God allows us to experience the low points of life in order to teach us lessons we could not learn in any other way. As far as defence procurement is concerned, it appears to be a non-sequitur . A.K. Antony seemed an extra-cautious minister, particularly in staving off the stench of corruption.

During his watch, forced on the back foot, the government appeared not only slow in procurement but also blacklisted a clutch of arms manufacturers across the world. It brought the stocks of essential items like artillery shells, anti-tank ammunition, howitzers and assault rifles to rock-bottom levels.

Countries which massively purchase armaments are monarchies, or those perpetually at war, such as Turkey and Greece, Israel and Palestine; they seem to be reconciled to corruption at some level. Transactions in defence equipment, by its very nature, are prone to be used as a political tool or a conduit for illegal gratification.

In fact, no one appears to have worked so hard as Anthony to keep off corruption from his corridor. He did well to introduce the ‘integrity pact’ and refused to allow countries to bid if they do not sign it. By the way, the Russian company refused to sign one in the helicopter bid.

Security considerations

However the concern about corruption in international defence deals must be balanced against the requirements of national security, when our own armaments industry is stagnant. We have seen that our own public sector undertakings and even ordnance factories are not immune. It is a truism in the high technology era and in a globalised world --- even for the so-called indigenous equipment imports of critical parts will be necessary.

One must concede that the main reason for corruption is the enormous delay in procurement running into several years.

The Government gives fixed tenure to the Defence Secretary, but does not task him to complete the pending cases of procurement within his period.

Instead, he is asked to draft the minutiae of Defence Procurement Policy, create layers of bureaucracy like Defence Acquisition Council, Defence Procurement Board and so on. He is happy doing that, holds meetings, issues minutes, and passes the buck when a lid is blown off some scandal.

Most often, he blames the Military Services for not knowing about what they really want.

Indigenisation

Services, on the other hand, are hamstrung by the glacial pace of indigenisation. In his paper in 1998,Abdul Kalam envisaged to reverse the imported to indigenous ratio, which at was 70:30. This remains a pipedream till date. MoD has had no time to implement recommendations of its own committees (Kelkar’s and Rama Rao’s).

We must also ponder over why private players are not interested in making defence equipment here, despite exhortations and giving them Raksha Udyog Ratna status. Private firms will be able to deal with corruption swiftly if they set their minds. However, no reputed foreign firms from the US and Europe, or for that matter even from Russia, seem to be interested in joining hands with Indian companies to provide an effective base for defence production. To welcome them, is it not necessary to allow 100 per cent FDI in defence? Yet, UPA II is even more afraid of the Left parties when they are not with them.

Finally, it is time we restore some sanity to the debate on defence corruption. The main opposition party should depoliticise this matter and raise issues effectively in Parliament by giving practical recommendations and hold the government to account, instead of making it a battle of personalities or an election issue which, in turn, will force MoD into a vicious cycle of even more delays and exposes.

(The author is a former Member, Ordnance Factories.)

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW