If anything, India's political leaders will now be more susceptible to military advice without any corresponding increase in their ability to interrogate them.
Here’s what’s happening across the border: Trees are being cut despite Imran Khan’s massive plantation drive; and the privilege of living in the PM’s house.
Meghnad’s interest went much beyond economics and politics. This is reflected in his writing, particularly after his retirement as a full-time LSE professor in 2003.
In the latest budget, the FDI limit was increased to 100 percent, but most foreign companies are not buying such large stakes in the Indian insurance sector.
As Narendra Modi becomes India’s second-longest consecutively serving Prime Minister, we look at how he compares with Indira Gandhi across four key dimensions.
1. The Indian military’s anti-intellectualism alluded to by the writer – one of India’s rare examples of soldier-scholars – isn’t just confined to poor understanding of international relations, history and economics, it extends to poor understanding of modern warfighting both at a doctrinal and operational art level as well.
2. Gen Rawat embodies the anti-intellectualism problem really well but he does have one redeeming feature for the CDS job that most scholars have a blind spot about and see as a negative-his political skills.
3. Regardless of the country, rationale for Integration/Jointness/Theater Commands is to improve warfighting but the primary motivator for Service bureaucracies – the uniformed leadership and their uniformed babus – is empire building (size and budgets) which is achieved through inter-services turf wars. Reconciling these two opposing forces is where Gen Rawat will have to earn his (still) four-stars. Deals he cuts, arms he twists, that is his job now.
4. Regardless of whether he does an above-average job (unlikely) or below average (likely) this process will highlight the deeper problem across the Indian military – an underpowered intellectual engine driving a clunky chassis. And that is where hopefully, the soldier-scholars will step in and join forces with the political operators, and get their hands dirty with the overhaul of the Indian military machine.
Bipin Rawat is most unsuited choice as CDS. Firstly he is a political appointee and secondly due to separate domains of each service he has no inkling of air or naval operations, thirdly he is bound to step on the toes of service chiefs who will be forced to bend to his orders irrespective of his lack of acumen. Rawat is not exactly very well liked in the Army
CDS is a midway between politicians and the armed men, hence he has to be politically smart. This is the same as Imperial Defence chief in UK or chairman of the joint chiefs in US……. hence stop imagining things.
Instead ofwrely Thal Sena HQ, shouldn’t a Joint Services HQ be planned?
1. The Indian military’s anti-intellectualism alluded to by the writer – one of India’s rare examples of soldier-scholars – isn’t just confined to poor understanding of international relations, history and economics, it extends to poor understanding of modern warfighting both at a doctrinal and operational art level as well.
2. Gen Rawat embodies the anti-intellectualism problem really well but he does have one redeeming feature for the CDS job that most scholars have a blind spot about and see as a negative-his political skills.
3. Regardless of the country, rationale for Integration/Jointness/Theater Commands is to improve warfighting but the primary motivator for Service bureaucracies – the uniformed leadership and their uniformed babus – is empire building (size and budgets) which is achieved through inter-services turf wars. Reconciling these two opposing forces is where Gen Rawat will have to earn his (still) four-stars. Deals he cuts, arms he twists, that is his job now.
4. Regardless of whether he does an above-average job (unlikely) or below average (likely) this process will highlight the deeper problem across the Indian military – an underpowered intellectual engine driving a clunky chassis. And that is where hopefully, the soldier-scholars will step in and join forces with the political operators, and get their hands dirty with the overhaul of the Indian military machine.
Bipin Rawat is most unsuited choice as CDS. Firstly he is a political appointee and secondly due to separate domains of each service he has no inkling of air or naval operations, thirdly he is bound to step on the toes of service chiefs who will be forced to bend to his orders irrespective of his lack of acumen. Rawat is not exactly very well liked in the Army
CDS is a midway between politicians and the armed men, hence he has to be politically smart. This is the same as Imperial Defence chief in UK or chairman of the joint chiefs in US……. hence stop imagining things.
Instead ofwrely Thal Sena HQ, shouldn’t a Joint Services HQ be planned?