Monday Morning on Capability Development Challenges in Indian Army

Col. Manish Rana, SM, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Capability Development Challenges in Indian Army” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 27 February 2023. The session was moderated by Col. Rajneesh Singh (Retd.), Research Fellow. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

Capability development which is defined as a continuous process involving various stakeholders such as military planners, policymakers, procurement agencies, and industry planners holds great significance in the military domain, particularly in the context of the Indian Army's proposed acquisition of a Closed Quarter Combat (CQB) Carbine. However, impediments in the planning process and long-drawn procurement processes hamper capability development. Further, the missing collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders leads to lack of environment management and trust amongst multiple stakeholders.

The case study of CQB Carbine highlights the delays and challenges faced in its procurement due to environmental factors like a decade of defence procurement scam overdose, changes in defence procurement systems, and stakeholders' conflicting priorities. In this context, it is imperative to highlight the importance of effective collaboration and coordination among stakeholders and trust-building to expedite capability development.

Detailed Report

Colonel Rajneesh, Research Fellow, opened the session by bringing out the issues related to capability development and the budget availability for procuring new equipment for the Armed Forces. He brought out the dilemma of reduction of manpower to optimise the budget vis a vis higher allocations to Armed Forces. He also suggested alternatives like changes in doctrine, recruitment and retention, modernisation and operational responsibilities. He then  handed over the floor to the speaker, Colonel Manish Rana, Research Fellow.

First and foremost, the speaker defined capability development as the process of acquiring and improving the Military's capabilities to achieve strategic objectives. It involves the identification of needs and developing strategies to meet them, ultimately resulting in the acquisition and development of new technologies, weapons systems and training programs. It was emphasised that capability development is a continuous process that can only be accomplished over a period of time. Colonel Rana observed that capability development involves a range of stakeholders, such as military planners, policymakers, procurement agencies and industry planners.

A glance at numerous write-ups on the subject suggests a shortage of funds, non-availability of indigenous capabilities, flaws in the planning process and long-drawn procurement processes are significant challenges to capability development in the Military domain. However, what needs to be more present in the academic research domain is the missing collaboration and coordination amongst various stakeholders leading to non-tangible issues of lack of environment management and trust amongst multiple stakeholders. While structurally and intent-wise, all these stakeholders are brought together to ensure the desired capability is acquired in the most efficient and time-bound manner, in practice, these stakeholders have different, at times conflicting, priorities. There needs to be effective collaboration and coordination among these stakeholders. Especially for the Armed Forces management, not used to an organisational culture based on negotiation and compromise, the environment for executing capability development becomes challenging.

The speaker highlighted his assessment of capacity building through a case study, the proposed acquisition of a Closed Quarter Combat (CQB) Carbine for the Indian Army. A CQB Carbine has an effective range of around 200 metres. It is lightweight, manoeuvrable and has a high rate of fire while having less recoil. These attributes make a CQB Carbine ideal for close combat, such as urban warfare and counterinsurgency operations in dense jungles. They would go a long way to enhance the Army's capabilities. Indian Army used World War II vintage 9 mm SMG for close-quarter battle needs until the early 2000s. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) produced the weapon, and production stopped in the early 2000s as the same was declared obsolete.

The INSAS program started in the 80s, in which modern assault rifles, light machine guns and CQB Carbine were to be developed indigenously and inducted into the Indian Army. Colonel Manish noted that India used to manufacture WW II vintage CQB Carbines at its ordinance factories until it was declared obsolete in the 1990s. When the INSAS family of weapons were introduced, the Carbine was not found suitable, and the search for a better alternative took off.

Despite knowing in 2000 that INSAS Carbine was not suiting the bill, the Request for Proposal for a fresh weapon was only initiated in 2008. Eight to ten years to initiate a case for a personal weapon is by no standards acceptable. Furthermore, the case could not be progressed as the Services Qualitative Requirements worked out were found to be too ambitious. One needs to look at the environmental realities of that time to understand why such a simple thing took so much time to get initiated. Firstly, it is obvious that despite the INSAS Carbine being found unsuitable, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) would have tried its best to continue pushing for its induction as a lot of time and money would have been invested in the program. The go-ahead for a separate procurement would only have come after DRDO efforts to continue would have convincingly exhausted. Secondly, the time being talked of coincides with an era of defence procurement scam overdose. The memory of the Kargil coffin scam, Tehelka scam and Scorpene deal scam even today gives goosebumps to people involved in defence procurement, what to say the paralysis they would have brought into the system at that time. Thirdly, the decade of 2000 to 2010 also is remembered for large-scale changes in the Defence procurement system. The Defence Procurement Procedure manual was first introduced in 2002 and underwent numerous amendments in 2005, 2006 and 2008. It is evident that the decade lost in progressing procurement of CQB Carbine (2000- 2010) was indeed a challenging decade for defence procurements in general. Hence, more than anything else, what delayed the CQB Carbines' induction in this decade was attributable primarily to environmental factors.

In 2010, a fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the weapon. Trials took place from 2011-14, but the case hit another wall when one of the two vendors competing for the project failed the trials due to a minor issue. Therefore only a single vendor remained. Owing to the scam hangover of the previous decade, the officials were unenthusiastic about progressing with it due to the scrutiny that it may have generated due to a single vendor, and the case was stopped. This highlights the resistance amongst stakeholders to manage environmental issues and the need for more trust.

In 2014, the honourable Defence Minister directed that considering the operational necessity of the weapon, the Defence Ministry would opt for the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route from the US. Despite the Defence Minister himself taking a strong stand on the issue, the case did not progress. In 2018, a fast-track process was initiated. In this option, a weapon currently in use in another armed force can be inducted without extensive trials. Caracal, a UAE-based arms manufacturer, was chosen as the supplier, and the contract was planned to be signed in 2019, and weapons were to be delivered by 2020. However, it was again cancelled due to issues not being in the open domain, highlighting a lack of trust. One can presume that environmental factors again influenced the case. Two significant factors that could have affected the decision may be the coming of age of indigenous industry and DRDO. Indian industry, which had so far been more or less a silent spectator in the case, had started acquiring certain capabilities and, combined with the clarion call for Atmanirbhar Bharat by our Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, had got adequately vitalised to start raising the ante for indigenous procurement of CQB Carbine. DRDO also, after improving its earlier versions, started production of a Carbine, which had started getting inducted into paramilitary forces in some quantities. The speaker observed that the opacity in such procedures, as highlighted above, leads to the propagation of conspiracy theories which is not in the interest of establishment.

A fresh RFP has now been issued in 2022, and the chase for a CBQ Carbine continues, about four decades after the need for it was felt. The speaker highlighted that in capability development, more often than not, circumstances arise wherein the procurements get unduly delayed, and there seem to be no apparent reasons. As per him, the main challenge is managing environmental issues and building trust amongst various stakeholders to avoid such a situation. He highlighted that the issue, being intangible, finds little discussion in the academic field. In the end, he suggested using the Systems approach and study of Organisational Culture to avoid the recurrence of such issues in defence procurement to assist capability development.

Q&A Session

The floor was opened for questions and comments, wherein scholars from the Institute, including the Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), contributed to the discussion. He noted that the bureaucracy's insistence on following the book helps avoid misuse of authority but may delay the induction of critical capabilities in the Armed Forces. Colonel Rajneesh in his closing remarks highlighted the importance of both tangible and intangible aspects involved in the capability development process and thanked the speaker for an enlightening talk covering the complexities of procurement procedures.

Report prepared by Mr. Aayush Maniktalia, Intern, Defence Economics & Industry Centre, MP-IDSA.