 Welcome to NewsClick. Yesterday on the occasion of Independence Day, 73rd Independence Day, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi made an in-principle, gave an in-principle approval to Chief of Defence Staff. Now, this is for the first time in two decades that this issue has been, first was mooted by the Kargil Review Committee and subsequently by other committees that was set up by the Government of India from time to time, including one led by the Minister of State for Defence Arun Singh, followed by a group of ministers, which was chaired by Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, who was then the Deputy Prime Minister. And after that, there have been two other committees, one by Narendra Chandra Committee, which was submitted its report in December 2012, followed by D.B. Shet, left-in-general D.B. Shet-Katkar Committee, which gave its report in December 2016. All of them had been pushing for Chief of Defence Staff. Today, we have with us Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kaak to explain to us and to take us through the various stages through which this CDS concept has passed by and why it has taken so long for the Government to agree to it and some of the intricacies that are connected with it. Welcome to NewsClick, sir. Thank you. I am so delighted to be at NewsClick. So, let me start. Prime Minister made an in-principle announcement yesterday about setting up of a Chief of Defence Staff, where the modalities and other details have still to be worked out. How do you, as a former Air Vice Marshal of Indian Air Force, how do you look at it? I'd say in Persian, Deraist, Durustaist. It's been a long while, as you said in the introductory remarks. I'll take you back even longer. The proposal was mooted after the 1971 war that the concept of the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which is a rotatory appointment between the three Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, must be replaced by a full-time Chief of Defence Staff. So, Manak Shah was so recommended. But as is said lightheartedly, two LALs put it down. One was KB LAL, the Defence Secretary. The other was Air Chief Marshal, PC LAL, one of the finest soldiers, sailors, airmen, this country has ever produced. So, we then have 1990, Arun Singh Committee report on higher defence and cost-cutting and everything else, which also made a recommendation to the effect that we should have a Chief of Defence Staff. Then there was a silence. I think the governments were not resonating enough to the proposal that were put forward. But it required the Kargil war. And the post-Kargil war, a committee formed under Mr. K. Subramaniam, Doreen of Defence and other elements of strategy, who recommended that identified the weaknesses and recommended that they should be Chief of Defence Staff. Now, what would the Chief of Defence Staff do? What would be the nature of this animal? Clearly, one more committee was formed and this was at the political level, led by then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani. That group also deliberated on the Kargil Review Committee. And then the group of ministers said, now we have clarity. The group of ministers said that they will be a Chief of Defence Staff. He should be a single-point military advisor on behalf of the three Chiefs to the government. Two, he should administer the nuclear forces, which needed the strategic command. The strategic command hadn't been formed then. So, that time it was only a question of nuclear forces. And then recommended the formation or establishment of a strategic forces command, as also an Anaman-Nikovar command, which were joint commands. So, as you self explained thereafter, we had Shachakhtar Committee in 2016. Before that, that was a purely army-level committee, but before that we had a semi-political come executive committee under a very renowned civil service officer who accomplished so much in his long service, Mr. Nareesh Chandra. And he was given a large group of people, including former diplomats, academia, scientists, technologists, former Chiefs of the three services. So, it was a very well-balanced group of people who met under a statesman, like individual like Nareesh Chandra, had the pleasure to know him personally for decades. And they gave to the government a proposal for a Chief of Defence Staff in the way of the nomenclature was permanent chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee. I think they went wrong there. They could as well name him Chief of Defence Staff. They said there should be a permanent Chief of, Chiefs of Staff Committee, a fourth Chief, who will be Prime Minister of Paris, which means he will, he will be same rank, rank would be same, level would be same. And what is more important that they propose that there should be three very, very new command setup, space command, cyber command, and special forces command. Now, the sad part is the Prime Minister has given an impression that this is a de novo, you know, it has not been attempted before. I explain this detail only to say it is not the Prime Minister's fault or this government fault. Governments over many, many years, and I started with 1990, Arun Singh Committee, we are talking about 29 years. So it has taken 29 years for us to, Prime Minister deserves kudos for having at least now announced. But all that he needed was to say this will be the CDS, the PAC. I mean, at the PM's level, it can be done in macro terms, but he is again now gone back to, we will have a committee, which will now look at the role, the missions and the individuals that defined, I mean, it is all there with the government over so many years. Can I, can I interject yourself? Yeah. Now, the reason why the first government after transfer of power in 1947, they were keen on keeping civil in control over defense. As a result, it was the secretary defense who was given the task of the responsibility for preparing for India's defense, including obviously, therefore, the military preparations. Now, we are moving in a direction where the CDS, many of the roles, many of the responsibilities which today rest with the secretary defense would shift to the CDS, or there is speculation along those lines. That's not, that's not visualized because the conduct of business rules of the government of India are like the Bible for running India. Unless we amend those conduct of business rules, no game changing kind of, you know, transformations are permissible. That's the first one. The second point you made is very, very valid, Gautam, because there was fear in the minds of the political politicians. Jawaharlal Nehru was against the concept of a chief of defense staff. He was against the concept of giving military too much power and decision making. Right or wrong, history will judge him. But the most important was the fact that countries around us were then coming increasingly under army rule and therefore the sphere of the coup. But I think we've reached such a stage as a great power that we have come to this stage. India construct is a favorite construct world over and as to how diverse societies can function democratically be part of the global system. In fact, not just be what was earlier used as stabilizers, but leading powers to transform the global system to see that there is equity and balance and we don't have problems that occurred before. So to that extent, this is a right way to go. The question is, what will the chief of staff do? And that is, I think our viewers need to know this. What is the role for them? Number one is single point advice. I personally have doubts on single point advice because he's not going to be commanding any forces as visualized by all these committees which are enumerated and you also include it. He will be a single point advisor to the government on behalf of the three chiefs. I want to know why do you need a, I mean, if three chiefs can talk to the PM or the cabinet committee on security together, why do you need one person to act as an interlocutor? So I also have problems in a very complex, fragile, volatile world. Multiple inputs to policy are very, very crucial. Why do we have a cabinet committee of security? Why? That's the question linked to it. So I'm afraid I have, I'm not with the concept of single point advice. Well, one of the arguments is that this will bring in some very necessary cost efficiency, reduce duplication. For instance, we have 17 single service commands of which Army and Air Force have seven each and Navy has about three. And there are two joint commands. One is the Andaman Nekobar and the other is the strategic command. Now it's said that the single service command is something where there might be some, there is some scope for cutting down on duplication. That is one area. The other is also it is suggested that this will bring in a joint operational, joint command, joint doctrine, etc., etc., which is today lacking. How do you respond to that? I think let me first clarify. We need to differentiate between CDS and command. CDS is not a commander. He's a staff officer. He may have command of some forces like the strategic forces command. What other forces will come under him? For example, Andaman Nekobar command could come under him. Now, does he, he will only be a commander in chief when it comes through? I don't know the details of these joint forces. So essentially, he's, he's viewed as a joint forces advisor, come commander, come staff officer. The regular forces of the three services, the Army, Navy and Air Force, will be commanded by their respective chiefs. There is no change visualized in any of the committees, either for military operation or for administrative reasons. Military operation, not at all, because if you let me talk, I've spent 40 years in the Air Force, the Air Force today in the world, look at 30 years of conflicts, all driven by the Air Force, all done by the Air Force, some independently by the Air Force. Kosovo, for example, was an independent Air Force operation. Balakot, Balakot was an independent Air, it may have been a small operation. This is because these are fast, quick forces, which have penetration, which have speed, which have persistence and which have the capability to deliver political and strategic effect at the fastest time. That's what the politics should both. Sir, one of the arguments that is being advanced by many of the veterans, not necessarily from the Air Force, but from the Army and the Navy, is that quite apart from the reduction in the number of single service commands, which they themselves talked about, there is also this question that the Air Force was the most reluctant of the force to go in for this CDS. But now that the Air Force has been made to cede a lot of ground, for instance, to the Navy for their maritime reconnaissance or to the Indian Army, where helicopter gunships are concerned and several other areas. Do you think that Air Force reluctance, which was keeping in mind the significance and the role that Air Force has increasingly come to play in modern warfare, don't jive too well or you think that this has been overcome or it can be overcome? I know, I think the article that you're referring to is by a very close friend. Unfortunately, it's factually incorrect. Extremely close friend of mine. So I don't want, I'm not here going to defy or agree with him. What is seeding ground? I want to understand this concept. Are we in the battle for ground between the three services? If we are aiming to be working together, what does this expression do? Therefore, you seed ground to me and then therefore you're jointly with me. This is what the Air Force has always had reservations on. That's the first point. The second point, much more importantly, is the fact, the article also talks about Jawaharlal Nehru. I mean, this is a very favorite flavor of the season, bring in Jawaharlal Nehru. Your panchayat is not, your panchayat is not worth it, but you know Nehru, he's dead 55 years ago. Was this nation sleeping? And this is a strategic analyst who's talking about it. It had no relevance. Business of, yes, elements of the Air Force have been devolved to the army and the navy, like attack helicopters to a certain extent, usually helicopters to an extent. Likewise, with the navy, the reconnaissance is with the navy. So it is not seeding ground. It is a very careful consideration of the fact that some elements of air power can, but our resources in air power today are so limited in comparison to the challenges we face that this concept of theater command will never be acceptable to the Air Force. Our problem is, and this is not the writer in question, but the nation, the entire nation, they are so mixed up. CDS is something else and theater command is something else. What is CDS from other air? We said that we must have a CDS because advanced countries have. In advanced countries like the United States, they have theater commands because they have commitments globally. We can barely manage our own challenges, internal and external, which are close to our doors. We are not going to have operations in Fiji, and when do we have? We have produced the capability to do this. We sent Canberras to Congo in 1960, offensive combat aircraft in Fiji, in Congo. So that's the, that's the Nehru. And Nehru himself signed that document. Yes, we must send it to the systems of our friendly country in Africa. So I hope the viewers will get what I'm trying to say, Nehru versus the rest. Now, the point about theater command is a very, very long way off. Let's get the CDS. As soon as the CDS is concerned, I would like to inform the viewers that the Nareesh Chandra Kaviti report was unanimously agreed by all three chiefs. So the Air Force has no reservations. What is sought to be done neither Prime Minister Narendra Modi nor recent announcements by the government are talking about theater command. These are elements within the armed forces who are finding themselves out on a block in terms of what they can do because the war has become air war. This reconciliation process is a tough one. So it is like when the nuclear forces came in, the conventional armies said what will we do now? And if you remember, there was a book named Absolute Weapon. They published immediately after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you know what he said, the writer said that until now, the role of the armed forces was to win wars. Now onwards, their role will be to prevent wars. So when I speak to my young officer here, I have gone to fight a war. And we know that there are people who came into the armed forces, retired from the armed forces without fighting a war, 30 years of self. Don't forget the last war was in 71. We are talking about nearly 48 years, nearly 48 years of Karakil was not a war. But we can't include Barakot as a war or for that matter the surgical strike. When you talk about war fighting today, yes, you rightly said Gautam. It's a very complex techno operational guide of a management of force. But application of force today has undergone huge psychological and emotional changes. One is destructibility of the weapons that we use. They can play havoc. You know, one petroleum refinery, which is perhaps one fourth of the entire production of India can be knocked out by four precision guided weapons. So that's why it's more prevention than actual offensive. Secondly, society's appetite for war also gets to reduce. We may be as a society still muscular and hard, but you see Europe in society and US. Why is Trump insistent on getting his troops from Afghanistan? Why is he becoming more and more internal? Because the people do not want American forces to go out. We will come to that stage one day. So I think other than the Jumlas, which India is very famous for, we need to very carefully reflect, analyze what are our challenges? What are the requirements which will necessitate our using force for a certain purpose? And what would that political strategic purpose be in relation to time lines in relation to resources employed? The third is what is the nature of that war? To me it will be a high intense war for a limited period and therefore in the genre of limited wars, 71 war. War was the last conventional war we'll fight. So to that extent, CDS is important, the point you have raised. He will be able to prioritize budgeting if that charter is given to him, but it is all within the armed forces. The civil servants and the politicians will be very astute not to give away any power of theirs to the armed forces. So you know these guys are not, the typical attitude is these guys are not getting along with each other. Okay, let's have a CDS. He will sort out these fights. But don't forget the CDS for giving that single point advice has to confirm before he gives his advice that this is in consultation with his other. All three colleagues of his. So you know it's a very complex game. Now each and the other chiefs will have within the system full authority to tell the CDS who may be their boss that I have a different view I need to be heard at a higher level than yours. So you're back again to this. So I don't think that we're talking about a panacea. It's a good, I recommend yes. We have been talking about it. So let's see how it works. As far as the theater command is concerned as an airman as somebody who took part in 65 and 71 war and I know what combat operations are all about. I did bombing in both the western and the eastern sector in that war. It's you know when you talk about air power you will never have adequate air power to meet the requirements of the theater commands that you will create for that purpose. Whether they have three or four as you said 17 commands actually right. But what is I mean what are we talking about tables and chairs and rooms and offices command structure is what the same people will get redeployed somewhere else. But the question is the person who knows best to employ the army is the army chief. A chief cannot tell him how to run his army. The naval chief cannot tell the army chief and the FFO chief how to run their services. Likewise the two cannot tell the naval chief how to sail at sea. These are and this article talks about the very insular and working in silos. They have to work in silos. They are specialists. What is the common link between a Sukhoi 30 pilot and a Javan? They have to be insular because Javan has a job. Sukhoi 30 pilot is a job. So we have to recognize to sum it up in two lines. We have to recognize the services have to fight wars in the specialized genre of their capabilities. It is for the fourth person who is ostensibly desidious to have the experience to be able to say which element will fight which war and therefore prepare that joint plan and have it approved at the political level. That is the first point. The second point is theater commands for India are a long way off. We have waited 29 years and more to get the CDS through. Let us wait another 10 years after the CDS has worked on the ground and look at that. Third is the question that is raised more speculatively. Now the CDS will do budgeting. He will distribute this. This is purely the prerogative of the civil service. Civil service allocation of funds will be that of where that funds will be done in terms of whether it will be aircraft or ships or cyber or space. There may be a discussion within the chiefs of staff committee that will still operate and the chief of defense staff who will be heading that headquarters which exists incidentally. There is a chairman chiefs of staff committee under whom you have the advisor to the chairman chiefs of staff committee who is a three star. All that will happen is he will now be a four star and he will be independent, prime center Paris. Although the media speculation is that he will be senior to these people. Who will the chiefs be? It's received enough attention in the media. I don't want to comment on it that it's been postponed to never that the committee has been given time till November ensures that one chief goes away. Then there's only one chief left and you promote him. He's a senior most of the other three. The chief having gone away. Then we have you know it's Hollywood and everything else. Thank you. Thank you, sir. This is all for today from NewsClick. But we'd like to have you with us again and again to take us through many of these issues that keep on cropping up. But thank you once again for today. If you have any comment, any feedback, do get back to us. Keep watching NewsClick and thank you for today.