50 YEARS OF INDIAN INDEPENDENCE - A STRATEGIC REVIEW
10 Aug, 1997 · 10
Lt. Gen.(Retd) K.S. Khajuria provides a strategic review of fifty years of Indian independence
The towering leaders of this struggle who were in direct communication with the masses, had great hopes for the nation. These leaders along with expression of great emotional sentiments to produce a strong, poverty- free and educated
Economists, experts and politicians have periodically talked of the "take off" stage of Indian economy and every time something has happened to set this back. Once again we hear of this giant leap and sure enough ominous signs are upon us. It is therefore again a question of whether we will make it or will we again be denied?
The past 50 years have seen significant successes as also dismal failures. Was this the outcome of any strategic aim or have we been too engrossed in our myriad problems trying to solve them before new ones cropped up? The tragic example of the population explosion from 33 crores to 96 crores stare at us. Any progress made has to be shared with 2 crore additional mouths every year. This affects everything from food to education and infact governance itself. It is not that we did not try but we did not succeed and this is what we need to focus on. Why do we not succeed, as we should?
Two aspects of a nation's ability constitute its prime interests. First, the economic well being on a sustained and lasting basis and second, its ability to project power as a means of demonstrating its interests and resolve. These are mutually complementary as can be seen from the examples of
An adjunct to these basic interests is the means of projecting the same in a manner acceptable to other nations. Thus foreign policy must be always active to project prime interests diplomatically, which by suggestion means making the bitterest truth acceptable.
Progressively our leadership has lost sight of national interests and we have been found wanting in most fields. Jawaharlal Nehru had a feel for strategy and in the turmoil of the aftermath of World War II, and the intractable East-West divide, he chose an independent path for
Nehru was a colossus but unfortunately nothing really grew under this mighty banyan. His departure thus produced a vacuum which few could fill. The great sufferer was a coherent National Strategy. By this time we had not fulfilled any of the promised economic or power parameters. The socialistic pattern of command economy did produce state owned industry but erected a permit raj. State intervention stifled progress and growth and massive mismanagement and corruption proliferated. The "generalist" of the Administrative Service sidelined experts and technocrats with disastrous results. The private sector entrepreneurs were burdened by the permit-raj in which the venal politicians and the bureaucrats flourished. And with time the calibre of the political class further declined. The only silver lining was that democracy took root.
Although progress was slow and tardy and corruption a malignant cancer, expansion of the industrial infrastructure was still attained. As no competition existed, quality suffered. But by the end of the seventies
On the power projection front the nation started wrong. The military was seen as a colonial instrument of maintaining control over a huge country and thus enjoying special status. The new leadership therefore felt little enthusiasm for it. The experience of the Indian National Army and the euphoric feeling that free
All these were not part of any strategy but were reactions to the situation. The loud and oft repeated slogan was that as a peace-loving nation,
Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister showed remarkable guts and a feel for strategy. Her power play was truly extraordinary and her sense of timing a gift. 1971 saw a manifestation of this and the emergence of
One can only conjecture whether Blue Star could have been avoided. Lack of intelligence, contrived intelligence or even disinformation perhaps had suggested that a declared Khalistan would elicit immediate recognition by the
The period from 1964 onward saw some bright sparks under Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao which were strategic.
Strategic planning, thinking and policy have been too diffused in our country and the main reason is the complete blocking out of the military establishment from every decision-making forum. Blunders and weaknesses of the politico-bureaucratic combine have been many and to cover the same, the defence establishment is downgraded and let down. The nation's vulnerabilities are thus being increased. This should be immediately addressed. It would be a disaster if this neglect leads to a demoralised and de-motivated military machine. The signs are there and they are ominous in the shape of an arrogant and self-seeking bureaucracy and a faltering political leadership.
The world sees us today as a market for their consumer goodies and a captive one operating on their terms would be suiting their interests best.
Sri Lankan Claims to Kachchatheevu: A Rejoinder
V Suryanarayan · 30 Aug, 2013 · 4103
China and Myanmar: The Great Game of the Gas Pipeline
Teshu Singh · 30 Aug, 2013 · 4102
India-Myanmar Border: Is there a Third Player?
Yves-Marie Rault · 30 Aug, 2013 · 4101
Myanmar's Transition: Challenges of Continuing and Emerging Conflicts
Bibhu Prasad Routray · 26 Aug, 2013 · 4100