Trusting the defence services
India should not hesitate to use Air Force assets against the Maoists.
Former Air Chief S. Krishnaswamy dispels the notion that IAF cannot be trusted to be employed in the this war against the Maoists [LT: Kat].
First, it is the government’s prerogative to use the military in any manner towards a purpose which obviously would be decided after due consideration.
There is a difference between military employed against an enemy and that of serving a purpose in support of civilian needs. The Indian mindset often suspects Air Force operations to be escalatory, and worries about high casualty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such apprehension stems from ignorance.
This negative attitude has already cost the country.
Anti-Naxalite operation is not chasing and getting an enemy, but a focused police operation. It is about providing support measures — rounding up the misguided and the criminals, who are citizens of this country. It could also be an effort to correct those misguided through counter-propaganda and carefully calibrated coercion. It is about paving the way for development of neglected regions and protecting the innocent. It is not a battle to win.
The expectation from the Air Force in this contingency is not “fire power” but to provide support in the areas of logistics, transportation, communication, surveillance and medical support. Apparently, the Maoists are well organised and supported.
The Air Force could possibly help in hunting the logistics support trail and help in destroying these. Helicopters equipped with loudspeakers, and transport aircraft, could help propaganda and help distribute pamphlets and leaflets over a wide area. Air Force could provide, where necessary, food and medical relief to affected people and strengthen confidence in the government.
It is possible to provide support round the clock and with speed. Helicopters are ideal to move troops and material in a difficult terrain such as jungle. The Air Force has considerable expertise in this field.
Helicopters as well as troops on ground may at times need “protective-fire support” — typically in counter-ambush operations. It is possible to provide accurate fire from onboard helicopters either as a suppressive measure or for attack. Considering risks that this may pose to the innocents in the area, such missions would be carefully planned and executed.
Indian Air Force is a professional air-arm. It is necessary for those at the helm to understand the capabilities, and not hesitate to assess in a timely manner. It is time that we trust our Air Force. Other developed countries would not hesitate to use Air Force assets in a similar contingency. Nor would such a debate be necessary.[Asian Age]
Thankfully the debate goes on.
There is a difference between military employed against an enemy and that of serving a purpose in support of civilian needs. The Indian mindset often suspects Air Force operations to be escalatory, and worries about high casualty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such apprehension stems from ignorance.
This negative attitude has already cost the country.
Anti-Naxalite operation is not chasing and getting an enemy, but a focused police operation. It is about providing support measures — rounding up the misguided and the criminals, who are citizens of this country. It could also be an effort to correct those misguided through counter-propaganda and carefully calibrated coercion. It is about paving the way for development of neglected regions and protecting the innocent. It is not a battle to win.
The expectation from the Air Force in this contingency is not “fire power” but to provide support in the areas of logistics, transportation, communication, surveillance and medical support. Apparently, the Maoists are well organised and supported.
The Air Force could possibly help in hunting the logistics support trail and help in destroying these.
Helicopters equipped with loudspeakers, and transport aircraft, could help propaganda and help distribute pamphlets and leaflets over a wide area. Air Force could provide, where necessary, food and medical relief to affected people and strengthen confidence in the government.
It is possible to provide support round the clock and with speed. Helicopters are ideal to move troops and material in a difficult terrain such as jungle. The Air Force has considerable expertise in this field.
Helicopters as well as troops on ground may at times need “protective-fire support” — typically in counter-ambush operations. It is possible to provide accurate fire from onboard helicopters either as a suppressive measure or for attack. Considering risks that this may pose to the innocents in the area, such missions would be carefully planned and executed.
Indian Air Force is a professional air-arm. It is necessary for those at the helm to understand the capabilities, and not hesitate to assess in a timely manner. It is time that we trust our Air Force. Other developed countries would not hesitate to use Air Force assets in a similar contingency. Nor would such a debate be necessary.
“Other developed countries would not hesitate to use Air Force assets in a similar contingency.”
1. But why not police helicopters and user friendly police encounters please ?
2. Another distinguished Air Marshal went a bit further and got paid for it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/air-force-obituaries/5562130/Air-Vice-Marshal-Johnnie-Johnson.html
“In July 1935 he joined the RAF, training as a wireless mechanic before leaving for the North West Frontier to join No 1 (India) Wing at Kohat. In addition to his routine maintenance tasks, he volunteered for air gunner duties, a part-time role which attracted an extra sixpence a day. He flew operations in Wapiti biplanes against the dissident tribesmen of the region.”
While fully endorsing what the ACM has said, I have a ‘dumb’ question. Firing in self-defence is permissible in any ‘aid to civil power’ ops. In fact it is possibly the only time the officer on scene does not need the Magistrate’s concurrence to open fire.
So why did AFHq go and ask permission for an issue that is already part of the basic ROE. And where does that place future actions in self-defence, not explicitly approved by MOD. Was it merely giving away one’s authority to play safe? Or does it show a lack of trust in the officer on the scene, the same trust that the ACM is referring to?
Not only the defence forces, the Indian law permits firing in self defence to any citizen of India. So that is a good question Bee Cee. Not a dumb one
As we progress, police airworks required to say take out slums in Dharavi or ~ Dwarka, other routine maintenance. Why should the IAF take the AMC ? Also a NE riverine police could start learn how to unblock the Brahmaputra.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/6360717/Rio-de-Janeiro-drug-traffickers-shoot-down-police-helicopter.html
Use of Air Force and Army is alright but before that the country owes an explanation from the civil adminstration as to why the situation was allowed to come to the present state.
Its like quacks trying to treat an ailment till it becomes chronic and then pseudo intellectuals conviniently get on to debating whether or not Army be called in.
“It is every citizen’s right to retaliate in self defence”
When deadly force (I think the legal term is excessive force) is used as self defence, you are not legally protected. IAF heptrs can protect themselves using tactics, firm and secure bases, operating outside small arms envelope etc. But they could have also used on board weapons. As you do know, the weapons on board an armed helicopter are designed to protect themselves against a contemporary adversary. When employed against insurgents armed with small arms in CI situations, even with ROE such as mandatory warning shots, casualties would accrue. These would constitute ‘deadly force’. Legalese and the fall out in the media apart, such a situation would not have been in the best interests of any one. The CAS was only spelling that out to the government.
I don’t understand one thing.
When Bugti was killed in Balochistan by Pak shelling, India & its commentators (incl INI) condemned use of offensive power (shelling & gunships) by a country against it’s own citizens. But when India talks of using helicopter gunships, there is no such comments.
I would say, don’t use Air Force, instead, equip anti-naxals/terror forces with helicopters capable of recon & sniping. It is high time that central police forces to be equipped with helicopters.
@Invalid:
Firstly, there is no talk of using helicopter gunships against anybody. The helicopters are going to be used in a combat support role. Insertion/extraction, Med/Cas evac, Psyops, Command Control, Show of Force etc.
Also a humble suggestion, gunships are as different from an armed helicopter as a machine gun from a pea shooter. While I am no Jargon Gestapo, can we use correct terminology?
Next, ideally offensive power against own citizens must be used with great restraint and that includes air power. But surely, restraint has a limit.
Then, if INI passed condemnation —I pass the buck to PE.
Finally, You are absolutely right that CPOs and the like must be equipped with appropriate capabilities. It must be they alone who handle these IS situations. But they don’t have capabilities. (and let’s not talk about the BSF choppers). So what are we gonna do Jack?
I will add to that wish list equally important factors like training, leadership, motivation & ethos. Until all that happens, despite the potentially fine policemen, they will largely remain …. (censored).
@Kat
No disagreements about both your posts above and accept that what AFHQ has asked the GOI may have been lost in transalation in the media.
My only point is that asking for permission to fire in self- defence is quiet different from explaining the impact of the firepower. The former is giving away a right you have and the latter should merely be explanatory.
More importantly, since HQs seldom explain their rationale to subordinates, many in the Service are likely gather that ’self-defence’ also needs direction from the top.
@BeeCee: With you, sir. Especially the last one. If a soldier (generic) is explained the why, he will rarely fail to accomplish the task in letter and more importantly in spirit.
simpler maybe to let the airPBOR’s shoot first and worry about the grammar of their good works later please. that way no pre and post tsd (and no worries like the pentagon has nowadays as to whether ptsd martyrs should get the purple/ bleeding heart.