14, 58, 70

Maj Gen (Dr) G D Bakshi SM, VSM (retd)

nuclear challenges to Israel and India - 16 parallel concerns, divergent interests

Advisability of allowing indirect offsets Maj Gen (Dr) Mrinal Suman AVSM, VSM (retd)

Understanding civil-military relations Lt Gen Gautam Bannerjee PVSM, AVSM, YSM (retd)

Amb Arundhati Ghose

Iran and or Israel: India's interests 20 Vice Adm Barry Bharathan (retd)

India's hesitant partnership with Israel 24 Dr Harsh V Pant

future challenges in Indo-Israel defence relations 28 Brig Rahul Bhonsle (retd)

Israeli operation that changed ways of warfare 32 Air Vice Marshal A K Tiwary VSM (retd)

the evolution of Indo-Israeli strategic relations 36 and military programmes for the Indian navy Cmde Ranjit Bhawnani Rai (retd)

Israel, nuclear weapons and emerging regional 40 nuclear dynamics Rajiv Nayan

balancing an explosive situation 44 Cecil Victor

India-Israel strategic partnership 48 Col A G Thomas (retd)

Indo-Israel enduring partnerships 54 Capt Albert Louis (retd)

Pakistan's artillery arsenal 72 Debalina Chatterjee

for online edition log on to: www.dsalert.org

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Follow DSA on :

DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Follow DSA on :

DSALERT May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Maj Gen P K Chakravorty (retd) The writer is an alumnus of National Defence Academy who was comissioned into the Regiment of Artillery on 31 March 1972. A Silver Gunner who has undergone the Long Gunnery Staff Course, Staff College and is a graduate of the National Defence College. He has commanded a Medium Regiment and a Composite Artillery Brigade. He was Major General Artillery of an operational Command, Commandant of Selection Centre South in Bangalore and Additional Director General Artillery at Army Headquarters. He has also served as the Defence Attache to Vietnam and is a prolific writer on strategic subjects.

In 1991 the Soviet Union had broken up and Russia failed to support Iraq during the attack by US forces and Kuwait. Further the Soviet Union collapsed on 25 December 1991 bringing an end to the cold war. More than 70 per cent of India’s defence equipment came from the Soviet Union and it was extremely difficult to ensure spares and maintenance of the equipment was undertaken with assurance from the 15 newly formed sovereign republics. India knew that Israel had captured Soviet equipment during the 1967 war. Further Israel had developed upgrades and spares for all these equipment. It was in India’s defence interest to collaborate with Israel

DEFENCE COOPERATION

The India–Israel Strategic partnership has been of tremendous value to India in terms of Military technology transfers and Intelligence cooperation against Jihadi terrorism. The relationship has been strengthened by the presence of 70,000 Indian Jews in Israel and frequent visits by the youth of Israel who are fascinated by India. Israel has emerged as the second biggest defence supplier to India after Russia. India is on the way to receive three Phalcon AWACS mounted on the IL-50 aircraft. The defence procurements from Israel in the last decade have exceeded US$ 10 billion. As a matter of fact there are only two countries Russia and Israel which are willing to provide state-of-the-art technology. An international survey finding confirmed in 2006 that Israel is the most popular country in India.

srael and India were created at approximately the same time and despite different perceptions have all along been reliable partners. The creation of Israel was opposed by Mahatma Gandhi but the erstwhile Jan Sangh (present Bharatiya Janata Party) recognised it as a friend right from its very inception. India after gaining independence championed the Non-aligned Movement and the main leaders were Gamel Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Tito of erstwhile Yugoslavia and Jawaharlal Nehru of India. To the contrary Israel was firmly wedded to the Western powers and posed a problem for overt relations with India. Militarily Israel always looked at India as a partner against Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Reports indicate that Israel supplied heavy mortars and ammunition to India through European outlets prior to the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. Further Israel has been concerned about acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and would not hesitate to take military action if presented an opportunity. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 saw the end of the cold war and the beginning of multiple relationships between countries. The Indian economy was opened up and this saw new relationships being developed with countries having High Technology. Official relations were opened between the two countries and thereafter they have become strategic partners in the region.

RELATIONS

Political relationship

India gained independence on 15 August 1947. On 29 November 1947 a resolution was passed by the United Nations General Assembly that Palestine would be partitioned and the Jews would have a homeland in the partitioned state. On 14 May 1948 David Ben Gurion declared the independence of Israel and on 16 May 1948 the only Jewish majority state was formed. The moment the country was formed the Arabs declared war and Israel stabilised her boundaries. India after its independence adopted a foreign policy which was pro-Arab and anti-Israel. The reason was first of all India’s need for oil and gas for development as also to win Arab support in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Further our foreign policy emphasised on non-alignment in which Israel which was a Western block ally and did not fit in. Therefore we continued to support the Arabs during the 1967 and 1973 Arab Israeli wars. Covertly Israel always maintained friendly relations but it was only after the Gulf War in 1991 that India realised the need to be pragmatic in dealing with foreign countries and this is the time when gears were changed and India commenced her political relationship with Israel.

Israel has given us tremendous assistance with regard to intelligence and counter-terrorism. The formation of RAW and NSG received tremendous guidance from Israel. The Homeland techniques used by Israel are state-of-the-art and they have willingly assisted us in these fields There were numerous factors responsible for this shift in India’s foreign policy. In 1991 the Soviet Union had broken up and Russia failed to support Iraq during the attack by US forces and Kuwait. Further the Soviet Union collapsed on 25 December 1991 bringing an end to the cold war. More than 70 per cent of India’s defence equipment came from the Soviet Union and it was extremely difficult to ensure spares and maintenance of the equipment was undertaken with assurance from the 15 newly formed sovereign republics. India knew that Israel had captured Soviet equipment during the 1967 war. Further Israel had developed upgrades and spares for all these equipment. It was in India’s defence interest to collaborate with Israel. The main issues for friendship with the Arab countries were the guaranteed availability of oil and

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

INDIA ISRAEL

backing of the OIC on the Kashmir issue. In June 1990 the price of oil dropped to an all time low of US$ 14 to a barrel. Further despite India’s request all Arab countries in the OIC voted against India with regard to the Kashmir issue. To top it all Gulf War in 1990 demonstrated the superiority of Western weaponry vis a vis Soviet systems. There was a need to modernise Indian Armed Forces and possibly the route of seeking assistance from Israel appeared viable. All these issues made the Indian government to rethink and move from a philosophical foreign policy to a pragmatic foreign policy. The Indian government during this period moved from democratic socialism to an open economy in which public sector was gradually disinvested, the Non-aligned Movement was no longer the cornerstone of our foreign policy and there was replacement of idealism by pragmatism. India soon realised that her Area of Interest included the Straits of Hormuz, Suez Canal and Bab el-Mandeb. The change in India’s vision and its desire to emerge as a strong nation, naturally led her to open diplomatic relations with Israel.

Critical technologies are the key to modernisation and Israel has the will and wherewithal to provide us the same with speed and military precision. On our part we must be pragmatic and build the relationship to serve our national interest

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

DEFENCE COOPERATION

One of the main reasons for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992 was driven by the potential in defence cooperation. Israel has a state-of-the-art defence industry and is willing to cooperate with India in all spheres of defence activities. In March 1994 Israel’s Research and Development Chief visited India. This was followed by the visit of our Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri visiting Israel in 1996. Israel was willing to assist India in all areas of defence activities. With the break up of the Soviet Union and Russia still consolidating her position, India was fortunate to have Israel as a dependable strategic partner In February 1992 Israel opened its Embassy in New Delhi and in May 1992 India opened its Embassy in Tel Aviv. The opening of diplomatic relations saw a strategic partnership between the two countries. Leaders, people and soldiers developed an affectionate bond which transformed both these countries in all spheres. Two decades have elapsed since the opening of diplomatic relations and the relationship has prospered due to democratic traditions, similar judicial systems, ease of communicating in the English language and exchange of technical and industrial knowledge. The relationship has been strengthened by the presence of 70,000 Indian Jews in Israel and frequent visits by the youth of Israel who are fascinated by India. The strengthened political relationship has resulted in enhanced economic cooperation between the two countries. In 1992 the primary trade between the two countries was diamonds and amounted to about US$ 200 million. Currently the two way trade between India and Israel is US$ 5.15 billion. The major exports from India to Israel comprise of precious stones, metals, chemical products, textiles, plants, vegetable products, rubber, plastics and machinery. The imports from Israel are jewellery, machinery, transport and defence equipment. Further a Free Trade Agreement is currently being negotiated between the two countries. The present Foreign Direct Investment inflow

from Israel to India in the last decade is US$ 53.24 million which though small quantitatively but is directed at important sectors like renewable energy, telecommunications, real estate and water technologies. Israel has signed bilateral agreements for assisting in agriculture. Though located in desert terrain, fruit and vegetables are grown by innovative methods, thereby enabling Israel to export fruits and vegetables globally. Currently Israel is setting up centres of excellence for fruits at Sirsa (Haryana) and vegetables at Karnal (Haryana). Further Israel is providing us technologies related to water conservation, desalination, waste water management and Multifarious micro-irrigation. cooperation between the two countries has resulted in an international survey finding in 2006 that Israel is the most popular country in India.

Militarily Israel always looked at India as a partner against Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Reports indicate that Israel supplied heavy mortars and ammunition to India through European outlets prior to the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. Further Israel has been concerned about acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and would not hesitate to take military action if presented an opportunity

Defence cooperation One of the main reasons for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992 was driven by the potential in defence cooperation. Israel has a state-of-the-art defence industry and is willing to cooperate with India in all spheres of defence activities. In March 1994 Israel’s Research and Development Chief visited India. This was followed by the visit of our Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri visiting Israel in 1996. Israel was willing to assist India in all areas of defence activities. With the break up of the Soviet Union and Russia still consolidating her position, India was fortunate to have Israel as a dependable strategic partner. In December 1996 President Ezer Weizman, accompanied by a 24 member business delegation visited

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

India. After the visit Israel offered India technical cooperation in matters related to military aircraft, reverse engineering and the upgrading of weapon systems. India posted her first Defence Attaché in 1997 and this paved the way for enhanced defence cooperation between the two countries. In 1996 India purchased an Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation which was established at Air Force Station Jamnagar. Thereafter two Dvora patrol boats were procured for the Indian Navy at a cost of US$ 10 million. In the same period Tadiran provided state-of-the-art frequency hopping radio sets to the Indian Army, ELOP provided the Long Range Observation Reconnaissance System (LORROS), Soltam in conjunction with Ordnance Factory Board agreed to upgrade the 130 mm Gun. Elta was to upgrade the avionics of the Mig-21 fighters and finally negotiations were on for the sale of Barak-1 missiles to the Indian Navy. The strengthening of defence relations moved into a higher trajectory by the election of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) which governed India from 1998 to 2004. For the first time a pragmatic defence engagement began with Israel. While India supported the Palestinians at the United Nations, defence procurements continued with Israel. The zenith of this relationship was during the Kargil conflict in 1999 when Israel was willing to provide us surveillance equipment and precision weapons on a fast track. They were willing to provide us Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), state-of-the-art night vision devices and laser guided bombs. This brought in a new dimension of the reliability of Israel providing technology during a conflict when all other countries deny technology till hostilities are over. This has seen the defence relationship move from strength to strength even with the introduction of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in 2004. Our Foreign Minister Shri S M Krishna has just concluded a visit in January 2012 and the relationship is further being strengthened. As stated Israel has been cooperative in selling defence equipment and sharing critical technology which has enabled us to gradually modernise

our Armed Forces. An exposition into the major defence issues with Israel being optimised are as reported in the open domain. Israel has emerged as the second biggest defence supplier to India after Russia. India is on the way to receive three Phalcon AWACS mounted on the IL-50 aircraft. One modified AWAC has just been received and the remaining aircraft will be delivered shortly. Indian Air Force is negotiating three more AWACS to be mounted on the smaller Embraer aircraft. India has acquired two Aerostats which have been deployed on the Western border along with Long range EL/M-2083 radars. Further the three services have acquired the Searcher and Heron UAVs for surveillance. The Air Defence arms are procuring two major weapon systems. First is the Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (MRSAM). This missile will protect installations against aircraft, helicopters and cruise missiles. The second involves the SpyDer Air Defence, a short range Air Defence System with a range of 55 km. Both these systems are being procured from Rafael and Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). In April 2009 India launched its RISAT-2 reconnaissance satellite. The satellite was initially presented as purely for civilian purposes but it soon became clear that it was designed for military uses. The satellite carries a Synthetic Aperture Radar system made in Israel and is believed to be providing credible results. IAI has completed upgrading India’s MI 24/35 attack helicopters. Further there is a project to upgrade the AN-32 aircraft. It is pertinent to add that the Indian Air Force has reportedly acquired the Harop loitering missile which can engage targets with pinpoint accuracies at ranges more than 200 km. The defence procurements from Israel in the last decade have exceeded US$ 10 billion. As a matter of fact there are only two countries Russia and Israel which are willing to provide state-of-the-art technology to our country. As a matter of fact there are many joint ventures which are coming up between India and Israel for the MRSAM as also between Tata and ELTA who have formed a company known as HBL ELTA Avionics System Limited.

It was only after the Gulf War in 1991 that India realised the need to be pragmatic in dealing with foreign countries and this is the time when gears were changed and India commenced her political relationship with Israel

Way ahead It is often stated in International Relations there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies. There are only permanent interests. Israel and India have come close due to numerous factors. The aspect of Defence cooperation stands out as the most important component of the relationship. Israel has willingly given us critical technologies at times of need. Accordingly it is pragmatic that the relationship grows from

strength to strength. However, there are two issues which need to be considered. These are the US factor and India’s friendship with Iran. Both these issues can be resolved with dialogue and better understanding. The US considers India as a strategic partner and Iran is critical to India’s energy needs. Despite these India remains an extremely valuable partner as they keep a close tab on Pakistani nuclear forces. Therefore cooperation with Israel will increase in the long term benefiting both countries.

Conclusion India and Israel have become strategic partners due to important factors. Israel needs friends in Asia who can stand on their own legs, India needs to modernise and transform her Armed Forces to be prepared for a full spectrum conflict. Critical technologies are the key to modernisation and Israel has the will and wherewithal to provide us the same with speed and military precision. On our part we must be pragmatic and build the relationship to serve our national interest.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Maj Gen (Dr) G D Bakshi SM, VSM (retd) The writer is a combat veteran of many skirmishes on the Line of Control and counter-terrorist operations in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. He subsequently commanded the reputed Romeo Force during intensive counter-terrorist operations in the Rajouri-Poonch districts. He has served two tenures at the highly prestigious Directorate General of Military Operations. He is a prolific writer on matters military and non-military and has published 24 books and over 100 papers in many prestigious research journals. He is also Executive Editor of Defence and Security Alert (DSA) magazine. The two Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1983 and 2006 offer very instructive models for emulation in the Indian context. Israel’s use of airpower in 1983 forms a classic template which India can emulate in the Indo-Pakistani context of asymmetric provocations. In 1983 Israel had attacked Syrian Sam batteries in the Bekka valley. The Syrians thought mistakenly that the Bekka valley missile batteries were the primary targets. The primary target was the Syrian Air Force. The Israelis had laid a deliberate Air ambush. Their AWACS were up and their F-15s and F-16s on runway readiness. The moment the Syrian Air Force rose to challenge the Israeli Air Force over the Bekka valley, it was decimated in an orchestrated Air Battle where AWACS and BVRs were used to devastating effects. The Syrians lost over 82 MiGs in one day

STUDY IN CONTRAST

Though India and Israel share a very similar set of threats and challenges, their strategic cultures are a study in contrast. India has a huge land mass and the world’s second largest population. Israel is a tiny country with a population of just 7 million plus. It has no space to trade for time and has therefore developed a highly proactive and aggressive orientation – that is very high-risk and relies upon seizing the strategic and tactical initiative at the very outset of the conflict. In sharp contrast to Israel, India’s response to Pakistan’s asymmetric adventurism has been very weak, timid and reactive. India has tamely surrendered the strategic and tactical initiative to a much weaker Pakistan for the last three decades . India must emulate Israel and try and generate an overmatching technological military edge over its likely adversaries. It will have to field dominant war fighting capabilities that would severely raise costs for Pakistan. In specific, India will have to invest heavily in airpower, precision guided munitions (PGMs), firepower resources and transparency capabilities.

INDIA AND ISRAEL: COMMON THREATS, DIVERGENT STRATEGIC CULTURES

ndia and Israel are located at the two extremities of an arc of instability and strident fundamentalism in the Islamic world. Both have faced repeated conventional and asymmetric attacks from their neighbours. Both countries have had to repeatedly resort to arms to protect their vital national interests. Yet both countries are liberal democracies with a tradition of dissent, free press and fair elections. This shared amalgam of threats and values makes them natural strategic partners. Long after the US / NATO have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, these common threats will continue to haunt India and Israel and thereby lead to a strong congruence of national interests.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan unfortunately undid most of India’s gains. Pakistan rented out its country for an asymmetric assault against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union collapsed out of economic overreach and imperial overstretching in 1990. This generated triumphalism in Pakistan. Eager to settle scores, Pakistan unleashed an asymmetric campaign first in Punjab and later in Jammu and Kashmir to destabilise India. By 1998 both states had turned overtly nuclear and in 1999 itself Pakistan launched a local war in Kargil In terms of Strategic cultures however the two countries are poles apart. India has a huge land mass and the world’s second largest population. Israel is a tiny country with a population of just 7.8 million plus. It has no space to trade for time and has therefore developed a highly proactive and aggressive orientation – that is very high-risk and relies upon seizing the strategic and tactical initiative at the very outset of the conflict. This is because Israel always lacked the luxury of strategic depth to absorb an enemy surprise attack. The sole exception was in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Israel had in 1967 seized huge territories in the Sinai, Syria and Jordan and expanded to three times its original size. This, for the first time, afforded it the luxury of being on the defensive both strategically and tactically. It paid a price for releasing its relentless grip on the initiative and had to wage a grim struggle for survival in that War of Atonement. However, it fought relentlessly and regained the initiative despite being surprised. India, by stark contrast, has been beset with a pacific culture. Post Independence, its political elite manufactured for themselves a contrived narrative of exceptionalism. India, they claimed had won its freedom in a unique way by a non-violent struggle based on Ahimsa and Satyagraha. Hence in the Westphalian system of nation states based on power, it was an exceptional state, in that it relied not so much on hard power but the soft power of moral persuasion. Based on this narrative of exceptionalism, the Indian political elite opted for a neutral stance in the cold war and adopted a pacific role as peace makers between the East and West. For a time, this neutral stance permitted India to punch much above its actual weight in a sharply polarised – Bipolar world. However India’s severe neglect of its hard power capabilities, cost it

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

very dearly in regional terms. Pakistan that had been carved out of British India as an ostensible home for its Muslims, adopted a highly aggressive and proactive stance based on an exaggerated perception of itself as a Sparta of South Asia. It rented out its territory to the Western bloc and gained militarily by its opportunistic alliance with the USA which helped it to countervail a far larger India. India’s neglect of its hard power capabilities therefore cost it heavily in regional terms. The Chinese invasion of India in 1962 humiliated the country very badly. It was so burdened with its overblown peace rhetoric that it simply could not fashion a coherent military response to China’s military aggression. Fortunately, this trauma resulted in a return to realism in India and a long delayed military build-up was commenced to rapidly make up for two decades of neglect. Israel offered help at that critical juncture. Pakistan tried to exploit the demoralisation of the 1962 War and pre-empt the Indian military build-up by a high risk gamble to take Jammu and Kashmir by force in

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

STUDY IN CONTRAST

1965. This time India reacted forcefully and two corps sized offensives in West Punjab forced Pakistan to recoil from the gains it had made in Jammu and Kashmir. It was an invaluable experience for India’s political and military leadership. By 1971 India’s military build-up was completed with massive Soviet assistance. Pakistan, seriously provoked India by its massive ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh that led to a flood of over 10 million refugees into India and nearly created an economic crisis. Having exhausted all scope for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, India decided to hit back. Mrs Gandhi now displayed the political will to ruthlessly pursue India’s vital national interest in a proactive manner. India supported the Mukti Bahini in its desperate struggle to stop the genocide unleashed by the Pakistani Army. Pakistan tried to seize the strategic initiative by a pre-emptive attack on India’s air bases in the west. India reacted strongly in the East with a major tri-service assault on the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh. The IAF gained complete air-supremacy over the skies of Bangladesh and three Indian corps, ably supported by the Mukti Bahini, raced for the Capital city of Dacca. The Indian Navy enforced a blockade and isolated the two wings of Pakistan. It launched a very daring assault on the Home base of the Pakistani Navy at Karachi, sank many warships and left the port city ablaze. In just 14 action packed days, Dacca fell and over 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war were taken. For the first time after the Second World War, a new country was created with the force of arms. It was a decisive campaign characterised by a march on the enemy capital and enforced regime change. India had come of age at last. India emerged as a strong regional power of consequence.

India’s severe neglect of its hard power capabilities cost it very dearly in regional terms. Pakistan that had been carved out of British India as an ostensible home for its Muslims, adopted a highly aggressive and proactive stance based on an exaggerated perception of itself as a Sparta of South Asia. It rented out its territory to the Western bloc and gained militarily by its opportunistic alliance with the USA which helped it to countervail a far larger India The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan unfortunately undid most of India’s gains. Pakistan rented out its country for an asymmetric assault against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union collapsed out of economic overreach and imperial overstretching in 1990. This generated triumphalism in Pakistan. Eager to settle scores, Pakistan unleashed an asymmetric campaign first in Punjab and later in Jammu and Kashmir to destabilise India. By 1998 both states had turned overtly nuclear and in 1999 itself Pakistan launched a local war in Kargil. India reacted at the local / tactical level by massing the effects of artillery and airpower in the given area and mounted a frontal campaign of attrition to throw out the Pakistani intruders. India and Pakistan again came close to an all out conflict in 2001 because of continued Pakistani adventurism. The simple fact was that India had failed to generate a clear conventional military edge over its regional adversaries.

In sharp contrast to Israel therefore, India’s response to Pakistan’s asymmetric adventurism has been very weak, timid and reactive. India has tamely surrendered the strategic and tactical initiative to a much weaker Pakistan for the last three decades. China is rapidly outpacing it in terms of both economic and military power. India’s present culture of rank pacifism and its trenchant refusal to use force to safeguard its vital national interests has now reached levels that are cause for serious concern Meanwhile, the return of Congress party rule led to the surprising revival of a pacifist culture of exceptionalism. A whole host of foreign funded NGOs launched a virtual crusade against alleged human rights violations by the security forces in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere and just would not let the state respond forcefully to the rising menace of Left Wing Extremism. Despite its growing economic clout and military power, India relapsed into another phase of pacifism. Today, the Indian political elite have apparently convinced themselves that post-nuclearisation; any war in South Asia is unthinkable. Hence India has become reluctant to use force in any context whatsoever, whether externally or internally. A shrill cacophony of bleeding heart liberals has stalled the very notion of the use of force to turn India into a soft and effete state as it was before 1962. In sharp contrast to Israel therefore, India’s response to Pakistan’s asymmetric adventurism has been very weak, timid and reactive. India has tamely surrendered the strategic and tactical initiative to a much weaker Pakistan for the last three decades. China is rapidly outpacing it in terms of both economic and military power. India’s present culture of rank pacifism and its trenchant refusal to use force to safeguard its vital national interests has now reached levels that are cause for serious concern. True, Israel’s neighbours are not nuclear weapon states like China and Pakistan. While that is a major constraint and the risk of escalation is fairly daunting, yet India needs to grow out of its highly timid and overcautious stance where it has been self-deterred against Pakistan’s much smaller capabilities. India needs to field overmatching technological capabilities in South Asia in terms of airpower, precision guided munitions (PGMs) and transparency. It must enhance its capabilities to fight across the spectrum of conflict and especially by night and in all weather conditions.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Israeli role model The two Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1983 and 2006 offer very instructive models for emulation in the Indian context. Israel’s use of airpower in 1983 forms a classic template which India can emulate in the Indo-Pakistani context of asymmetric provocations. In 1983 Israel had attacked Syrian Sam batteries in the Bekka valley. The Syrians thought mistakenly that the Bekka valley missile batteries were the primary targets. The primary target was the Syrian Air Force. The Israelis had laid a deliberate Air ambush. Their AWACS were up and their F-15s and F-16s on runway readiness. The moment the Syrian Air Force rose to challenge the Israeli Air Force over the Bekka valley, it was decimated in an orchestrated Air Battle where AWACS and BVRs were used to devastating effects. The Syrians lost over 82 MiGs in one day and lost all stomach for further battle. India could draw suitable lessons and fashion a range of airpower responses to Pakistan’s asymmetric provocations. The initial targets could be terrorist camps. These would force the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) to defend its airspace and a major air battle could be orchestrated a la Lebanon. Once that is won, India could initiate Air-land responses that are force oriented rather than territory or terrain oriented. India could thus initiate a limited Conventional conflict to raise costs for Pakistani asymmetric adventurism in a way that ensures escalation dominance and does not push Pakistan over the nuclear Rubicon.

India and Israel are located at the two extremities of an arc of instability and strident fundamentalism in the Islamic world. Both have faced repeated conventional and asymmetric attacks from their neighbours. Both countries have had to repeatedly resort to arms to protect their vital national interests The second invasion of Lebanon in 2006 highlights the perils of our incremental or overcautious response a la Cold Start which accepts major force constraints at the very outset. However, it underlines that even a war that results in a stalemate serves to deter aggressive neighbours. Israel massed airpower and firepower effects in Southern Lebanon to such an extent that the Hezbollah was dazed. Though it put up a good fight in that conflict and perhaps survived as an organisation, the Hezbollah has so far not dared to resume rocket attacks / terrorist strikes against Israeli targets. Similarly, the 1973 War was a stalemate of sorts. However, it completely drained the main Arab protagonists (Egypt and Syria) of their will to wage any further conflicts against Israel. Hence, even a stalemate, if made costly enough, could have a salutary impact and deter Pakistan from any further asymmetric adventurism. India must emulate Israel and try and generate an overmatching technological military edge over its likely adversaries. It will have to field dominant war fighting capabilities that would severely raise cost for Pakistan. In specific, India will have to invest heavily in airpower, precision guided munitions (PGMs), firepower resources and transparency capabilities. This cannot be a leisurely process that takes 25 to 30 years to induct any major weapon system. India’s adversaries are rapidly building-up their military capabilities. India has to not only keep pace but generate a visible technological edge if it wishes to deter. India must now display the political will to use force to safeguard its vital national interests. In conclusion therefore, it needs to be said that though India and Israel share a very similar set of threats and challenges, their strategic cultures are a study in contrast. Whenever India has been proactive and assertive, it has prevailed, as it did in 1971. Today India needs to transform its strategic culture and turn from a purely defensive and reactive orientation to a much more proactive response strategy. In this, Israel provides a useful role model for study and analysis.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

announcement

The First and the Only ISO 9001:2008 Certified Defence and Security Magazine in India

A N N O U N C E S

June 2012 Issue on

Naxalism: Rising Threat Profile Need For A National Strategy Move Cautiously In Red-hit Areas

he state governments of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have issued an advisory asking all block development officers and deputy commissioners to move very cautiously in Maoist-hit areas. The note was issued following an alert from the Union government after the abduction of Sukma district collector Alex Paul Menon. The 2006 batch IAS officer was abducted by the Maoists recently. Police sources said Odisha and Chhattisgarh have a long common border with Jharkhand and there is every possibility that the rebels may target officers and politicians here also. A similar suggestion has also been given to politicians as any abduction may lead to disruption of anti-Maoist operations in the state as it has happened in the neighbouring states of Odisha and Chhattisgarh. In Jharkhand, out of 24 districts, 18 fall in the category of Maoists hit. Confirming the development, Inspector General of Police (Operations) said it was necessary for them to issue the advisory because civilians are not aware of the movement of rebels even in their locality.

Special Force Created For Parliament Security

he government has approved the creation of a 1,500-strong armed unit for Parliament security drawn from specially trained CRPF personnel. The new unit called the ‘Parliament Duty Group’ has been mandated by the Union Home Ministry to be the “only force to provide armed security” to Parliament complex which was stormed by terrorists in 2001. In order to keep an unhindered chain of command and weed out multiple orders, the Home Ministry has kept the operational command of the commando trained unit with the Additional Secretary (Security) of the Parliament House. The Additional Secretary will coordinate between the Parliamentary security unit, Delhi police and the CRPF, the official said. The personnel of the PDG will have a fixed tenure of four years. The unit will comprise of only young and agile troops of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who have done special commando courses. Presently, a mix of CRPF personnel drawn from various battalions of the force guards the Parliament House. The administrative control of the PDG will remain with the Inspector General of CRPF (North) stationed in the national capital.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

For subscription write to : subscription@dsalert.org online@dsalert.org Or call : +91-011-23243999, 23287999, 9958382999

Indo-Israel alliance

HOSTILE NEIGHBOURHOOD

Nuclear Challenges to Israel and India-

Parallel concerns,

Amb Arundhati Ghose The writer joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1963 and served in various capacities in the Ministry of External Affairs and in Indian missions abroad. Was incharge of economic relations when economic reforms were launched in 1991. Served in the Branch Secretariat of the Ministry to liaise with the Bangladesh Government-in-exile in Calcutta during the birth pangs of that nation state. Served as Ambassador in Egypt, South Korea and as Permanent Representative to UNESCO and to the UN Offices in Geneva. As Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva she etched in indelible words the sovereign resolve of the Indian nation never to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Her words reverberate in Indian hearts to this day. She told the world in measured, authoritative tones that India would never sign the CTBT. “Not now! Not ever!”.

According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), “it is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967 and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel’s first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton bombs.” If true, this would indicate a first use doctrine

The writer, a former Ambassador and one time India’s top negotiator on Nuclear disarmament issues, carries out a cogent analysis of the similarities and key differences in the nuclear threats and stances of both India and Israel. The nuclear narratives of both countries have been vastly different. Yet, today, both countries are faced with similar if parallel, actual or feared, future threats from their neighbourhood. Neither country is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Israel signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, but has yet to ratify it, while India has not signed the Treaty. According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), “it is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967, in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton bombs.” Israel has always insisted that being a small country surrounded by larger hostile neighbours, a nuclear capacity was essentially a deterrent.

n early January this year, S M Krishna, the Minister for External Affairs of the Government of India, visited Israel to celebrate 20 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Since 1992, when diplomatic relations were formally established, the growth in bilateral relations has been “exceptional”, as reported by several sources, particularly in the development of commercial, economic, technological, counter-terrorism and defence links. In two decades, Israel has become India’s second largest source of defence imports after Russia and India has become Israel’s largest defence export market. While commercial trade has grown to almost US$ 5 billion and an FTA is under negotiation, according to a news report, the bilateral defence industry alone has grown to over US$ 9 billion. Yet, few other partners are so dissimilar in terms of history and geography and few with such burgeoning security links, carefully avoid any mention of a vital area of their security interest - the challenges both nuclear countries face from a nuclear neighbourhood. Israel and India are known to be nuclear capable states, though Israel has rarely either confirmed or denied possession of nuclear weapons, while India declared herself a state

divergent interests

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

with nuclear weapons in 1998. The nuclear narratives of both countries have been vastly different. Yet, today, both countries are faced with similar if parallel, actual or feared, future threats from their neighbourhood. As in the Af-Pak region, West Asia, India’s ‘near abroad’ and Israel’s home ground goes through a period of turbulent transition and an outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme appears imminent, posing a difficult dilemma to India’s interests and India’s friendship with Iran faces Israel with a complex challenge, it is perhaps time to examine these narratives, to possibly identify areas where the parallel concerns and diverging interests might contain elements for understanding, if not cooperation.

The decision to weaponise was taken in 1989, when India became aware of the close cooperation between China and Pakistan in developing the latter’s nuclear weapons programme. (China is reported to have tested a nuclear device for Pakistan in Lop Nor, on May 19 1990, though Chinese transfer of weapons technology to Pakistan started in 1976) Before turning to the two narratives, it is

important to note, that whatever might have been the origins of their respective programmes, both countries today are located in hostile neighbourhoods; India’s adversarial neighbours are already nuclear armed, with one neighbour, Pakistan, notwithstanding recent efforts at ‘normalisation’, posing a direct nuclear threat to India, while Israel, on the other hand, fears that its neighbourhood might turn nuclear with Iran allegedly moving towards nuclear weaponisation, with existential consequences for its, Israel’s, security. It should also be recalled that both countries maintained a policy of ‘ambiguity’ regarding their respective weapons programmes, till India overtly declared the possession of nuclear weapons in 1998. Israel does not, even today, confirm or deny that it has a nuclear arsenal. Neither country is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Israel signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, but has yet to ratify it, while India has not signed

the Treaty, though both countries have been included in Annexure II of the CTBT as being required to sign and ratify the Treaty for it to enter into force.

Israel has always insisted that being a small country surrounded by larger hostile neighbours, a nuclear capacity was essentially a deterrent; it has been meticulous in ensuring this situation persists, as is clear from its bombing of Iraq’s Osiris reactor, the alleged North Korean supplied reactor in Syria and its threat to do the same to Iran’s unless the latter gives evidence of having abjured its weapons option While most countries are chary of sharing details regarding their nuclear programmes Israel has remained almost obsessively secretive about its nuclear programme; as a result, few official sources are available regarding its development. Yet there are sufficient indicators from which some tentative conclusions can be

drawn. For example, PM Olmert, in an interview to a German TV Channel in December 2006, in referring to Iran’s rhetoric of ‘wiping Israel off the world map’ said “Can you say that this is the same level (of discourse / intentions?) when they (Iran) are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?” Other authoritative statements, from high US levels also confirm Israel’s nuclear capability, yet Israel insists it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. Israel, as a consequence, has no stated nuclear doctrine. However, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), “it is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967 and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel’s first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War. It is also reported that, fearing defeat in the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton bombs.”1 If true, this would indicate a first use doctrine. India, on the other hand has a published nuclear doctrine, based

. Federation of American Scientists:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/Israel/nuke May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

HOSTILE NEIGHBOURHOOD

essentially on a ‘no-first-use’ policy. Most of other public information is based on the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear engineer, who revealed, in 1986 to a British newspaper, much that is known today. Other sources are US ones, drawn on released documents or CIA reports.

Since 1992, when diplomatic relations were formally established, the growth in bilateral relations has been “exceptional”, as reported by several sources, particularly in the development of commercial, economic, technological, counter-terrorism and defence links. In two decades, Israel has become India’s second largest source of defence imports after Russia and India has become Israel’s largest defence export market According to some of these reports, Israel’s programme started as a weapons one, with early assistance from France. According to the Federation of American Scientists, which has an extensive report on the Israeli Nuclear Programme,1France signed a nuclear cooperation agreement in 1956/7 with Israel, under which a secret nuclear complex was constructed by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona in the Negev desert. In 1960, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion admitted that the Dimona complex was a nuclear research centre built “for peaceful purposes”. By the late 1960s, the US was convinced that Israel had a weapons programme, but did not publicly acknowledge it. By 1970, the NPT had come into effect, recognising only five countries as being in possession of nuclear weapons, giving a degree of ‘legitimacy’ to the possession. Israel has not signed the NPT and is not known to have tested weapons, though there have been reports of a test in the Negev desert in 1966 and another, with apartheid South Africa, over the Indian Ocean in 1979. 1 Israel has not been under any sanctions of any kind, since its possession of an

arsenal is not confirmed by either Israel itself or by the US or its allies. Since 1974, however, Israel has been under considerable international pressure, mainly from its Arab neighbours and Iran, to not only acknowledge its nuclear arsenal but to move towards nuclear disarmament through the participation in a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (MENWFZ). The proposal was taken up as early as 1974 in the UN General Assembly by Iran and Egypt. (This was pre-revolutionary Iran, which enjoyed close security links with Israel. It was the US which had encouraged the Shah to start Iran’s nuclear programme.) Since then, particularly through the NPT Review Conferences, efforts were made to push the major supporters of Israel to pressure Israel to accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and to become part of a MENWFZ. In 1995, Israel set a precondition to any such efforts: there should be an Israeli-Arab peace settlement and such efforts could be a final component of a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement. The same year, however, Israel’s supporters, the US and UK (and Russia) in an effort to ensure the indefinite extension of the NPT, agreed on a resolution on the Middle East at the NPT Review Conference that year, which was agreed to by all NPT Parties. This resolution widened the concept of the NWFZ to include all Weapons of Mass Destruction - including Chemical and Biological Weapons. (This idea had been first promoted by Egypt, after the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran) and in addition to requiring all states of the region to place all their nuclear facilities under safeguards, it mandated a MEN WMDFZ and committed the State Parties to the NPT, “and in particular the nuclear weapon States, to extend their cooperation and to exert their utmost efforts with a view to ensuring the early establishment” of a MEWMDFZ. The 2005 Review Conference failed when there was no agreement on the implementation of this resolution. During 2010 Review Conference, all states agreed to convene a Conference in 2012 “on the

establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction … with the full support and engagement of the nuclear weapon States.” Finland is to host the Conference, but it is not at all clear whether the Conference will be held or not. Israel had objected to the decision of the Review Conference and had indicated its inability to participate. There are reports however, that Israel has signalled some readiness to cooperate. The situation remains fluid, though there are reports that “some Arab states have threatened, implicitly and explicitly, to reconsider their NPT membership if the 2012 Conference does not take place.”2

Both countries today are located in hostile neighbourhoods; India’s adversarial neighbours are already nuclear armed, with one neighbour, Pakistan, notwithstanding recent efforts at ‘normalisation’, posing a direct nuclear threat to India, while Israel, on the other hand, fears that its neighbourhood might turn nuclear with Iran allegedly moving towards nuclear weaponisation, with existential consequences for its, Israel’s, security India’s nuclear programme started as a civilian one. It was always clear, however, that the technology could be applied for weapons purposes. Her support for the NPT negotiations arose from her reaction to Chinese nuclear tests in the mid-60s. She refused to sign the NPT, primarily, as stated by Prime Minister Gandhi to the Lok Sabha in 1968, on the bases of “enlightened self-interest and the considerations of national security.” While its 1974 test was a peaceful explosion, it was simultaneously an acknowledgement of her future weapons capability. The US and its allies imposed sanctions on India through what later became the Nuclear Suppliers Group, cutting India off from global trade in nuclear materials, equipment and technology, including dual use items and technologies. The decision to weaponise was taken in 1989, when India became aware of the close

. Federation of American Scientists:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/Israel/nuke . Monterey Institute of International Studies: The 2012 Conference on the Establishment of a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East and the role of the Facilitator; October 2011.

cooperation between China and Pakistan in developing the latter’s nuclear weapons programme. (China is reported to have tested a nuclear device for Pakistan in Lop Nor, on May 19 1990, though Chinese transfer of weapons technology to Pakistan started in 1976.3) In 1996, India refused to accept the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After the nuclear tests of 1998, a nuclear doctrine was made public in January 2003, whose main pillars are a credible minimum deterrent, a no-first use policy and a commitment to global nuclear disarmament. Between 2005 and 2008, relations with the US (and the rest of the world) normalised as the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement was signed and the NSG issued a ‘waiver’ which permitted the resumption of global nuclear trade with India.

PM Olmert, in an interview to a German TV Channel in December 2006, in referring to Iran’s rhetoric of ‘wiping Israel off the world map’ said “Can you say that this is the same level (of discourse / intentions?) when they (Iran) are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?” While China continues to remain India’s primary concern - not so much of actual use as nuclear ‘blackmail’since 1998, when Pakistan tested nuclear weapons overtly and on her own territory, the policies followed by that country have not only made their nuclear arsenal India-centric, that is, her weapons are aimed at Indian targets only, it has used the weapons, not only to deter a nuclear attack but even a conventional response to a series of terrorist attacks carried out by groups supported by the Pakistani establishment. Israel has always insisted that being a small country surrounded by larger hostile neighbours, a nuclear capacity was essentially a deterrent; it has been meticulous in ensuring this situation persists, as is clear from its bombing of Iraq’s Osiris reactor, the alleged North Korean supplied reactor in Syria and its threat to do the same to Iran’s unless the latter gives evidence of having abjured its weapons option. Israel’s fear of its nuclear neighbours bears an uncanny reflection of the

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

dilemma actually facing India today. It is of the view that use by Iran of nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out and that there is the danger of nuclear weapons, materiel or technology falling into the hands of terrorist groups. While India and Pakistan have been working on means to avoid inadvertent or accidental use, the Middle East does not have any mechanism to handle any escalation in hostilities, should they erupt with a nuclear Iran or any other neighbour. It is convinced, that a nuclearised Iran would lead to others, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Turkey following suit. Israel would then be faced with a hostile nuclear neighbourhood, just as India is today. While there is a degree of stability in the Sino-Indian nuclear equation, the threat perceptions from Pakistan are enhanced due to its India-centric policies, its support of terrorist groups as a part of their security policy and the current political, social and economic instability in that country. If India and Israel were to ‘compare notes’, as it were, there is likely to be a degree of agreement of several alternative strategies to deal with their respective dilemmas. According to an Israeli source, there are five acceptable alternative strategies to deal with Iran and one unacceptable one: Negotiations or a diplomatic solution, that is, engagement. This is currently being tried in the Middle East. India is also following this route with Pakistan at present. “Tough’ sanctions.

diplomacy,

meaning

Sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral are in place against Iran. They have been tried against Pakistan

with little success. Covert or ‘light’ operations short of war e.g. cyber attacks. These have been unsuccessfully against Iran.

tried,

Regime change from within. This is a strategy which would obviously appeal to Israel and its allies in the West in so far as it relates to Iran. There is no doubt that the military-led nuclear policy in Pakistan is responsible for the current threats to India and to the region. The likelihood of this situation changing appears slight and is in any case, accepted by major countries, except India. Military intervention. This is clearly an Israeli option not acceptable to India - whether in Iran or Pakistan. Acceptance of a nuclear Iran and its containment. This is clearly not acceptable to Israel. India is already dealing with a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear China. There is just one other alternative strategy which India could add to the discussion, the pursuance of universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable global nuclear disarmament. The outcome of such a dialogue may not amount to much, but it might establish India-Israel bilateral understanding on a stronger foundation.

. The Nuclear Express: A political History of the Bomb and its proliferation. Danny B Stillman and Thomas C Reed, 2008.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Vice Adm Barry Bharathan (retd) The writer is former Vice Chief of Naval Staff. He also served as Indian Naval Attache in Washington DC, USA.

USA, the lone super power, is committed to the free world and the idealism of democracy. Yet it has an open and also closed long lasting relationship with the Saudis. In more ways than one, this borders on invidiousness. Saudi Arabia is distinctly a totalitarian theocracy. It is also a strident sponsor of International terrorism. The horrific 9/11 World Trade Centre attack had many Saudi nationals. Al Qaeda was spawned there and is resident in that kingdom

ARTFUL MANAGEMENT

A very analytical and balanced article on the India–Iran-Israel triangular relationship. Vice Admiral Bharathan has cogently defined the geo-political context with an empirical analysis of the stakes involved for each stakeholder. In effect, whatever path India chooses would be irrelevant in the background of this simmering volcano of visceral distrust and misperceptions. Even on this single factor India would perhaps do well to maintain status quo in its Iran and Israel relationships.

wo civilisations, India and Iran and a very ancient Jewish culture that is Israel, are in an enigmatic triangle. India is involuntarily at the apex with inimical Iran and Israel at the two distanced points of this triangle. India has managed relations on an "Iran and Israel" approach. Iran supplies nearly 12 per cent of oil; the promise of Gas though a pipeline is also a critical consideration. An agreement on this pipeline would perhaps bring down the confrontationist temperature prevailing in the region. This may also seem a pipe dream in the present context of India-Pakistan-China geo-political intransigence. Many also believe that India and Iran enjoy a civilisational relationship that endures periodic differences. Israeli and Indian cooperation that began in the early 90's has progressively evolved into a robust engagement across the span of defence, agriculture, science, technology and research. In many ways, over the last 2 decades India has successfully responded to Shalom and Salaam ale kum of both Israel and Iran. The 13th February attack on an Israeli diplomat’s car, the American led Western isolation of Iran has triggered off a reaction asking for India to choose between Iran or Israel. The house is divided on this as is expected in our democracy. Pressure from USA too is a significant factor. The media and information highway is full of articles assuming polarised positions. Whatever be the views, India’s interests come first and foremost.

Never a zero sum game International relationship is never a zero sum game. This self-evident truth shows up in all the “Geo-political and Military” happenings in the South Asian, Central Asian, Gulf, land and ocean mass over the last two decades. Most critically, this entire swathe has been subject to cross currents of International interests, inter- and intra-country upheavals. Artificial divisions of the region by the British also spawned regional tensions: Israeli-Arab animosity, the Iran-Iraq war, the cold war between the super powers, the then unique Iraq-Soviet Union engagement and the

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Iran And Or Israel:

India's Interests

incessant quest for energy has scarred this swathe into being a land of constant violence, conflict, radical ethnicity and geo-political instability. In effect, whatever path India chooses would be irrelevant in the background of this simmering volcano of visceral distrust and misperceptions. Even on this single factor India would perhaps do well to maintain status quo in its Iran and Israel relationships.

USA and China USA, China too are intrinsic to this construct. The former has binding, bonding ties with the Jewish state. It is at present in the politics of confrontation with the Persians on a host of well-known issues. Iran’s nuclear posturing and anti-American stand-off rattles the West. It is also an avowed enemy of Israel with openly declared intentions of completely destroying the latter. The probability of a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran with attendant ramifications cannot be ruled out. Its attack on Iraq, years ago cannot be forgotten. China has a unique Iran relationship. It is a silent, covert supplier of nuclear and missile material to Iran. “Maraging” steel for centrifuges and Silkworm missiles are but a few glaring examples of Chinese complicity. This is in line with a China policy of pursuing a path of setting up a long term presence in the Middle East and Africa. An important and ignored aspect is Beijing’s plans to influence affairs in Afghanistan and Central Asia. In more ways than one, the wake of an American led NATO withdrawal is waiting to be filled in by China supported by Pakistan. Iran is a proxy Ocean guarantor along with Pakistan. The ports of Gwadar and Mir Quasim are already being readied for China.

Cross domino effects There are also some cross domino effects that need to be in the calculus of Gulf geopolitics. A few of them are: Shia-Sunni schism: The historic Shia-Sunni schism is a silent strategic divider in the region. This divide constantly simmers between

tension and violent confrontation. Arab Spring happenings do involve this divide in its own dynamic. This Islamic schism is violent, visceral and unrelenting over the last several centuries.

one, this borders on invidiousness. Saudi Arabia is distinctly totalitarian. It is also a strident sponsor of International terrorism. The horrific 9/11 World Trade Centre attack had many Saudi nationals.

to aggressively spread Islam at the cost of everything else. The porous polity of India is passive on this too. The USA is also impervious to a similar successful attempt in its own continent.

Saudi Arabian-American appliqué: Appliqué virtually means external application or superimposition. Appliqué is indeed apt in describing the American-Saudi Arabian connection in the context of a democracy dealing with a theocratic monarchy. The USA, the lone super power, is committed to the free world and the idealism of democracy. Yet it has an open and also closed long lasting relationship with the Saudis. In more ways than

Al Qaeda was spawned there and is resident in that kingdom. Saudi Arabian relationship with China and Pakistan is also unique. While USA is its prime arms and military training ally, it is purported to have missiles from China. Terrorism in Pakistan flourishes with Saudi Arabian money. Closer home, in India too, its efforts in engaging many "Madrassas" is motivated by a bigoted obsession

Iran-India relationship is also perceived by the Middle East as a salutary influence in the region. India-GCC trade stands at around US$ 120 billion. Approximately 6 million Indian nationals work in the Gulf with yearly remittances of US$ 30 billion. 70 to 75 per cent of India’s energy imports are from the Gulf countries, including Iran

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

ARTFUL MANAGEMENT

The historic Shia-Sunni schism is a silent strategic divider in the region. This divide constantly simmers between tension and violent confrontation. Arab Spring happenings do involve this divide in its own dynamic. This Islamic schism is violent, visceral and unrelenting over the last several centuries

Wahabism In the gulf region this oil rich kingdom follows Wahabi Islam alongside a closed society. Saudi royalty with tacit American support has kept a stranglehold on its people. There is neither freedom nor fairness in that society in the name of Islam. Islamic views on the infidel (kafir) are perpetuated in Saudi Arabia. Wahabi ways condone many wrongdoings in the name of Allah. The Arab Spring uprisings are only a symptom of the disease of unrest with no real end in sight. Egypt, Libya and now Syria are examples of failed and failing leadership. Western influence was the genesis and is now the ironic, iron force behind the people's movement which aspires for freedom from autocratic regimes. It is no more a question of whether the Saudi royalty will cave in but when? This too is bound to trigger a tsunami of uncertainty and chaos! It would be a deja-vu repeat of the collapse of the American-Iranian honeymoon post the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Energy security and security of energy Global Energy needs are on exponential rise. Oil is black gold. It controls the pulse of International trade. Keeping sea lanes open and providing security to this energy are onerous tasks. The Persian Gulf, Red Sea, the Indian Ocean and the concerned choke points are all vulnerable but vital and valuable to ensure the flow of oil and gas from the Middle East to the East and Far East. Any conflict in the region is bound to have a catastrophic impact on energy availability. “No oil, No care” is also an Arab fatalistic belief.

Arms bazaar The region spreading from the Gulf to the Far East is an Arms Bazaar. There is a plethora of lethal conventional weapons of intense concentration in the Gulf. The western countries headed by USA and China along with some eastern bloc countries led by Russia are part of the military vendors club. The famous book titled Arms Bazaar by Anthony Sampson clearly illustrates that the military supplies have been on since the last 4 decades. More telling is the simple fact of backward and volatile nations having easy and ready access to fierce fire power.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Wild West syndrome echoes in the deserts, dunes and the waters of the land. The West is futilely trying to put out the fires that it had started decades ago!

Indian Ocean The Indian Ocean is the “Life line” between West and East. Over 1,000 million tons of oil pass through close to Indian shores every year. India is dependent on the seas for 95 per cent of its trade and 80 per cent for oil. It cannot simply afford to allow closure of sea lanes for more than 10 days. This ocean being every one’s lake is the reality today. As the largest stakeholder in the region we at least ought to know what is happening in our waters and be able to rightfully secure ourselves as a sovereign democracy. Others may sail away but we cannot. This subtle difference has gross, telling implications in effect, impact and consequences for the sub-continent. What happens in the Persian Gulf will have a lasting, long and large term impact on all Indian Ocean rim countries. The Indian Ocean is a floating home to about 35 to 40 warships from different nations, not to speak of the Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan navies and Task Force 150 led by USA. At any given time there are at least 10 to 15 submarines transiting underwater. Nearly 2,000 to 3,000 merchant ships ranging from supertankers, gas carriers, cargo ships, container vessels, traverse these waterways every day. Fishing fleets, dhows, trawlers, exploratory vessels, big oil rigs also cross the sea lanes. In peace time alone the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, the important straits from east to west are all subject to threats of: Mutual interference among submarines. Environmental degradation due to discharge of dirty oil by empty oil tankers in violation of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on Laws of the Seas) agreed upon rules of behaviour. Major oil pollution disasters due to collisions between tankers. Tsunamis and cyclones. Low intensity threats of piracy, smuggling and hijacking. Strangulation of traffic, in choke points, due to any of the above. “In these circumstances to ask India to choose between Iran and Israel is hypothetically and geopolitically anathema.”

Indian interests Indian interests do not need great debate and discussion. We are a benign power, a secular stable democracy from an ancient civilisation. The International arena flocks to us, despite our many endemic weaknesses. Therein lies our intrinsic strength. Today the World needs us. We never need to be in a position to choose but let others want us. Our interests can be realised by being what we are.

Iran We need Iran for counter-balancing the Gulf security calculus. Western influence while being of immense use has inherent limitations of distanced and obtuse alien content. India has historic, cultural, commerce and trade footprints that are etched in the DNA of the Mediterranean, Maghreb, Malaccas, Near and Far East long before the influx of the Europeans. We simply cannot abdicate this even if we are tempted to unwittingly attempt this exercise. 12 per cent of oil is also critical. Constructive engagement with Iran would give India some leverage towards resolution of pending contentious issues in the region. Equally important is the Chinese dragon that is breathing fire to anneal an agenda of its own. Countering this without confrontation requires an amalgamated, calming, Indian presence with tacit support of the other players in the region.

We need Iran for counterbalancing the gulf security calculus. Western influence while being of immense use has inherent limitations of distanced and obtuse alien content. India has historic, cultural, commerce and trade footprints that are etched in the DNA of the Mediterranean, Maghreb, Malaccas, Near and Far East long before the influx of the Europeans. We simply cannot abdicate this

Israel Many Israelis, specially from their political, military, diplomatic corps believe that their population is 1.2 billion plus by simply adding their 8 million or so to our people. They have a fervent belief that the Jews and Indians have a destiny together for the common good of the World. This small state adds great value to India and brings surgical precision to our diplomatic, military and government matrices. India-Israel cooperation focuses on space, water management, and non-conventional energy sources. Also included are Nanotechnology, biotechnology and military technology self-reliance. There are also agrarian thrusts between both countries. Israel is our sixth largest trading partner with trade value of nearly US$ 10 billion

and increasing. A bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) is also in the offing. Israelis have also learned to live with our pro-Palestine posture. Here too India can play an effective mediation facilitator.

handed in the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attack, though frustrating does vindicate our full commitment to the letter of the law.

Gulf countries

India is an enigmatic miracle. The last 25 years have seen us grow as one of the leading economies starting with our liberalised economic strategy. 1998 saw us become a military nuclear power. We are now recognised by the USA through the aegis of defence cooperation and Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreements. Several significant partnerships have also emerged with a host of G-8 and G-20 countries. Prospects of us being elected into the UN Security Council also appear bright.

India enjoys a unique stature in the Arab World. In many ways, Pakistani attempt to discredit India has not found much favour. Over the years the number of Indians who work in the Gulf, has gone up significantly across various disciplines. This is indeed a major factor that brings in valuable foreign exchange, contributing to our economy. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy have once, been trained by us very well on military basics. Oman and India have also a special relationship that has prospered over the years. Saudi Arabia and India too have now entered into a positive arrangement, highlighting a tectonic shift in perceptions. These have taken place despite our ongoing Israeli connection. India’s decision not to join USA in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 was perhaps most prudent and strategically sensible. This has kept us in good stead and earned the appreciation of the regional leadership. Iran-India relationship is also perceived by the Middle East as a salutary influence in the region. India-GCC trade stands at around US$ 120 billion. Approximately 6 million Indian nationals work in the Gulf with yearly remittances of US$ 30 billion. 70 to 75 per cent of India’s energy imports are from the Gulf countries, including Iran. These are irrevocable links that have to be further strengthened.

Indian sovereignty We are a sovereign system, with a track record of sound law and order in the National and International arena. Justice and prosecuting terrorist activities are part of our jurisprudence. It goes beyond consideration of our relationships. There is need for objectivity in our dealing with the attack on the Israeli diplomat with the heavy hand of the law. We also need to pre-empt any Israeli retaliation on our soil. On no account should we be seen as a vacillating system that is indecisive. Our handling of Kasab caught red

India’s signature tune

The probability of a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran with attendant ramifications cannot be ruled out. It’s attack on Iraq, years ago cannot be forgotten. China has a unique Iran relationship. It is a silent, covert supplier of nuclear and missile material to Iran. Maraging steel for centrifuges and Silkworm missiles are but a few glaring examples of Chinese complicity India at home appears diffident and disjointed. Nation management, political leadership apathy and lack of accountability are all part of our evolution. Nevertheless the intrinsic strength of India resting with our seasoned office establishment has always ensured that we muddle through, without too much mud on our face. The International Image of India is yet another positive paradigm. India is predictable, staid, stable, secular and restrained. Our protests are loud but our violence is subdued. Our elections are peaceful, with our laws mostly enforced. We have come of age without too much trauma of a colonial dominion. Our eclectic absorption, adaptability and the phenomenal success of Indians abroad are all noticed by others. We are no more in a position of having to choose or measure our march. On the way we may falter at times but would not fall down. Let India continue with an Iran and Israel triad and not consider this a triage. This would be our rightful and rational call.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Dr Harsh V Pant The writer is Reader in International Relations at King's College London and an affiliate with the King's India Institute.

After hedging for weeks, India at last officially conveyed to Iran in March that its nationals were primary suspects in the dastardly bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat in New Delhi and sought Iranian cooperation in apprehending the culprits. The Indian investigators managed to confirm that three Iranians had done a recce of the Israeli Embassy in Delhi with the help of an Indian freelance journalist and one of the Iranians had been in touch with the head of the module which carried out the attack in Bangkok

RELUCTANT LIAISON?

While the UPA government has continued to deal with Israel on issues that matter to India, it has failed to publicly affirm its ties with Israel for fear of offending the Muslim community. This is not healthy for sustaining strong bilateral ties. India and Israel should be natural allies, yet the Indian policy makers remain uncommitted to the cause of Israel for petty political reasons. One day when the chips are down, like they were in Kargil, India might find that this coolness towards Israel would end up costing it dear.

he battle between Iran and Israel landed on the Indian shores earlier this year. On 13 February, just when an explosive device that had been placed under an Israeli Embassy vehicle in Tbilisi was being defused, a “sticky bomb” attached to a vehicle carrying a diplomat of the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi exploded. The attacks happened almost simultaneously and were clearly targeting the diplomats of the Israeli Embassies in Tbilisi and New Delhi. A day later an Iranian man carrying grenades blew off his own legs and wounded four civilians after an earlier blast shook his house in Bangkok. In response, Israel increased the state of alert in the country, emphasising public places, foreign embassies and offices, as well as Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Partnership with Israel

Though no one has claimed responsibility for the incidents, the Israeli government made it clear that they believe Iran and its proxy Hezbollah are behind the attacks. Tel Aviv has used these attacks to underline its concerns about Iran getting nuclear capability, arguing that if the Islamic republic becomes a nuclear power, it could provide greater protection for militant groups that would be emboldened by its support. Israel sought Indian support for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Iran for the attacks in New Delhi on its diplomat as well as the incidents in Tbilisi and Bangkok, putting India in diplomatic logjam. Iran, of course, has denied responsibility for the bombing attempts and has called them an Israeli provocation. Iranian foreign ministry suggested that the blasts were the work of Israel to defame Iran internationally, arguing that “these suspicious incidents are designed by the Zionist regime and carried out with the aim of harming Iran’s reputation.” After hedging for weeks, India at last officially conveyed to Iran in March that its nationals were primary suspects in the dastardly bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat in New Delhi and sought Iranian cooperation in apprehending the culprits. The Indian investigators managed to confirm that three Iranians had done a recce of the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi with the help of an Indian freelance journalist and one of the Iranians had been in touch with the head of the module which carried out the attack in Bangkok. The Indian police has issued warrants for three Iranian citizens who seem to have left India. The Iran link was always there for all to see but New Delhi initially refused to lay the blame on Tehran’s doorsteps for fear of getting sucked into the larger Middle Eastern rivalry. After declining to implicate Iran, New Delhi now finds itself in a tight spot as police investigations have clearly specified the Iranian connection. A covert war is raging between Iran on one side and the West, the Arab Gulf states and Israel on the other. There have been a series of assassinations of Iranian scientists associated with the country’s nuclear programme as well as the use of Stuxnet computer worm that targeted Siemens industrial software important to Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts. On the other hand, there have been arrests in Azerbaijan and Thailand that purportedly disrupted terrorist plots aimed at Israeli diplomatic targets and an apparent threat to Israeli interests in Bulgaria. Much like its predecessor, the Obama Administration has also vowed that it would not allow Iran to go nuclear. Israel is already fretting and debating its pre-emptive options. Tel Aviv has made it clear, time and again, that it would not hesitate to act unilaterally, overruling American objections, if they judge that Iran is getting too close to nuclear capability. Meanwhile tensions are rising in the capitals of Arab Gulf states. It was the Saudi King, after all, who had famously advised the American diplomats that the only Iran strategy that would work was one that “cut off the head of the snake.” From India’s perspective, these incidents signify a very disturbing trend and a dangerous escalation. If Iran or its proxies are behind the attack, it merely shows how little it values its ties with India. New Delhi claims a ‘civilisational partnership’ with Tehran but its so called ‘partner’ had no compunction in using Indian territory to attack Israelis. Tehran has often expressed its

India’s Hesitant

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

displeasure when India has in the past taken a position similar to that of the West on issues of interest to Iran. How this step will enhance Indo-Iranian ties remains a mystery at a time when the isolation of Tehran is growing by the day. Iran’s position on several other issues crucial to India has run counter to Indian interests. Tehran continues to be hyper-critical of Indian government on Kashmir, even forcing New Delhi to issue a demarche last year as a protest against Iranian interference in Indian domestic issues. Iranian interference in Indian domestic politics has been going on for a long time with sections of the Indian government suggesting that Iran “has been buying off journalists, clerics and editors in Shia-populated areas of Uttar Pradesh and Kashmir, doling out large sums to stoke anti-Americanism.”

Tehran continues to be hyper critical of Indian government on Kashmir, even forcing New Delhi to issue a demarche last year as a protest against Iranian interference in Indian domestic issues. Iranian interference in Indian domestic politics has been going on for a long time with sections of the Indian government suggesting that Iran “has been buying off journalists, clerics and editors in Shia-populated areas of Uttar Pradesh and Kashmir India has made itself vulnerable by repeatedly suggesting that there is no alternative to the Iranian oil. It should move fast now and reduce its dependence on Iran. There is no need to be apologetic about Indian

interests. A clear message needs to go out to Tehran that Indian territory is not for use by external actors for their proxy wars. Yet, while Indian policy makers keep on harping about their civilisational ties with Iran, few talk openly about India’s ties with Israel. Israel has been a good friend of India but New Delhi continues to be shy of demonstrating its friendship. At crucial times, when India needed Israeli help, it got it unreservedly. The terrorism that both India and Israel face comes not only from disaffected groups within their territories; it is also aided and abetted by neighbouring states, mostly under non-democratic regimes increasingly capable of transferring weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organisations. States such

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

RELUCTANT LIAISON?

as Pakistan, Iran and Syria have long used terror as an instrument of their foreign policies. There are, therefore, distinct structural similarities in the kind of threat that India and Israel face from terrorism. It is also important to note that when the extremist mullahs call upon their followers to take up arms in support of an Islamic jihad, their foremost exhortations have always been the “liberation” of all of mandatory Palestine, Kashmir and the annihilation of the United States.

might be inimical to Indo–Israeli ties. But the UPA government has continued to maintain India’s relations with Israel. Fighting terrorism is a major issue and challenge for both countries; both are democratic, pluralistic states with large domestic Muslim minorities; and both face the scourge of Islamist terrorism, which is sponsored by each of their neighbours. These shared challenges have led to a better understanding of each other’s concerns.

The ballast for Indo–Israeli bilateral ties is provided by the defence cooperation between the two states, with India emerging as Israel’s largest arms market, displacing Turkey. Israel’s military sales to India in the last five years have topped US$ 5 billion. Israel has adopted a pragmatic attitude with respect to weapon sales to India, contrary to other developed states which have looked at weapons sales to India from the perspective of the balance of power in South Asia. Israel was willing to continue and even step up its arms sales to India after other major states curbed their technological exports following India’s May 1998 nuclear tests. Israel provided India much-needed imagery about Pakistani positions using its UAVs during the Kargil War with Pakistan in 1999 that was instrumental in turning the war around for India.

There has been a steady strengthening of India’s relationship with Israel ever since the two established full diplomatic relations in 1992, despite New Delhi’s attempts to keep the flourishing bilateral relationship out of public view. In contrast to the back-channel security ties that existed before the normalisation of bilateral relations, India is now more willing than ever to carve out a mutually beneficial bilateral relationship with Israel, including deepening military ties and countering the threat terrorism poses to the two societies. Before 1992, India had made the normalisation of relations with Israel contingent upon the resolution of the Palestinian issue. In 1992, India decided to delink the two, making it clear that it was not prepared to make an independent Palestinian state a precondition for improving its relations with Israel. This was in tune with the policy much of the world was already following. There was some concern that the change of government in India in 2004, from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance to the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA),

From India’s perspective, these incidents signify a very disturbing trend and a dangerous escalation. If Iran or its proxies are behind the attack, it merely shows how little it values its ties with India. New Delhi claims a ‘civilisational partnership’ with Tehran but its so called ‘partner’ had no compunction in using Indian territory to attack Israelis. Tehran has often expressed its displeasure when India has in the past taken a position similar to that of the West on issues of interest to Iran Though cooperation in defence and anti-terrorism has driven India and Israel closer, the two states are also making concerted attempts to diversify their relationship. The emergence of India and Israel as industrialised and technologically-advanced states makes their cooperation on a range

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

of issues meaningful and mutually beneficial. India’s trade with Israel has increased by a factor of six in the last decade, with India becoming Israel’s second-largest trading partner in Asia in non-military goods and services. Bilateral trade grew to an estimated US$ 5 billion in 2011 from a meagre US$ 200 million in 1992 though about half of that is still in diamonds. About 40,000 young Israelis visit India each year after compulsory military service, thereby enriching people-to-people ties. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill towards Israel in India. India’s ties with Iran complicate its burgeoning relations with Israel, however. Although the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein removed one of Israel’s enemies, it also has created new opportunities for Iran to increase its influence in Israel’s immediate neighbourhood. Israel remains concerned about India’s ties with Iran, especially about India sharing with Iran some of the military technology which it receives from Israel. Israel would like India to acknowledge the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran and wants India to help stabilise the volatile security situation in the Middle East. Although India and Israel need not make their bilateral relationship a function of each other’s relationship with any third country, Iran’s aggressive rhetoric toward Israel should circumscribe New Delhi’s outreach to Tehran. Despite Israel’s reservations about India’s Iran policy, it continues to cooperate very closely with India on counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing and defence issues. Indian policy makers recognise the important role that Israel plays in Indian national security matrix. While the UPA government has continued to deal with Israel on issues that matter to India, it has failed to publicly affirm its ties with Israel for fear of offending the Muslim community. This is not healthy for sustaining strong bilateral ties. India and Israel should be natural allies, yet the Indian policy makers remain uncommitted to the cause of Israel for petty political reasons. One day when the chips are down, like they were in Kargil, India might find that this coolness towards Israel would end up costing it dear.

Safety. One powerful idea. Clear, high-resolution pictures even in low light. Day and night functionality. TruVision™ megapixel IP cameras provide attractive, reliable video surveillance with integrated motion detection and audio capabilities. Our security and fire detection and suppression systems provide the vigilance you need to help keep people and properties safe. UTC Climate, Controls & Security: a business unit of United Technologies.

Climate, Controls & Security

Hamilton Sundstrand

Otis

Pratt & Whitney

Sikorsky

Indo-Israel alliance

Brig Rahul Bhonsle (retd) The writer is an Army veteran presently Director of Sasia Security-Risks.com Pvt. Ltd., a South Asian security risk and knowledge management consultancy. His most recent book is, “Securing India: Assessment of Security and Defence Capabilities”. This was not a one way relationship as exports to India provided Israel defence industry volumes to drive economy of scales in production. While Israel armed forces need high technology weapons systems to combat the threat from their neighbours, numbers required are limited. On the other hand, India’s defence requirements given the size of the armed forces are many times larger. Thus by generating sales to countries as India, Israel is able to offset a part of the production costs. This provided impetus for Israel to develop defence relations with India

BALANCING ACT

India-Israel Defence relations have great depth. There is a sufficient basis for Indo-Israel defence relations to expand over the years. Some of the political issues have now been resolved and there is a better understanding across the board of the importance of cooperation with Israel. This was indicated by the visit of External Affairs Minister Mr S M Krishna in January 2012 to Tel Aviv where he had extensive deliberations with the top Israeli leadership. India is also sensitive to balancing relations with Israel and the US and the Islamic world. To overcome some of the critical challenges, there will be increasing emphasis on collaboration between the private defence industry in India and Israel defence majors. Thus, a number of proposals are said to be in the offing with Indian companies such as Tata Advanced Systems, Mahindra and Mahindra and L&T. At the same time the traditional areas of cooperation with public sector enterprises such as HAL and BEL is likely to continue. Therefore by suitably aligning their interests with the changing environment, Indian and Israeli defence cooperation can be expanded despite the challenges.

srael is believed to be the second largest source for arms imports for the Indian military, some even say today it is the first having surpassed Russia. Israel is also a reliable and, “value free,” supplier of arms to India over the years and has also evaded pressure from close ally as the United States when it came to fulfilling India’s needs. Despite the robustness of Indo-Israeli defence cooperation, challenges are evident. Some of these include India’s domestic political environment where a strong lobby resisting Israeli entry in defence sales exists, competition and balancing relations with Gulf states and Iran are the other compulsions. A number of players including the United States have entered India’s defence import market. Thus, there is competition as well as conflict of interest. For instance, in some technologies Israel and US have bilateral agreements, which prevent transfer to a third party. Of late allegations of corruption in Indo-Israeli arms trade have also become a sensitive issue. India’s growing quest for indigenisation would imply a gradual curtailment of sourcing from abroad in the long term; this may act as a dampener for Israeli defence firms in India. A brief overview of the possible challenges against the backdrop of the depth of defence relations is outlined as per succeeding paragraphs.

in Indo-Israel Defence Relations

India’s military as it was deprived of a large source of supply for military hardware. India’s requirement of spare parts for land, naval and air platforms and systems was over 1,00,000 plus which were procured from the erstwhile Soviet Union. Almost overnight it lost this source as the Soviet defence industry fragmented in various former republics and came under a cloud for sustenance due to political and economic reasons. Israel was a reliable alternative source with a self-sufficient arms production facility. This was established to meet many security challenges that it faced in the predominantly hostile Arab neighbourhood. India turned to Israel as there were limited political strings attached by Tel Aviv. Moreover the flow of immigrants who had worked in the Soviet military industry as engineers and technicians meant that these could easily align to India’s needs.

Building a defence relationship

With a large and diverse indigenous arms production base to include basic military hardware such as arms, ammunition and communication equipment as well as advanced high technology systems for night fighting, electronic warfare, C4I2 and antimissile systems, Israel was an ideal alternative to the former Soviet Union. Israel has also developed specialisation in upgradation and extension of life of systems such as tanks and aircraft which very well suited India.

Defence relations between India and Israel transcend over two decades. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1990 was a rude shock to

This was not a one way relationship as exports to India provided Israel defence industry volumes to drive

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Future Challenges

economy of scales in production. While Israeli armed forces need high technology weapons systems to combat the threat from their neighbours, numbers required are limited. On the other hand, India’s defence requirements given the size of the armed forces are many times larger. Thus by generating sales to countries as India, Israel is able to offset a part of the production costs. This provided impetus for Israel to develop defence relations with India. Large volumes in defence are particularly necessary for investments in Research and Development in leading technologies by Israel. An assured market at home and abroad enabled considerable investments in R & D both in terms of human talent and fiscal resources. Furthermore regime for denial of technology with countries as China has left India as the best option for Israel with large volumes.

Israel was a reliable alternative source with a self-sufficient arms production facility. This was established to meet many security challenges that it faced in the predominantly hostile Arab neighbourhood. India turned to Israel as there were limited political strings attached by Tel Aviv. Moreover the flow of immigrants who had worked in the Soviet military industry as engineers and technicians meant that these could easily align to India’s needs

Major Indo-Israel joint defence projects The wide range of defence sales cooperation between India and Israel is evident from the large number of

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

BALANCING ACT

defence acquisitions made or planned and joint defence projects between the two countries. These are summarised as follows: Supersonic 70-km range Barak-NG (next generation) missile defence system for the Indian Navy. SpyDer Low-Level Quick Reaction Missile systems (LLQRM) armed with Python and Derby missiles including joint development of a new, advanced version of the SpyDer surface-to-air missile. Systems integration of air defence assets for upgraded tactical air defence system. Searcher I, Heron and Harpy special unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Joint manufacture of simulators and avionics for Skylark mini UAVs manufactured by Elbit with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). EL/M2052 multi-mode radar to be fitted on the indigenous Tejas fighter being developed by HAL and DRDO. Joint production of attack helicopter Dhruv with HAL providing the fuselage and IAI the avionics. Hand-held thermal imagers and LORROS (Long-Range Reconnaissance and Observation Systems). Cooperation between DRDO and Israel firm Elbit for assistance in development of the Divya Drishti surveillance system. India has also purchased EL/M-2083 radars, aerostat-mounted air search radar manufactured by IAI. India has acquired two Green Pine Early Warning and Fire Control radars from Israel for integration into the anti-ballistic missile system developed by the DRDO. India Israel cooperation in development of the Swordfish radar which is now being used for anti-ballistic missile systems in India. In 2011, India imported Galil Sniper rifles and TAR-21 (Tavor Assault Rifle 21st century) assault rifles from Israel for equipping Special Forces. Purchase of 8,356 Spike anti-tank guided missiles, 321 launchers and 15 training simulators possibly being acquired by India. Super Dvora MK II Fast Attack Craft from Israel’s Ramta. Upgradation of MiG-21 fighters to include the cockpit layout, including a head-up display and electronic warfare equipment. Upgradation projects for the Army TISAS (Thermal

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Imaging Stand Alone Systems) for 500 BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles and upgrading of 300 T-72M1 tanks. Israel Soltam Systems have also upgraded 180 M46 130 mm field guns to the 155 mm calibre. Joint

development

IL 76

based

AWACS.

There is a sufficient basis for Indo-Israel defence relations to expand over the years. Some of the political issues have now been resolved and there is a better understanding across the board of the importance of cooperation with Israel. This was indicated by the visit of External Affairs Minister Mr S M Krishna in January 2012 to Tel Aviv where he had extensive deliberations with the top Israeli leadership. India is also sensitive to balancing relations with Israel and the US and the Islamic world. To overcome some of the critical challenges, there will be increasing emphasis on collaboration between the private defence industry in India and Israel defence majors. Thus, a number of proposals are said to be in the offing with Indian companies such as Tata Advanced Systems, Mahindra and Mahindra and L&T. At the same time the traditional areas of cooperation with public sector enterprises such as HAL and BEL is likely to continue. Therefore by suitably aligning their interests with the changing environment Indian and Israeli defence cooperation can be expanded despite the challenges

Challenges to Indo-Israel defence relations Domestic and geopolitical challenges: There are major political challenges internal as well as global for Indo-Israel defence cooperation. There is an anti-Israel lobby in India as in other countries across the World. There are concerns raised particularly over Israel’s role in suppression of aspirations of the Palestine people. Support to the Palestinian cause thus remains a major factor in India’s foreign policy. India’s External Affairs Minister Mr S M Krishna thus ensured that he travelled to Palestine after his visit to Israel most recently in January 2012. During this visit he expressed solidarity with the Palestinian cause. India has so far successfully evaded these challenges by balancing relations between Israel and other countries in West Asia. This has in fact been the envy of diplomats of other countries. India’s proximate relationship with Iran and the latter’s breach with Israel is another challenge that would have to be factored in. This was evident with the recent terrorist attack on the Israeli diplomat’s wife in New Delhi. This has been traced to persons from Iran resulting in issue of Interpol notices. India may get sucked in willy-nilly in this proxy war between two close partners posing difficulties in sustained support by Israel in the defence sphere. Competition: The entry of diverse foreign suppliers in the Indian market has also added to the competition faced by Israel. So far this was limited only to Russia. The Arrow antimissile defence system is one example. This was blocked by

the US in 2003. American necessity to maintain a balance between India and Pakistan in the South Asian context has restricted Israel from supplying some technology to India from time to time. In January 2011, US pressure led to barring Israel from export sale of EL/M-2052 radar to India. This is presumed because US defence industry was keen on selling this system by offering similar technology to equip Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) with this radar. Currently there is competition between Israel’s Rafael and the European MBDA over ARSAAM (Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile) and Python 5. Thus from a monopoly supplier Israel has to engage in competitive contracting with attendant emphasis on processes and delays causing cost overruns.

There is an anti-Israel lobby in India as in other countries across the World. There are concerns raised particularly over Israel’s role in suppression of aspirations of the Palestine people. Support to the Palestinian cause thus remains a major factor in India’s foreign policy Corruption and slow pace of process in India: Bureaucratic delays and corruption are other major factors impacting Indo-Israeli defence cooperation. India’s complex bureaucratic system is seen by many, as highly cumbersome and unfriendly to defence sales and cooperation. This does not favour speedy decision making and rebuffs foreign suppliers. There are also restrictive regulations for foreign companies to invest in the Indian industry which has acted as a disincentive. On the other hand, corruption in defence deals also leads to huge blocks. For instance, in 2000 the principal investigation agency in the country Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted an investigation of IAI and Rafael for supply of Barak-1 missiles. Some of the contractors are presently facing legal action for indulging in malpractices related to deals with Indian Ordnance Factory chief Sudipto Ghosh. Messrs Israel Military Industries Ltd. (IMI) is presently involved in this case. Blacklisting of the IMI, a state owned company and one of the leading global weapons manufacturers is

likely to be a thorn in the relationship. IMI was also due for privatisation, which with loss of Indian business for 10 years is likely to be a setback and may dissuade investors. Given that global defence majors operate across a wide swathe of countries, blacklisting in one has a snowballing impact and thus ramifications may be felt by a squeeze being applied in other arms supplies by Israel. Indigenisation: India’s quest for indigenisation is receiving increased attention and is likely to gather momentum given the recent disclosures of allegations of corruption, sourcing from non-Original Equipment Manufacturers with involvement of dubious investment practices. Moreover the shortfall highlighted with the disclosure of the letter by Army Chief General V K Singh to the Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh is likely to provide impetus to indigenisation. This will considerably reduce imports in the long term, though in the short term there is scope through the offsets or joint venture route for Israeli companies to continue their presence in the country.

Conclusion There is a sufficient basis for Indo-Israel defence relations to expand over the years. Some of the political issues have now been resolved and there is a better understanding across the board of the importance of cooperation with Israel. This was indicated by the visit of External Affairs Minister Mr S M Krishna in January 2012 to Tel Aviv where he had extensive deliberations with the top Israeli leadership. India is also sensitive to balancing relations with Israel and the US and the Islamic world. To overcome some of the critical challenges, there will be increasing emphasis on collaboration between the private defence industry in India and Israel defence majors. Thus, a number of proposals are said to be in the offing with Indian companies such as Tata Advanced Systems, Mahindra and Mahindra and L&T. At the same time the traditional areas of cooperation with public sector enterprises such as HAL and BEL is likely to continue. Therefore by suitably aligning their interests with the changing environment Indian and Israeli defence cooperation can be expanded despite the challenges outlined herein.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Air Vice Marshal A K Tiwary VSM (retd) The writer commanded a MiG-29 Squadron in late 80s. His various command and staff appointments like Chief Operations Officer at a major Wing, operational planning at Command level, Director Concept Studies at Air HQ, Command of a major flying base, Head of the Training Team (Air) at Defence Services Staff College and Senior Directing Staff (Air) at National Defence College have conferred a rich practical experience. The air staff course at DSSC Wellington (TN), Command and Air War Course at the Air University, Maxwell Airbase, Montgomery (USA), all inducted and accelerated his interest in air war studies. After premature retirement he now flies as Commander on Boeing 737-800 NG.

They planned a simultaneous attack on ten Egyptian airbases. Each target was struck by four strike aircraft. That means the first wave comprised of 40 strike aircraft. Eight such waves were directed at the ten Egyptian airbases in Phase I. Each wave had an interval of about ten minutes from the preceding wave. Thus within 1 hour and 30 minutes, the ten Egyptian airbases were struck repeatedly

BRILLIANT STRATEGY

The Israeli armed forces – especially their Air Force are universally admired for their dedication, professionalism and innovative approach. Some Israeli operations - especially the destruction of the Arab Air Forces in the six day Arab-Israeli war in 1967, have become benchmarks of professional excellence. There is much to learn from the Israeli proactive and highly offensive orientation which relies heavily on seizing the initiative right from the outset. In this article AVM Tiwary examines how the Israeli Air Blitz of 1967 succeeded so brilliantly as to become a textbook model for the employment of airpower.

THAT CHANGED WAYS OF WARFARE

he brilliant air campaign by Israeli Air Force over the deserts in Middle East in 1967 is the dream stuff of air war planners. This was the most emphatic demonstration of immense capabilities of air power next only to initial lightning success of Luftwaffe in World War II.

There were multiple factors responsible for success of Israeli Air Force (IAF). But it is not the widely misreported impression that Arab Air Forces were highly inferior, had inferior equipment etc. The war though fought between mainly Western (Israeli AF) and Soviet (Arabs) equipment, did not automatically become one sided due to the equipment. The basic reason was the way the senior military leadership visualised airpower and its impact on modern battlefield. The doctrinal thought on the Arab side came far closer to the one prevailing in the Indian subcontinent. The Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis and Jordanians were all influenced by the thought process in RAF, more specifically the thoughts relating to tactical airpower’s employment. Though each of these nations possessed a reasonable air arm - the thinking remained land centric.

Table 1: Air Arms in Middle East 1967

COMBAT AIRCRAFT Egypt

Syria

Iraq

Jordan

Arab Total

Israel

450

132

110

720

221

Ratio

3.25

For the state of Israel and Israeli forces - success in war was key to their survival. This newly found nation of Jews, without their own motherland for over 2000 years, was born in 1948. The birth itself was marked by open hostility and attacks from all around. Their struggle for independence and its success was a question mark for quite some time. Though every Israeli fought for freedom, the leaders did not fail to notice the increasingly effective contribution of the emerging, (then fledgling) Israeli Air Force (IAF). Therefore, post independence, the IAF got primacy by way of funding and suitable structuring in comparison to the other two arms i.e. the Israeli Army and Navy. What of the IAF leadership as far as clarity of doctrinal thought and strategic approach about the use of air power? Indeed their approach was sound, as the opening hours of 1967 war proved. There is a long road from doctrinal purity to execution efficiency in the field. For the entire system to ultimately produce the desired result, it is imperative that the theory is passed on to field, be assimilated by them and then only it can result in the blueprint of a successful air war plan. The blueprint has to be tried out to discern the flaws in planning - if any; to refine and shape the final contours of the plan to ensure it can be executed effectively and in the process offers high survivability of own forces while inflicting a paralytic or at least a crippling blow on the enemy. This is the moment that initiative must be wrested from the enemy if one is to keep away from a war of attrition; this being even more important for contestants with near parity or facing asymmetrical situation. Modern warfare is a complex process and often results in avoidable horrendous attrition if one fights more from the heart than the brain - so

ISRAELI OPERATION

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

catastrophically demonstrated along the trenches in World War I. When meticulously planned, utilising the strength of various components of warfare in synergistic manner, it leads to lightning victory, simultaneously keeping casualties to unbelievably low levels - as so amply demonstrated by Germans in the initial stages of World War II. That control of air is central to everything else, has been repeatedly proved since World War II. These were the clear lessons, to be noted for success and to be ignored at own peril. But as we see, many parties will continue to pay dear penalties when they choose to ignore the wisdom of past wars.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

BRILLIANT STRATEGY

The strike aircraft flew at low and ultra low levels to delay radar detection. They ensured total R/T silence, from pre-start to pull up for attack, using hand signals and rocking of the wings to convey instruction. Pilots identified each other by remembering the tail numbers, painted on each aircraft’s fin. They pulled up / eased up at predetermined points, so calculated as to permit Egyptian’s radar detection, time enough for Egyptian pilots to strap IN, start and taxi out, but not take-off OP ‘Moked’ was the code name for Israeli air plan in the opening hours of 1967 war. The 1967 war was a six day war with extremely positive results for Israelis. IAF chose to pre-empt when it’s intelligence assessment indicated imminent attacks by Arab states all around. And, therefore, it is at once obvious that the air plan could not have been conceived in days or weeks preceding the outbreak of hostilities. In fact this was a plan which had evolved more than a decade earlier and was to have been used in 1956 during “Suez Crisis”. Why it was not used then, is not pertinent to our study here, but the fact remains that OP ‘Moked’ probably was conceived in early 50s.

and Jordan, before these air forces launched counter attacks would require considerable number of sorties. So the Israeli solution was to be able to turnaround strike aircraft as soon as possible after refuelling and rearming. This is what they precisely achieved - a record-breaking turnaround time of seven minutes. This permitted them 960 sorties as part of Day One plan, a phenomenal utilisation rate. They used only about a dozen aircraft for air defence of Israel during this period. Or in other words, such excellent time saving permitted them to effectively present a much larger Air Force, when it mattered. Time Over Target (TOT) was chosen as 0745 Israeli time. In Egypt it meant 0845 local time. The prime consideration being that most of the Egyptian AF (EAF) personnel would be driving for work in the busy Cairo Traffic at 0845. The ones already at airbases would be in the process of having morning refreshments or breakfast. Thus, first their alert status would likely to be low and the reaction after the sudden Israeli strikes - slow. They planned a simultaneous attack on ten Egyptian airbases. Each target was struck by four strike aircraft. That means the first wave comprised of 40 strike aircraft. Eight such waves

Table 2: Israeli AF Aircraft Strike Aircraft Ouragon - 40 Mystere - 60 Super Mystere - 24

Air Defence / Multi Role Mirage III - 72

Vautours - 25

The problem facing the Israelis was, that once a war starts, how quickly to neutralise Arab nations’ airpower? Unless this was done and done with immaculate efficiency, the initiative would slip on to the Arab side. In a war of pure attrition (classical dog fights), there was no way for Israel to come out winner, since they were outnumbered 1:3.25 times. The solution was to strike at Arab airbases, with a view to making the runways unusable by bomb craters and thereafter, to destroy the aircraft on ground, parked most harmlessly. But to be able to strike at all the airbases in Egypt, Syria

were directed at the ten Egyptian airbases in Phase I. Each wave had an interval of about ten minutes from the preceding wave. Thus within 1 hour and 30 minutes, the ten Egyptian airbases were struck repeatedly. The repeated attacks in quick succession ensured a near knockout volley of punches for EAF. In phase II, seven new airbases in Egypt were targeted by waves of about four strike aircraft each, repeatedly again in quick succession. That is around 10:30 Israeli time, barely 2 hours 40 minutes of the first TOT, 17 EAF bases had been devastated by

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

repeated attack and in each attack itself multiple passes were made. Phase III was devoted to airbases in about eight waves of 30 aircraft each. By noon of 05 June 1967, a mere matter of four hours, a total of 24 airbases were struck, most of them 3-4 times each. In addition 16 radar sites were also attacked. Such intensity of air attacks had seldom been seen in any air war. It must have been totally mind-boggling at the receiving end and the very basis for destruction of Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian air forces as a fighting force.

The Israeli solution was to be able to turnaround strike aircraft as soon as possible after refuelling and rearming. This is what they precisely achieved - a record-breaking turnaround time of seven minutes. This permitted them 960 sorties as part of Day One plan, a phenomenal utilisation rate. They used only about a dozen aircraft for air defence of Israel during this period To ensure that Israeli air effort is not impeded, the briefing to Israeli pilots was to clear off the runway definitely in case of aborted take-offs and to ensure at any cost that the runway is not blocked. For any emergency enroute to the target, the affected aircraft was to return all by himself still maintaining R/T silence. The strike aircraft flew at low and ultra low levels to delay radar detection. They ensured total R/T silence, from pre-start to pull up for attack, using hand signals and rocking of the wings to convey instruction. Pilots identified each other by remembering the tail numbers, painted on each aircraft’s fin. They pulled up / eased up at predetermined points, so calculated as to permit Egyptian’s radar detection, time enough for Egyptian pilots to strap IN, start and taxi out, but not take-off, thereby, catching them as sitting ducks, totally exposed to Israeli strike pilots. The strike formations were supported by Mirage III aircraft, acting as an air defence escort, to take care of airborne enemy interceptors. This they surely did shooting down 79 aircraft in air to air combat.

The strike aircraft carried runway penetration bombs, some with delayed fuse of three-four hours to delay and disrupt runway repairs. This was followed by two-three strafing passes on parked aircraft and other targets. It is reported that for next three-four days hardly any effective runway repair was achieved.

Time Over Target (TOT) was chosen as 0745 Israeli time. In Egypt it meant 0845 local time. The prime consideration being that most of the Egyptian AF (EAF) personnel would be driving for work in the busy Cairo Traffic at 0845 In over 1,000 sorties on Day one, IAF lost 50 aircraft, an attrition rate of 5 per cent. Not a small or insignificant amount for sustained air operations, but totally justified in this context. Israelis destroyed around 271 Arab aircraft on ground. Another novelty employed was in conveying of air situation picture, particularly information on enemy CAP to Israeli strikes, speeding away towards targets at ultra low level, thus outside the R/T range. An Israel aircraft was made to fly at height within friendly airspace. If Israeli radars detected enemy CAP, this airborne relay would pass the relevant info for strikes' benefit or for that matter any other intelligence update. The central belief - the core idea emanating from Israeli air doctrine remained un-altered. And, the core belief was to use airpower in offensive manner, exercising initiative when pushed to the wall. To neutralise numerically superior air forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, before they could play a spoilsport role over Israeli homeland required an all out attack, with all assets available. Quite akin to a boxer on offensive landing left, right punches in quick succession - and in the process being without own defensive guard. Faced with enormous odds, Israeli AF had no other alternative but to risk it all in an audacious offensive. Jordanian AF and Syrian AF did respond with their attacks on Israeli cities, airfields and over Haifa oil refinery respectively, but these attacks came at 11:40 and did not have any significant impact.

In air war especially, it is suicidal to let the enemy wrest the initiative. War is about risks and leaders succeed only when they take risk. All risks need not be foolhardy or quixotic. In fact warfare history is full of instances when numerically inferior forces, but superior in training, equipment and tactics and under excellent leadership have always turned the tables on larger forces. Air warfare cannot be any exception to this fundamental truth.

Tabel 3: Peak Sortie Rates: Combat Aircraft / 24h Israeli AF 67 War - 5 sor Israeli AF 73 War - 5 sor RAF Falklands War - 10 sor Average Sortie Rate – Combat Aircraft During Entire War Israeli AF 67 War - 2.5/ 24h Israeli AF 73 War - 2.3/ 24h RAF Falklands War - 1.2/ 24h USAF Gulf War 91 - 1.5 sor/ 24h (sor duration 5 hr) Indian AF 71 War - 1 sor/ 24h Indian AF 65 War - 1 sor/ 24h Pakistani AF 71 War - 1 sor/ 24h This was, then, the plan which had evolved over the years after extremely careful considerations. It had been practiced by all the participants, naturally in ingenious ways which preserved the plan’s security. Israelis’ made up for their inferior numbers by generating up to 5 sorties on each strike aircraft in one day. They turnedaround the strike aircraft in unbelievably low time of 7 minutes. Patch repair of minor battle damage due to bullet hits was simultaneously attempted and completed in ten to fifteen minutes. Amazing. How many air forces even today can boast of such a feat? Such things cannot happen purely out of patriotism, zeal or suddenly emerging demands for airpower, rather these demand precise planning of complex activities and ever insufficient resources including manpower. The false pretence of security behind the veil of detailed elaborate technical checks might not harm the operations during peace, but during wartime these can rob the nation itself of larger security due to underutilisation of airpower. Statistics can be twisted to suit desired result - but not always. Table 3 above gives a comparative picture of Peak Sortie Rates.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Cmde Ranjit Bhawnani Rai (retd) The writer is a defence analyst, a specialist navigator and former Director of Naval Operations and Intelligence. Presently he is Vice President, Indian Maritime Foundation. New Delhi. The Navy began regular annual ‘Staff Talks’, alternately in New Delhi and Israel at the working level where operational matters are discussed and supply hiccups are resolved. More recently to enable mandatory minimum 30 per cent offsets as required in DPP-2011 for all imports over Rs 300 crore. Israel has commenced production of sub-assemblies for their radars, missiles and Sirkosky helicopter cabins and has set up Tata Nova Ltd a partnership with the house of Tatas at Hyderabad for production of equipment for Israeli systems. Other Israeli companies have been co-opted to produce equipment with Bharat Electronics Ltd and other PSUs

CONGRUENT PROGRESSION

An excellent appraisal of the Indo-Israeli relationship in the domain of sea power and the invaluable technology provided to the Indian Navy by Israel. The contributions have been so meaningful in terms of provision of Air Defence cover to our Fleet at sea, RSTA capabilities in terms of the Heron and Searcher UAVs, Electronic Warfare suites, Fast Attack Aircraft for coastal patrolling and radars, HUD and BVR missiles for our Navalised LCA etc. Perhaps the most critical partnership is in terms of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence and Space capabilities in terms of satellites. A useful and informative article.

ver since Independence in 1947 India followed a non-aligned foreign policy and this continued till the end of the cold war in 1990 when erstwhile Soviet Union India’s major supplier of military hardware disintegrated under the ‘Glasnost and Perestroika’ wave in Russia. Direly needed military supplies and spares for the Indian Armed Forces became problematic, as these were traditionally supplied by Russia which lost its satellite states. Russia’s military industrial complex found itself cash strapped. Concurrently during that period, India was heavily dependent on oil supplies from the hydrocarbon rich West Asian and Arab countries, which had strained relations with Israel over the question of Palestine and the wars it fought with Egypt over Gaza and with Syria over the Golan Heights. India therefore consciously did not establish diplomatic relations, or encouraged public contacts with Israel. However it is now revealed, that informal and mutual ‘need based’ connections were established with Israel on a ‘case to case’, basis. B Raman India’s former No 2 in RAW which is India’s CIA, in his bold book on India’s intelligence, The Kaoboys discloses more facts than any other book ever published about India’s covert intelligence actions and enlightens readers how India had close Intelligence connections with Israel even when we had no diplomatic relations. In the book it is also disclosed that Atal Behari Vajpayee in the early 90s disappeared in Paris for two hours hinting he met Israelis. It is also known Gen Mohse Dayan in his time visited India and some Indian officials visited Israel unofficially and there is evidence of some interactions between the two countries on nuclear issues possibly facilitated by RAW. The Israeli nuclear weapons programme was launched during autumn 1956 in the wake of the ‘Suez crisis.’ At that point of time the Socialist government of France led by Guy Mollet was deeply committed to the survival of Israel. USA, with its influential Jewish pro-Israeli lobby supported the moves and France supplied a plutonium-producing reactor which was set up at Dimona, in the Negev desert. The waste plutonium was reprocessed to make enriched bomb grade

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

fissile plutonium. India’s nuclear plants also produce plutonium and India’s bomb programme is also plutonium based, as is Israel’s.

THE EVOLUTION OF INDO-ISRAELI STRATEGIC RELATIONS AND MILITARY PROGRAMMES FOR THE INDIAN NAVY

The Indian Armed forces were heavily dependant on Soviet military supplies and in the 90s were on the lookout for alternate and advanced weapon technology. Israel’s Defence Industry was willing to supply systems and work with Russian companies to upgrade military equipment in India supplied by Russia. The members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) allegedly neglected the sentiments of Indian Muslims and India was blocked and sidelined by Pakistan from joining the OIC which vociferously raised the Kashmir issue at OIC. After decades of a pro-Arab policy, India formally established diplomatic relations with Israel in January 1992 and ties between India and Israel have flourished and expanded since and analysts claim this was primarily due to common strategic interests and security threats. In 1997, Israel’s President Ezer Weizman became the first head of the Jewish state to visit India. He met with Indian President Shankar Dayal Sharma, Vice President K R Narayanan and Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda. Weizman negotiated the first large weapons deal between the two nations, involving the purchase of Barak 1 vertically-launched surface-to-air (SAM) missiles from Israel for the Indian Navy when the DRDO’s Trishul missile system slated for the SSM firing INS Brahmaputra class frigates from Garden Reach Engineers and Shipbuilders Ltd (GRSE) could not be consummated in time. No major warship can be put to sea without Anti-Air system and a total of nine plus Barak systems have been imported which are mounted on selected Brahmaputra, Godavari and Shivalik class Frigates, on the Rajput class in lieu of the Volna system and Type 15 class destroyers and aircraft carrier INS Viraat. The supersonic Barak with the Elta EL/M 2238 radar (AMDR) is capable of engaging an incoming sea-skimming missile at a range of 10 km and the system is easier to install and operate, than the Russian Shtil system on the other front line IN warships.

Military, strategic and defence relations The Indian Israeli diplomatic relations blossomed in trade and defence and have been commented upon as a ‘honeymooning relation’. Israeli and Indian service chiefs have interacted closely in closed doors with service chiefs of Israel to exchange professional notes. Israeli experts and companies have provided security advice and systems expertise for IAF stations and to Home Ministry for Kashmir. Indian Defence Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, numerous officials of MoD and DRDO and servicemen during their tenures have visited Israel and its defence establishments and returned impressed. A relationship has been built-up over time and imports of hardware and systems from Israel have seen Indian military achieve greater heights in technology.

No such Congressional permission is required as in USA. Israel also has a dire need to sell military wares for its economy and Sibat the state organisation of Defence Industry of Israel is active in India. It is no wonder India has become Israel’s natural customer and as of writing India is Israel’s largest defence equipment and systems buyer with ongoing orders of a few billion dollars The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) especially the ground forces and Heyl Ha’Avir (Israeli Air Force) are war tested and face constant attacks from inimical forces from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and are admired world over and its defence industry is advanced with many US supplied and patented equipment which Israel has adapted and have been free to offer to India. No such Congressional permission is required as in USA. Israel also has a dire need to sell military wares for its economy and Sibat the state organisation of Defence Industry of Israel is active in India. It is no wonder India has become Israel’s natural customer and as of writing India is Israel’s largest defence equipment and systems buyer with ongoing orders of a few billion dollars. From 1993 Israel’s ELTA first set up office in India and most other Israeli companies have established themselves in India. Plasan a special protective metal and composite material manufacturer teamed up with Mahindras in the 1990s for its range of military vehicles.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

CONGRUENT PROGRESSION

B Raman enlightens readers how India had close Intelligence connections with Israel even when we had no diplomatic relations. In the book it is also disclosed that Atal Behari Vajpayee in the early 90s disappeared in Paris for two hours hinting he met Israelis. It is also known Gen Mohse Dayan in his time visited India and some Indian officials visited Israel unofficially and there is evidence of some interactions between the two countries on nuclear issues possibly facilitated by RAW Israel Space Agency (ISA) made remarkable progress in 1988 with the launch of the Ofeq1 satellite by the Shavit launcher and Israel entered the exclusive club of seven countries which could launch a self-developed satellite with their home made launcher. Israel decided to launch its first radar imaging satellite the 260 kg TechSAR on board the ISRO’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) from the Sriharikota-based Satish Dhawan Space Centre at a cost of US$ 15 million. The RISAT 1 ISRO’s radar mounted all weather reconnaissance satellite has been provided with an Israeli radar. The largest and extremely successful strategic contract was the supply of three Russian IL-76TD AWACS fitted out by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) in Israel with an Elta supplied EL/M-2075 AESA Phalcon radar suite and EW systems in Israel with satellite connectivity. The platforms have a unique fusion technology which continuously cross-relate the data gathered by all sensors which can detect and track 60 tracks. Interestingly China was denied this sale under Western pressure after signing and Israel paid compensation to China. Indian Armed Forces received over 32 Heron and Searcher-2 and other UAVs from Malat / IAI with Orbit Technologies’ ‘up link and down-link’ directors for all the three services. El Op supplied electro-optical turrets and Rafael and Elta are supplying the SpyDer Anti-Aircraft systems on Tata chassis with the Derby / Python missiles. The Navy has received Elta radars and Tadiran and Elbit have supplied communications and EW systems. The Navy’s futuristic medium range (MR) anti-aircraft and missile defence Barak systems and IAF’s long Range (LR) Barak are being jointly progressed with DRDO

which has collaborated with Israel in other projects. The project is reported to be worth US$ 2.5 billion.

Naval equipment The Navy ordered four extra fast Super Dvora tack craft (XFAC) from IAI / Ramta Industries Israel and Goa Shipyard Ltd (GSL) assisted between 1998 and 2005. XFAC can achieve 45 knots (81 kmph) and had 20 mm HS 804 guns and the design of these high quality small craft assisted Indian yards to produce larger self-designed Fast Attack Craft in numbers. These are excellent command platforms for coastal and island security and provide invaluable command experience to junior level cadre of the Navy. The Navy has employed the 14 Heron and Searcher-2 UAVs very successfully and has commissioned three squadrons at Kochi (INAS 342 at INS Garuda), Porbunder (INAS 343) and Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu (INAS 344 at INS Parundu). These squadrons have enhanced the coastal security measures along the coast. The Indian Navy installed Orbit Technologies control stations on INS Taragiri and Vindhyagiri for UAVs flown from shore which proved very successful in tactical exercises for extending the range of UAV operations for missile targeting and maritime domain awareness (MDA). The INS Vindhyagiri suffered a collision and it is reported more UAV orders are in the pipeline and two control stations will be fitted in two IN frontline ships as indicated by Orbit Technologies at Defexpo 2012. The Navy has fitted Elta’s EL/M 2022 maritime patrol radars, in its Dornier 228s with electro-optical FLIR turrets for naval observation and cameras from El Op. The Navy has installed airborne digital avionics suites from Israel as reported in the MiG-29Ks and head up displays supplied by ELBIT. The upgraded Sea Harriers (16) of the Navy are being fitted with Elta’s EL/M 2032 radars and Derby BVR missiles in a conversion at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). HAL has also received help from IAI to convert the Dhruv helicopters, cockpit into a glass cockpit. The vertical firing

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Klub Shivalik class frigates and newly acquired tankers from Fincanteiri INS Deepak and Shakti have been fitted out with the Pearl C (Sanket) electronic warfare suites from Israel. The DRDO’s national ballistic missile defence (BMD) is being planned around the configuration of the long range L band two ground-based, 500 km-range EL/M-2080 Green Pine (delivered in late 2001 and mid-2002) and the two aerostats with EL/M-2084 radars were installed along the western border with Pakistan. The Navy’s three new Project 15A Kolkata-class destroyers are being fitted with the ELTA’s EL/M- 2248 MF-STAR S-band multi-mode active phased-array radars and the first will be commissioned end of 2012. The ship will also have two MR Barak missile defence systems being progressed jointly by DRDO and Rafael of Israel.

Conclusion The Navy began regular annual ‘Staff Talks’, alternately in New Delhi and Israel at the working level where operational matters are discussed and supply hiccups are resolved. More recently to enable mandatory minimum 30 per cent offsets as required in DPP-2011 for all imports over Rs 300 crore Israel has commenced production of sub-assemblies for their radars, missiles and Sirkosky helicopter cabins and has set up Tata Nova Ltd a partnership with the house of Tatas at Hyderabad for production of equipment for Israeli systems. Other Israeli companies have been co-opted to produce equipment with Bharat Electronics Ltd and other PSUs. In the years ahead, several Israeli companies can be expected to win further lucrative contracts in India for meeting the country’s requirements for EW suites for airborne platforms like the IAF and Naval Tejas multi-role light combat aircraft and the Dhruv multi-role helicopter; plus a variety of air-launched precision-guided munitions and their guidance systems for air combat and ground strike. The IAF already flies the very successful ‘Lightening’ pod which was successfully used in the attack on Tiger Hill in the closing phases of the Kargil war and an Israel Military Industries contract to supply an ammunition factory at Nalanda has run into rough waters with the blacklisting of the company but India’s strategic ties with Israel endure for mutual benefits.

India Successfully Tests Agni-5 Missile

ndia stormed into a select league of nations that have the capability to hit targets over 5,000 km away when it successfully tested the Agni-5 long-range nuclear-capability ballistic missile from the Wheeler Island off Odisha coast. With this successful test, India has joined nations like US, Russia, China etc. in that exclusive club. There is no single definition for what constitutes an ICBM. The Wikipedia says it is a nuclear capable missile with ranges in excess of 5,000 km. Some consider Agni-5 short of being called an inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM). India’s neighbour, China, has the DF-31A ICBM in its arsenal that can hit targets all over Asia and can reach Europe and even the Americas. The 50-tonne Agni-5 is 17.5-metres tall and it reached an altitude of 600 km during the test and touched a velocity of 7,000 meters per second, enabling the payload to achieve the 5,000 km range. This is a canister borne missile. As such it can be fired from the road or rail mobile mode as also from nuclear submarines. It has the MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle) capability and can launch from three to ten warheads. This is needed to defeat Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defences. It can also be used for Anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles to destroy enemy satellites as also to launch such satellites or a swarm of Nano Satellites with this missile. India now has the capacity to attack the North East Quadrant of China which contains the key Command & Control Target of Beijing. This was a serious gap in our deterrence capability that has now been overcome. Defence Minister A K Antony described the development as a major milestone in the country’s missile programme and said that “the nation is indeed proud” of its defence scientists. He also recalled “the untiring contributions of former DRDO chief M Natarajan. The Agni-5 programme has Tessy Thomas, a woman missile scientist, as the number two in the project. Thomas was the project director for India’s 3,500-km Agni-4 missile that was successfully tested in November 2011.

Navy Planning To Issue World’s Largest Chopper Tender

he Indian Navy is planning to issue one of the world’s largest multirole helicopters tender with intention of procuring more than 75 such choppers expected to be worth over US$ 4 billion. The Navy had recently asked global helicopter vendors to provide details about naval multirole helicopters and is planning to issue a global Request for Proposal (RFP) in this regard very soon. The Navy is planning to procure these new NMRH for carrying out anti-submarine warfare, Special Forces’ operations and anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare. The Indian Navy is already holding a competition for procuring 16 multirole helicopters in which European NH-90 and American Sikorsky S-70 Bravo is in the race. The Navy would require these multirole choppers in view of its expanding fleet size and expansion in its area of responsibility with the government stating that country’s strategic interest ranges from the Gulf of Aden to the Malacca Straits. The Indian Army and the Air Force have also issued a tender for procuring 197 light utility helicopters but the worth of the choppers in the naval tender is expected to be much more than that as they would be equipped with complex machinery and weapon systems.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

DOUBLE DEALING SYNDROME?

Israel, Nuclear Rajiv Nayan The writer is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi since 1993, where he specialises in export control, non-proliferation and arms control. He was a Visiting Research Fellow at Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo, where he published his monograph Non-Proliferation Issues in South Asia.

The P-5 countries may apprehend a highly destabilised and volatile world with too many nuclear weapon countries. Already the world has experienced such a situation. The Chemical Weapons Convention was concluded only when too many countries were feared possessing chemical weapons in the world, especially in West Asia and North Africa

Emerging Regional Nuclear Dynamics Israel is supposed to possess plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Dimona nuclear reactor was the key facility in nuclear weapons development of Israel. This plant was camouflaged as a ‘textile plant’. This reactor, turned critical in 1963. Initially, its capacity was to produce fissile materials for merely one and a half bomb. Israel developed nuclear weapons by 1967. However, by 1970s, apparently, its capacity was increased to produce three bombs a year. Currently, Israel is believed to have more than 200 nuclear weapons. The 1969 Golda Meir-Richard Nixon understanding / agreement apparently led to the current Israeli nuclear posture. Under this arrangement the US would not put pressure on Israel to renounce nuclear weapons and Israel would not openly admit its existence. Israel would also not test any nuclear device and use the device for ‘diplomatic’ gains. The idea, it seems, was to ensure the survival of Israel and prevent nuclear arms race in the region. Quite obviously, if the WMD Zone does not materialise, the NPT will be further plunged into crisis. Countries like Egypt, Turkey and Iran would be more vocal than before. However, it will be too early to state that NPT 2015 Review Conference will meet the fate of 2005 Review Conference.

n the contemporary world, Israel is one of the three countries which never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India and Pakistan are the other two countries, which stayed away from the NPT. Now, North Korea is also outside the treaty, but it first joined and later withdrew from it. In 1998, India and Pakistan declared themselves nuclear weapons countries and later, in 2006, North Korea also announced the nuclear test. However, Israel is acknowledged to have gone nuclear much before the three countries. First question comes: What is the status of Israel in terms of nuclear weapons? As it is not a member of the NPT, it may claim to be outside the NPT divide created by cut-off date - January 1, 1967. Yet, unlike India, Pakistan and North Korea, it did not announce or publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenals. Israel was the original proponent of the idea

Weapons and

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

of the bomb-in-the basement or near nuclear status. It created a deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear weapons status. One of the senior Israeli leaders once stated in its Knesset: “I know that this suspicion is a deterrent force. Why, then, should we allay these suspicions, why should we enlighten them?” The leader was basically referring to Arabs. However, for decades, since the Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Israeli leaders have been making the very interesting statement: ‘Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.’ The current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, too has made this statement on different occasions. Once one leader commented: ‘Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, but it would not be the second either.’

Dimona nuclear reactor was the key facility in nuclear weapons development of Israel. This plant was camouflaged as a ‘textile plant’. This reactor, it seems, turned critical in 1963. Initially, its capacity was to produce fissile materials for merely one and a half bomb. Israel developed nuclear weapons by 1967. However, by 1970s, apparently, its capacity was increased to produce three bombs a year. Currently, Israel is believed to have more than 200 nuclear weapons In fact, the Israeli quest for nuclear weapons began with the advent of the nuclear weapons age. The end of the World War-II was also

a new beginning for the Jewish state. Its political and scientific leadership believed that nuclear weapons would prevent another gas chamber. They felt that Jews armed with nuclear weapons would no longer be available for slaughtering. Now, quietly and informally Israel informs that deterrence of lesser but still critical threats such as massive destruction of Israeli cities is the rationale for its nuclear weapons. On a number of occasions, nuclear weapon as a weapon of last resort was discussed. The last resort was referred to the situation to ensure survival of the Israeli state. Technical, institutional and materials requirements for assembling the bomb took some time.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

DOUBLE DEALING SYNDROME?

reactor was the key facility in nuclear weapons development of Israel. This plant was camouflaged as a ‘textile plant’. This reactor, it seems, turned critical in 1963. Initially, its capacity was to produce fissile materials for merely one and a half bomb. Israel developed nuclear weapons by 1967. However, by 1970s, apparently, its capacity was increased to produce three bombs a year. Currently, Israel is believed to have more than 200 nuclear weapons.

The NPT may go through a different kind of crisis if Iran refuses to withdraw from the treaty and remains inside. This situation may seriously invite military strike on Iran. At the same time, in this situation, Iran may knowingly and willingly possess an illegal stockpile, but could put pressure on the NPT member states to resolve some of the pending issues The general understanding is that the US maintained a neutral position. It neither overtly or very actively supported the Israeli nuclear weapons nor opposed it as it does to other countries. The declassification of American archives and related writings informed the world a great deal on Israel’s nuclear weapons making and the US policy posture. The WikiLeaks cables recorded the Israeli continuous acquisition of nuclear weapons related items from the US entities. The widely believed 1969 Golda Meir-Richard Nixon understanding / agreement apparently led to the current Israeli nuclear posture which has been accepted and supported by the US. Under this arrangement the US would not put pressure on Israel to renounce nuclear weapons and Israel would not openly admit its existence. Israel would also not test any nuclear device and use the device for ‘diplomatic’ gains. The idea, it seems, was to ensure the survival of Israel and prevent nuclear arms race in the region.

Israel and WMDs This leads to the question: was the situation acceptable to its neighbours - Arabs and non-Arabs in West

Asia and North Africa? True, the region did not immediately witness any nuclear weapons race in the region. However, it is equally true that Israel’s Muslim neighbouring countries did not keep quiet. There was no nuclear peace either in the region. Some of them continued to explore developing non-conventional weapons. Iraq developed chemical weapons and was on the way to become a nuclear weapons state. However, UN sanctions seemingly aborted the Iraqi programme. The Iraqi Scud attack on Israel is also seen as a failure of Israeli nuclear deterrence. An adversary could not be deterred by the unannounced but widely acknowledged nuclear weapons of Israel.

The WMD Free Middle East is being discussed at the moment. Actually, in 1995, when the NPT got an indefinite extension, one of the instruments used to get the extension was the resolution on the establishment of the Middle East WMD Zone. However, like Article 6 of the Treaty, it remained basically unimplemented. In 2010 NPT Review Conference the state parties once again passed resolution to implement Middle East WMD Free Zone. Finland has become the host country and its official, Jaakko Laajava, as the facilitator. Before the selection of a host country and a facilitator had become major issues. The political unrest in the region was yet another problem to organise the meeting by 2012.

Iraq was not the only country in the region that tried to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Several of them adopted highly complex methods to acquire nuclear and other WMDs. Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on were or are still believed to possess either WMDs or capabilities to produce them. Iran, Turkey and to an extent Saudi Arabia are currently being perceived moving towards nuclearisation of the region. Libya renounced its nuclear weapons a few years ago. Israel strongly reacts against even the very suspicion of its neighbours going nuclear. Israel had attacked nuclear facilities of Iraq earlier and of Syria recently. In recent months, news reports about attacking Iranian nuclear facilities have flooded global media. Already, Iran is accusing Israel of killing its scientists and releasing computer virus to destroy or disrupt Iranian nuclear activities.

Syria, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on were or are still believed to possess either WMDs or capabilities to produce them. Iran, Turkey and to an extent Saudi Arabia are currently being perceived moving towards nuclearisation of the region. Libya renounced its nuclear weapons a few years ago. Israel strongly reacts against even the very suspicion of its neighbours going nuclear. Israel had attacked nuclear facilities of Iraq earlier and of Syria recently

One question keeps coming: Is Israeli nuclear weapon solely responsible for WMD arms build-up in the region? Most likely, Israel will not be the sole reason responsible for the arms build-up; the complex struggle for supremacy among Muslim countries fuels the arms build-up as well. A Shia-Sunni struggle inside the region is generally underplayed. In the same way, the clash of Arab and non-Arab identities is also a force to reckon with in the region. Israel has often emerged as the camouflage for militarisation of all kinds by the countries of the region.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Israel’s approach to 2010 NPT proposal for WMD Free Zone is vacillating from anger to skepticism. Israel reacted angrily to the mention of Israel joining the treaty after abandoning its nuclear weapons in the summit document. It asked its member countries to comply the obligations of the treaty. However, later, it sent reconciliatory signals. After the Iranian episode, it is again showing skepticism about the WMD Free Zone. It wants to participate in the WMD Free Zone only when it is assured of comprehensive peace However, even the US fears that the forum may turn into an Israel-bashing platform.

Non-proliferation regime Quite obviously, if the WMD Free Zone does not materialise, the NPT will be further plunged into crisis. Countries like Egypt, Turkey and Iran would be more

vocal than before. However, it will be too early to state that NPT 2015 Review Conference will meet the fate of 2005 Review Conference. The crisis may give immediate legitimacy to weaponisation of Iran. The enrichment level of Iran may increase towards weaponisation which will challenge the NPT.

Israel had its own share of frustration over the indigenous development of its nuclear infrastructure and in the search of natural uranium. Initially, Israel was helped by France which apparently shared the same goal of pursuing the foreign policy autonomy. However, there are reports which inform the clandestine acquisition of nuclear materials from the US and some level of collaboration with South Africa. Many believe that the famous 1979 flash detected by the satellite was basically the joint nuclear test of South Africa and Israel The real crisis for the NPT will come when Iran tests nuclear weapons and declares itself a nuclear weapon state. The conventional expectation is that after or just before declaring itself a nuclear weapon country Iran may come out of the treaty by invoking the Article 10 of the treaty which is for withdrawal. If it happens, it will join North Korea. The treaty may witness somewhat difficult days afterwards as it may open the Pandora’s box. A few more members of the NPT may aspire to go nuclear and these countries may also give notice for withdrawal from the treaty.

What is the status of Israel in terms of nuclear weapons? As it is not a member of the NPT, it may claim to be outside the NPT divide created by cut-off date - January 1, 1967. Yet, unlike India, Pakistan and North Korea, it did not announce or publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenals. Israel was the original proponent of the idea of the bomb-in-the-basement or near nuclear status. It created a deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear weapons status What is the highly likely scenario? The most likely scenario is that Iran will be put under pressure

either through the military attack or diplomacy. If the military strike is employed, quite obviously it will not be given any concession, nor will much movement on nuclear disarmament take place. Once diplomacy is used, it may be given some concessions and it would renounce its nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will continue to exist for a few more decades even if nuclear disarmament is announced as a result of the diplomatic process. The continued nuclearisation of Israel and other countries may have grave implications for other existing and future treaties. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will receive a series of jolts. The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty will take more time for negotiations and the final conclusion. The Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed but not ratified by Israel. Israel’s ratification may be delayed and Egypt and Syria will refuse to sign the Convention. The emerging tense situation will not be a healthy development for the world. Leave alone the order even security of the world may be adversely affected. The international community needs to reassure Israel about its survival and convince other countries to shed aggressive posture towards Israel. Israel should also be asked to restrain its aggressive policy. Israel, as has been rightly pointed out, is hardly an unambiguous nuclear power; it is basically an undeclared nuclear weapon country ready to exercise its Samson option. As for WMD Free Zone, it will elude the world till global nuclear disarmament is achieved.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Cecil Victor The writer has covered all wars with Pakistan as War Correspondent and reported from the conflict zones in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in South East Asia as well as from Afghanistan. He is author of “India: The Security Dilemma”.

Deputy Foreign Minister E Ahmad of India in a speech on the occasion of “International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People” as recently as January, 2011 had used the following formulation of India’s unequivocal position: “A negotiated solution resulting in a sovereign, independent, viable and a united state of Palestine living within secured and recognised borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, side by side and at peace with Israel as endorsed in the Quartet Roadmap and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1397 and 1515.” Can anything be more forthcoming than this?

DIPLOMATIC FINESSE

An analysis of the evolution and current status of the Israel-Palestine conflict and its fallout for India and its own relations with Israel. In the first flush of anti-colonialism India had supported Palestine. After the stalemated 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the principal Arab states like Egypt and Syria themselves lost the will to fight on for the Palestinian cause. The price of oil fell steeply in the 1980s and India adjusted its policies towards Israel in the tenure of Narasimha Rao. The military spin-offs for India have been considerable and Israel has found a valuable arms market in India.

t has been said in diplomatese and realpolitik that there are no permanent friends or enemies only permanent national interests. In this context people have begun to wonder how long India’s support to the Palestine cause can last in the face of an Israel-India strategic partnership that takes care of many of India’s military requirements both for peripheral defence as well as internal security while the Palestinians line up against India on Kashmir.

lands that belonged to displaced Palestinians who were driven into squalid refugee camps where terrorism was bred and nurtured to fight Israel’s own terror squads known as the Irgun and Stern “Gangs”. Such events as the massacre of Palestinians in the Shabra and Shatila refugee camps and the retaliatory suicide bomber strikes and nearly daily rain of Katyusha rockets into Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza helped exacerbate the tense situation in West Asia.

A bit of history needs to be recalled to explain India’s initial opposition to the creation of Israel in land that was traditionally known as Palestine. The Balfour Declaration (named after a British statesman) that created a Zionist enclave in Trust Territory that was mandated by the League of Nations to Britain - the pre-UNO world body - to govern Palestine. The fact that the British misused that mandate to change the demography of Palestine and encourage the mass migration of Jews from Europe was as distasteful to India as was the manner in which Ireland was divided into Catholic (aboriginal) and Protestant (imported from Britain) sectors in what was the first case of a colonial power using religion to create permanent division. The second case was the India-Pakistan partition and the third was the creation of Israel. India’s position was that no colonial power must be allowed to disturb the demography of the vassal nation to suit its own policy of divide and rule (or control and influence). In all three cases bloodshed has been a continuing phenomenon - a legacy that the world could well have done without if the Raj mentality had not been allowed to prevail during the death throes of the British Empire.

India has long tried to moderate the hardline Palestinian position of destruction of the “Zionist entity” with equal rights of the Palestinians to a homeland of their own as well - a fact not lost on Israel. India’s support to the founder of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Yasser Arafat was based on this principle of equity and it was greatly appreciated by Arafat who forged a special relationship with former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. India established diplomatic relations with the PLO in 1975 when it allowed a PLO office in New Delhi and accorded it full diplomatic status in 1980. In support of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people India subscribes to the UN resolutions on the subject. Much of this came about from India’s own experience with partition on the basis of religion and, post-independence, the close ties with the Arab stalwart Abdel Gamel Nasser of Egypt both bilaterally and within the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) that both helped found along with Marshal Josip Broz Tito who held multi-ethnic, multi-religious Yugoslavia together for decades even in the face of sustained western support to the Croatians to break away from the union. It was only after his death that the west managed to achieve the dissolution of Yugoslavia into several ethnic and religious pieces. But the recent commemoration of the massacre at Sebranica only served to highlight the fact that the destruction of unified nation states is no guarantee that the residual pieces can live in peace thereafter. It underscores India’s abhorrence at the interference in the internal affairs of monolithic nations in the name of an externally instigated self-determination

Two states and equal rights As part of its policy of trying to maintain a balance between Israel and the Palestinians (and hence reduce the bloodshed) India advocated the creation of a Palestinian nation state to give the people of the land the same rights as the Israelis to a homeland of their own. Part of the irritation against Israel was caused by the creation of Israeli settlements in

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Balancing an explosive situation

philosophy. Rare among nations that have split on racial / ethnic grounds is Czechoslovakia which divided itself into the Czech and Slovak Republics by common consent of the people. Both nations are living in peace and prospering within their chosen geopolitical ambiance.

Unstinted support Most nations of the world have recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole representative of the Palestinian people ever since it obtained Observer status in the UN in the 70s and the PLO’s threat of a unilateral declaration of nationhood is based on this factor. To moderate the fallout of this move India has sought to push both sides to the negotiating table even though it has

supported Palestinian without equivocation.

statehood

It has walked the tightrope between the Palestinian cause and Israel’s desire for secured borders. The failure of mutually negotiated settlement has time and again brought West Asia to the brink of conflagration. Today too Israel is being assaulted with missiles from Palestinian positions but Israel has developed its ballistic missile defence and is now able to intercept most of the incoming missiles well before they can do damage on the ground. This has given Tel Aviv the confidence that it will be able to handle anything that the Arabs (singly or collectively) throw at it

Relations between India and Israel have been halting and carefully crafted largely because of Arab sentiments on the issue. India kept Israel at arms length largely because of the experimentation with pan-Arabism that Nasser had floated. However, the signing of the Camp David Accord by Anwar Sadat in 1978 showed that the Arabs themselves were in disarray and the combined pressure of Israel and the US turned Saudi Arabia around to give diplomatic recognition to Israel and accept its right to exist as a sovereign independent nation after Egypt and later Jordan. This had whittled away Arab support to the Palestine cause and the Government in New Delhi under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao began improving ties with Tel Aviv. Nonetheless, it is

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

DIPLOMATIC FINESSE

a measure of Indian evenhandedness that in spite of India’s known aversion to Israeli occupation of Arab lands in Palestine it allowed the opening of an Israeli Consulate in Mumbai in 1953. Full diplomatic relations were established on January 29, 1992 and the Consulate in Mumbai upgraded to Consulate-General and an Honorary Consulate operates in Kolkata. Yasser Arafat and the PLO were told of India’s impending move and they agreed that it would be an appropriate balancing act that could help the creation of a Palestine state. For the Palestinians having a friend in the Israeli camp would be beneficial to their own cause - a “friend of a friend” kind of situation.

Israel has threatened to renounce all agreements of the past if the Palestinians resort to a unilateral declaration of independence and an endorsement in the UN General Assembly. These include the sharing of the waters of the Jordan river and the trade and transit agreement in the Gaza Strip

Military ties Some reports state that Israel supported India during the Chinese invasion of 1962 and supplied ammunition and there is enough evidence to show that on Kashmir too the Israelis have consistently supported India. This is part and parcel of what can be described as Israeli national interest. By dint of its technological capabilities in the military sphere, Israel finds itself in a very happy position of being able to meet most of India’s military hardware requirements. Would it want to jeopardise this burgeoning market by being oversensitive of Indian description of continued building of settlements on Arab lands as being “illegal” and seeking for the Arabs the same rights as Israelis enjoy as an independent sovereign nation - a position endorsed by the Palestinians at Oslo and other forums. The Israeli right to survive as a nation state has also been accepted by the Palestine Authority. However, the continued Israeli attempt to change the demography and the Arab character of East Jerusalem which the Palestinians

have designated as their capital and the establishment of new settlements have tended to raise tensions between the two sides. Once again the two sides find themselves caught up in a spiral of violence that tends to push into the background the potential of a negotiated settlement. The Palestinians are acutely aware that the unravelling of whatever has been achieved so far would be an unmitigated disaster. Israel has threatened to renounce all agreements of the past if the Palestinians resort to a unilateral declaration of independence and an endorsement in the UN General Assembly. These include the sharing of the waters of the Jordan river and the trade and transit agreement in the Gaza Strip. However, the US veto still remains a roadblock but the following declaration co-sponsored by India in the UN in February 2011 intended to declare the settlements as illegal underscores India’s continuing support to the Palestinian cause. Deputy Foreign Minister E Ahmad of India in a speech on the occasion of “International Day of Solidarity With the Palestinian People” as recently as January, 2011 had used the following formulation of India’s unequivocal position: “A negotiated solution resulting in a sovereign, independent, viable and a united state of Palestine living within secured and recognised borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, side by side and at peace with Israel as endorsed in the Quartet Roadmap and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1397 and 1515.” Can anything be more forthcoming than this? (The Quartet plan is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by a “quartet” of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. The principles of the plan, originally drafted by U S Foreign Service Officer Donald Blome, were first outlined by US President George W Bush in a speech on June 24, 2002, in which he called for an independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace: “The Roadmap represents a starting point toward achieving the vision of two states, a secure state of Israel and a viable, peaceful, democratic Palestine. It is the framework for progress towards

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

lasting peace and security in the Middle East.)

Israel supported India during the Chinese invasion of 1962 and supplied ammunition and there is enough evidence to show that on Kashmir too the Israelis have consistently supported India

India’s catalytic role India has played and is continuing to play the role of catalyst in West Asia. That has been its perceived national interest in the sixty-five years since it gained independence from Britain. Its act of defiance of colonialism set in motion a rollback of the British Raj. It has walked the tightrope between the Palestinian cause and Israel’s desire for secured borders. The failure of mutually negotiated settlement has time and again brought West Asia to the brink of conflagration. Today too Israel is being assaulted with missiles from Palestinian positions but Israel has developed its ballistic missile defence and is now able to intercept most of the incoming missiles well before they can do damage on the ground. This has given Tel Aviv the confidence that it will be able to handle anything that the Arabs (singly or collectively) throw at it. That there is collaboration between India and Israel for similar defence systems gives rise to speculation of whether New Delhi would dare to condone an Israeli act that imposes atrocities on the Palestinians. It needs to be recalled that the use of banned means to try and acquire contracts from the Indian Ministry of Defence has led to the blacklisting of some Israeli firms thereby delaying the process of acquisition by India of the state-of-the-art military hardware that would ensure an effective defence of its territorial integrity. So India is capable and inclined to back up its principled stand with actions as well as words. It is unlikely that the Israelis would want to jeopardise their relations with India by going wholehog against the Palestinians and depriving them of opportunities of nationhood. The national interests of both demand that a balance be maintained and supported.

DuPont Opens New Ballistics Centre at Hyderabad, India

S firm DuPont has announced the opening of its world-class integrated ballistics facility in India, the first such DuPont facility in the Asia-Pacific region. The DuPont Ballistics facility is located at the DuPont Knowledge Center in Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh and it is an integrated ballistics facility, with a ballistics testing range, a 600-ton helmet press and stab testing equipment, all housed in a single location. The DuPont Ballistics Facility will allow DuPont to provide its customers and end-users, including law enforcement agencies and security forces, with application testing facilities that follow international standards. It will help develop solutions that can be tested under local conditions and against local ammunition and will enable introduction of a broader portfolio of Kevlar materials that can be spun into bulletproof vests and solutions that address local needs. The India facility is the first DuPont site in Asia Pacific and the fifth DuPont site worldwide for testing protection materials in ballistics applications. Others are located in Richmond, Virginia and in Wilmington, Delaware in the USA, in Meyrin, Switzerland and in Paulina, Brazil.

New Gun Systems For Indian Army

he Indian Army has initiated the process of acquiring new gun systems to take on enemy aircraft and missiles. The process to acquire these guns has been initiated after General V K Singh the Army chief in his letter to the Prime Minister that was leaked contended that 97 per cent of the Air Defence guns were facing obsolescence. The Army has specified that the gun should be capable of being transported by broad gauge rakes of the Railways. The Army Air Defence has initiated several other tenders also for replacing its Russian-origin air Defence systems. For upgrading the capabilities of the Army Air Defence (AAD), the Defence Ministry recently said that it has signed contracts for procuring Akash Missile Systems and steps were being taken for upgrading Self-propelled Air Defence and Schilka Air Defence Systems. The Defence Ministry has also taken several steps to do away with the shortage of tank ammunition and has signed contracts with the Russian Rosobornoexport for supplying ammunition for the T-90 tanks.

Task Force To Focus On Indigenisation And Modernisation

he National Security Council (NSC) has established a Task Force which will focus on the issues pertaining to defence modernisation as well as self-reliance in the country. The Task Force that has been formulated will be making suggestions to increase indigenisation in defence by more private sector participation, strengthening of the legal and regulatory framework for the industry as well as absorption and upgradation of technologies. The Task Force will also be able to strengthen the existing mechanism for finalising Staff Quality Requirements (SQRs) to foster competition and reduce single vendor cases. A penalty for vendors found non-compliant with defence procurement, particularly from the vigilance angle, is being envisaged as well. The Defence Ministry has also suggested that harsh rules must be put in place to avoid controversies at the time of vendor selection, price negotiations and during procurements. The Task Force of Defence Modernisation and Self-reliance is part of the National Security Council Secretariat attached to the Military Advisor’s Wing of the Defence Ministry. The various defence institutions that will come under the purview of the Task Force include the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML), Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Gas Turbine Research Establishment.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

Col A G Thomas (retd) The writer was commissioned in EME prior to the 1971 war and later seconded to DRDO. He served DRDO for 22 years in various capacities in different establishments. He was posted to the HCI London in a diplomatic assignment as Deputy Technical Adviser (Defence) – accredited to most west European countries and USA. Subsequently he was posted at CVRDE, Avadi and also as Registrar Academics and head of General Staff (GS) branch at the Institute of Armament Technology (IAT), Pune, India.

Israel has a clear philosophy behind all their military activities, even their war machines are based on it. One can describe their motto as, ‘offence is the best defence.’ Their armed forces are well prepared and ready to tackle any situation at a moment’s notice. This is ably supported by a defence industry, stocked with all critical technologies like aircraft, ships, land vehicles, weapons, electronics and so on

EMULOUS A historical survey of Indo-Israel relations which go back 3,000 years to 900 BCE when King Solomon of Israel carried out extensive trade with India in sandalwood, spices and precious stones etc. Unlike in other countries, Jews were treated well in India. Today, Israel is the second largest exporter of arms to India and is willing to share cutting edge technology. What is equally of importance is its skills in water conservation and desalination and food production technologies. Israel today has a population of 7.8 million of whom some 83 per cent are Jews. Despite its small size and desert terrain, it meets over 70 per cent of its food requirements. It is a world leader in innovation and there is much to learn from this small and dynamic nation.

ndia got her Independence in the year 1947 whilst the modern state of Israel was formed in 1948 by carving out a piece of land from Palestine. This made the Palestinians most unhappy and upset. The British and Americans took this initiative after their victory in World War II. The Palestinians had the support of the Arab nations of the region which Israel did not, isolating them. Hostility and skirmishes which started then continue even to this day. Many wars were fought and over a period of time their respective positions hardened.

As their first Prime Minister, David BenGurion cautioned “If the State does not put an end to the desert, the desert is likely to put an end to the State.” This has made them daring, efficient and smart people – a determined nation.

From 1950 onwards large oil reserves were discovered in several places in West Asia dominated by the Arabs. With oil money flowing in, they became rich and influential. A number of Indians took up jobs in these new oilfields. By default India became an ally of the Arabs as we wanted their support in many ways. Firstly, in the United Nations and other international forums. Second, since our domestic oil production is small, we started importing oil from friendly nations of this region. Third, a sizable Indian population of about 6 million are employed in these countries. These are our compulsions to be friendly with Arabs. Although we had nothing against Israel because of the above reasons stated we did not have diplomatic ties with Israel till recently. It is generally believed that the Israelis were extremely keen to establish friendly and full diplomatic relations with India, being fully aware of our compulsions.

Strategic relationship The story of Israel is that of a small group of people who converted a mosquito infested marshy swamp and adjacent desert into a thriving progressive nation in six decades. They face hostility from their neighbours, a harsh climate and have a land with limited resources. Theirs is a fight on many fronts.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

India-Israel

Strategic Partnership

In a span of 60 years, through sheer determination and dedicated sustained efforts, backed up with astute national level planning and time bound implementation, they have achieved self-sufficiency in these 2 vital areas, water and food

Military: Comparing Israel’s population with the neighbouring Arabs, it can be seen that this ratio is about 1:50 or more. Comparing their land mass it maybe even more than 1:100. Their very existence or survival depends on a delicate balance; therefore they cannot afford to be lax even for a minute and are on a constant vigil 24/365. Due to this sensitive region specific scenario, defence occupies the top priority. Israel has a clear philosophy behind all their military activities, even their war machines are based on it. One can describe their motto as, ‘offence is the best defence.’ Their armed forces are well prepared and ready to tackle any situation at a moment’s notice. This is ably supported by a defence industry, stocked with all critical technologies like

aircraft, ships, land vehicles, weapons, electronics and so on. Their weapons and equipment policy was to buy whatever possible. What love or money cannot get, must be developed indigenously. What you have, improve by clever upgradation and make it operationally superior. Make full use of captured equipment. Israel developed their battle tank Merkava, when the British dragged their feet for supplying the Challenger. They exclusively designed a battle tank to meet their requirement. Probably it is the only tank in the whole world with the crew sitting behind the engine, for additional protection. For Israel their crew is very precious.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

EMULOUS

Unlike all other tanks Merkava has a breach loading 60 mm motar mounted on the turret roof which can be loaded from the crew compartment in order to increase the fire power in addition to the main gun. Merkava II has a 900 HP Teledyne Continental diesel engine and 105 mm main gun. In Mk III, they have upgraded to a 120 mm smooth bore main gun. Now, Merkava Mk IV is in service. In the recent past, our newspapers reported that Israel is India’s second largest supplier of military hardware and software after Russia, with annual sales worth more than US$ 1 billion. The 3 units of Phalcon (360 degrees) AWACS mounted on IL–76 for IAF, alone will exceed US$ 1 billion. Other items procured from Israel are listed below: 160 mm heavy motar procured in 1971 for Army. Upgradation of the avionics for various IAF fighter aircrafts including Jaguar, Mirage, MiGs and Sukhois. AWACS – Phalcon (360 degrees) to be mounted on IL–76 for IAF. Barak – AD missile for Navy. SpyDer – Quick reaction AD missile for Army. Special 155 mm ammunitions – New factory to be set up for OFB. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to carry out surveillance of battlefield and other tactically vital areas with advanced connectivity. Searcher and Heron were commissioned recently. From the above list, it is seen that they have given us some critical equipment and weapons involving technologies which nobody else has shared. This is good enough reason for us to forge a friendly strategic partnership with Israel in the 21st century.

Primary to sustain life in the desert region is water and food. These could be considered as vital non-military areas for further exploration and co-operation We can learn from not only their military experience but also from their fight on other fronts. Primary to sustain life in the desert region is water and food. These could be considered as vital non-military areas for further exploration and co-operation. Water management and food production: Israel today has a population of about 7.8 million, mostly Jews (83 per cent), Muslims (11 per cent) and Christians (6 per cent). When the state was formed in 1948, it was known that fresh water was going to be a critical resource to acquire. The conditions for food production were grim too. The land had suffered soil erosion, had high salinity and was swampy in places, unsuitable for agriculture. The harsh reality of the unfavourable climatic condition, lack of fresh water sources, poor rainfall and inadequate arable lands in addition to the all-round hostility from the neighbours was a challenging situation. However

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

in a span of 60 years, through sheer determination and dedicated sustained efforts, backed up with astute national level planning and time bound implementation, they have achieved self-sufficiency in these 2 vital areas, water and food.

While India faces hostile terrorist activity from its neighbours, Israel has to suffer it in a more violent manner, regularly. The tactics, special operations and counter-terrorist measures they employ show execution with precise planning that deters such action to a great extent. Defending our borders and preventing terrorism within the country is a shared experience and prerogative. This brings us to the importance of co-operation and strategic relations On the other hand, we have a large land mass, abundantly blessed by nature as far as climate is concerned, with adequate rainfall and plenty of natural resources. India has a population touching 1.2 billion, with ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversities. In spite of our advantages, today our total food production does not meet the requirements completely; several million people remain starved or malnourished. Even our water resources require careful planning and management in order that the nation’s needs are met in the best possible manner. Over the years, water security was very important in Israel. Awareness has been established by inculcating in their population a strong conservationist attitude. They have systematically built a network of reservoirs, pipelines, canals and tunnels called the National Water Carrier, enabling control, monitoring and distribution of this resource for agriculture, industry and human consumption. Through this, water from the Sea of Galilee and the river Jordan is pumped southward to irrigate the dry Negev region, converting this barren desert into fertile green farms. In order to maximise efficiency they indigenously developed and deployed drip irrigation techniques for targeted water delivery with significant reductions in evaporative losses and other wastage. Further evolutions involved automated water management systems. Israel has developed some of the world’s best water filtration and desalination technologies, converting and utilising brackish water with reduced salinity levels for agriculture and aquaculture. Their current programme to recycle all urban waste water and sewage to produce usable water is an example of pushing the boundaries of what their filtration technology is capable of. These efforts will hold them in good stead in the face of global scarcity of fresh water. The agriculture sector has been greatly enhanced due to these secured water resources. The government and academicians, supported by a network of institutes and experimental stations, work hand in hand with the farmers, on site researchers and industry to apply new scientific knowledge and technologies for continuous improvements and solutions. Study and research areas include plant genetic engineering for disease resistance, high yield strains and low water consuming varieties.

Their efforts have improved both qualitative and quantitative efficiency. The varied climatic and soil conditions have allowed them to grow several varieties of vegetables, fruits and field crops for the domestic market. Dairy farming, poultry and cattle for meat, aquaculture and also floriculture are thriving today.

Research areas include plant genetic engineering for disease resistance, high yield strains and low water consuming varieties. Their efforts have improved both qualitative and quantitative efficiency. The varied climatic and soil conditions have allowed them to grow several varieties of vegetables, fruits and field crops for the domestic market. Dairy farming, poultry and cattle for meat, aquaculture and also floriculture are thriving today Israel today produces almost 70 per cent of its food requirements locally. A combination of forward thinking and effective translation of research experiments to actual on ground application, with constant review and modification of the innovative process gives them the technological advantage to emerge as leaders in these areas.

Historical background In 1948 when the state of Israel was formed, Jews from all over the world congregated in Tel Aviv to make a nation. Many of those who assembled had to tell a story of suffering in varying degrees. Probably those who returned from India were the few that had some sweet memories of their stay here. We have the oldest synagogue in the Commonwealth, which was built in 1568 in Kochi. A sizable population of Jews from Kochi and the Bene Israel from Maharashtra made the journey from India to their new nation. Jewish migration in large numbers is believed to have taken place when Jerusalem was attacked and ruled over by several invading forces at different points of time in history. This includes the Assyrians from Babylon, the Persians, Alexander the Great and the Romans. Three separate research teams tried to establish when the first Jews came to India. A group of Kochi Jews, a

team from Israel and the historians of Kerala. Their findings were unanimous; ‘The first Jews came as part of King Solomon’s fleet to India’. They travelled the trade winds, the sea corridors linking West Asia to the western coast of India, sailing into ‘Muzirus’, an ancient harbour located 25 km north of Kochi, present day ‘Kodungallur’. ‘Muzirus’ was the name used by West Asians and Europeans; however the Jews refer to it as ‘Shingly’. This port was later damaged due to heavy flooding in the year 1341. Solomon ruled Israel from about 960–920 BCE. During this period he built the Jerusalem Temple and Palace in an extravagant and luxurious style. He bought large quantities of sandalwood, ivory and precious gems from India, along with spices and other commodities; establishing a flourishing trade with the sub-continent. Thus a link between our cultures is known to have existed 3,000 years ago.

Beginning anew Science and Technology are key

ingredients of a nation’s knowledge capital. The quality of people engaged in this pursuit, the amount of resources invested in this activity and the final output in terms of new scientific publications and patent filings reveals the relative strength of a particular country’s drive towards this modern religion. In this aspect, Israel consistently ranks among the top few in the world. This community and its diaspora spread over the globe are unique as engines of innovation. They have left their mark in expanding frontiers of human knowledge in nearly every sphere and are at the cutting edge in several fields of research and development today. Their contributions to the fundamental and applied sciences, straddle subjects from physics to physiology and from agricultural techniques to advanced engineering. It is for us to engage in a strategic partnership with Israel to explore the full spectrum of each other’s unique experiences, skill sets and culture in this 21st century.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Easy Shelters are

Pawitra

International Pvt. Ltd.

An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Company

Benefits of Easy Shelters Portable Fire retardant Environment friendly Energy efficient Zero maintenance Insulated Customisable design (size and

looks) Highly durable High impact resistance (>8,000 psi) High structural load capacity enhances the life Can hold up to 5,000 litres water tank on top High wind resistant UV proof Light weight Quick erection time: takes 6-7 hrs only to erect 1,000 sq.ft. and 4-5 hrs to dismantle

Wooden texture

Low-cost and affordable

Maintenance free and economical Portable Durable

Easy to erect

Easy to install in terrains

Easy to install at high altitude

Easy Shelters in a jiffy!

Easy to install at coastal areas

prone to high tides Easy to dismantle

An ISO 14001:2004 Certified Product

Easy Shelters are maintenance free No painting

No rust

No mildew

No weathering

No rot

No termites

No shingles

No deterioration

No corrosion

20 ft. high Auditorium

PAWITRA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI, INDIA

Usage of Easy Shelters in Government Departments Disaster relief shelters Aircraft hangers Firemen shelters for forests Communication shelters Defence personnel in coastal areas (radio, mobile Defence personnel in mountains and high communications) Transit camps altitude areas Defence personnel in deserts and terrains Storage for agriculture Barracks for the police and security yield Municipal offices forces Railway disaster mobile rooms Old-age homes Police control rooms Schools in remote areas

Primary health

centres Libraries Guest houses for employees Warehouses Cold homes Trade fair stalls Pilgrimage shelters Milk booths

Standard texture

www.pawitra.com

for all queries contact: ceo@pawitra.com

Indo-Israel alliance

Capt Albert Louis (retd) The writer is founder and CEO of Specialist Advisory and Intervention Group. He is a Safety Management and Protective Services expert and has had a distinguished career in the Indian Army – Parachute Regiment (Special Forces), Corps of Signals, United Nations, Army Aero Nodal Centre. He has been associated with prestigious Officer’s Training Academy, Military College of Telecom Engineering and Military Headquarters of War. He has also been Head, Protective Services, Mahindra Special Services Group.

But the main cord that connects both the countries together is due to the curse of terrorism both the counties suffer from. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, in which Indians and Israelis were targeted, only strengthened the bond between the two nations and also made us believe that terrorism can be defeated with determined efforts. India recently launched a military satellite for Israel through its Indian Space Research Organisation. In March 2011, defense news reported that India is about to buy 8,356 Israeli Spike antitank missiles, 321 launchers, 15 training simulators and peripheral equipment for a US$ 1 billion deal, with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Also to strengthen the tie-up with Israel there have been a number of diplomatic visits from both the countries

SEIZING THE FUTURE

This year, we complete a successful 20 years of diplomatic relations with Israel. In January 2012, the Minister of External Affairs of India, Mr S M Krishna, conducted a historical visit to Israel and met with the Israeli leadership in Jerusalem. During the visit, President Shimon Peres referred to India as "the greatest democracy on earth." Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "India and Israel are two ancient peoples seizing the future.” The core of this enduring partnership is the common interests and the challenges that Israel and India share. Both countries are free democracies that still have faith in their beliefs, culture and history. Most importantly both the countries are threatened by terrorism, water, energy scarcity etc. More than 40,000 young Israelis after finishing their military service, visit India annually. India is after all Israel’s largest defence market accounting for almost 50 per cent of Israeli sales. India is also the second-largest Asian economic partner of Israel.

udaism was one of the first foreign religions to arrive in India in recorded history. Legend has it that when doubting St Thomas landed on the shores of Kerala, India in 52 AD, a Jewish girl-playing flute welcomed him on the shore. From then to now India as a nation has been a nation with no reported incidents of Anti-Semitism and has always welcomed Israel and its people. As an Indian Army (Special Forces) officer I had the opportunity to meet a lot of young Israeli hikers both from civil and military background hiking in our hills during my tenure in Jammu and Kashmir fondly called the “Valley” by us soldiers. During one such meeting while we were de-inducting after a routing operation, we came across an Israeli couple that had served in the Army. On asking if they ever felt threatened by terrorism in these mountains which both our nations are battling; surprisingly they felt that India as a nation was the safest for them in all respects.

The recently finalised three-year action plan sets the path for the establishment of 27 projects across 7 states in India in various fields. At present, new platforms are being created for both government and private sectors to jointly enhance scientific innovation in crucial fields such as clean-tech and life sciences This year, we complete a successful 20 years of diplomatic relations with Israel. In January 2012, the Minister of External Affairs of India, Mr S M Krishna, conducted a historical visit to Israel and met with the Israeli leadership in Jerusalem. During the visit, President Shimon Peres referred to India as “the greatest democracy on earth.” Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “India and Israel are

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

INDO-ISRAEL

ENDURING PARTNERSHIPS

two ancient peoples seizing the future.” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman appreciated India’s approval of the opening of an Israeli Consulate General in Bangalore, a pre-eminent hub of high-tech in India. The 20th anniversary of relations between Israel and India will be marked throughout the year, in Israel and in India, with an elaborate array of cultural events. While listening to Israeli band Diwan Saz, you are reminded of a stirring struggle for faith and identity. The band played in Delhi at a concert organised by the Embassy of Israel to celebrate 20 years of diplomatic relations between India and Israel. Our co-operation in the field of agriculture is one of the key pillars to our existing relationship as food security is a critical concern for India and Israel. In cooperation projects across India, Israeli technology and know-how is being demonstrated and shared with Indian farmers and joint Indian and Israeli agricultural R&D is conducted on the ground. The recently finalised three-year action plan sets the path for the establishment of 27 projects across 7 states in India in various fields. At present, new platforms are being created for both government and private sectors to jointly enhance scientific innovation in crucial fields such as cleantech and life sciences. But the main cord that connects both the countries together is due to the curse of terrorism both the counties suffer from. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, in which Indians and Israelis were targeted, only strengthened the bond between the two nations and also made us believe that terrorism can be defeated with determined efforts. India recently launched a military satellite for Israel through its Indian Space Research Organisation. In

March 2011, Defence News reported that India is about to buy 8,356 Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles, 321 launchers, 15 training simulators and peripheral equipment for a US$ 1 billion deal, with Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Also to strengthen the tie-up with Israel there have been a number of diplomatic visits from both the countries from Jaswant Singh who was the first Indian foreign minister to visit Israel in the year 2000 to January 2012.

This year, we complete a successful 20 years of diplomatic relations with Israel. January 2012, the Minister of External Affairs of India, Mr S M Krishna, conducted a historical visit to Israel and met with the Israeli leadership in Jerusalem. During the visit, President Shimon Peres referred to India as "the greatest democracy on earth." Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "India and Israel are two ancient peoples seizing the future”

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

SEIZING THE FUTURE

The core of this enduring partnership is the common interests and the challenges that Israel and India share. Both countries are free democracies that still have faith in their beliefs, culture and history. Both are at a development stage to achieve stability, economic growth for the well being of their citizens. Most importantly both the countries are threatened by terrorism, water, energy scarcity etc. Both countries have expressed their interest to finalise a Free Trade Agreement by the end of this year, a development that is expected to further diversify existing trade More than 40,000 young Israelis after finishing their military service, visit India annually. Many of them also leisurely visit the Himalayas, Old Manali, Vashisht, Naggar, Kasol and the villages surrounding Dharamsala, even shops and public transport vehicles in the Kullu Valley, sport Hebrew signs. The number of tourists from India visiting Israel touched 20,000 in the year 2007. By 2010, India replaced South Korea as the top source market for Israel from Asia with 41,000 tourist arrivals. In September 2011, Stas Misezhnikov, Tourism Minister of Israel and Union Tourism Minister, Shri Subodh Kant Sahai, met in Delhi and decided to collaborate in the sphere of destination management and promotion, as well as manpower development. Also discussed were an exchange programme for teachers and students and the exchange of information on teaching modules.

India is after all Israel’s largest defence market accounting for almost 50 per cent of Israeli sales. India is also the second-largest Asian economic partner of Israel Indo-Israeli partnership can be defined as the bilateral ties between the Republic of India and the state of Israel in the fields of education, agriculture, science and Technology, economy, military, energy and water, homeland security and strategy. In 2010, bilateral trade, excluding military sales, stood at US$ 4.7 billion. In the past decade India has acquired US$ 8 billion worth

of Israeli weapons systems. “Our Security co-operation with Indians is excellent - there is simply no other way to put it” said a senior Israeli security official who finds it necessary to silence all criticism in Israel against the Indian security forces’ response to the terror rampage in Mumbai. However, Israel is concerned over losing its largest defence market to their close ally, the US, which has reached an understanding with India that could result in billions of dollars of American defence sales

to New Delhi. The Israeli Defence Ministry and major companies have been closely monitoring the US marketing drive in India. In order to survive intense competition they argue that there is a need for proper coordination between Israeli companies as well as a rapid licensing process as the main problem is to cope with the giants. India is after all Israel’s largest defence market accounting for almost 50 per cent of Israeli sales. India is also the secondlargest Asian economic partner of Israel. Diplomatic relations were established in 1992 when the Indian National Congress was in power but when the BJP was on the wheel, from 1998 to 2004, those ties blossomed. But Indo-Israeli relations can be traced back before the British era. However, initially, with Mahatma Gandhi opposed to the creation of Israel and with India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru supporting the same on an anti-colonialist plank.

While the current size of bilateral trade between India and Israel is almost US$ 5 billion, this FTA has the capability to make it cross the US$ 12 billion mark in the next 5 years

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

the end of this year, a development that is expected to further diversify existing trade on areas such as Information Technology, Biotechnology, Biochemistry and Agriculture. According to Alon Ushpiz, the Ambassador of Israel in India, “The agreement would change the composition of trade between both the countries.” There already exists a centre of excellence in Haryana (agricultural sector) and the centres for Maharashtra, Rajasthan and West Bengal are still in the planning stages. While the current size of bilateral trade between India and Israel is almost US$ 5 billion, this FTA has the capability to make it cross the US$ 12 billion mark in the next 5 years. With the ever-growing challenges India and Israel face as two nations with the same goal and common interest, our relationship is destined to grow beyond the 3 millennia of bonding that we share. We have always been and will remain to be the land that welcomes Israel and its people and in times to come will continue to do so.

Ukraine To Sell R-27 Air-To-Air Missiles To India

he Indo-Ukrainian Defence ties are expected to get a tremendous boost as Ukraine inches closer towards selling its R-27 air-to-air missiles to India. The deal for R-27 missiles is in the final phase and is expected to be approved shortly by Ukraine. The IAF’s fighter planes such as MiG-29 and Su-30 MKI will be capable of launching the R-27 missile. The R-27 is a medium to long range air-to-air missile which can be used to intercept and combat all types of fighter aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles. The latest model features a range of over 100 kilometers and upgraded seekers. The new infra-red seeker for the R-27 extends its detection range from 18 to 30 kilometers. The R-27 missile, produced by Ukrainian firm Artem, comes in infrared-homing (R-27T), semi-active-radar-homing (R-27R), and active-radar-homing (R-27AE) versions and is similar to the US AIM-7 Sparrow missile. The R-27 air-to-air missile was originally designed by Vympel, a Russian missile design bureau, in the 1980s which is now part of Russia’s Tactical Missiles Corporation that produces successor weapons to R-27 missiles. Russian firms still supply some components for R-27 missile. Ukraine, on the other hand, had inherited nearly a third of the old Soviet Union’s armament plants when USSR was split up. The R-27 is a medium-to-long range missile implying that it can play in both WVR and BVR ranges, like the MICA missile variants. The range of the various versions of the R-27 missile is different. The R-27R has a range of 50-60 kilometers while R-27EM, which is likely to be used on MiG-29K, is a naval variant with a range of up to 170 kilometers under optimal conditions.

Armed Forces Modernisation Drive

odernisation of Army is undertaken on a continuous basis which entails the replacement / upgradation of equipment of older technology. Presently, a number of proposals for upgradation of the existing Air Defence Guns and procurement of ammunition are at various stages of implementation / procurement. Modernisation of the Armed Forces is a continuous process based on threat perception, operational challenges, technological changes and available resources. The Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) seeks to achieve the highest degree of probity, public accountability and transparency in operations. In order to promote transparency, the issue of Request for Information (RFI) has been made mandatory to provide advance information and encourage a wider Vendor base. Besides, signing of pre-contract integrity pact in procurement cases of the estimated value exceeding Rs 100 crore is also mandatory as per the procedure. The allocation for capital outlay of Defence Services under BE 2011-12 was Rs 69,198.81 crore. This was revised to Rs 66,143.81 crore by Ministry of Finance at RE 2011-12 stage. The operational preparedness of the Armed Forces continues to remain at the desired level and in a state of readiness to meet any eventualities. Shortage of any weapons / ammunition, as and when reported, is adequately addressed through indigenous production and import. The Ministry has been persistently making endeavours to address any deficiencies reported, to ensure that the Defence Forces remain equipped with necessary weapon systems at all times.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

CONSTRAINTS

Advisability of Allowing

Indirect Offsets

Delhi Police To Add Modern Equipment To Its Force

elhi Police is adding more modern equipment to its force this year as part of its modernisation drive and it will soon have video systems to scan beneath vehicles. A senior police official said the city police is ordering 35 ‘Under Vehicle Video Systems’ to be used in high-security areas to scan beneath vehicles instead of the hand-held devices used at present. “This equipment will help in detecting dangerous objects which human eye may miss. The hand-held detectors may not be of help in such cases. It also helps maintain a record of vehicles passing through a particular entrance. “The device is capable of displaying under vehicle front and rear views at the same time. There will be two cameras, one for the front view and other for rear view of the vehicle. These cameras will give overall view underneath system of the vehicle. It will also record the number plate of the vehicle, the official said. The system will use Digital Signal Processor and Recorder with zoom in and out features which works in the day as well as at night. The equipment, he said, can inspect the vehicles very fast and it serves as a “mechanical eye”.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

AVSM, VSM (retd) The writer heads Defence Technical Assessment and Advisory Service (DTAAS) of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). He did MSc in Defence Studies and Doctorate in Public Administration. He commanded an Engineer Regiment in the most hostile battlefield in the world i.e., the Siachen Glacier. He was awarded a gold medal for being ‘the most outstanding engineer of the year’. He was the first Technical Manager [Land Systems] when the newly created Acquisition Wing was established in the Ministry of Defence in 2001. He has been closely associated with the evolution and promulgation of the new defence procurement mechanism.

CISF All Set To Take Security To New Heights

f you ever forget your expensive gadgets at an airport in the hurry to board your flight, you do not need to worry now. The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has taken it upon itself to restore all your precious lost items. Before you raise your brow in skepticism, factor this: the security force reportedly helped return Rs 18 crore worth of such goods including Laptops, Blackberrys, I-phones and at times large amounts of cash, to their rightful owners last year. They were recovered primarily from the Delhi and Mumbai international airports. “On most occasions, the passenger had left them behind in the rush to board a plane. We made sure their belongings were restored to them at their destination airport,” CISF DG Mr Rajiv said. CISF personnel may soon also be employed to guard Indian ships in piracy-afflicted waters. The DG said the government was mulling deploying armed CISF guards onboard Indian merchant vessels in order to thwart piracy attempts. “The government is desirous of giving this responsibility to us. But no decision has been taken. The matter is being deliberated,” Mr Rajiv added. Once a decision in this regard is taken, the CISF personnel will travel with the ships in the Indian Ocean region up to the tip of Somalia, which is prone to piracy incidents and then board an incoming vessel to get back to their base in India. The force is meanwhile on a mission to strengthen security at 18 ‘sensitive’ airports around the country, installing 26 different kinds of advanced scanning equipment on the premises and arming its personnel with modern, more effective gadgets.

Maj Gen (Dr) Mrinal Suman

An excellent and informative article on the vital subject of Offsets. Offsets are best described as formal arrangements of trade wherein a foreign supplier undertakes specified programmes with a view to compensate the buyer as regards his procurement expenditure and outflow of resources. It is a formal arrangement as it has inbuilt contractual obligations. Offsets are categorised on the basis of their fields of activities, as Direct Offsets and Indirect Offsets. Direct offsets in their simplistic form may include buy-back or co-production or licensed production or sub-contracts of the system and its sub-systems. Indirect offsets are transactions that are not directly related to the defence items or services being exported in the main contract. They generally take the form of compensation trading. Reciprocal trade, counter purchase, switch trading, counter deliveries and parallel trade fall under this category. Today, indirect offsets outnumber direct offsets by two to one. The writer argues forcefully that India is not ready for indirect offsets as these could lose focus on the main deal and delay finalisation of contracts. India is expected to import foreign military equipment worth US$ 120 billion during the next few years. With offset percentage fixed at 30 per cent, the quantum of offset obligations will be close to US$ 36 billion.

India possesses enormous leverage with its huge shopping list. This power should ideally be used to fill a critical technological void or fulfill an important economic need. Offset policy should be in consonance with the national economic objectives and the immense potential of offsets should be exploited as engines of national economic growth and technological upgradation of the indigenous defence industry

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

CONSTRAINTS

lthough India’s defence offset policy was first introduced in Defence Procurement Procedure – 2005, detailed policy guidelines were issued in May 2006. Having decided to adopt an approach of gradual, incremental and phased application of offsets, India has been making changes in the policy during periodic reviews. However, the basic contours remain unchanged. Offset threshold and offset percentage have been retained at Rs 300 crore and 30 per cent respectively.

Direct offsets: Transactions that are directly related to the primary defence items or services being contracted in the main contract. Direct offsets in their simplistic form may include buy-back or co-production or licensed production or sub-contracts of the system and its sub-systems. In this arrangement, the seller helps the buyer produce the product or a part thereof and purchases it back for incorporation in all similar systems sold by him elsewhere in the world.

companies being fringe players.

Offsets are best described as formal arrangements of trade wherein a foreign supplier undertakes specified programmes with a view to compensate the buyer as regards his procurement expenditure and outflow of resources. In other words, the supplier undertakes programmes to generate benefits for the economy of the buyer country. It is a formal arrangement as it has inbuilt contractual obligations

Indirect offsets: These are transactions that are not directly related to the defence items or services being exported in the main contract. Indirect offsets have a much wider scope and transcend other economic or social activities. They generally take the form of compensation trading. Reciprocal trade, counter purchase, switch trading, counter deliveries and parallel trade fall under this category. The importance of indirect offsets can be gauged from the fact that over the years a definite shift is discernible towards them. Today, indirect offsets outnumber direct offsets by two to one, as the buyer countries have realised their immense economic and social potential.

Therefore, foreign vendors are pressurising MoD to widen the scope of offset activities to include fields that are unrelated to defence. In other words, foreign vendors are demanding introduction of offsets covering other social, industrial, infrastructural and economic sectors. For the sake of brevity, all non-defence related offsets will be referred to as indirect offsets for further discussion.

Taking cognizance of the inputs received, Ministry of Defence (MoD) allowed offset banking in 2008. More importantly, the requirement of prior registration by Indian offset partners was done away with. As fulfilment of offsets was restricted to the export of defence products / services and FDI in defence industry / R&D, foreign vendors felt constrained. Acceding to their repeated requests, MoD expanded the scope of offset programmes to include civil aerospace, internal security and training fields in 2011, thereby offering vendors wider choice to fulfill their obligations. The term ‘defence products and services’ was replaced by ‘eligible products and services’. This was a major step. Items for internal security like arms and ammunition; protective equipment and vehicles; surveillance and night fighting devices; counter-insurgency equipment and gears; and training aids have since been added to the list of ‘eligible products’. Civil aerospace products like air frames, aero engines, aircraft components, avionics, raw material and semi-finished goods have also been included in the list. Similarly, the term ‘services’ for the purposes of discharge of offset obligations has been defined to include maintenance, overhaul, upgradation, life extension, engineering, design, testing of eligible products and related software or quality assurance services. As regards training, only training services and equipment have been made eligible for offset credits.

Offsets and their categorisation Offsets are best described as formal arrangements of trade wherein a foreign supplier undertakes specified programmes with a view to compensate the buyer as regards his procurement expenditure and outflow of resources. In other words, the supplier undertakes programmes to generate benefits for the economy of the buyer country. It is a formal arrangement as it has inbuilt contractual obligations. Many consider offsets to be some sort of a leverage exploited by a buyer to obtain compensatory benefits. Generally, offsets are categorised on the basis of their fields of activities, as follows:

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Over a period of time, indirect offsets have been further sub-categorised to specify the areas they relate to. All indirect offsets that relate to defence goods and services are called ‘semi-direct’ or ‘indirect offsets (defence-related)’. On the other hand, all offset activities that span non-defence sectors are called ‘indirect offsets (non-defence related)’ or simply ‘indirect offsets’. As stated above, India allows offset programmes in defence, civil aerospace and internal security fields. Both civil aerospace and internal security are analogous to defence sector and are presently dominated by the public sector production agencies under MoD. Therefore, it will not be incorrect to state that India’s current offset policy accepts ‘semi-direct’ or ‘indirect offsets (defence-related)’. On the other hand, India does not allow indirect offsets that are not related to defence or defence-like fields.

Increasing demand for indirect offsets Reforms are an evolutionary and continuous process. MoD deserves credit for being open to receiving suggestions from the environment and incorporating changes in the policy after due consideration. India is expected to import foreign military equipment worth US$ 120 billion during the next few years. With offset percentage fixed at 30 per cent, the quantum of offset obligations will be close to US$ 36 billion. Foreign vendors are anxious about the capability of the Indian defence industry to absorb offset orders of such enormous magnitude. They consider inclusion of civil aerospace and internal security to be of peripheral importance as all items mentioned under internal security already appear in the list of defence products. Most of these items are produced by ordnance factories. As regards the civil aerospace sector, HAL (an MoD undertaking) occupies a monopolistic position in the Indian aerospace industry with a few private sector

Offsets should form a part of an overall national endeavour with well-specified aims. A national policy needs to be formulated with the objectives that are sought to be achieved through offsets duly spelt out. The policy statement should also lay down offset thresholds and indicate the areas in which offsets are preferred

Introduction of indirect offsets Offsets do not come for free and entail considerable cost penalty. As can be seen in Illustration 1, cost penalty increases with an increase in the offset percentage demanded, albeit not in direct proportion. An offset requirement of up to 50 per cent inflates the cost of the main contract by close to 10 per cent. It is an empirical estimate as the actual cost penalty depends on the type of offset programmes undertaken.

Offsets being demanded as a percentage of the estimated value of the main contract contractual 50 100 150 200 Illustration 1: Relationship between offset percentage and cost penalty Indian policy has pegged offset percentage at 30 per cent, with the sole exception of MMRCA deal where it has been raised to 50 per cent. It implies that India would be incurring an additional expenditure on account of offsets to the tune of US$ 12 billion (10 per cent of the proposed US$ 120 billion shopping list). It is a colossal sum by all accounts. To ensure that commensurate benefits are obtained by the country and the funds are not frittered away, the complete gamut of offset process has to be duly streamlined. Before accepting indirect offsets, India must pay attention to the following facets in Illustration 2: Policy formulation Finalisation of programmes Setting up of organisations Monitoring of programmes Negotiation of contracts Feed-back for policy changes Illustration 2: Facets of a well-evolved offset system Formulation of policy: Offsets should form a part of an overall national endeavour with well-specified aims. A national policy needs to be formulated with the objectives that are sought to be achieved through offsets duly spelt out. The policy statement should also lay down offset

thresholds and indicate the areas in which offsets are preferred. This is by far the most critical aspect as it is not the quantum of offsets but the relevance of the areas in which they operate that determines their usefulness. Creation of required structures and organisation: An overarching authority is required to be set up under a nominated nodal ministry at the national level to oversee the complete gamut of offset activities. It should give ‘in principle approval’ to offset packages for all high value import deals and should consist of members from various ministries dealing with commerce and industry. It should also have representatives of Indian industry – both public and private sectors. Other experts from different fields should be co-opted as and when required. It should issue necessary directions for apportioning required weightage to direct and indirect offsets; priority areas / fields in which offsets should be sought; fix offset thresholds for different types of procurements; and issue guidelines to all concerned ministries for fixing offset percentages. Finalisation of offset programmes: This process starts with the issuance of tender documents in which requirement of offsets is specified. Once bids are received from the vendors, they are evaluated along with their offset packages. Discussions are carried out for seeking clarifications from the bidders, if required. Once the successful bidder is identified, a detailed dialogue is initiated with him to draw out a mutually acceptable offset plan, which is flexible, realistic, realisable and practical. The plan should spell out proportion of direct and indirect offsets and identify fields for offset programmes with their multiplier values with inter se priorities. Negotiation of offset contracts: Negotiations are carried out with the vendor to discuss specific projects in each field to have an optimally balanced mix. Thereafter, expert groups are constituted for different projects and their reports included in the offset contract document. All aspects including levels of technology, value addition, penalty clauses, measurement methodology and time frame for implementation are spelt out in clear and unambiguous terms. To cater for unforeseen contingencies, offset contracts should have adequate inbuilt flexibility. Monitoring of offset programmes and award of credits: As offset contracts remain on the periphery, it is rightly said that an unmonitored offset programme never delivers. Therefore, it is essential that their implementation is closely and regularly monitored by a properly constituted oversight authority that can apply

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

CONSTRAINTS

timely corrections to put a non-performing programme on track. Offset credits should be awarded to a vendor only after ascertaining successful completion of a programme. Feedback is also collated to recommend changes in the policy provisions to improve efficiency of the offset regime. Although all facets are distinct, a certain degree of overlapping is natural. As can be seen, management of offsets requires multi-disciplinary expertise. This requirement becomes more pronounced in the case of indirect offsets wherein their functioning falls under the superintendence of multiple ministries. Therefore, it has to be a well coordinated effort at the national level. No single ministry by itself can identify and monitor offset programmes covering the entire spectrum of economic and industrial fields.

MoD expanded the scope of offset programmes to include civil aerospace, internal security and training fields in 2011, thereby offering vendors wider choice to fulfill their obligations. The term ‘defence products and services’ was replaced by ‘eligible products and services’

Limitations of Indian defence offset policy India has no national offset policy. Indian defence policy is a stand-alone and an exclusive endeavour of MoD. No other ministry is involved. In case MoD decides to accept indirect offsets, it will be faced with the following predicaments: Who will identify non-military fields in which indirect offsets should be sought? Who will prioritise the identified fields and assign inter se weightage to them? How will multiplier values be determined for each offset programme? Who will provide necessary skills to negotiate offset deals pertaining to different sectors and sign contracts? Who will monitor and validate successful implementation of offset programmes for the grant of credits? Needless to say, all the above mentioned issues are beyond the competence of MoD. It will have to depend on the expertise of the concerned ministries who are unlikely to respond at the behest of MoD. Therefore, an empowered coordinating authority at the national level is an inescapable prerequisite before considering acceptance of indirect offsets. It must also be borne in mind that there are four major risks involved with indirect offsets. One, indirect offsets can result in a loss of focus, away from the main contract under MoD as inter-ministry coordination can be quite vexing and exasperating. Two, as offset contracts have to be completed

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

co-terminus with the main contract, any delay in offset programmes can adversely affect completion of the main contract. Worse, MoD cannot expedite indirect offset programmes as these would be functioning under the superintendence of other ministries. Imposition of penalty for default and its recovery by way of deduction from the bank guarantee of the main contract or the amount payable to the vendor under the main contract can vitiate the working environment. Three, whereas offset cost penalty will be borne by the defence budget, benefits will not accrue exclusively to the indigenous defence industry. Finally and most worrisomely, indirect offsets are highly vulnerable to corrupt practices as they span multiple ministries and remain under peripheral supervision. Allegations of malpractice in offsets can even endanger the main contract as MoD will be hard pressed to initiate punitive action against the delinquent vendors.

The way forward Howsoever desirable indirect offsets may be India is not yet ready to accept them, as seen above. As indirect offsets would overlap all ministries, it will well nigh be impossible for MoD to interact with other ministries and obtain their enthusiastic participation. Therefore, to start with, India should evolve a National Offset Policy (NOP) with clearly spelt out aims and objectives. Policies applicable to different ministries should flow from it. NOP should be pragmatic with long term applicability and sufficient inbuilt flexibility to cater for changing situations. It should contain directions for apportioning weightage to direct and indirect offsets along with norms for fixing offset threshold and offset percentages. It should also lay down guidelines for approving, validating, discharging and measuring offset contracts. Union Commerce Ministry should be tasked to act as the nodal ministry for offsets in all fields. Necessary structures and organisations will need to be set up both at the Commerce Ministry and other concerned ministries. All high value offset packages of Rs 1,000 crore and above should be handled by the Commerce Ministry whereas powers to manage packages of lesser value should be delegated to respective ministries. Offsets should not be viewed in isolation as one-time agreements, but as an important and integral element of long-term national policy. To derive full benefit from offsets, it is absolutely necessary to understand the dynamics of offsets. Inappropriately selected and poorly monitored offset programmes invariably prove to be highly wasteful in national resources and uneconomical for their value. Finally, India possesses enormous leverage with its huge shopping list. This power should ideally be used to fill a critical technological void or fulfill an important economic need. Offset policy should be in consonance with the national economic objectives and the immense potential of offsets should be exploited as engines of national economic growth and technological upgradation of the indigenous defence industry.

CII-BCG Study Highlights Measures For Greater Defence

ndia’s premier industry lobby, Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and the global consultancy firm Boston Consulting Group (BCG) have released a study which seeks to highlight ways to make the domestic defence manufacturing sector more productive and lucrative. One of the main recommendations has been the setting up of a National Defence Manufacturing Commission (NDMC) under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to focus on building a domestic industrial base for self-reliance. Since India is likely to spend US$ 100 billion on defence acquisitions over the next decade, the primary goal is to make the most of the buying capability while negotiating with global OEMs to bring their technology to India. The CII-BCG study has stated that after setting up the NDMC, the focus must be on increasing domestic procurement from the present 30 per cent to 75 per cent in 10 years. The NDMC must also mandate an indigenisation percentage for about ten of the largest weapons programmes and help building local intellectual property in defence technology. The NDMC should also enable creation of one million direct and indirect jobs and monitor implementation of the government’s defence industry policies. The CII-BCG study has also highlighted the failure of India’s public sector defence manufacturing establishment to cope with the growing defence requirements and the execution of defence projects. The study notes that 1,80,000 workers in 39 Ordnance Factories (OFs) and 8 defence PSUs accounted for sales worth only about US$ 8.58 billion in 2010-11, a mere 30 per cent of India’s requirement of defence equipment.

L&T Acquires UK-Based Thalest Group

he Electrical & Automation business of Larsen & Toubro completed the share sale agreement formalities for the acquisition of Thalest Limited, the UK-based holding company of Servowatch Systems Limited, Bond Instrumentation & Process Control Limited and Servowatch Inc, (USA). Thalest Limited is engaged in offering Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) and Integrated Bridge System (IBS) solutions for naval warships and mercantile marine ships, vessels and floating systems. L&T’s Electrical & Automation business has been present in this space with marine electrical and automation solutions. Servowatch is one of the leading suppliers of advanced integrated ship control systems including alarm and monitoring, automation, platform management and bridge, navigation, communication and multimedia packages, into both new build and retro-fit markets. Servowatch has an extensive experience in dealing with the navies of the US, UK, India, Australia and Thailand. The Company also has wide experience in offering control systems for commercial ships, special purpose craft and land / marine asset management.

BEML To Venture Into Aerospace

n order to tap the growing demand in aerospace sector, India’s defence public sector undertaking, BEML has begun manufacturing and supplying ground handling equipment and ground support equipment, aerospace components and jigs and fixtures. The brand new aero manufacturing plant is fast coming up in the Aerospace Park at the Aero Special Economic Zone close to Bangalore International Airport and it is expected to go on steering by September 2012. The facility will have state-of-the-art global standard sheet metal shop, machine shop along with heat treatment and surface treatment shop and composite facility. BEML is a multi-technology and multi-location company under the Defence Ministry, serving the defence forces of India and core sectors of economy with supply and offering high quality products. In the recent past, BEML has diversified into new business lines such as aerospace and dredging. On the defence front, BEML manufactures for all terrain operations including bridge layer, field artillery tractor, medium and heavy recovery vehicles, pontoon main bridge system, mobile mast vehicle, mine plough, transportation trailer, weapon loading vehicles, armoured recovery vehicles, military rail coaches, wagons, aircraft weapon loading trolleys, crash fire tenders and radar carrying vehicle.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

REALITY CHECK

“Values necessary to defend the society are often at odds with the values of society itself … Military and Civil can co-exist with different norms of behaviour …” – Gen Walter Kerwin

Lt Gen Gautam Bannerjee PVSM, AVSM, YSM (retd) The writer was commissioned into the Corps of Engineers in June 1971. During his 40 years of service, the writer has taken part in all operations and has served in all field and high altitude areas. He was the Chief of Staff, Central Command and then the Commandant, Officers' Training Academy, Chennai before superannuating in June 2011.

President Eisenhower reiterated what Kautilya had stated two thousand years ago, “When diplomats fail to maintain peace, the soldier is called upon to restore peace. When civil administration fails to maintain order, the soldier is called to restore order. As the nation’s final safeguard, the army cannot afford a failure in either circumstances. Failure of army can lead to national catastrophe, endangering the survival of the nation”. It is on this account that up from the smallest detachment to the highest seat, armed forces have to be manned with highly professional and motivated soldiers, for mistakes military have severe and perpetual ramifications. Further, while it takes decades to build-up a military institution, it takes generations to foster soldierly culture. It is on this accord that nations that are gifted with wisdom and foresight take their military institution very, very seriously

‘Civil-Military Relationship’ is about committing national resources in winning wars. It is a sublime aspect of statecraft that nurtures its soldiery and ordains them to undertake extra-ordinary sacrifices for the greater good of the society, while subordinating all civilian resources to the war-effort. Political philosophers point to two distinct constituents of the relationships between civil and military institutions of a nation state. These are:

UNDERSTANDING

CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS

• The State-Military Contract and, • The Society-Soldier Covenant. The ‘state-military contract’ signifies a sacred commitment from the state to ensure that the soldiery is best geared up in terms of weapons, equipment, training, state-support and above all, motivation and morale, The ‘society-soldier covenant’ rests on recognition that the profession of arms differs from all others in every aspect.

uring the recent years, management of the Indian military institution through the sanctified process of civilian control has been marred by serious incongruencies. Thus the hoary relationship between the civil and military institutions of our state apparatus has become contentious to a degree that it cannot bode well for our nationhood. The disconnect is exemplified by the armed forces leadership expressing dismay at shortage of battle leadership and deficiencies in war-wherewithal, military personnel vociferously charging the defence bureaucracy of subversion of armed forces’ entitlements and protocol, the apex court chastising the government on its maltreatment of the soldiery, veterans returning their medals to the Rashtrapati and the Parliament repudiating the government’s stance on military pension. The situation is not helped by accusations of conspiratorial subterfuge of the military’s interests by a political-bureaucratic nexus. Meanwhile, cases of misconduct amongst the Army brass, frequency of Air Force aircraft falling out of sky and the Navy’s chinks in securing the coastline adds to the unholy mess. Notably, each of these failings have a civil-military interface, a joint venture of inviting disaster, so to say. Thus goes on a wholly avoidable charade wherein civil institutions, thoroughly discredited already, have nothing to lose, whereas the military institution, seen as the last bastion of honour and professionalism, has much at stake. Most disconcertingly, it is the nation which, in allowing degeneration of one of the few noble institutions of the state, upkeep of which extracts heavy investment of blood, sweat and public money, stands to lose the most: the due peace-dividend. No doubt, the situation has caused much dismay among the farsighted and responsible members of our society.

How did the situation turn so suicidal? The answer lies in lack of understanding – by innocence or design, or both – of the sanctified nuances of ‘Civil-Military Relationship’ in a democracy. No doubt, there is inadequate appreciation of this subject even among the military fraternity that causes them to treat war-fighting as a burden of the military alone and so accept below-par response to defence requirements from civil institutions. But since the reins of this crucial facet of statecraft rest with nation’s civilian leadership, its vitiation must be seen as a failing of our system of governance. That the nation will have to some day pay dearly for this self-infliction, is a disturbing thought indeed.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

But to appreciate the imperative of true understanding, we may delve into defining as to what really is implied by ‘Civil-Military Relationship’ in the construct of a sovereign state.

The statute Factually considered ‘Civil-Military Relationship’ is about committing national resources in winning wars. It is a sublime aspect of statecraft that nurtures its soldiery and ordains them to undertake extra-ordinary sacrifices for the greater good of the society, while subordinating all civilian

resources to the war-effort. This pristine relationship, therefore, is not about the machinations that go on in South Block to keep the military hierarchy at the mercy of civil servants on the pretext of maintaining civil supremacy. Political philosophers point to two distinct constituents of the relationships between civil and military institutions of a nation state. These are: The State-Military Contract and, The Society-Soldier Covenant.

Let us briefly discuss these aspects.

The contract War is the ultimate recourse of a state to protect its interests when all other less extreme methods fail. Its centrality in statecraft falls out of the fact that in the international arena, there being no statutory laws nor any law enforcement mechanism, articulation of military force remains the sole arbitrator in prevailing upon belligerent states or groups. Indeed, there are certain consensual ‘laws’ and ‘conventions’ – laws of seas, Geneva Convention, Mine Protocol etc. – but these are not binding,

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

REALITY CHECK

seldom enforceable and routinely flouted. The international anarchy is further exacerbated by the fact that even if it takes two to fight, one is enough to start it arbitrarily. Political pundits, from Plato to Morgenthau, have therefore spelt out the basic ingredients of a sovereign nation state as, a defined territory to sustain a population, a system of governance and the power to protect its concerns. The interdependency of the state and its military institution therefore needs to be clearly understood and preserved, for it will be fiddled with at the nation’s peril.

Civil institutions, thoroughly discredited already, have nothing to lose, whereas the military institution, seen as the last bastion of honour and professionalism, has much at stake. Most disconcertingly, it is the nation which, in allowing degeneration of one of the few noble institutions of the state, upkeep of which extracts heavy investment of blood, sweat and public money, stands to lose the most Political philosophy dictates that it is for the civilian leadership to decide as to the structure of armed forces it should have, what its mandate should be and accordingly, what kind of best organisation, weapons and equipment need to be placed at its disposal. To elaborate the last aspect, the ‘state-military contract’ signifies a sacred commitment from the state to ensure that the soldiery is best geared up in terms of weapons, equipment, training, state-support and above all, motivation and morale, to be able to plunge into the dangerous mandate with good chances of success and survival. This is a pledge eternally sanctified by a responsible state. As a corollary, it is for the military institution to ensure, regardless, that the political mandate is fulfilled in the most effective manner and with least of societal devastation. Accordingly, soldier’s commitment to the state entails highest degree of professionalism, ingenuous orchestration of war-wherewithal, perfection in training and above all, a sacrament of ‘duty over death’. Indeed, this is an extra-ordinary mutuality of implicit trust, a sort of

pious vow of temporal solidarity. That is why nations go to the extent of cutting their basic needs to equip their soldiery and that is why it is a soldier’s duty to plunge into deprivation and death while other citizens may take to flight. The spirit behind this ‘contract’ is best summarised when President Eisenhower reiterated what Kautilya had stated two thousand years ago, “When diplomats fail to maintain peace, the soldier is called upon to restore peace. When civil administration fails to maintain order, the soldier is called to restore order. As the nation’s final safeguard, the army cannot afford a failure in either circumstances. Failure of army can lead to national catastrophe, endangering the survival of the nation”. It is on this account that up from the smallest detachment to the highest seat, armed forces have to be manned with highly professional and motivated soldiers, for mistakes military have severe and perpetual ramifications. Further, while it takes decades to build-up a military institution, it takes generations to foster soldierly culture. It is on this accord that nations that are gifted with wisdom and foresight take their military institution very, very seriously. One is not sure if our civilians, or even the soldiers, recognise this over-arch of the ‘state-military contract’ in its sublime perspective and understand as to why the services are accorded special status in informed societies, as to why military leaders are commissioned by the state, not merely ‘inducted’ or ‘appointed’ and unique recourses some privileged, some harsh are applied to administer the military institution. In tangible terms of the ‘state-military contract’, special provisions are instituted for the soldiers to be drafted young, kept young, subjected to strict rules, expected to set higher standards of professionalism and probity and tested at every stage before being selectively promoted. Provisions are also made for the nation’s civilian sector to accord priority response to the requirements of the armed forces through stipulations of the ‘Union War Book’, ‘emergency schemes’ at state and district

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

levels, enforcement of ‘defence restrictions’ over sensitive matters and ‘guaranteed reserves’ of support resources – food, fuel, manpower, transport, equipment, technicians etc. Administrative priority is also provisioned through the ‘Civil-Military Liaison Meetings’, the ‘Cantonment Act’, land notifications and protection of military requirements - like weapons, ammunition, rations, emoluments etc. under the budgetary practice of ‘first charge’. As we shall see later, the Indian state has, in some ways, been unable to uphold the sanctity of ‘state-military equation’; that failure has exposed chinks in its wisdom. Let us now turn to the second constituent of the ‘Civil-Military Relations’, that is, the ever-sacrosanct ‘society-soldier covenant’.

The covenant Warfare is characterised by ultimate use of constitutionally sanctified violence, wherein soldiers are called upon to overcome the core human instincts of self-preservation, comfort and profit and so to stand up to extreme hazards of death, deprivations and destruction on line of duty. Another notable soldierly attribute is that while the common man observes societal rules to be in tranquillity, the soldier commits to an altruistic mandate that requires him to engage in extreme exactions. This he does for honour – the Army Act or remuneration cannot motivate a soldier to stake his life. ‘Civil-Military Relationship’ is thus anointed by a sublime form of ‘society-soldier covenant’. Obviously, the ‘covenant’ is bound by moral considerations; its plank is spiritual, not merely material or legal. The ‘society-soldier covenant’ rests on recognition that the profession of arms differs from all others in every aspect, as manifested in unique nuances of recruitment, psychological conditioning, service conditions, training, discipline, distinct culture and ethos and suspension of fundamental citizenry rights. This ‘covenant’ enjoins the soldier to give up many of his intrinsic human concerns to protect

the security and honour of the society. In reciprocal vein, the ‘covenant’ also stipulates, firstly, that the society is morally bound to accord unstinted support to the soldier for him to undertake his mission free from non-military concerns and secondly, that rewards of the soldiers’ ‘calling’ are to be measured to compensate for the hardships, abrogation of freedom and commitment to stand fast, die for that matter, when it is permissible for every citizen to scoot, hide or submit. The ‘covenant’ also extends exclusive constitutional enactments to the benefits of the soldiery in terms of litigious and penal code dispensations, land allotment, various grants, welfare schemes and so on. By far the most remarkable provisions made for the soldiery are, firstly, the right to be ‘judged’ by their own fraternity and secondly, convergence of legislative, executive and judicial powers at the hands of the sole commander - in rest of the state apparatus these are purposefully segregated. These are landmark provisions which distinguish the soldiers’ ‘calling’ above the rest.

“When diplomats fail to maintain peace; the soldier is called upon to restore peace. When civil administration fails to maintain order, the soldier is called to restore order. As the nation’s final safeguard, the army cannot afford a failure in either circumstances. Failure of army can lead to national catastrophe, endangering the survival of the nation” ‘Society-soldier covenant’ and its manifestation thus boils down to the soldier’s unbound commitment and its grateful recognition in the society by way of bestowal of singular honour upon him. It is a matter of satisfaction that this ‘covenant’ is honoured by every citizen of India when he routinely extends out-of-turn considerations to his soldiery. In 1962, troop’s acceptance of the political imposition in engaging in hopeless fight at the Namka Chu and the entire nation’s deeply grieved eulogium in repenting the neglect of its soldiery, are examples of the spirit that guides this ‘covenant’. No doubt, with the rise of unbound materialism, the ‘covenant’ has seen dilutions at the hands of power-brokers and

moolah worshippers, yet the aam Bharatiya and his society remains steadfast in his respect for his fauji jawan.

Reality check To summarise, ‘Civil-Military Relations’ is at the root of the age-old dictum of statecraft that recognises the military as a unique institution, fundamentally different from civil way of life, which it is mandated to protect by recourse to articulation of force. As a corollary, the state is bound to administer its armed forces according to norms and practices that are profoundly distinct from civil-specific measures. No doubt, breach of this hallowed principle of governance must invite disaster. Let us see as to how well this principle is in force in India. As one party to the ‘Civil-Military Relations’, it is apparent that baring freak exceptions, the military institution in India has scrupulously adhered to its role in the ‘state-military contract’ as well as the ‘society-soldier covenant’. Marginalised in the newly independent India, it nevertheless held the country together in 1947-48 against tribal invasion of Jammu and Kashmir and the horrific partition riots and put up fierce resistance to the Chinese juggernaut in 1962 even when bereft of bare essentials of war-wherewithal. When adequately provided for between 1965 and 1990, it was eminently successful in backing up the nation’s political goals, internal and external. Subjected to stagnation once again during the years following, it fought back to reclaim its honour in Kargil and reinforced Indian diplomacy through ‘Operation Parakram’. Alongside these events, the military institution preserved India’s integrity against a succession of vicious insurgencies, earned international recognition in UN Missions and devoted itself in rescue and relief during national calamities all more or less without a break during the six decades of independent India. Above all, it has conducted itself honourably within the democratic, societal and

humane norms, never failing to correct stray cases of misdemeanour. No wonder then that the nation sees its Indian military institution as one of the few that continue to stand tall. As the prime-mover of the ‘Relationship’, the Indian state has attended well to its soldiery’s professional, social and domestic needs to the extent practicable within the systemic dispensation. The Indian soldier eats, dresses and lives well, has the best of medical attention and is able to nurture his family. The military service remains attractive and the soldiers are a well respected and satisfied lot at the end of their service. Truly, the nation pulled out all stops in supporting the armed forces during the mobilisations in 1965, 1971, Sri Lanka, Kargil and Operation Parakram, as it does during major manoeuvres. Similarly, state governments too take much pride in finding ways to meet the requirements of the armed forces. Besides, in such rare instances when the military institution slipped in its duty - Kargil, for example - the state has stood up to protect its image. However, in many other aspects, the state has deviated from its sanctified part in the ‘relationship’ and, in some ways, failed its military institution. Manifestation of this failure is seen in the Defence Ministry’s nonchalant approach to comprehensive modernisation of the military establishment, delays in procurements and execution of strategic projects and failure to attract competent volunteers into junior leadership. Some of these debilitating failings of the state, in contravention of its

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

REALITY CHECK

sanctified role in ‘state-military contract’ raise serious concerns. Some of these are recounted here. While the entire government machinery have opened up to initiative, expertise, delegation, modernisation, re-structuring and modern management practices, the Ministry of Defence remains frozen in its post-independence fixations. Here, bureaucrats, scientists and auditors all innocent of military matters have to decide as to what is needed to keep the military institution in fighting fettle, while the military hierarchy is kept at an arm’s length. Thus while most routine and mundane proposals require their overbearing ‘scrutiny’ and ‘approval’, unfamiliarity with the larger issues - like nuances of warfare, restructuring, equipment profiling, strategic infrastructure etc. - causes these hapless power centres to dither endlessly. The result is a stagnant military organisation that belies the concept of cost-effective ‘military-dividend’ to the nation.

Civil-Military Relationship’ is about committing national resources in winning wars. It is a sublime aspect of statecraft that nurtures its soldiery and ordains them to undertake extra-ordinary sacrifices for the greater good of the society, while subordinating all civilian resources to the war-effort The damage done to the military interface in civilian defence establishments like the Department of Defence Estates, Military Engineering Service and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is another example of the state’s failure to preserve the interests of the military institution. The first two are civilian departments dedicated to protect the interests of the armed forces and accordingly, are subordinated to policies of the designated military authority; President of a Cantonment Board has to be a military officer for example. However, over the years, following upgrade of civilian posts, misleading claims of ‘equivalency’ of protocol are cited to bypass the sole stakeholder, while channels of reporting have been contorted to release these departments from accountability to the military officer. In the case of

the DRDO, it is probably the only defence research organisation in the world which is marked by absence of military officers at the decision making level; no wonder that all their projects remain at half-way stage for decades. No doubt, the constituency of civil servants in the Ministry are complicit in this affair. It is also noteworthy that all instances of malpractices that came to the fore recently, are rooted in such departments, even if the military is the first to be targeted. Strategic projects - road construction, land notification, procurements, contracts etc. - have to adhere to civil-specific stipulations; there is no dispensation, no priority for strategic sensitivity. Thus projects languish, costs go up, soldier’s hardships rise and strategy stagnates. For example, in strategic road building, it is the military’s burden to obtain a ‘mountain’ of ‘clearances’ from all and sundry agencies, each of these resisting tooth and nail, as if it was only the military’s burden to promote national strategy. Absurdity also reigns when procurement of much needed weapons and equipment is held up to avoid allegations of money making by political parties and ‘syndicates’. Here again, the soldier must bear the burden of systemic probity. No doubt, on many substantial issues of ‘Civil-Military Relations’, the state has not been able to maintain the sanctity of its commitments. As for the ‘societal-soldiery covenant’, the situation brings much satisfaction. The common citizen holds his soldiery in very high esteem, so much so that celebrating local soldier’s sacrifices has become an obligatory performance for the politicians and officials. In the thoroughly self-serving officialdom, as also amongst the various gangs, soldiers are accorded due considerations; even if these may not be to the extent given earlier - and that should be understandable in view of the attributes of the present society. There have been slippages in responding to soldiers’ problems by the civil administration, but such situations have not gone beyond amelioration. Generally, therefore, this aspect of ‘Civil-Military Relations’ has held its part of the bargain. At this stage, we could divert our focus to touch upon the recent trend of growing acrimony between the defence bureaucracy and the armed forces hierarchy, which casts a shadow upon the ‘Civil-Military Relationship’.

Defence bureaucracy and the military hierarchy Recently, vociferous allegation of partisan conduct of the Sixth Pay Commission and its unilateral endorsement by the government has cast a shadow over the ‘Civil-Military Relations’. Though actually a matter of base attributes of arrogance, jealousy, fear and malafide grip over power brokerage at the South Block, it may yet be appropriate to discuss this aspect of the subject under discussion. No other issue, since independence, has more besmirched the relationship between the bureaucrats and armed forces officers. Indeed, the former are seen as the villains of this unfortunate episode, somewhat unfairly because while they did process the deliberations, decisions were that of the politicians; the excuse that politicians might have been gullible does not really hold when seen in light of their single-minded articulation of self-agenda. Simply put, in what is somewhat justifiably charged as ‘cheating’ soldiers of their due, the Pay Commission excluded any member from the armed forces the largest body of affected state officials and in a callous act of insensitivity, ended up downgrading the soldier’s emoluments and by default, his protocol. In previous occasions, soldiers, guided by their pristine ethos, had not looked for any ‘tricks’ played upon them; when they did this time, it was found that the process of undermining had started decades earlier! The government’s was aplomb in dismissing the protests as it was in its avoidance of the judicial reliefs granted in favour of servicemen. Indeed, the perception and perception matters, right or not of the government’s nonchalance and the bitterness it has generated among the soldiery, will take a long time to repair. Adverse fallout on motivation of the soldiery, as manifested by the unfortunate spectacle of

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

veterans returning their war medals to the Rashtrapati, must remain as an unprecedented slur on any democratic regime. This situation therefore is a matter of deep concern to all right thinking citizens. Truly, it is disconcerting to watch our highly competent civil servants and their equally wise political leaders getting into the business of creating demons of themselves in the eyes of the soldiery as much as in the eyes of common citizens. It would therefore be in order to conclude this discussion with the causes of unsavoury disconnect between the defence bureaucracy and the military hierarchy.

Genesis of Kalidasa syndrome At the dawn of independence, India found a group of eminent personalities at the helm of affairs who, notwithstanding their intellect, were novices in management of the military institution. Thus having inherited a highly professional military institution, politicians had to fall back upon a set of empirical advice rendered by the departing imperialists to administer it, while civil servants came to be depended upon for defence policy formulation and its implementation. Indeed, the imperialist’s advice was burdened with the latent reason for the British to leave: the question of loyalty of the Indian armed forces and a fear of repeat of 1857. In similar vein, civil servants, obliged to remain beholden to the military hierarchy between the two World Wars, resolved to never let their prominence in power-brokerage be challenged ever again. Government of India thus started its independent military management under an influence of suspicion and fear of the military hierarchy. It did make a show of nurturing the defence sector, but down the succeeding years and particularly following the debacle of 1962, it became apparent that the Indian state had failed this extra-ordinary institution of its nationhood. Having learnt the lesson in 1962, the state left no recourse in strengthening its military institution. Soon, the Defence Ministry, under the leadership of Y B Chavan, had resuscitated the ill-equipped, ill-trained and ill-treated armed forces into a war-winning machine. That effort continued to bear good politico-diplomatic dividends till the late 1980’s. During these years, civil servants of the Defence Ministry were revisited by the World War-like situation on two occasions when they were put to the sidelines by Sam Maneckshaw and Sunderji. The old resolve was resuscitated thus. Few civil servants did rise above the petty, K Subrahmanyam for example; but they were out of the bureaucratic power-loop. By 1990, the political complexion had reversed. Within the next five years or so, the military institution put to such dire straits that the then Army Chief, while making a customary presentation to the Prime Minister, had to rue that the force’s “spirit is intact but the body is weak’! Kargil War and ‘Operation Parakram’ followed that squeezed out what limited weapons, equipment and budgetary options the armed forces still had. All this while the Army was more or less continuously and successfully engaged in counter-insurgency operations to preserve the integrity of the nation; that success might have fed the political leadership with a notion that ‘all is well’ with the military structure. Today, the armed forces in general and the Army in particular is but a listless organisation that, in its traditional die-hard wont, valiantly continues to sustain itself with obsolete structure, debilitating deficiencies in battle leadership and soldiery both in qualitative and quantitative terms and of course, mounting shortages in weapons, ammunition and war-like equipment. This, in spite of the nation spending in the upward of rupees one and a half lakh crore annually on her armed forces. How did the state apparatus, a repository of wisdom, land up emulating Kalidasa, the original fool who was found sawing the branch he sat upon? Will the state emulate his second coming when he worked to elevate to such literary excellence as to be the greatest poet of medieval India? Of course, the state can, if it seeks the wisdom of understanding the military institution. For that the policy-makers have to appreciate the subtle

nuances of what they read of Rudolph Holsti, Winston Churchill and Samuel Huntington; these treatise are comprehensible only if tempered with the benefit of exposure to military way of life. Professional jealousy of the armed forces top brass not the soldiery per se among civil servants is an eternal fact since the times of Talleyrand. Excellent professionals themselves, nothing rattles them more than the awe-inspiring presence of decorated military officers; nothing pleases them more than having such smart and confident officers seek their ‘shelter’, of which there are always good numbers. It taxes their intellect to administer a highly complex and unfamiliar military institution, which they generally do well after much exaction. Professional rivalry, however, may not come in way of deeper understanding of the military institution among those ensconced within the hallowed precincts of the South Block. Policy-makers should be wise to the fact that deficiencies in the wherewithal of war is a serious concern while damage to the fabric of military culture is a disease of catastrophic dimensions - not for the soldiery but for the nation. Adverse effects of superficial understanding of the military institution and mind-sets of cadre-rivalry may not therefore be allowed to impinge upon ‘Civil-Military Relations’.

Last words We may appreciate that strategic articulation of armed might does not figure in India’s political agenda. A prerogative of nation’s civilian leadership, this policy is to be respected. What however needs to be appreciated by the polity is that the fundamentals of ‘Civil-Military Relationship’ must be upheld at all times, else the damage to the military institution will live for generations to the detriment of the society. It is time to educate ourselves! “… a permanent piece of education …” Pandit Nehru, referring to the defeat in 1962.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

INS Teg Frigate Inducted By Indian Navy

Anti-Naxal Ops: UAVs Finally Show Results For CRPF

fter almost two years of painstaking efforts, the CRPF has successfully used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to pick up ground conversation and movement of Maoist cadres in terrains of Chhattisgarh. A special squad of the anti-Naxal force recently undertook an operation in the jungles of Narayanpur district during which a UAV was not only able to pick up “real-time imagery” of movement of Naxal cadres but also relayed the conversation among them.

The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), along with other forces and technical experts drawn from the Army and the NSG, has been trying to deploy UAVs for operational planning since April 2010, when 75 CRPF men and state police personnel were killed in a deadly Naxal ambush in Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada area. The force has also begun providing its strike units with Global Positioning System (GPS) locators which keep alive the line of communication when radio sets and mobile phones go dead deep inside the jungles. The force has also successfully tested a mini-UAV ‘Netra’ in the jungles of Bijapur. It will be exclusively used for reconnaissance of Naxal hideouts. ‘Netra’ runs on a small payload of chargeable batteries and it was, according to sources, able to give exact grid co-ordinates and imagery of the areas to the CRPF and state government authorities. They said the UAV will also help security forces like the CRPF, BSF and ITBP, along with state police units, to detect laying of mines and IEDs by the Maoists.

CRPF Gets Own Intelligence School

he Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) got its own Intelligence School which was inaugurated by Union Home Minister P Chidambaram recently at Kadarpur in Gurgaon. Speaking on the occasion, Chidambaram said that the role of CRPF has significantly changed from maintaining law and order to counter-insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern states. Intelligence gathering plays very important role to combat naxalism and insurgency. He praised CRPF for being on frontline in maintaining Internal Security. Welcoming the Chief Guest, K Vijay Kumar, Director General CRPF thanked Home Minister for sanctioning Intelligence School and tremendous support for expanding training institutions and infrastructure. He said that this will enable the Force to work in a more professional manner. P M Nair, Additional Director General (Operations) made a power point presentation about the intelligence set up of CRPF. With the establishment of CRPF Intelligence School, the Force now will have its own Integrated Intelligence set up right from Directorate to Unit level. It will help a vertical and seamless flow of intelligence. The force is planning to conduct various training programmes to train the officers and men at the cutting edge level, besides training the trainers. The faculty from BSF, IB, R&AW, Military Intelligence and CBI will train the personnel. Ministry of Home Affairs has recently sanctioned total 468 posts for Intelligence set up from Commandant to Constable. CRPF has already appointed one retired IG of BSF as Consultant to head the Intelligence set up and streamline it.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

ndia Navy inducted INS Teg, a guided missile frigate, into service at a ceremony at the Yantar shipyard in Russia’s Kaliningrad. INS Teg, the first of the class to be fitted with BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles under the six Krivak-III Talwar class warships, was commissioned as an Indian naval ship by Vice Admiral K N Sushil, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, India’s Southern Naval Command. INS Talwar, INS Trishul and INS Tabar, inducted between 2002 and 2003, do not carry BrahMos, but are equipped with the Klub cruise missiles. INS Teg is a modern and contemporary warship with advanced technologies incorporated in every facet of design to make her stable, stealthy, fast and formidable. The ‘Teg’ class of ships, an advanced version of the ‘Talwar’ class guided missile frigates already in service with the Indian Navy, have been built to meet the specific command and control needs of the Indian Navy for co-ordinated surface, air and underwater missions. The weapons suite of the 125-metre, 4000-ton frigate includes the BrahMos surface-to-surface cruise missile system, a surface-to-air missile system, 100 mm medium range gun, close-in weapon System, torpedo tubes and anti-submarine rockets. With its advanced weapons suite and sensors fully integrated with its combat management system, the ship is equipped to augment the Indian Navy’s net centric capability and is well suited to undertake a broad spectrum of maritime missions. INS Teg is likely to reach Indian shores by end June 2012. The other two ships of the Teg class - INS Tarkash and INS Trikand - are likely to be delivered by September 2012 and mid 2013 respectively.

India Fast-Tracks Defence Deals For The Army

he government has signed the three Defence deals pertaining to sub-machine guns, thermal imagers and target designators which are aimed at stepping up the surveillance and firepower capabilities of the force. The first deal, worth US$ 5.75 million, was signed with Messrs B&T Switzerland for the acquisition of 1,568 advanced sub-machine guns for the “Ghatak” platoon of infantry battalions. The second deal has been contracted with state-run Bharat Electronics for the supply of 630 hand-held thermal imagers. These are worth US$ 29.41 million and will go to the specialised counter-insurgency force in Jammu and Kashmir called Rashtriya Rifles. The third deal is inked with Messrs Alpha Designs for the Special Forces in the Army. The deal worth US$ 23.43 million pertains to laser target designators. The Defence Ministry has indicated that procurements worth US$ 3.33 billion are in the final phase and that a committee has also been appointed under the Army Vice-Chief to fast-track arms deals for the Special Forces. India is also focused on military modernisation with a clear emphasis on transfer of major technology as well as the license to assemble and produce equipment and spare parts.

Appointment Shri S N Mantha is The New CMD, Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL)

hri Satya Narayana Mantha has assumed charge as the new Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), a Mini Ratna Category-1 Public Sector Enterprise under the Ministry of Defence. He succeeds Maj Gen Ravi Khetarpal, VSM (retd) who retired on 31 March 2012 on attaining superannuation. Prior to his new appointment, Shri Mantha has served as Director (Technical) of BDL. A Mechanical Engineer from Banaras Hindu University and an MBA in Finance from IGNOU, Shri Mantha has served BDL in various capacities spanning over two decades.

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS

“Artillery has given a good account of itself in the war and has without any doubt emerged as the best fighting arm of the Pakistan Army”. – Lieutenant General AKHTAR HUSSAIN MALIK

Debalina Chatterjee The writer is Research Associate at the Centre for Air Power Studies, Western Air Command. She is MA in International Studies from Stella Maris College, Chennai and PG Diploma in International Humanitarian Law from NALSAR, Hyderabad, India. The ACCCS it is felt would give the army to concentrate on fire power at both operational and tactical levels in a lessened time frame and also be able to destroy the enemy’s arsenal at a desired place. This would enable the army to enhance the credibility of the ‘Riposte’ doctrine which means ‘offensive defence’ and also could be able to counter India’s Cold Start doctrine. In case Pakistan possesses credible nuclear artillery, limited conflicts fought under nuclear umbrella could be cataclysmic. Pakistan does not have a “no first strike” policy and hence, they could be tempted to use nuclear weapons in their artillery systems. Nuclear artillery has now a days been replaced by tactical ballistic missile launchers.

An interesting and informative article on the Pakistani Artillery and the modernisation / acquisitions under way by a young civilian researcher with the CAPS. The role of the artillery was to establish fire superiority in the battlefield in a way that the enemy is not able to intervene into the operations of the army and also cannot strategise his own operations effectively. Artillery does this by destroying or neutralising enemy ground or air weapons which cause casualty of the enemy troops and thereby, reduces his zeal to fight. It is almost impossible for any country to fight a war without the support of artillery. Pakistan’s artillery comprises of self-propelled artillery, multi-launch rocket systems and towed artillery. Much has been written in India about India’s artillery system. However, we have somehow failed to look into our enemy’s artillery system. The article aims to take a brief look at the artillery arsenal of Pakistan.

akistan’s M110 (203 mm) is air portable and was acquired from the US as they had proved to be successful for the US during the Vietnam War. It is strange to see that the M110 still finds its place in the Pakistan Army in spite of the latest precision guided munitions and launch smart projectiles. They provide general artillery support to ground troops and also support to armoured columns and are highly mobile and manoeuvrable. Apart from providing general support, they also enable counter battery fire and suppression of enemy air defence systems. The M109 A2/A4/A5 (155 mm) howitzers are suitable for both ‘beyond line of sight’ and ‘line of sight engagements’ and provide artillery fire support. Pakistan had acquired this from the US. Pakistan also has Type 54 self-propelled field artillery which is also acquired from China. NORINCO SH1 is armed with 155 mm / L52 howitzers. The maximum range of fire of this self-propelled artillery is 53 km which was achieved with a rocket assisted V-LAP projectile. This artillery system is able to use indigenous precision guided munitions based on the Russian Krasnopol technology. The Krasnopol model of technology is different from the conventional artillery projectiles. The conventional artillery projectiles would hit at area targets while the precision guided munitions would hit the individual targets. This kind of weapon system is suited well to hit enemy bunkers on mountainous regions. This is because the precision guided weapons or the ‘smart weapons’ would be able to hit

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

only the target that is required to be hit. This would reduce collateral damage and also enable the infantry to move smoothly. It is fitted with computerised fire control system, navigation and positioning and targeting systems.

Offensive and defensive role Pakistan also possesses A-100 a Chinese Multi-launch Rocket System which is similar to a Russian 9K-58 Smerch. This could attack ground targets like airfields, command centres, radar stations, artillery or missile batteries, locations where troops are concentrated and other targets of military importance. The latest version of A-100 is the AR1A in which Pakistan had taken keen interest and had procured some for trials. This version is called A-100E in Pakistan and is of improved accuracy. This was purchased in response to India’s purchase of the 9A52-2T Smerch from Russia. The WS-1B was developed by China and is a long range artillery rocket weapon. It is the advanced version of the Chinese WS-1 which is in operation in the People’s Republic of China’s army. This system helps to bridge the gap between a conventional self-propelled artillery system and surface to surface tactical missiles. It could have both offensive and defensive roles and could be deployed against targets which are deep beyond the enemy lines. These include military bases, massed armoured divisions, missile launch site, airports, airstrips, harbours and military industrial bases. Just as India’s

indigenous Pinaka MBRL, Pakistan has an indigenous multi-launch rocket system. It is the KRL-21 and was designed by the Kahuta Research Laboratories and the rocket launcher was equipped with Global Positioning System.

Pakistan’s M110 (203 mm) is air portable and was acquired from the US as they had proved to be successful for the US during the Vietnam War

M115 is a heavy artillery weapon and uses 203 mm ammunition and was used during World War II, Korean War and Vietnam War by the US and was in service with the US Army for a long time. The gun is capable of firing nuclear rounds. However, the M115 has a limitation that the nuclear round yield exceeded the range of weapon. Panter is a successful towed artillery weapon which was successfully reverse engineered by Turkey and was acquired by Pakistan. This

acquirement of defence equipment by Pakistan was a further step towards strengthening political and defence relations with Turkey. M198 is capable of providing fire support in both direct and indirect fire capacities which could be destructive, suppressive and protective. They were used extensively during the Persian Gulf War. The ammunition fired has separate projectile and propellant and could be loaded with many propellant bags. These are air transportable by aircraft and also by

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

Indo-Israel alliance

PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS

heavy lift helicopters. A maximum of 4 rounds of fire rate could be achieved or 2 rounds of firing in a sustained firing mode with this towed howitzer. Pakistan also uses the M114 medium howitzers.

The D-30 is 122 mm and can fire explosive munitions, including HEAT shells and is one of the best artillery pieces in the world. It has excellent manoeuvrability. It has a great range and combat versatility The Type-59I is an improved version of the Type-59 towed field gun with a light combat weight. It is a Chinese copy of the Soviet M-46. It is a standard long range indirect artillery weapon and is very robust and reliable. The M-56 is a pack howitzer which is developed to meet the requirements of modern light weight howitzers. Since they are light weight howitzers, they could be used for direct fire. The sub-assemblies in the M-56 could be dismantled easily and also re-assembled in a jiffy. They could be fitted in helicopters when dismantled. Pakistan also possesses the 85 mm T-56 towed artillery. The D-30 is 122 mm and can fire explosive munitions, including HEAT shells and is one of the best artillery pieces in the world. It has excellent manoeuvrability. It has a great range and combat versatility. The D-30 is a cost effective artillery and is light enough to be carried on any vehicle. However, these artillery equipment are not a favourite amongst a lot of countries as countries have now started to prefer artillery with 155 mm range or so. Covered and uncovered enemy manpower could be destroyed and suppressed. Resistant shelters and other field structures can be destroyed. They could fight enemy artillery and tanks and mechanised assets. It would be a matter of time to see if Pakistan inducts the WS 2 from China which would have range extended to 350 kms and could be armed with more accurate guided rocket system. Amongst Multi-rocket Launch Systems, many analysts have felt that the Uragan MLRS would be a good choice. The Uragan MLRS has navigating and targeting systems. Experts feel a good quality weapon

locating system will have to be inducted by Paksitan and Artillery modernisation of Pakistan is also very important as Pakistan could be involved in limited conflicts with India in the near future. A modernised artillery system synchronised with good command and control system they feel could help Pakistan to be able to counter India’s Cold Start Doctrine. Most of the artillery systems used in Pakistan belong to the era of World War I/II or so. Pakistan has border skirmishes with not only India, but also Afghanistan. Pakistan had used long range artillery weapons in eastern Kunar and Nuristan provinces. Iran is also a constant threat to Pakistan. Pakistan’s conventional weapons have to be modernised in order to be able to counter these threats. Excalibur Precision Guided Extended Range Projectile could enable Pakistan to acquire a 24x7 precision guided capability and have a good Circular Error Probability. The Pak artillery however needs a revamp. The howitzers used by Pakistan are very old. Manoeuvre warfare is the new concept of warfare which cannot be fought without the help of artillery. For this, experts feel Pakistan has to modernise the artillery in order to provide fire support to the infantry on time. The Army could also use the artillery for counter fires by direct support, reinforcing and general support and interdiction fires. An advantage of attacking the insurgents or enemy with the help of artillery is because it could take the enemy by surprise and the enemy might not be prepared to retaliate back. However, it must be noted that only some of the artillery could be used to counter insurgencies. For Pakistan, artillery would be very useful, in case there is a conflict in a mountainous terrain where armour and other weapons might not be able to reach. However, with Pakistan showing

May 2012 Defence AND security alert

interest in improved Chinese MLRS, suppressing the enemy and destroying its ground and air weapons causing casualties and thereby breaking their will to fight anymore could be easier. Counter bombardment and counter mortar could be enabled with an effective artillery system.

Pakistan has border skirmishes with not only India, but also Afghanistan. Pakistan had used long range artillery weapons in eastern Kunar and Nuristan provinces. Iran is also a constant threat to Pakistan Experts opine that Pakistan has to improve its Artillery Combat Command and Control Systems in order to enhance the credibility of the systems and be able to fight a network centric warfare. The ACCCS it is felt would give the army to concentrate on fire power at both operational and tactical levels in a lessened time frame and also be able to destroy the enemy’s arsenal at a desired place. This would enable the army to enhance the credibility of the ‘Riposte’ doctrine which means ‘offensive defence’ and also could be able to counter India’s Cold Start doctrine. In case Pakistan possesses credible nuclear artillery, limited conflicts fought under nuclear umbrella could be cataclysmic. Pakistan does not have a “no first strike” policy and hence, they could be tempted to use nuclear weapons in their artillery systems. Nuclear artillery has now a days been replaced by tactical ballistic missile launchers.

The First and the Only ISO 9001:2008 Certified Defence and Security Magazine in India

Subscribe Now! Cover Price

Discounted Price

Tenure

India

1 year

` 1440

US$ 240

US$ 300

1 year

2 years ` 2880

US$ 480

3 years ` 4320

US$ 720

Region

SAARC Countries Rest of the World Tenure

Extra

April 2 012

y You Pa

India

SAARC Countries

Rest of the World

` 1080

US$ 156

US$ 195

US$ 600

2 years ` 1872

US$ 288

US$ 360

US$ 900

3 years ` 2592

US$ 396

US$ 495

Shipping Charges (12 Issues)

Ordinary Post

Speed Post

Courier

Delhi/ NCR

` 300

` 360

` 400

Rest of India

` 450

` 720

` 700

SAARC Countries

N/A

US$ 120

Rest of the World

N/A

US$ 240

The shipping charges for Two and Three Years Subscription as applicable. Subscribers may avail the Subscription of DSA 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years I would like to subscribe to Print Edition for I would like to gift a subscription for Name (Self).................................................................................Organisation....................................................................................... Billing Address............................................................................City.....................................Pin code................................................... Shipping Address...................................................................................................................City........................................................... State.........................................Pin code.....................................Tel......................................Mob.......................................................... DD / Cheque No.........................................................................Dated.................................Drawn on.................................................. for `..............................................................................in favour of OCEAN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Payable at New Delhi, inclusive of the shipping charges. Please add shipping charges as applicable. Please add ` 50 extra for all outstation cheques. Terms and Conditions Minimum subscription is for one year i.e. 12 Issues. Your subscription will start with the next available issue after the receipt of your payment. DSA issues will be dispatched through Postal / Courier Services, as advised by the subscriber. Please forward the completed subscription form with all the required details. DSA will not be responsible for any theft, loss or delay once the magazine has been dispatched. Please mention your subscription ID in all your future communications with us. Please inform our subscription department about non-receipt of your copy latest by 20th day of the month, failing which the request for re-dispatch will not be entertained. Subscription form can also be downloaded from the following web link http://www.dsalert.org/dsa-subscription/print-edition Print and Online editions can be subscribed online through credit card via Payment Gateway. The terms and conditions may change without any prior notice. This offer is for new subscribers, valid from 1st April 2012. This subscription form supersedes all the previous. Please address all your subscription related queries thr ough Em a il:s ubs c r iption@ ds a le r t.or g or c a ll us a t: +9 1 9 9 5 8 3 8 2 9 9 9 , 0 11 -2 3 2 4 3 9 9 9 , 2 3 2 8 7 9 9 9 . Write to us at: Subscription department, Defence and Security Alert (DSA), 4/19 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002 (INDIA).

For print edition login at: http: //www.dsalert.org/dsa-subscription/print-edition For online edition login at: http: //www.dsalert.org/dsa-subscription/online-edition