INDIAN STRATEGIC POLICY: The need for an Indian Military-Industrial-Complex
It may be an anachronism, but India needs to create a military-industrial complex (“MIC”) in order to unlock the potential of its defense and technology industries. The MIC should be formally launched in budget 2006, and it should sunset in 2020, by when its stated objectives should have been achieved. The MIC should be the platform to provide R&D, goods, and services for four separate clients – 1) the armed services of the country; 2) civil sector nation building; 3) strategic export markets; 4) and, regional and global strategic theater, for example in energy needs.
The policy framework of such a MIC has to include lessons from the military-industrial linkages of the Soviet Union, China, Israel, and the United States. Each one of these countries has a unique model that reflects the political economy of the respective nation. The Soviet model seems to have disintegrated, but has valuable lessons for planning, infrastructure, and R&D. The Chinese model includes the major commercialization activities of the PLA from early 1980s till 2000, leading to a runaway empire including real estate and tourism, and which may have contributed in no insignificant manner to the Chinese economic boom since the 1980s.
While the Soviet and Chinese models have seen drastic changes, the Israeli and American models have continued uninterrupted over the last 50 years. The Israeli military-industry complex has contributed to R&D, commercialization, and an “Israeli image” of a scientific nation. The US model has led to the development of path breaking technologies, several of which have been commercialized widely in the defense and civil sectors, including the ubiquitous Internet; has created strong public-private-academic partnerships; and, has evolved in the political economy of free markets.
The Indian MIC will be able to take the best practices and strategic intent of the American, Soviet, Israeli, and Chinese models, and integrate it in the business planning of the country via the Planning Commission. A massive thrust on MIC will also give a boost to the construction sector, production, and supply side economics in the country.
In an era when the idea of a military-industrial complex sounds sinister and free markets are the guiding philosophy, it is imperative that a powerful and noble vision for an Indian MIC be articulated and shared with general members of the public. Here, India is fortunate to have an exceptionally brilliant scientific and philosophical mind as its President, and an equally inspiring technocrat as the Prime Minister. A policy championed by the Prime Minister and the President will go a long way in laying to rest any misgivings in different quarters.
The creation (and subsequent dismantling in 2020) of the MIC, will be a gigantic shove for the capacity building of Indian infrastructure and security. The Indian MIC will benefit from learned experiences, newer technologies, and better future forecasting techniques, and in a sense the retro step will be executed by leap frogging of technology.
The core of the MIC will include sundry organizations like the 39 Ordnance Factories; the Defense Research & Development Organization; the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; and identified partners from the universities and from amongst public and private sector infrastructure and construction players. With a strong focus on research and commercialization of research, and specializing in areas like space and nanotechnology, the MIC will be populated by talent from diverse fields.
In order to create the MIC, the Indian defense establishment, the several analyst communities, the policy makers, and the political leaders will have to aggressively change the “image” of the defense industries. Commercial discussions on matters relating to defense are often a hush-hush topic in most world capitals. Conjuring images of shady dealings, Adnan Kashhogi type sleaze, and mapping the labyrinths of bureaucracy, the notion of an “arms dealer” is romantic and seems to be flirting with power and money, slush funds and deal making.
If India has to undertake significant capacity building in its defense and allied industries, the above imagery has to yield to objective, market based analysis of facts, technologies, needs and opportunities. The advantages to Indian democracy, transparency, and elevation of public discourse and discussion are immense. One has to look at the inter-linkages of the US defense industries and the efforts they have had to make to justify and promote their objectives. The US defense industries have made countless people prosperous, and have gained a respectable place in the community. In the process of furthering their agenda, they have had to invest deeply in research of another sort – ideological, policy, public opinion, and communications research. Competing players have had to line up their defenses against each other, and have thus contributed to intellectual debate, professionalism, accountability, and the spirit of coalition building.
The legions of lobbyists in Washington, DC cannot survive unless they have a solid matter on merit. And in a vibrant democracy, it is the public articulation of points and counter points that should influence public opinion. Thus the American defense industries can be said to have strengthened America, in a manner un-intended. They have contributed significantly to creating a stronger democracy in America by giving an intellectual basis to the needs for a sprawling military industrial complex, and justifying a business case for their individual growth.
The message for India is simple – India needs a subdued, but spectacular, campaign to conceive, build, grow, and liquidate a military industrial complex. This campaign will also force debate, transparency, and spirit of competition within the country, thereby strengthening Indian democracy in addition to strengthening India’s security and political economy.
In India, the quantity and quality of debate on matters of national significance is woefully inadequate, and the think tank communities are few and under-resourced. With the launch of a MIC, interest groups and sponsors will have to promote and defend their vision, strategies, and economics. This shall enhance the quality of the public discourse. One of the things to be noted about the debate regarding the Indian defense industries is the fact that it is mostly populated by former bureaucrats and military men. Though their expertise is invaluable, yet it begs a deeper involvement of policy and other scholars. Significant capacity building is needed in this community. The launch and implementation of the MIC will necessitate and be forced to spend resources to this strengthening of the democratic discourse. As mentioned earlier, this is the learning from an “un-intended consequence” for America. However, India can scientifically incorporate this “un-intended consequence” in its MIC planning and thereby add further value by 2020.
If India has to articulate its case in global markets and communities, India needs to build capacity of public debate within India, and this infrastructure will debate vigorously in the international markets and take on competition in the market place of ideas. The launch of an MIC will mean that Indian defense and allied industries will scout for partners, and European, Russian, American, Israeli, and Chinese companies would be some of the contenders in the business. Of this lot, the suppliers which appear to be on slippery grounds are the United States and Israel. Notwithstanding the emerging military cooperation between the two countries, India still remains skeptical of the US as an assured partner in its defense supply chain. Recognition of this fact, and an intriguing solution to this skepticism, was recently provided by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) when he said “…India should know that the Indian American community is now acting like an insurance to make sure that the US does not renegade on its commitments…our Indian American constituents will pressure US policy if they find that the US is being unfair with India”.
Thus the Indian MIC will engage with the different constituents within the country and from the global markets – and it shall lay the DNA for a stronger India, extending its reach into strategic global spots, and enriching the debate in Indian democracy.
As I re-read this essay and craft a conclusion, two phrases come to my mind, “star wars”, and, “supply-side economics”. Was the Gipper on to something?
The policy framework of such a MIC has to include lessons from the military-industrial linkages of the Soviet Union, China, Israel, and the United States. Each one of these countries has a unique model that reflects the political economy of the respective nation. The Soviet model seems to have disintegrated, but has valuable lessons for planning, infrastructure, and R&D. The Chinese model includes the major commercialization activities of the PLA from early 1980s till 2000, leading to a runaway empire including real estate and tourism, and which may have contributed in no insignificant manner to the Chinese economic boom since the 1980s.
While the Soviet and Chinese models have seen drastic changes, the Israeli and American models have continued uninterrupted over the last 50 years. The Israeli military-industry complex has contributed to R&D, commercialization, and an “Israeli image” of a scientific nation. The US model has led to the development of path breaking technologies, several of which have been commercialized widely in the defense and civil sectors, including the ubiquitous Internet; has created strong public-private-academic partnerships; and, has evolved in the political economy of free markets.
The Indian MIC will be able to take the best practices and strategic intent of the American, Soviet, Israeli, and Chinese models, and integrate it in the business planning of the country via the Planning Commission. A massive thrust on MIC will also give a boost to the construction sector, production, and supply side economics in the country.
In an era when the idea of a military-industrial complex sounds sinister and free markets are the guiding philosophy, it is imperative that a powerful and noble vision for an Indian MIC be articulated and shared with general members of the public. Here, India is fortunate to have an exceptionally brilliant scientific and philosophical mind as its President, and an equally inspiring technocrat as the Prime Minister. A policy championed by the Prime Minister and the President will go a long way in laying to rest any misgivings in different quarters.
The creation (and subsequent dismantling in 2020) of the MIC, will be a gigantic shove for the capacity building of Indian infrastructure and security. The Indian MIC will benefit from learned experiences, newer technologies, and better future forecasting techniques, and in a sense the retro step will be executed by leap frogging of technology.
The core of the MIC will include sundry organizations like the 39 Ordnance Factories; the Defense Research & Development Organization; the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; and identified partners from the universities and from amongst public and private sector infrastructure and construction players. With a strong focus on research and commercialization of research, and specializing in areas like space and nanotechnology, the MIC will be populated by talent from diverse fields.
In order to create the MIC, the Indian defense establishment, the several analyst communities, the policy makers, and the political leaders will have to aggressively change the “image” of the defense industries. Commercial discussions on matters relating to defense are often a hush-hush topic in most world capitals. Conjuring images of shady dealings, Adnan Kashhogi type sleaze, and mapping the labyrinths of bureaucracy, the notion of an “arms dealer” is romantic and seems to be flirting with power and money, slush funds and deal making.
If India has to undertake significant capacity building in its defense and allied industries, the above imagery has to yield to objective, market based analysis of facts, technologies, needs and opportunities. The advantages to Indian democracy, transparency, and elevation of public discourse and discussion are immense. One has to look at the inter-linkages of the US defense industries and the efforts they have had to make to justify and promote their objectives. The US defense industries have made countless people prosperous, and have gained a respectable place in the community. In the process of furthering their agenda, they have had to invest deeply in research of another sort – ideological, policy, public opinion, and communications research. Competing players have had to line up their defenses against each other, and have thus contributed to intellectual debate, professionalism, accountability, and the spirit of coalition building.
The legions of lobbyists in Washington, DC cannot survive unless they have a solid matter on merit. And in a vibrant democracy, it is the public articulation of points and counter points that should influence public opinion. Thus the American defense industries can be said to have strengthened America, in a manner un-intended. They have contributed significantly to creating a stronger democracy in America by giving an intellectual basis to the needs for a sprawling military industrial complex, and justifying a business case for their individual growth.
The message for India is simple – India needs a subdued, but spectacular, campaign to conceive, build, grow, and liquidate a military industrial complex. This campaign will also force debate, transparency, and spirit of competition within the country, thereby strengthening Indian democracy in addition to strengthening India’s security and political economy.
In India, the quantity and quality of debate on matters of national significance is woefully inadequate, and the think tank communities are few and under-resourced. With the launch of a MIC, interest groups and sponsors will have to promote and defend their vision, strategies, and economics. This shall enhance the quality of the public discourse. One of the things to be noted about the debate regarding the Indian defense industries is the fact that it is mostly populated by former bureaucrats and military men. Though their expertise is invaluable, yet it begs a deeper involvement of policy and other scholars. Significant capacity building is needed in this community. The launch and implementation of the MIC will necessitate and be forced to spend resources to this strengthening of the democratic discourse. As mentioned earlier, this is the learning from an “un-intended consequence” for America. However, India can scientifically incorporate this “un-intended consequence” in its MIC planning and thereby add further value by 2020.
If India has to articulate its case in global markets and communities, India needs to build capacity of public debate within India, and this infrastructure will debate vigorously in the international markets and take on competition in the market place of ideas. The launch of an MIC will mean that Indian defense and allied industries will scout for partners, and European, Russian, American, Israeli, and Chinese companies would be some of the contenders in the business. Of this lot, the suppliers which appear to be on slippery grounds are the United States and Israel. Notwithstanding the emerging military cooperation between the two countries, India still remains skeptical of the US as an assured partner in its defense supply chain. Recognition of this fact, and an intriguing solution to this skepticism, was recently provided by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) when he said “…India should know that the Indian American community is now acting like an insurance to make sure that the US does not renegade on its commitments…our Indian American constituents will pressure US policy if they find that the US is being unfair with India”.
Thus the Indian MIC will engage with the different constituents within the country and from the global markets – and it shall lay the DNA for a stronger India, extending its reach into strategic global spots, and enriching the debate in Indian democracy.
As I re-read this essay and craft a conclusion, two phrases come to my mind, “star wars”, and, “supply-side economics”. Was the Gipper on to something?
posted by Robinder Sachdev at 12:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home