Army procurement must be subject to stringent oversight

Advertisements

Two recent reports related to procurement and purchases in the army provide cause for serious concern. First, in an internal audit carried out by the Comptroller of Defence Accounts, irregularities were found in 55 transactions under the Special Financial Powers of army commanders. The emergency purchases made by the generals not only led to an estimated financial loss of Rs 100 crore but also compromised security protocols. That the purchases were made in blatant disregard of guidelines, through agents rather than directly from manufacturers, calls for a thorough probe. The breach of protocol is further exemplified by the fact that in some cases the manufacturers were based in India itself.Read along with the Italian report on the purchase of VVIP helicopters for the Indian Air Force � where three Indians are being probed for their role in the Rs 3,546 crore deal in which bribes to politicians and money laundering have been suspected � the evidence points to a deep-rooted malaise. It is clear that foreign military procurement is often compromised by middlemen and lobbyists. The end result is that the equipment procured is neither up to standards nor value for money. However, while boosting indigenous defence production is a good long-term strategy, Indian defence manufacturing is yet to become cutting edge. In such a scenario, foreign defence procurement must continue but with stringent oversight. This should also apply to generals exercising special financial powers. The army brass ought to be sensitised about financial profligacy and the corresponding loss to the public exchequer. Probity in defence deals must be maintained at all costs.