Indigenization of Military Hardware is necessary for India to establish itself as a World Power to reckon with

Indira Mukherjee

Irrespective of whether we consider India as a developing country or an "Asian giant", it would not be a terminological in-exactitude to say that our nation has made its presence felt in the global arena owing to strong economic indicators. It is widely believed that this increased visibility will cause India to dabble more in military matters so as to tackle security issues and gain a solid footing in the international platform. If one does a survey of India’s external security challenges in South Asia, the outcome is that of concern – Indo-Pak skirmishes, long outstanding border dispute with China, Tamil issue in Srilanka, precarious political upheavals in Maldives, an un-ending constitutional crisis in Nepal, withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, an illegal drugs-arms nexus across Myanmar etc. This current geopolitical quagmire with respect to India's borders and the global notion of equating diplomacy power with military strength, make its imperative for us to decide on a path that India should eventually undertake to showcase its might. Atal Bihari Vajpayee once famously said that –

"You can change friends but not neighbours"

And it is largely because of this fact that India has, in a slow but steady pace, indulged in activities related to military expansion, capacity building, technology upgrade and increase prominence in the international arms market. This continues even today and in future will gain pace for sure.

However, the moot point is that in this era of economic globalization and rapid changes in the security paradigm, should a country like India rely on procuring military hardware from other countries to save time crunch, ramp up world-class military stockpile or focus more on indigenization to buttress sovereignty, reduce costs? The answer to this is embedded in the historical backdrop, cold war experience, political mindset and complexity of current world economic coupling. While it might be an easy option to acquire arms from other countries with reasonable expertise in this field, not giving enough incentive and encouragement to domestic military hardware production will enervate India’s self-reliance in the long run. Overseas procurement and indigenization of defence equipments are two sides of the same coin and needs to be balanced carefully for making a strong, mighty and calculative India. To understand the complexity of arriving at a decision with respect to the preferred avenue for enhancing military capabilities, the following aspects should be considered:

• ·         Legacy of military restraint
• ·         Stimulus for defence ramp up
• ·         On indigenization
• ·         Benefits and problems of foreign purchase
• ·         The way forward

Legacy of Military Restraint

Reticence in the use of force as an instrument of state policy has been the dominant political condition for Indian thinking on the military [1]. Be it the delay of sending troops to Kashmir in 1948 or the slackened pace of indulging into nuclear testing, India has always reacted with immense amount of restraint in military matters. One might argue that this approach adheres to the words of Isaac Asimov that –

“Violence...is the last refuge of the incompetent”

But many a times, this slowness gives out a wrong signal to the other side. After all, there is no gainsaying in the fact that the world reacts to and observes muscle flexing with hawkish eyes and not to mere promises or ideology only. 

Individual leadership has also led to the evolution of this thought process – India under Jawaharlal Nehru was an example of unified idealism [2]. He was a firm believer in peaceful coexistence and exercised extreme caution before resorting to any military involvement. The case was that of intermittent realism under Indira Gandhi, who waited long for the escalation of the refugee problem before sending troops to East Pakistan. However, India’s stance in 2013 is an example of economic pragmatism and that probably outweighs any other idea, including restraint. A delay in reacting to issues of security undermines the relative strength of a country and India does not wish to be in that category.

This policy of restraint had its own set of ramifications – immediately post independence, the Indian establishment focussed on high ideals and gave less importance to military build up. Once it was struck with the drag of 3 wars in quick succession in 1960s-70s, a quick realization dawned which caused the upper echelons to devise a strategy to scale up military hardware. Socio-economic needs of the country were so pressing during this time that buying arms from other countries seemed to be the quickest way out. This restraint coupled with the polarisation of world support during the cold war and the lack of Indian technical expertise in niche areas, in a way led to a reduced emphasis on indigenization. Thus, to compensate this disadvantage, loss of time and slow pace of research in the previous decades there was a greater zeal to purchase world-class weaponry, especially post 1980s.

India has definitely started moving away from this ideology of restraint, especially owing to its growing affluence and greater presence in the world arena. However, any dramatic changes seem to be at bay because India is a country where the military preparation receives far less attention than it deserves due to the socio-economic dynamics of the political compulsions. Hardly any party manifestoes talk about defence related matters and to be honest, common people are more attracted towards issues that affect them directly, on a daily basis and not issues related to external security. However, it needs to be firmly ingrained in our minds that drawing the attention of the political class towards the increasing precarious situation in south Asia has become ever important. Once this is understood and practiced, India might be able to start shifting from the legacy of restraint and hasten its pace of defence production and procurement – both locally and globally.

Stimulus for Defence ramp up

Though early Indian nationalists such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gopal Krishna Gokhale saw military service as a means to secure home rule; Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the two Indian leaders with the greatest influence on the direction of independent India, saw military spending as a burden imposed by the British in defence of their empire. In 1938 Jawaharlal Nehru wrote that India did not face any significant military challenge; the only military role he saw for the Indian Army was in suppressing the tribes of the North-West Frontier Province, who were, in any case, too primitive in his view to fight a modern military outside the tribal areas [3].

The first major stimulus came with the 1962 China war. The debacle was too much of a blot on the face for India at that time which was trying to tread the path of non alignment. The economic and political crisis during 1960’s was so enhanced that India started tilting towards Soviet Russia for its military needs. Developing own hardware during that time was a distant dream, so purchasing arms from friendly nations seemed to be the most practical solution. This pace increased till 1991 when India had to look for alternate sources. Once the economic liberalization regime kicked off, procuring arms from abroad helped in achieving the objective of saving time, ensuring global presence and acquiring the most advanced weaponry of the time. In the 21st century, new actors cropped up for India’s military needs – products of Boeing, Israeli Aerospace Industries [IAI] and MIG started entering Indian soil at a rapid pace. This was coupled with conducting joint army-naval-air exercises with other countries so as to assess comparative strengths, weaknesses, obstacles, threats and eventually, devise the roadmap for increasing military hardware. This included foreign purchase as well as indigenization efforts. However, imports have gained an upper edge over local production. In fact, in 2013 India was declared the world's biggest weapons importer, ahead of China [4].

South Asia might not have witnessed any large scale military event after the 1999 Kargil crisis but it has always been simmering with security issues. In recent times, it has escalated to a different proportion all together, and that too simultaneously – the beheading of Indian soldiers in Pakistan, the lurking head of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the ethnic strife in Myanmar, the political coup in Maldives or the incessant constitutional crisis in Nepal. India lies at the centre of all this and is left with no option but to focus on its external security situation. Piracy along the Indian Ocean is another important root of this equation especially because most of India’s imports and exports are routed through international waterways. A strong and self reliant India with a strong arms base is thus a “sine qua non” - not for attacking but for defending ourselves and assisting our strategic partners.

Another very important reason for India to step up its defence production/procurement process is its geographical proximity with China. It is interesting to note that both India and China achieved their independence at roughly the same time, they have similar population but after about 65 years of their free existence, there is a huge difference between their military capabilities. A relative comparison between the two may be tabulated hereunder [5]--> 

	India	China
Total Aircraft Strength	1962	5048
Total Helicopter Strength	620	901
Total Mortar Strength	5000	10050
Anti-Tank Weaponry Strength	51800	31250
Total Navy Ship Strength	170	972
Submarine Fleet Strength	15	63
Active Military Personnel	1325000	2285000

The numbers speak for themselves and a fuel to this, is the discussion in foreign policy think tanks on “String of Pearls”. At the ground level, it means that China is indulging into an encirclement strategy across the Indian coastline by setting up points of strategic influence like Coco Islands off Myanmar, Hambantota port in Srilanka and Gwadar in Pakistan; this has created an immense pressure on the military establishment of India to resort to different means to catch up with the military inventory of China – be it via local production or via importing arms from other players in the world.

On Indigenization

Indigenization of military hardware is a conscious effort on the part of the defence establishment to develop products which suit Indian needs, circumstances and demands. In recent months, our Defence Minister, Shri A K Antony, has been repeatedly exhorting the armed forces to procure their weapons and equipment from indigenous sources. It is a well-established fact that no nation aspiring a great power status can expect to achieve it without being substantively self-reliant in defence production [7]. It is widely held that the growing influence of India in the African continent and in Latin America will hugely be enhanced, provided India is able to tap their arms import market and sell off its indigenously developed military hardware. There is a strong local lobbying force in India which wishes to garner the benefits of investment and production in this sector. Also, it is also commonly believed that indigenization of defence equipments is the best possible way to move away from the corruption at the top-level owing to inter-country defence deals.

One of the earliest initiatives towards indigenization is the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme [IGMDP]. India has gradually achieved self reliance in the area of ballistic missiles and the epitome of this feat is the successful testing of the Inter-continental Ballistic missile [ICBM] Agni V. Similar efforts in this regards are the Main Battle Tank Arjun, HAL’s Light Combat Aircraft Tejas and INS Sunayna - India’s largest Offshore Patrol Vessel OPV. A very seminal role in this regard is played by the Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO], which is an arm of the Ministry of Defence [MoD]. It caters to the research needs of all the three wings of the army-navy-air force and develops products on a pilot basis for onward mass production by the Ordnance factories.

One of the major and recent most efforts towards indigenization has been the F-INSAS project which is meant to equip the Infantry with state-of-the-art equipment. F-INSAS means Futuristic Infantry Soldier as a System.[8] It basically aims at "converting an infantryman into a fully-networked all-terrain, all-weather, weapons platform with enhanced lethality, survivability, sustainability, mobility and situational awareness" for the digitised battlefield of the future. Most of the equipments are being developed by DRDO.

However, there are some basic issues surrounding this, and for that matter any military hardware indigenization program in India which has to go through the unavoidable process of trinity - DRDO "creates" on a pilot basis, Ordnance Factories "produces" on a mass basis and the Army/Navy/Air Force expects on "State-of the Art" basis. DRDO complains of not having quality engineers owing to “brain drain” while Ordnance factories complain of getting impractical solutions from DRDO and the latter is unable to understand the bottlenecks in a mass production assembly line. Thus, there is a disconnect between the DRDO and Ordnance factory board. Quality control, adherence to specifications, bureaucratic hassles and corruption are additional bottlenecks.

Another aspect related to the Government of India’s official policy towards purchasing military hardware is the procurement process. The Defence Procurement Procedure [DPP] manual was introduced in 2005 and was amended once again in April 2013 to reflect the current thinking on ‘buying Indian’. However, the emphasis on self-reliance remains wishful thinking at present as most weapons and equipment continue to be imported. Thus, even if products are locally made, the dependency on foreign countries continues as the constituent parts are often made abroad. Moreover, the lack of clarity on guidelines for local procurement, differences between the political establishment and military personnel with respect to the percentage of private participation and relative dichotomy of their approach towards indigenization makes the situation complex.

Benefits and problems of foreign purchase

The two world wars and the arms race during the cold war gave an obvious advantage to US and USSR in terms of accumulating military stockpile and investment in defence research. For countries like India, purchasing arms from these countries was an attractive deal and still is. Be it Akula-II nuclear submarine or INS Vikramaditya or AWACS or Sukhoi or Brahmos cruise missile, each purchase/joint venture has acted as a feather in the military cap of India – it has given India a relative edge in the world military stage. The Indo-US nuclear deal has also led to an enhancement of Indian presence in the global nuclear arena and with India winning the confidence of the Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG], the possibility of a nuclear foray into the military sector in near future cannot be ruled out all together. Moreover, generally speaking, an increased military trade relation between two countries is advantageous to the economic prowess of the constituent parties. It boosts the global economic cohesion and strengthens the pan-world business network.

A special mention in this regard is to be made with respect to the rising stature of India in the world arms market as a buyer. Very recently, India floated the tender for 126 Medium multi role combat aircraft MMRCA in which the finalists included the French Dassault, American Lockheed Martin, Euro-fighter, Sweden’s Saab and Russian MIG. The deal after rounds of discussion on technical specifications, cost implications and suitability of requirements, was clinched by the French manufacturer Dassault’s Rafale. This is the biggest defence deal that India has floated and is meant to inflate the image of India as one of the countries which are to be taken as having a no nonsense attitude towards stepping up their military hardware. An enhanced co-operation in military matters has a domino effect on other sectors as well leading to cost optimization for the receiving country. For e.g. – the Dassault deal is allegedly clubbed with the French Areva nuclear reactors in Jaitapur. It also gives some kind of fuel to the items of track II diplomacy, be it in cultural or social or educational initiatives.

However, an indiscriminate buying of foreign military hardware has its own set of issues. While India has been manufacturing Russian fighter aircraft and tanks under license for many years, the Russians never actually transferred weapons technology to India [7]. For any problems, maintenance and upgrade, we have to depend on Russian technicians. Additionally, with respect to US, any arms purchase is tied to a host of agreements like End Use Monitoring Agreement [EUMA]. EUMA is rooted in the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, which demands “reasonable assurance” that the recipient state is complying with American regulations regarding the use and security of defence articles and services. The avowed aim is to enhance American national-security and foreign-policy objectives [9].

There is no such thing as a “free lunch” – quid pro quo is one of the biggest realities of today’s world and it works in the field of defence deals as well. When a country wishes to export its top class military products to India, it usually ends up engaging itself in a lobbying practice in India. Unhealthy competition in this area leads to corruption, which is the most dangerous predicament of such foreign defence deals. Military scams like Bofors, Tatra, Scorpene deal, Chopper gate etc have grossly tarnished the image of the Indian political establishment which often pushes such deals in return of kick backs. At the end of the day, it is the poor tax payer’s money which goes to a waste. Billions are spent on such deals and many a times it does not serve the purpose of strengthening security as most of the equipments need to be frequently sent abroad for non-adherence to performance expectations, retro-fitting and upgrade. This process traps us in the loop of everlasting foreign dependence.

The way forward

The Security scenario around us is so volatile that we cannot afford to take any risks. We are living in dangerous surroundings, so armed forces need the most modern equipments at the earliest. Our armed forces is the most vital asset of the country – disaster management during floods, earthquakes, tsunami or prevention of communal riots or efforts towards counter insurgency operations; none of these work without their assistance. There is a perceived feeling in the political circles that the armed forces have a mindset of relying on imports to meet operational requirements [10]. This is primarily because of the displeasure shown by the Tri-services towards delay in indigenous production coupled with non-performance of locally made military hardware. While this cannot be entirely denied but it simultaneously undermines the vast potential that the domestic defence production sector has and the kind of long term stability that it can impart to India’s military sector. In the short run, procuring arms from abroad might be the preferred route, but for long term sustainability, there needs to be an equal stress on indigenization of military hardware.

As the largest buyer of arms in the world, India should stress on joint ventures and partnerships with the foreign arms suppliers and should not restrict itself as a buyer only. A successful example in this regard is the Indo-Russian joint production of the Brahmos cruise missile which is the fastest supersonic missile in the world currently. Such collaboration helps in achieving technical expertise and knowhow in a stepwise fashion leading to gradual self reliance. Arranging for simple clearance rules for FDI in selected sectors of defence production will also act as an incentive to the foreign players. Popularizing defence expo to showcase the latest military equipments and clubbing associated deals with offers in other sectors will also act as a booster for India’s military image.

Additionally, with the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, India will have a larger role to play in South Asia and a stockpile of the best of world weaponry will actually help us in protecting the Central Asian country from relapsing into chaos. Considering the piracy threat along the littoral states of Indian Ocean, acquiring sophisticated naval equipments from the big players of the world will help us in curbing the menace of piracy with even more alacrity.  Organizing naval, army or air exercises with other countries on a regular basis will help us in assessing our situation, preparedness and learn the best practices across the world. This will fall in place once the constituent parties indulge in trade related to military hardware.  

As far as local production is concerned, there should be more synthesis between the interests of the armed forces and the political establishment towards improvising indigenization, maintaining transparency and continuous monitoring. Ensuring some kind of tandem via collaborative research between the creativity of the DRDO, the capability of Ordnance Factories and the demand of armed forces will surely help to reduce the friction among the stakeholders of the defence establishment. Additionally, it is very important that India steps up its defence budget. Indigenization cannot happen overnight and hence, a strategic plan should be formulated by the tri-services to map short term and long term interests, assumptions, constraints, issues and risks so as to align them with the defence procurement policy of India. In fact, the procurement process should be simplified and made into a “single window” business. The PSU’s and private sector should be encouraged to deliver efficiently and effectively so that India can come out of the vicious cycle of reliance on foreign technicians.

Our defence minister recently said that –

“Import is the last resort not the easiest resort” [10]

Striking a balance between indigenization and foreign purchase is the key to ensuring India’s military stability and capability. The approach of the political establishment towards army needs must be more focused and pragmatic. The government must give a firm commitment in terms of funds and the MoD should streamline its procedures and processes for speedy procurement of high priority weapons and equipments. On the other hand, the tri-services should appreciate the political compulsions and set forth their agenda and roadmap very clearly so as to extract maximum assistance from the political class. A seamless coupling between the two will lead to a stronger, mightier and resilient India. After all, a synergy between a theoretical plan and implementation of the same in the field of arms purchase and indigenization of military hardware is the key to making India a global power to reckon with.

References:

[1] – Arming without aiming; Stephen P Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta

[2] – Can the Elephant Dance? David Malone

[3] – The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation; Stephen P Cohen

[4] – http://www.sipri.org ; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

[5] – http://www.globalfirepower.com

[6] – http://www.iiss.org/ ; International Institute for Strategic Studies

[7] – http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/DefenceTechnologyIndigenisation_gkanwal_190913

[8] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-INSAS

[9] – http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/27/stories/2009072755490800.htm

[10] – http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indigenisation-only-way-to-avoid-defence-scams/article4436266.ece

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indira Mukherjee is an IPS probationer of the 88th FC at LBSNAA, Mussoorie. This post is a replica of her entry for the essay competition.

DEBATE: At this stage of economic development, India should focus more on local environmental issues than global ones?

Indira Mukherjee

The butterfly effect is a phenomenon, wherein a relatively insignificant event in one part of the world leads to a major consequence in another part. So if tomorrow someone tells us that the recent droughts in Maharashtra were an effect of the indiscriminate felling of trees in Brazil – let’s not get surprised. 
It is probably because of this far sightedness that the UN Summit in 2000 adopted 8 Millennium Development Goals and kept one of the aims as “Ensuring environmental sustainability”. 

There is no gainsaying the fact that environmental issues plague each and every country today - India is no exception. Because environmental issues do not recognise territorial borders, the solutions too, need to have a global dimension.  

Good Afternoon respected teachers and my dear friends; I am Indira Mukherjee and to speak against the motion, I would like to draw your attention towards three things:

• “There is a very strong coupling between environment and trade”

Considering the burgeoning ties with the WTO, can India remain sequestered from Environmental Agreements which have trade implications; like CITES, Basel convention and others?
Let’s take an example. Suppose 2 WTO members indulge in trade and out of them one is not actively into resolving global environmental issues. What can such a situation lead to? This might eventually cause the first country into imposing trade sanctions against the other. Quite a jam, isn’t it?

At this stage of economic development, can India afford to face such a predicament? A strained trade relationship might have an impact on financial support and technology transfer in other sectors as well.

• “There is an inextricable link between globalization and environment”

Environmental resources provide the fuel for economic globalization, which in turn affects environmental resources. Let’s take the example of green house gas emission reduction. 

The Kyoto protocol actually allows member states to reduce GHG, not only in their own countries but also elsewhere via the mechanism of Joint Implementation, Emissions Trading and Clean Development Mechanism. Interestingly, India is the largest beneficiary of CDM in the world under the Kyoto protocol.

So if a developed country wishes to invest in India to reduce its emission and helps us with money and technology, and just expects an active collaboration in return, it is a win-win situation for both.  
Moreover, in this age of increased networking and de-territorialisation, not making use of the global effort to fight a malaise is a waste of resources available at our disposal.

• “There is a seamless interaction between global and local environment policies”

Let’s consider NAPCC-2007. It was India’s response to the IPCC’s 4th assessment report on climate change, in accordance with the principle of CBDR.
Also, let’s not forget that India formulated the Biodiversity Act in 2002 to meet its obligations under Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - an outcome of Rio Earth Summit, 1992.

Thus, it would not be a terminological in-exactitude to say that global efforts to curb environmental issues boil down to local initiatives. Hence, ignoring global environmental issues at the cost of local environmental issues does not augur well on the part of a responsible nation like India. The way I look at it, local environmental issues are more about follies of implementation at the grass root level.

In sum – India owing to its economic position has the capability to actively engage in multilateral negotiations in the global arena. Such an approach must be based on Mahatma Gandhi’s dictum – 
“The earth has enough to meet people’s needs, but will never have enough to satisfy people’s greed.” 

The success of our national efforts would be significantly enhanced, provided the other countries affirm their commitment towards fixing global environmental issues. It is in this field that India can play a significant role.
Environment is a collective global asset which needs to be nurtured. To stress the fundamental, resolving local environmental issues would be within the projection of the global mapping. 

India has made its presence felt in the international environmental scene and in future, should continue to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indira Mukherjee is an IPS probationer of the 88th FC at LBSNAA, Mussoorie. This was her speech at the Homi J Bhaba debate competition which was conducted on 27th of September, 2013.

"Gandhian Ideology" in the Quit India Movement, really?

Few things never age out.  Similar is the case with the ideology of Gandhiji - an emblem of non-violence or as he popularly called it-ahimsa. His principles can be followed by anyone and in any age for achieving what one wishes to. Even he practiced it rigorously, but wasn’t born with those traits. His experiences taught him the values of satya and ahimsa. Gandhiji explains his philosophy and way of life in his autobiography ‘The Story of My Experiments with Truth’.

Early life: In May 1883, the 13-year-old Mohandas was married to 14-year-old Kasturbai Makhanji  in an arranged child marriage, according to the custom of the region. In the process, he lost a year at school. Recalling the day of their marriage, he once said: "As we didn't know much about marriage, for us it meant only wearing new clothes, eating sweets and playing with relatives."

However, as was the prevailing tradition, the adolescent bride was to spend much time at her parents' house, and away from her husband. In 1885, when Gandhi was 15, the couple's first child was born, but survived only a few days. He further says,

“I have still to relate some of my failings during this meat-eating period and also previous to it, which date from before my marriage or soon after. A relative and I became fond of smoking. Not that we saw any good in smoking, or were enamored of the smell of a cigarette. I realized that it was not as easy to commit suicide as to contemplate it. And since then, whenever I have heard of someone threatening to commit suicide, it has had little or no effect on me.”[1]

It was these experiments, if we can call them thus, which made him vegetarian, celibate, follower of satya and ahimsa and a statue of resistance.

His ideologies were not in-born but cultivated and enhanced through the experiments life conducted on him. They showed him the truth.Returning to India from South Africa, where he had enjoyed a successful legal practice; he gave up wearing Western-style clothing, which he associated with wealth and success. He dressed to be accepted by the poorest person in India. He advocated the use of homespun cloth (khadi). Gandhi and his followers adopted the practice of weaving their own clothes from thread they themselves spun, and encouraged others to do so.[2,3]

Beginning of the movement: In March 1942 Cripps came to India with an offer repeating the promise of a constitution making body after the war and till then demanding effective execution of the war against the threat of mounting disaster in Asia - consequent upon Japan's entry into the arena. Gandhiji described the offer as a postdated cheque; appealed to the British to withdraw from every Asiatic and African possession, at least from India. In other words: "Quit India". Gandhiji appealed to Chiang-Kai Shek, President Roosevelt to see the truth behind his "Quit India" call to the British. In August first week, he groomed the historic "Quit India" resolution at the Bombay A I C C.:

"The freedom of India must be the symbol of and prelude to the freedom of all other Asiatic Nations…" Gandhiji's call was "Do or Die" 

‘Quit India,’ ‘Bharat Choro’.

This simple yet powerful slogan launched “the legendary struggle which also became famous by the name of the ‘August Revolution.” In this struggle, the common people of the country demonstrated an unparalleled heroism and militancy.

   

The Agenda: Gandhiji’s speech also contained specific instructions for different sections of the people. Government servants would not yet be asked to resign, but they should openly declare their allegiance to the Congress, soldiers were also not to leave their posts, but they were to ‘refuse to fire on our own people. The Princes were asked to ‘accept the sovereignty of your own people, instead of paying homage to a foreign power.’ And the people of the Princely States were asked to declare that they ‘(were) part of the Indian nation and that they (would) accept the leadership of the Princes, if the latter cast their lot with the People, but not otherwise.’ Students were to give up studies if they were sure they could continue to remain firm independence was achieved.

Government had been constantly exhorting him to condemn the violence of the people during the Quit India Movement. Gandhiji not only refused to condemn the people’s resort to violence but unequivocally held the Government responsible for it. It was the ‘leonine violence’ of the state which had provoked the people, he said.

Gandhiji was not condemning violence!!! Did he give in? Did he leave behind his principles of satya and ahimsa? What happened to his ideologies, what made him say this? Numerous questions popped up one after another, and nobody seemed to have no reason to believe these facts.

Let us take a few steps back to see the trail of incidents which led Gandhiji to say and make such a decision.

On 7 August, Gandhiji had placed the instructions he had drafted before the Working Committee, and in these he had proposed that peasants ‘who have the courage, and are prepared to risk their all’ should refuse to pay the land revenue.

The Government, however, was in no mood to either negotiate with the Congress or wait for the movement to be formally launched. In the early hours of 9 August, in a single sweep, all the top leaders of the congress were arrested and taken to unknown destinations. In anticipation of the AICC’s passing the Quit India resolution, instructions for arrests and suppression had gone out to the provinces. The sudden attack by the Government produced an instantaneous reaction among the people. Meanwhile, many provincial and local level leaders who had evaded arrest returned to their homes through devious routes and set about organizing resistance. As the news spread further in the rural areas, the villagers joined the townsmen in recording their protest.

The ‘Violent’ Protest: For the first six or seven weeks after 9 August, there was a tremendous mass upsurge all over the country. People devised variety of ways of expressing their anger. In some places huge crowds attacked police stations, post offices, kutcheries (courts), railway stations and other symbols of Government authority. National flags were forcibly hoisted on public buildings in defiance of the police. At other places, groups of satyagrahis offered arrest in tehsil or district headquarters. Crowds of villagers, often numbering a few hundreds or even a couple of thousand, physically removed railway tracks.

Elsewhere, small groups of individuals blew up bridges and removed tracks, and cut telephone and telegraph wires. Students of the Banaras Hindu University decided to go to the villages to spread the message of Quit India. They raised slogans of ‘Thana jalao’ (Burn police station), ‘Station phoonk do’ (Burn the railway stations) ‘Angrez Bhag Gaya’ (Englishmen have fled). They hijacked trains and draped them in national flags.

In rural areas, the pattern was of large crowds of peasants descending on the nearest tehsil or district town and attacking all symbols of government authority. There was strong government repression, but the rebellion only gathered momentum. According to official estimates, in the first week after the arrests of the leaders, 250 railway stations were damaged or destroyed, and over 500 post offices and 150 police stations were attacked. The movement of trains in Bihar and Eastern U.P. was disrupted for many weeks. In Karnataka alone, there were 1600 incidents of cutting of telegraph lines, and twenty- six railway stations and thirty-two post offices were attacked.

This doesn’t sound non-violence yet Gandhiji was not ready to condemn it? That definitely leaves us clueless but the other side of the story is yet to be said. The brutality with which the rebellion was crushed was no less than martial law.

British Action: Unarmed crowds faced police and military firing on 538 occasions and they were also machine-gunned by low-flying aircraft. Repression also took the form of taking hostages from the villages, imposing collective fines running to a total of Rs 90 lakhs (which were often realized on the spot by looting the people’s belongings), whipping of suspects and burning of entire villages whose inhabitants had run away and could not be caught. By the end of 1942, over 60, 000 persons had been arrested. Twenty-six thousand people were convicted and 18,000 detained under the Defence of India Rules. Martial law had not been proclaimed, but the army, though nominally working under the orders of the civilian authorities, often did what it wanted to without any reference to the direct officers. The brutal and all-out repression succeeded within a period of six or seven weeks in bringing about a cessation of the mass phase of the struggle.

Gandhiji’s Stance: It doesn’t need a microscopic analysis to find out which side was brutal and who committed the excesses and the ‘real’ violence. But is there anything called real and unreal violence. Well there definitely is one, if not Gandhiji would have condemned it, but he did not. This was what he did. In February 1943, a striking new development provided a new burst of political activity. Gandhiji commenced a fast on 10 February in jail. He declared the fast would last for twenty-one days. This was his answer to the Government which had been constantly exhorting him to condemn the violence of the people in the Quit India Movement. Gandhiji not only refused to condemn the people’s resort to violence but unequivocally held the Government responsible for it. It was the ‘leonine violence’ of the state which had provoked the people, he said.

The popular response to the news of the fast was immediate and overwhelming. All over the country, there were hartals, demonstrations and strikes. Calcutta and Ahmedabad were particularly active. Prisoners in jails and those outside went on sympathetic fasts. Groups of people secretly reached Poona to offer Satyagraha outside the Aga Khan Palace where Gandhiji was being held in detention.

He was again successful in bringing back the non-violent character of the movement back. Gandhiji, as always, got the better of his opponents, and refused to oblige the British by dying. The fast had done exactly what it had intended to achieve. The public morale was raised, the anti-British feeling heightened, and an opportunity for political activity provided. A symbolic gesture of resistance had sparked off widespread resistance and exposed the Government’s high-handedness to the whole world. The moral justification that the Government had been trying to provide for its brutal suppression of 1942 was denied to it and it was placed clearly in the wrong.[4]

Unanswered Questions: But the question that still haunts us: Did gandhiji for a moment budge from his opposition to violence and embrace it or his sympathy towards the Indians at the hands of brutal British soldiers made him see a greater violence dominating over the smaller one? Did the cause justify it? Had the British not been overwhelmingly brutal, would Gandhiji still have endorsed it?

The matter of the fact is Gandhiji had indeed moved along his own trajectory of non-violence and quite far, this time around. From 1920, the Non-Cooperation Movement, when Gandhiji was staunch, and may be obstinate in his endurance of oppression – so much so that the heavy lathicharge by the police at Chauri-Chaura was to be accepted not as a humiliation but part of the struggle towards ‘imbibing’ satyagraha – to Civil Disobedience in 1930 where upon he was a bit more militant; that is – overlooking sporadic violence by masses in the territorial periphery of the struggle. Finally, ten years down the lane – in 1942, Gandhiji seemingly had enough of the British, his faith in British-like attitude petering out towards the tangential touch of any form of reaction by the masses.

With Gandhiji remaining tight-lipped towards condemnation of violence in 1942, the countless forms of struggle that India was harbouring since 1757 found the oceanic assimilation. And with Subhash Chandra Bose punching in from North-East – India was progressing towards the dawn of freedom – without factually knowing it as soothsayers, yet confidently believing in the same. 

References:

1.    My experiments with truth-M.K. Gandhi

2.    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

3.    http://www.mahatma.com/php/showContent.php?linkid=8

4.    India’s Struggle for Indepedence-Bipan Chandra

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rajan Agarwal is a student of History and wishes to draw comparison between ahimsa and its Gandhian version. You may write to him at indianpolicy2010@gmail.com

CSO or NSSO, Whom to Blame?

The recent ruckus in India just prior to the Budget for the financial year 2013-14 had a lot to do with the quarterly estimates regarding the GDP of India released by the Central Statistical Office (CSO). 

The CSO faced a lot of criticism as regards to the methodologies it adopted to give the estimates. However, instead of taking the entire onus on its shoulder, the CSO would, generally transfer some of the responsibilities on the other component of the Statistical Wing- the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). 

Instead of going into the blame game, a look into the way data collected in India can give us some idea as regards to the problem.

Generally the responsibility of collecting data is on the NSSO. Organizationally, it has the following subdivisions:

1. Survey Design and Research Division (SDRD)
2. Field Operation Division (FOD)
3. Data Processing Division (DPD)
4. Co-ordination and Publication Division (CPD)

Before a particular survey is conducted, the survey structure and the items on which information is to be collected is designed by the SDRD. Next, throughout India the survey is simultaneously conducted by FOD through its six Zonal Offices (ZO)s i.e. the North, South, East, West, North-East and Central and the various Regional Offices (RO)s and Sub-Regional Offices (SRO)s under them. 

Various socio-economic aspects are surveyed by FOD in different rounds with length of six months or one year. In general, time period for each round of survey is subdivided into sub rounds of three months. The data thus collected come to DPD where before entering the data in the computer, Pre Data Entry Scrutiny is done to check for inconsistency. After the data is entered, the Unit-Level data, which is typical of NSSO is published by the CPD. The CSO uses this data to carry out further analysis and releases important estimates like the one recently released. 

Also the Planning Commission uses this data to formulate its important policies.

This is the schematic structure of the way how the Indian statistical system works. But the scenario behind it involves a lot of hard work and lots of willingness to produce good statistics.

Before a survey is conducted, senior officers go for a pilot survey as regards the responses to the questions. But since they are the “sarkaribabus” or the “mai-baps”, they hardly find any problem in carrying out the pilot survey. 

But the wrath is faced by the statistical investigators, who either form a group of two or have to canvass the main schedule alone. Questions which they have to ask are very realistic and such questions can bring out the true picture of the household. The counter- question that these people often have to hear is – 

“What will the government give if I answer the question?” 

“Who will compensate for the time lost in answering these questions?” 

“Every time, you come and write these down. But what have we got out of it? A BPL card is also not issued to us in the proper time.” 

Answering these counter questions take a lot of time. In addition, the investigators have to explain to the people that the households they are randomly selecting won’t be showered with all the wealth they can think of nor they are going to get all kinds of modern appliances the next day. As a result, it might take a little more time to prepare the schedule after facing all such questions. But these investigators do a commendable job by patiently explaining them the reason of their canvassing and try not to give any false hopes to these people. But then the senior officers might criticize them for taking longer time to canvass the schedule.

However, as we will find every kind of people at every corner of the earth, every investigator might not be that honest. After being continuously confronted, some investigators may cook up information sitting at their homes without even visiting the field - thus giving tailor-made information.

In order to check such situations, often there are field inspections as well as cross-checking of data. For instance, if data is collected on the consumer expenditure - first the listing schedule is done on the basis of the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) and then on the basis of that, it is divided into three strata - the upper class, the middle class and the lower class. However, when counter-checking is done, people are once again asked about this MPCE. Everyone might not be able to report the MPCE properly, especially in rural poor households. Hence the data often loses its validity. 

Again, the random numbers, using which the households are selected, are also checked, for which any discrepancy might make the schedule being referred back to the field, thus incurring more time and cost.

Hence the finalization of the data takes longer time and hence often fails to capture the current scenario.

Another important problem that remains is the data that comes from North-eastern states like Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland where data is collected solely by the states. Hence the discrepancies that remain need a lot of correction and still might not be able to reflect the true picture because the state agencies are not equipped enough for field investigation.

When erroneous data reach the Planning Commission or the CSO, there might be problem like the one currently being faced.

However, one should remember that these data are the only “connect” with rural India because in front of these investigators, the people would talk about the real situation. Hence the need of these surveys remains unquestionable. What the government needs to do is increase awareness among the people. 

The publicity of NSSO should be enriched in both quality & quantity, so that common people are aware about the functionalities & usefulness of NSSO. Only then they can talk about their own conditions and help in their upliftment by providing proper information so that correct policies can be formulated for them and better measures can be taken for the actual “garibi hatao”. 

Only then can India actually perform better as a rising economy.

------------------------------------------------------

Second in the series, the anonymous author comes out with the real grass roots problems in Sample Surveys. 

In India, No “Statistics” for the Statistician

The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation does a silent job of collecting data on various fields from the entire country. Some of the data have predominant significance in an individual’s life - like that for Consumer Price Index [Urban] where data is taken on the selling price of certain goods [pre-fixed]. The concerned data help in determining the Dearness Allowance (DA) of government employees. Some other data which also gets collected may not be of direct use to individuals, but in long term, it helps in policy formulation and taking important decisions relating to the holistic development of the country. These include the area enumeration of different villages in India, getting idea regarding the amount of crop yield from a particular field for all seasons – viz. Rabi, Kharif and Jayat Rabi, socio-economic survey, urban frame survey, Annual Survey of Industries, among others. All these surveys are done by the Field Operation Division of National Sample Survey Office under the aforementioned Ministry. The surveys are carried out simultaneously by the different Regional and Sub-Regional Offices all over India.

One of the major problems that the investigators face is the lack of response since there is no law binding the informant for supplying information. Suppose, let’s take the experience of a crop-cutting survey. Now any state of India has hundreds of villages and it is the responsibility of Field operations Division (FOD), Faridabad to allot certain villages for each round in such a manner such that after every five years, the same village gets repeated again. A tedious task no doubt, given the size of most of the Indian states. But then one may sideline this as a routine work, saying that they are just repeating the procedures which they are following from time immemorial. Next job is to pick up a field through random number. Suppose village A in state X got selected and there are 1000 plots in which crop is being cultivated in that village, then if the random number being allotted is 700, then choose the 700^th plot for your study. If random number allotted is 1500, divide 1500 by 1000 and the remainder i.e. 500 will give you the required plot number. Its statistics so far – probably no big deal, and can be done by sitting at the village Patwari’s office.

Even if the chosen plot does not grow the required crop, say wheat about which information is needed - then go for the next field, not that complicated yet. But now surfaces the typical problems. One fine morning you happily go to the field and ask the farmer for his help. The poor Indian farmer who used to be very naïve would previously agree to help unconditionally - making life easier for the investigator. But now the farmer, who has also started feeling that he has missed his share of pie for quite some time asks the question-

              “mujhe kya milnewala hain?”

And well, the investigator knows the answer only too well. Rs 50, may be, and that too after a year. For that the farmer has now to cut the crop in the investigator’s presence, manually thresh it and give the exact measurement to the investigator. The most difficult is the crop cutting part - it is not the usual crop cutting that the farmer does at regular interval of time. You take a square of side 5m or an equilateral triangle of the same side length or a circle with radius 5m, that too after measuring the plot by actual walking, then subtracting 7 from both length and breadth and then considering random numbers. Then you have to separate the crop of that small area and dry it up. After say 8-9 days, the investigator once again goes. This time that crop should be manually threshed - even a difference of 100 gm can now bring lots of changes in the estimate of the total crop yield of that particular crop of the country. But what has the farmer got to gain from all these statistical jargons?

He gives time for crop cutting - but he has nothing to bind him to that date. If he feels he may cut it before or might cut it after - depending on his experience regarding the crop as well as weather condition. But the poor investigator has nothing to do - he has to get the information and that too for the plot chosen, he cannot force the farmer for any of the things, but cannot also return empty-handed. Even if the farmer refuses for manual threshing - the investigator might as well has to thresh the crop on his own, since his job is to get the data and he knows that the data would be needed to calculate the national figure. Now this particular yield rate will give an estimate of the amount of that particular crop grown in that season in the entire country. And then if any of the data goes wrong - the entire nation, powered by the now 24X7 news channels will attack the statistical machinery of the country and start throwing questions like how can there be such under production? How can China do it and not India? But does the process look very simple?

The process of data collection is not very complicated apparently. The Sample Design and Research Division (SDRD) of NSSO located in Kolkata is carrying out the research as to what are the items relevant these days on which the data should be collected. The Industrial Statistics (IS) wing of the Central Statistical office (CSO) has left no stone unturned in identifying the different industries in the country, the varied raw materials needed for the output of the various products that rule the market; and the FOD ensures that with the inadequate manpower it has, it must collect data for all the proposed schemes that will help in policy making. Now-a-days, the NSSO collects data for six years in a decade and has left four years for different central ministries who might request this particular department to collect data as per their requirement. Thus it is quite evident how much importance this particular ministry has.

But how much awareness do the common people have with regard to this is a big question. The people also feel that the time in which they are providing the data is simply meaningless since they are not going to gain anything from the data they provide and there is no law binding on them which compels them to provide the data.

At least, apparently no one sees any monetary gain in this.

Hence even if a person having three cars within his residential complex demands that his monthly per-capita expenditure is Rs 3000 for five persons, no one can challenge his data and no one can compel him to give the actual data. Similarly for the farmer, first of all, demarking the area with the precision as demanded by a statistician is itself a herculean job. Then that much crop needs to be separated and should be threshed separately manually in front of the Superintendent Officer and the village Patwari. Thesedays, on request from the Ministry of Commerce, the NSSO is collecting data on Wholesale Price Index Number. The Commerce Ministry has done everything - right from fixing the commodity basket at 2004-05 base to designing the schedule and selecting the quotations and the units.

What NSSO does is to go to the respective units, that too every month and request the people to fill up the schedule and upload it in the web portal. The Commerce Ministry has provided each unit with username and password and given a master password to the ROs for continuous monitoring. But however much they have tried to make life smooth; people would not do the job and give thousands of excuses for not doing it - reason being nothing is forcing them to provide the data.

But suppose if the Income tax Department demands certain data from the same unit - they’ll postpone all of their jobs at hand and start preparation for providing data to the IT Department. Reason? Well, the IT Department has power which NSSO doesn’t have. The entire work of NSSO is persuasion based. No one has any power to force the people to provide information -however useful the information might be. The only exception is in the Annual Survey of Industries where non-responses is comparatively less as people are empowered with the Statistical Act 2008. But in most of the cases, people do not have the necessary awareness. The importance that these data carry for the entire nation is something that is known only to a handful of persons who also do not have the necessary authority to make people part with the data.

Hence some sort of autonomy must be provided to the Ministry as data is the basis for everything. Instead of blaming the CSO or NSSO for some wrong figures, kindly give them the power so that data collection becomes a smoother and easier process.

--------------------------------------

The anonymous author spells out the ground realities which speak of the travails of the official statistician.