Amanjeet Singh Salyal

Amanjeet.singh@htlive.com

Chandigarh : Due lessons have not been learnt from the Kargil war and India is still vulnerable, requiring development of new weapons systems. However, as the defence ministry was too protective of public sector units, private sector companies were not being allowed to come forward, former Army chief General VP Malik (retd) said on Friday at the Military Literature Festival (MLF).

“I still feel there is too much protection given to the public sector by ministry of defence. There is a nexus which has developed over 50 years… and they try to protect them both for political and other reasons. We are not giving level playing field to our private sector. They are not just followers, they have to be partners and then you will find faster development and weapons,” he said during a panel discussion on Make In India and the nation’s security.

Too much secrecy and confidentiality was a problem in the case of development of weapons, Gen Malik added, calling for more transparency as “everybody today knows which weapons systems are being developed.”

India should have built enough indigenous defence capacity platforms, said the former Army chief, who headed the forces during the Kargil War.

Parliament should hold debates on the reasons leading to this failure, he added, leading the chorus on urgently streamlining the defence procurement processes making them facilitators and not hurdles “in our endeavour to endow our forces with the cutting edge weaponry”.

Dispelling the notion that the Army preferred importing weapons from abroad, Gen Malik categorically said the abject failure of the public sector to fully deliver the required weaponry was the only reason for this.

Every country, whether it is the UK or France, has got an autonomous body, which has the expertise under one roof for procurement-related issues and the same model should be applied here, he suggested.

Echoing Gen Malik’s views the former financial advisor (acquisition), defence ministry, Amit Cowshish, questioned the ambiguity and mistrust around objectives laid down under Make in India as far as defence acquisitions were concerned.

“There is no clear cut policy and framework to achieve avowed goals under the new slogan, he said, adding that indigenization cannot be the sole criterion to reduce costs. What was needed was “an overarching organisation to process and deliver on our defence needs in a time-bound manner.”

Cautioning against the temptation to tag defence matters with mere sloganeering, Lt General Arun Sahni (retd) wanted more funds allocated for upgrading weapons. “We need a more serious approach where accountability is fixed for producing unusable products at the public sector institutions working in the sphere.”

The panellists also concurred that India should leverage its advantage of being the largest importer of weapons while dealing with foreign exporters.

Earlier, moderating the session, journalist Rahul Bedi highlighted the gross mismatch between India’s capabilities and achievements till now. “On one side we have launched ballistic missiles and still we can’t make INSAS (family of infantry arms consisting of an assault rifle and a light machine gun) rifles”, he said alluding to the Make in India campaign.