Why should you read ‘The Psychology of Money’ ~ Shubham Rajput

As the saying goes, “Rome was not built in a day but Hiroshima was destroyed in a day”, this holds correct most of the time while we are making our financial decisions. What if someone had told you that the possibility of you getting wealthy is not a function of your income but it is a function of your behaviour? There is a good chance that you might not have believed him or her, if 1% of your personality resembles my behavioural patterns with respect to finances. 

In India, the demography is getting more and more in favour of industrial expansion. Large population of the country is earning population, which means that the same population will be consuming population and as income will keep on increasing, so will be the consumption, and so will be the production of industries, and so will be the earnings due to increasing employment demand, and this cycle might keep on going. 

Such kind of prospect brings us with two unique opportunities - first, more employment opportunities and continuous increase in earning due to skills and second, more opportunities to invest and save as industries will keep on growing and so will be their profits and so will be the share prices of those companies and so will be the returns on their investments had you invested.

And for every person, who wishes to invest his or her hard earned earnings in such kind of investment opportunities either through Mutual Funds or through direct investment, this book is a must read. This book will change your perception and will almost convince you that your future wealth (yes WEALTH not deposits) depends more on your behaviour and less on your income.

Lets jump to the best lesson of the book: 

“Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces people into thinking that they can not lose” -- Bill Gates

We often tend to forget or ignore or completely reject that every opportunity which came to us and transformed our lives was the outcome of luck playing in our favour. We tend to believe so much in ourselves that we can not fathom that a factor that can not be measured, can not be earned, can not be achieved, can have a role in our lives. The outcome we get when we ignore the part of luck in our success, be it financial or in terms of career, we start believing that there are no unknown factors that can not be controlled. And that expose us to another sibling of luck - “risk”. 

This concept is conveyed in very simple terms. Bill Gates studied in the school which had early access to computers because the headmaster of the school was a World War-II veteran and he recognised the importance of computers. During those times, even many of the colleges didn’t get access to computers. What were the odds of you being in the place of Bill Gates? To get that opportunity, first you required the ‘ovarian lottery’, that is you had to get birth during that time. Then you would have needed to be born in the USA and that too in the same school with the mindset of parents that you deserve good education and with a headmaster who would have been visionary enough to understand the importance of computers. And after so many coincidences, you would have got the chance to upgrade your skills to such an extent that you could went on to create world’s largest software company of the forthcoming century. 

But Bill Gates was not the only one to get that kind of access. All his schoolmates got that access and only two of them went on to develop skills to a considerable level, one was of course Bill Gates and another was his friend. All others who did not develop such skills is a confirmation of the belief that hard work pays, but only when you are already rewarded with luck. Now, who was the friend of Bill Gates who developed the same kind of skills? His name was Kent Evans, and the reason you don’t know his name is that he died while mountaineering. That’s how risk is associated with luck. 

What is the lesson we can learn? Always be prepared for every eventuality, positive or negative. Your every investment can earn you multiple returns on your investments (if luck is playing by your side) but the same can rob away all your money (if you fail to manage risk). Therefore risk management should be the essence of all your financial decisions, whether you are making investment decisions or you are a stock trader (especially if you are a stock trader). If luck comes in your favour you are earning a handsome return but if luck does not come your way, then at least you would have managed the risk.

Just imagine the condition of the person who has large amounts of loans - home loan, personal loans, business loans, credit card bills, etc. And out of nowhere, Covid-19 crisis evolved. Who would have thought of such a situation? Just imagine the plight of the person who failed to cover risk?    

Atmanirbhar starts from your appearance

On August 7th, 1905, Calcutta, a non-violent protest broke out against the British Government. In Indian independence struggle, this type of struggle was unprecedented, because never before that, an assemble of the size ever joined their hands against the British Government. The event was breakout of the Swadeshi Movement. The British tried to divide Bengal on the religious lines and a movement was launched against the government. Necessary element of the movement was the boycott of the British cloth and acceptance to the Swadeshi handlooms. 

A decade later, Mr. M. K. Gandhi came back to India. He too started his struggles against the British India. One important element in his struggle was the acceptance of Khadi in the place of the British Cloth. In both the cases, in the Swadeshi Movement of 1905 and in the Gandhian struggles, the common denominating factor was Atmanirbhar Bharat. The political struggle was inviting the people to realize their own economic capabilities, to support their brethren economically, to provide dignity and respect to the local produce goods. 

When China, in 2020, engaged into skirmishes with India in Galwan valley and Pangong Tso region, suddenly an economic boycott was called out. Today many might have been following that economic boycott as well. But the question is do we really sustain this kind of people movements? Or it is only for WhatsApp status, Twitter feeds, Instagram stories and Facebook posts?

The answer lies in your wardrobes. India, since the independence struggle has been encouraging use of Indian handlooms. Not as a choice of fashion statement but as a choice of self-reliance. When we buy an Indian handloom, then we give employment to the woman who has no other means of income, she is living in the rural India, devoid of any land to cultivate, devoid of any income source. It is only your purchase, which is encouraging her to continue her cottage industry and sustain a living not only for her but also for her children. 

In Haryana, Panipat was once known for its handlooms. The morning streets were always occupied with bicycles going to the handloom stores and evening streets with bicycles coming from the stores. Then, carpets, which was most important product of the Panipat handloom sector, was challenged by the Chinese carpets which were cheap due to the synthetic nature of the raw material used. Competition eliminated the local industry. Today, there are countable handloom factories in Panipat. The farmers too lost their income because the handlooms were based on the agricultural raw materials.

In Uttar Pradesh, which once prided itself for Varanasi sarees and Lucknow’s Chikan cloth is struggling to sustain the handloom weavers. The weavers are artistic in nature and when they pass on this art of the weaving to the next generation, they are also preserving the art. But what is the cost of it? The weavers are not able to pay electricity bills for their handloom workshops, forced to work in dark environment, losing their eyesight prematurely. 

In Himachal Pradesh, what occupation do the tribal women of Kullu have? Not far away from the Kullu airport of Bajaura, I happen to see women coming, carrying their babies on their backs and started weaving traditional Himachali handlooms. On interaction with them, I came to know that though they can gather forest produce for living and sustenance but they do not have any other income source to provide education to their child. I just wondered, what would have been their condition had there been no handloom to provide them employment. 

The handloom sector provides employment and income to many of the people who belong to the marginalised sections. We may read about poverty day and night but rarely we do anything. Supporting handloom can be one way to providing contribution and support to such artistic handloom weavers, who despite all the odds are continuing this work. Yes, it is bit expensive than the normal machine-made cloth, but can’t we buy one expensive cloth for all those? Didn’t we end up paying a little too much for pop corns in the movie multiplexes? 

Supporting handlooms is much more than just shopping, it is about believing that we can be Atmanirbhar. And what better way to do it by appearing in the spirit of Atmanirbhar Bharat? 

When we celebrate anniversary of 7th August 1905, Swadeshi Movement, and celebrate handloom day in the memory, it is also necessary that we not only do so in letters but in spirit. 

Brief history of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Case (Aug 2020)

As the title suggests, the write is more about the case and less about the history of the Ram Janmabhoomi itself. I intend to present the summary of the detail judgement of approximately thousand pages as pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Still I would like to urge all the readers to go through the detailed judgement once if they feel like going into it. 
Since the pronouncement of the judgement of the case, one thing which was constantly being repeated by the media channels and print media that the judgement was based on the faith of the Hindus. But the question is, is it so? If the judgement was based on the faith, then it would have meant that the facts do not support the case of the Ram Janmabhoomi. Also, it would have led to opening of the Pandora’s Box, on the basis of which, every single practice in every single religion, no matter how extreme they are, could be defended on the basis of faith because the Supreme Court has itself set a precedent. Therefore, when most of the India will be celebrating the Bhoomi Pooja of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi, it is important that we revisit the history, as mentioned in the Supreme Court judgement. 

When for the first time Police Complaint was filed 

In the historical records of the British surveyors, who surveyed the land for various purposes like inspecting a land for railway station, etc., found a unique practice in Ayodhya. A British surveyor found out that the vast number of people belonging to the Hindu faith circumnavigated a mosque. This perplexed him and when he went into the inquiry of the matter, he found out that the people believed that there existed a temple which was broken by the Islamic invaders and a mosque was built over it. People believed that the temple still exists beneath the structure and therefore they were circumnavigating the place with same kind of devotion to lord Ram. The situation in 1856 to 1858 took a sharp turn. A group of Nihang Sikhs forcefully entered the structure complex, wrote “Jai Shree Ram” on the walls of the structure, sprinkled the ‘ganga jal’, and performed a “Yajna” for the purification of the complex. The situation became tense and a case was filed. Interestingly, the case was named as the “Masjid-I-Janmasthan” case. This evidence strengthens the fact that even those who were on the side of the mosque, indirectly supported the claim that the Mosque was built on the temple.

When the case turned into a movement 

In the late 1980s, the Ram Janmabhoomi case, which was registered as Masjid-I-Janmasthan case in the Faizabad police station became a movement. Organizations belonging to the Hindu faith like Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, were spearheading the movement. Soon the case became a political case when the BJP took over it. The government led by the Prime Minister P. V. Narsimha Rao felt the need to find out the facts related to the case. To do so, the government established a special task force of Archaeological Survey of India. One of the most important members of this task force was K. K. Muhammad. The testimony of K. K. Muhammad and findings of the ASI team was rapidly changing the scenario with continuous archaeological facts. 
The ASI team when dig into the structure, they found the existence of the pillars built up as per the Vedic architecture, the assembly of pillars suggested that there was not a small or medium size temple, but it was a large structure in itself. The ASI team found out about the existence of a water channels, which piped out water from a nearby tank to the door of the temple for the devotees to wash their feet. The team also found out that the outlets of pipes were carved in crocodile and tortoise shape, both symbolising the vahana of the Ganga and Yamuna. The water outlet system was the symbol of ganga and Yamuna coming at your feet, therefore, cleanse yourself before you enter the temple. All these findings by the Archaeological team were sufficient to establish the fact that there existed a temple and the structure of mosque was itself based on the temple. 

An attempt got wasted 

Finding out the true nature of the structure, the team of the archaeologists went to the people of Ayodhya to convince them to give up their claim on mosque. 
DISCLAIMER – this whole incident is not mentioned in the judgement of the Supreme Court but is taken from the Autobiography of K. K. Muhammad, which is “I am an Indian”. 
K. K. Muhammad mentioned in his book that the importance of Ayodhya to the Hindu is as much as the Mecca is for the Muslim. Importance of Ayodhya for Muslim is not that much for which they were going to such an extent. According to his autobiography, the Muslim population in Ayodhya was negligible and the mosque served them no purpose. To this most of the people belonging to the Muslim faith agreed and consented that they shall give up their claim on the Mosque once they will be provided with the alternative land to construct another mosque. The government in the state of the Uttar Pradesh agreed to this and offered the same size of land on the opposite side of the river, where there was a greater Muslim population, for the construction of mosque. 

And then, there were eminent historians (Distorians) 

In India, it is alleged that academia, especially related to the history and political sciences is dominated by the Left minded teachers. When they found out that the Muslim population is willing to accept the offer forwarded by K. K. Muhammad and his team, they jumped into the whole matter and asked the Muslim complainants to not to give up their case. As per those historians, which included Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, Ram Saran Sharma and many others, the temple never existed there, and the historians have enough proof that the mosque was always there. The matter which was beginning to get solved complicated further. The matter went into the Allahabad High Court. In the proceedings of the Allahabad High Court, all those eminent historians were invited to give their proof, and none of them even came forward, forget about giving any proof. The Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that there existed a temple, but to avoid any kind of tension between the communities, the court ordered to divide the land into three parts, two to Hindu parties and one to Babri Masjid Action Committee. Once the High Court agreed over the facts that there existed a temple, it was no more a case of temple v/s mosque, it was now a property case. And as a property case it was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was very much convinced about the actual nature of the structure and pronounced the judgement in the favour of the Janmabhoomi. 

Question is, why? 

It is an historical fact that the Mir Baki, who was the general of Babur, stormed with his army and had broken many temples. The temple dedicated to Shri Ram was also one among them. On this aspect, in a conference, K. K. Muhammad was asked, why do they need to break the temple on the first place regardless of the whether there was temple dedicated to the Vishnu or to Shiva, why did they need to do so? To this K. K. Muhammad answered, which I will try to put in my words, as I do not remember what the exact words were. He said, there has always been a clash between kings. When the kings of Semitic and anti-Semitic religion came in front of each other and the king from the Semitic religion, he always wanted to impose his culture and belief over the people of other faith. The Semitic religion is the type of religion which believes that there exists only one god and that god is whom they pray. The Islamic invaders were not interested in conquering the lands through brute force, but they also wanted to impose a belief and a culture. Demolition of Somnath temple, construction of Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque after demolishing 100 Jain temples, destruction of Kashi Vishwanath by a cannon on the orders of Aurangzeb, demolishing Martand Ravi temple in Kashmir are just the examples of it. 
However, this should always be kept in the mind, according to K. K. Muhammad, Muslims of today are not responsible for the horrors which the Islamic invaders committed. However, they become responsible for those horrors when they start themselves associating with those invaders and start believing that such kind of destructions were for the just cause. 

Recent comparisons with the Hagia Sophia 

The courts decided that the nature of the disputed site was of the temple and therefore a temple should be built there. Another development on the western frontiers, on the shores of the Mediterranean took place when the Turkish government declared Hagia Sophia a mosque. Quickly and in the most stupid manner, a comparison was drawn between both the cases, despite the facts being almost opposite. 
In the 16th century, the Turkish invaders crossed the Mediterranean Sea and attacked the holy seat of the Christianity, Constantinople, to spread the influence of Islam and to proof that the Turkish were the real champions of the religion. When the Constantinople fell into the hands of the Turkish, several kinds of horrors were committed on the people who preached the Christian faith, such as murder, rapes, looting, forceful conversions, and what not. Today, the name of Constantinople does not exist. Today we call it Istanbul. In that city, the most magnificent structure that was related to the Christian religion, the Hagia Sophia church. Later in the 1923, when Kemal Mustafa Ataturk came to power, seemed to be interested in reversing the horrors and converted the Hagia Sophia into a museum. When Turkish government converts the museum into mosque once again, it is repeating what was done in the 16th century. Therefore, the parallels drawn between the Ram Janmabhoomi and Hagia Sophia are unjust and based on the wrong background. 
In last few months, we saw an uprising in different parts of the USA and UK, where people were throwing away the statues of Columbus, citing that he was a monster and committed horrific torchers on the natives in order to capture their lands. Therefore, erecting his statue is a symbol of slavery which must be done away. If the parallels need to be drawn, then this should be the case. We should consider how many such structures do we have which reminds us that we were enslaved? How many structures do we have which were built on the sole purpose to show us our place? We have a long history of colonization which ended in 1947, the question is when are we going to shed away the intellectual slavery which was forced upon us?

From Mrs Indira to Dr Manmohan, we need to thank all PMs for rural development (Jun 2020)

Today, on 30th June 2020, the Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) briefly mentioned about the extent to which the government has supported the poor by providing them the ration in the difficult days of lockdown. It is remarkable that Indian government succeeded in feeding almost 80 crores people in India for more than 3 months for free. It is more than twice of the USA and European Union. Most of us might not look at this matter with surprise, but those who know that once India had “ship to mouth existence”, would certainly call it an achievement.
 
During the British Rule, more Indians were killed by the British policy of keeping the poor unfed than the direct massacre. Remember Churchill saying, “why hasn’t Gandhi died?”? The misery of India continued even after the independence because these things require time to improve. From Jawaharlal Nehru to Lal Bahadur Shastri, every Prime Minister stressed on the requirement of food security. In 1960’s, we had import food stocks to feed our population, which was increasing continuously. This type dependency on food over other countries raised questions on the sovereignty of India, every country which exported food stocks to India could dictate its terms and conditions. In that case, what was the point of attaining independence if we had to work as per the dictates of some other country?

First, remarkable, step was taken by the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi when she had launched ‘Green Revolution’. The revolution, to attain self sufficiency in terms of food security was an important matter for India’s sovereignty. The revolution was accepted by the masses and the agriculturalist with great enthusiasm. Every Prime Minister continued the principles underlined in the green revolution, which were – 

1. Income support to farmers through minimum support price
2. Creation of buffer stocks to deal with extraordinary situation
3. Normalisation of prices through sale of buffer stock time to time. 

Today, when the Prime Minister, releases the food stocks from the buffer stock of India, then we should be thankful to Mrs Gandhi for her initiation. Not only Mrs Gandhi but her trusted lieutenants in the battle like M. S. Swaminathan. 

It was during the reign of Atal Bihari Vajpayee that a mammoth task was undertaken by the government to create a network of metalled roads in every village. This required rural labourers. This spiralled up the labour demand in the rural area. Also, even the remotest village was now able to bring its produce to the markets which was not possible earlier because the transportation cost would have been much more than the production cost itself. 

During the reign of Dr Manmohan Singh, passing the legislation for the MGNREGA was another milestone, for which we should be thankful to him. Though, the programme went unsuccessful in the initial years from the economical perspective, but later on the government used it widely not only for the creation of the rural infrastructure but also the present government is eager to contain the migrant labourers within their village with the help of the scheme. 

Democracy is, in practice, a partisan exercise. When we bind ourselves with one particular political group, we tend to ignore the contribution of the others. This makes us myopic in our decision, and remember, we get the government we deserve. So next time, whenever you are told that nothing happened in the last 70 years, then you can answer that we achieved food security in last 70 years to the extent that the present Prime Minister can feed more the 80 crores population for more than 6 months. 

Step ahead? 
The present government has an equally important task to do when it comes to rural development. Today, many of the news articles and opinions talk about farmer suicide, but barely mention causes. Today, even after three decades of opening up our economy, we have kept our farmers under constraints. Every state government in the country, under the political pressure of middlemen, are afraid of taking any action for the welfare of the farmers, despite crying crocodilian tears for them in their election campaigns. 

To give freedom to the farmer, to sell his/her produce wherever she wants to, will be the least good we can do for her today. 

As per the current rules and regulation, any produce by the farmer needs to be sold in the nearest APMC Market. In that market, all the designated buyers must auction for the produce, but it is in theory. In practice, the designated buyers will make a cartel and would not buy the produce of a farmer more than the specified rate, which is extremely low. Sometimes, rates offered by the designated buyers is not sufficient to recover the basic cost. The farmer is bound to sell his produce there and nowhere else as per the state government laws. As a result, we see distress sales of farmers’ produce, resulting into farmer suicide. But the designated buyers, who get the produce at lowest minimum price from the farmer, sells the same commodity at maximum possible price in the market. Neither the final consumer is beneficiary nor is the farmer. Situation would have been different if the farmer was allowed to sell his produce directly to the consumer. 

Recent decision by the finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman is a welcome step in this direction. In her recent decisions, she made inter state commerce of agricultural goods beyond any restrictions of the draconian APMC act. Most of the state governments are not happy with the decision. Punjab government has expressed its refusal for this act as well. But for the larger good, this is a welcome step. 

Under Mrs. Indira Gandhi, we made initiations to attain food security. Under Mr. Vajpayee, we made strides in upgrading rural infrastructure. Under Dr Manmohan, we tried to check on the migration problem. Will we be able to look at the income security of the farmer under Modi regime? Only the time will tell. 

Credits: Shubham Rajput

45 Years of Emergency (Jun 2020)

45 years of "from 12 AM tonight..." 
Since 2016, the words, "from 12 AM tonight..." are dreaded. The wrath of these words was also witnessed when the Prime Minister declared lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic situation. But these words are not used by the current Prime Minister only, but many Prime Ministers in the past too, had fascination with these words. One such incident is of 26th June 1975, when, the then Prime Minister of India, on All India Radio declared that the President has declared emergency in the country at 12 AM tonight. 
Before jumping to the decision, rounds of meetings were held at the residence of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and it was decided that the nation shall be put under the emergency at fortnight of 25th June 1975. [1]
But what this whole drama was about? Why such rounds of meetings were conducted at the PM residence with lawyers and Chief Minister of West Bengal, Siddharth Shankar Ray? [2]
To understand this, we need to go in the past, and understand how such a situation evolved in India and what was the outcome of it. Powerful leaders often fail to grasp the undercurrent of discontent prevailing in the masses, otherwise there had been no revolts in the past against powerful leaders. Something similar happened to Indira Gandhi. Mrs. Gandhi was fighting multiple fights at multiple fronts. She was fighting the discontent of masses due to rising unemployment, corruption in bureaucracy, poverty, interference in judiciary. At the same time the opposition, which consisted leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Chandra Shekhar, and the staunchest Morarji Desai, were making it difficult for her to survive the political battle. When all was not going well, a political veteran, hero of Quit India Movement, Loknayak Jayprakash Narayan had returned to the political scene and like never before a student agitation was launched against the Indira Government. The poems of Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, “singhasan khali karo, Janata aati hai”, meaning “vacate the power, the masses are coming”, were recited in the streets.
If that was not enough, Raj Narayan Singh, who had contested election against Indira Gandhi in Rae Bareilly, the famous Congress bastion, had filed a suit in the Allahabad High Court. It was alleged by Raj Narain Singh that Mrs. Gandhi had used government machinery in contesting her elections, which is not allowed even today. He alleged that not only Indira Gandhi used Indian Air Force planes to distribute pamplets but also Indian Army Jeep was used for election campaigning. The matter went to Allahabad High Court, and Justice Jaganmohan Sinha1 found Mrs. Gandhi guilty and asked her to vacate her seat. Also, Justice Sinha ordered Indira Gandhi to not to contest any election for coming six years. 

And the stage was set
To prevent the execution of the High Court decision, Article 356 of the Indian Constitution was invoked1. As per the Article, if there is any internal disturbance in the country, then the President can execute emergency in the country. The student agitation against Indira Gandhi was considered as the internal disturbance, and citing that, draft of an order was sent to the President of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, which he signed. Cartoonist Ranga came up with a satirical cartoon on this incidence. 



The cartoon depicting the President saying that “...if there are more ordinances, then tell them to wait” and he is shown busy in having bath. 

What emergency meant? 

The Constitution at that time was such that if Emergency is proclaimed, then all the Fundamental Rights of individuals shall be suspended [3]. It meant, that all the Fundamental Rights, including Article-21, which guaranteed “Right to Life” was suspended. Citizens no longer enjoyed any right to live, any time their life could be taken away from the government, and no citizen was able to go to the courts for the protection of their lives because Article-20 and Article-22 forbid [4] the Courts to consider any such petitions. 
In other words, an All Powerful Leader, who could do whatever she wish to, and there was no one to stop her. This is what happened. All leaders of opposition were sent to jailed except the leaders of Communist Party of India as they were not against Mrs. Gandhi at that time. Power supply to all the newspapers was stopped. Newspapers were allowed to print only what government allowed them to. Forceful and coercive means to control population were adopted. Even those who were unmarried, were arrested and vasectomy was conducted on them. [5] The sixteen point programme of Sanjay Gandhi was being implemented by state governments and there was no control on their powers to implement those. To conclude – democracy had died. 
When all of it was going on, instead of being apologetic to the atrocities, the Congress President D. K. Barua said in a public meeting that “India is Indira and Indira is India” [6]. It was reported in the report of Shah Commission, that police atrocities knew no limits. To add to the despair, if there was anyone who could protect people from the wrath of Mrs. Gandhi, then she was Mrs. Gandhi herself. While in jail, Lal Krishna Advani had written an opinion piece in which he compared to emergencies, which he mentioned in his autobiography, ‘My Country, My Life’ as well. It was something like...

In Germany in 1933, the Chancellor Hitler cited that there is a threat to the internal security, citing that there was an attempt to burn the Reichstag (German Parliament), therefore emergency was proclaimed. A majority was required to amend the constitution and to give all power to Hitler. To do so, all the opposition leaders were jailed. Then a law was passed that no judicial action can be taken on the actions of the Government. There shall be complete censorship of newspapers. A 25-point programme was launched for Germany (not 16-point, as it was in India) and a speech was given by S. Rudolf that, “Hitler is Germany, and Germany is Hitler, who takes oath to Hitler, takes Oath to Germany”. 

If you find it difficult to draw parallels between both the emergencies, then you must be intellectually very lazy. 

Why do we need to remember this today? 

There is a saying that, “those who don’t learn from history, are destined to doomed”. It is important to know how such things unfolded. Also, another important aspect of it, that those who claim legacy of Mrs. Gandhi, have not apologised even today for the actions she had taken. With what face we demand apology of British for the atrocities they did?  

References 
1. Turbulent Years – Pranab Mukherjee; India After Gandhi – Ramchandra Guha
2. Same sources as above. Source – My Country, My Life – L. K. Advani
3. Constitution of India – Durga Das Basu
4. Forbid In the sense that these rights prevent any arbitrary arrest and ensure proper judicial system. But these rights were suspended and therefore no judicial proceedings were required to arrest, detain, or even to kill someone. 
5. Shah Commission Report 
6. Turbulent Years – Pranab Mukherjee

Credits:
Shubham Rajput

What surrender looks like? (Jun 2020)

In the recent political jibe by the former President of the Indian National Congress Party, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi was termed as ‘Surrender’ Modi, based on the assumption that Prime Minister has compromised the territorial integrity of the country. Many of the media reporters found it interesting that someone like Narendra Modi, for whom the territorial integrity is such an important aspect of his style of politics, can compromise on the territorial integrity. Therefore, for some media houses it was an opportunity to brand Narendra Modi as a weak Prime Minister and for some it was change in recipe they often served to their viewers. But for those who like to understand and consume facts more than the non sensical sensationalism provided by the news channels, it is important to know that what is surrender after all in the strategic times like these. 

To understand this, we need to understand what are the precedents in the history to compare the present circumstances.

Kashmir in 1948 

Just after the declaration of independence for Pakistan and partition of India, the Jammu and Kashmir princely state then ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh was in news. Pakistan wanted it to be the part of its territory and therefore sent Kabayalis to attack Jammu and Kashmir and incorporate it by force. Despite the repeated request of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Indian army was not given permission to protect Kashmir from the plundering, murdering, loot, and rape crimes of Kabayalis. The point was that the Kashmir has not given its assent to join India. Was that the case? No! The Maharaja of the Jammu and Kashmir had given its assent to join India but Jawaharlal Nehru rejected that because he wanted Maharaja to remove his Prime Minister (then Jammu and Kashmir used to have a Prime Minister) Mehar Chand Mahajan and replace him with his friend Sheikh Abdullah. Do you call this as an example of surrender? Prime Minister of India let Kashmiri women raped, murdered, looted and plundered, just because his friend had not appointed his friend as the Prime Minister of the Jammu and Kashmir? If not surrender, then what is it?

All is not over yet. Even when somehow Sardar Patel managed to get the army enter in the Kashmir valley, more than half of the Jammu and Kashmir was captured by Pakistan. Just when Indian army was getting Kashmir free from Pakistan and pushing the Kabayali backwards, Pt. Nehru announced status quo. Which meant that whatever area Pakistan had annexed shall remain with Pakistan until United Nation sponsored solution is not accepted, which never came into being, and 1/3rd of Kashmir is still with the Pakistan. This is what we call surrender. 

Not a blade of grass grows there: 1962 

When China was pushing its army in the Indian Territory, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru told the Parliament to not worry much about Laddakh, not a single blade of grass grows there. And the descendants of that legacy are pointing out the surrender is an irony. In defence of Jawaharlal Nehru, maybe he knew about the war preparedness of the Indian army because his defence minister, V. K. Krishna Menon was busy in manufacturing utensils in the Ordinance factory. The defence capabilities were consistently lowered down by the defence minister Menon, who remained on that position for the longest time. This was the reason why Indian soldiers, who did not have any arms and ammunition to fight the Chinese incursion had to lose their lives. Much to the credit of the army, when Chinese government had released the official numbers of casualties on their side in 1962 war with India, in 1994, it was found that on some posts, more Chinese soldiers were killed by Indian, despite Indians had inferior or no arms with them. Major Shaitan Singh is said to have killed almost 100 soldiers with his bare hands. Nehru was getting regular signals that war is on the way, even then Nehru compromised on the national security. We lost 1/3rd territory of Laddakh. This is what surrender looks like. 

How to lose a war on table that is won on the battlefield: 1971-72 

The 1971 war for Pakistan is a war which no one wants to remember in Pakistan. Their country – East and West Pakistan were divided into two parts and a new country, Bangladesh, was forged out of it. Indian forces entered into the war on December 1st 1971, and concluded the war on December 16th 1971. The result of the 16-day war was partition of Pakistan and surrender of 90,000 Pakistani soldiers. The Prime Minister of the Pakistan, who was such a good actor, Bhutto, came to India with his daughter Benazir Bhutto to get their soldiers free. This was the golden opportunity with India to resolve the Kashmir issue for once and forever. Mrs. Indira Gandhi did almost contrary to that. Not only Mrs. Indira Gandhi gave 90,000 Pakistani soldiers to Pakistan in 1972, but also did not resolved the border dispute. She was in such a powerful position that she could have got all the Kashmir freed but what she did? She literally surrendered to the acting skills of Bhutto. That was a surrender. Moreover, we lost the 1971 war on the table. 

What is certainly not a surrender? 

The Chinese way or the Communist way to fight is to fight in the Salami tactics. They do not deliver the one and ultimate blow, instead they prefer to chop you piece by piece. Afterall that’s how they got control of China after the Civil War in China. To fight such battles, it is important to know that status quo is changed slowly and almost as important to intervene almost immediately, and not behave like V. K. Krishna Menon and Jawaharlal Nehru. India, in this context has been proactive. Not only the Indian soldiers were quick to intervene, but the kind of scar the Indian soldier left on their Chinese counterparts, it is unlikely that any such activity shall be pursued by the Chinese forces in the near future, except when there is no war. Also, the departure of the Army General to participate in the talks for the establishment of the status quo is a sign of swiftness of the Indian side. 

The Chinese did similar kind of activity in Doklam trijunction in 2016, when they were intercepted by the Indian side. China had to move backwards. It is evident from the way things are taking place that similar kind of outcome shall come after this whole standoff. And you don’t call this a surrender. You are forcing the Chinese to move backwards can certainly be not called as surrender. Question is, whether Mr. Rahul Gandhi will apologize if the Chinese army moved backwards and leave Finger-4? Or will he dare the Prime Minister to recover that area of Ladakh as well which was lost by his Great Grandfather in 1962? Or will he ask the Prime Minister to have control of those posts as well which his government from 2004-14 had given away to the Chinese side? 

Appendix 

Before the Kabayalis had attacked the J&K, Man Sing wanted to keep his princely status, he was on negotiation table with both India and Pakistan.

When the Kabayali attacked J&K, Hari Singh was ready to sign the instrument of accession. But Jawaharlal wanted that accession should be signed by the elected government under Sheikh Abdullah. Then replacement of Mehar Chand Mahajan with Sheikh Abdullah as Prime Minister, even if it was not democratic.

References 
% Wikipedia - Hari Singh

Credits:
Shubham Rajput

India and China, destined for what? (Jun 2020)

There is a terminology called ‘Thucydides trap’ that is mentioned in the book called ‘Destined for War’, written by Graham Allison, which tracked the evolution of countries and presented how countries [may] find themselves eventually in the situation of war. The book is however oriented on the conditions of USA, however, we would like to have some liberties in the name of expression and free thinking. 

Last week we saw armies of two nations, most populous, oldest civilisations of the world, both nuclear powers, with two largest standing armies in the world, both aim to be the superpowers, and the soldiers were pelting stones at each other. Ironic. Question is, what is it that brings India and China at tussle with each other? Why this conflict at this time? What are several theories behind the tussle, reported in the array of media reports? And most importantly, where is this heading?

Destiny has a very interesting way of presenting itself, depends if you believe on it. India and China are two of the oldest civilisations, with ancient cultural links. The sea voyages of Rajaraja Chola are well known in the India and ancient China relations. However, pinnacle of relations between both civilization was when Hiuen Tsang, who was a Chinese traveller visited India to research about Buddhism and exported Buddhism in China about 1400 years ago from today [2020]. Hiuen Tsang was born in Xiang, which is the birthplace of current Chinese President Xi Jinping. While Hiuen Tsang was travelling all of the India, the last place he visited in India was Vadnagar, which is birthplace of our current Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 
Narendra Modi also happens to be the first and only Chief Minister of any Indian state to have received State welcome from China, in 2013. If his visits to China, since he was Chief Minister of Gujarat is considered, then he is the only political leader in India to have visited China, ever. And yet, both of the leaders of two old civilisations, who also happen to be proud of their heritage, are in front of each other, in confrontation. This phenomenon is explained by the Thucydides Trap, which we will explain as soon as we cover very brief history of India and China. 

China, after a long and bloody civil war, emerged as a unified (depends how you look at Taiwan) country in 1948. It adopted the Communist regime, and cut away itself from all the cultural and religious heritage. But as it is said about China, ‘’China has habit of changing its ruler rather than being changed by it’’, the Chinese economy and its culture opened in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping called for liberalization and globalization in China. China divorced itself from so-called socialist policies, both economically and culturally, and became a capitalist economy (in practical sense). The growth of China happened so fast that, “we didn’t even get the time to be astonished”, as put forward by the President of Czech Republic. 

Now let’s look at India. India got independence in 1947, adopted socialist policies like China. Only difference is that China opened and globalized its economy in 1978, India did it in 1991, when India had got almost bankrupt. In these 14 years, China had surpassed India by 50 years, even with the smallest estimations. After 1991, however, India ran with rapid speed. Continuous FDI in India, rise of Indian IT sector, Nuclear test in 1999, rapid infrastructure development, continuously alleviating people from poverty. Suddenly India was seen as a rising power in Asia, which can counter Chinese rise, and that’s where Thucydides Trap comes into play. 
According to this theory, every powerful country ends up in a war with the country which is rising and seen as the replacement of the powerful country. Harvard University did a research on Thucydides trap, in which it was found that 12 times, in the history, countries end up fighting with each other over the question of who will be the power centre. And every time, neither the powerful country and rising country initiated the war, but it was initiated by someone else and both ended up in war. 

If we look at the similarities in the current leaders of China and India, there are too many similarities. Both enjoy unparalleled devotion in their respective parties, both are politically stable, both are ambitious, both are target oriented, both are clear about what they want, both seem to be interested in acquiring the central position in the international affairs. Even Xi Jinping had stated it that China will be No. 1 country in 2049, when they will complete 100th anniversary of Chinese revolution. You can not believe that something similar will not be there in Narendra Modi’s mind, Afterall he is brought up in an organization which has seen the dream of making India a “Vishwa guru”.

A game of Chess 

The rise of both the countries can be traced on a game of chess. Chess game has three components – opening, middle game and endgame. Both countries have made their openings. Both have declared their intentions. Both have made progress in that direction as well. China has an advantage, as it made few moves earlier than India. However, the game has matured now. Now both countries are in the middle game. And like all the middle games of Chess, this game is too all about securing most suitable and strategic positions. In the middle game, every player wants to place his pieces on a place from where he can launch an attack most efficiently in the end game. China wanted to have an infrastructure at Doklam, which was quickly halted by the Indian interventions. India, after scrapping Article 370, incorporating whole Ladakh in Indian map, presenting forecasts of whole of the Ladakh, and then ramping up the infrastructure along LAC has conveyed clear messages, at least as far as the Chinese perception is concerned. Therefore, China at all cost wants to halt all those developments by India, which can secure strategic locations for India. Be it Ladakh or be it Kalapani issue raised by Nepal on the instigation of China. 

How the Endgame will turn out to be? 

This is something no one knows. At least not when world is facing, all of a sudden, unprecedented uncertainty. All we can wish that both countries end up with a draw in this match and co-exist together, like all great civilizations do. The rest will be shaped by the destiny. As I said it earlier in the article, destiny has a very strange way of presenting itself. 
Credits: Shubham Rajput

Since the Hon’bles mentioned the merit (A look into the selection process of Indian judges, May 2020)

While we were cussing the lockdown, making speculation about the extent of the virus, and discussing the 20 lakh crore (INR) package, something remarkable happened in the country. The Supreme Court of India came out with its judgement on the petition submitted before the three-judge bench, regarding the NEET medical test and Minority status of the Educational Institutes. 
 
The medical colleges came up with a petition that since they have got the minority educational institutes under Article 30 and Article 19 of the Constitution, they enjoy the right to administer their own colleges as per their convenience and do not need NEET. No doubt the petition was disposed of, but in between something interesting happened. 
                                    
The Hon'ble Supreme Court came up with the notion of “merit”. And for a normal person who is not born in a family, which is surrounded by influential people, it is the idea of merit which secures opportunity for her. Also, it is the merit of the people governing such important positions, which let us believe in the working of the organization and earns the organization its credibility. Therefore, it is important that there should be a concept of merit in all those institutions which are of utmost importance, which includes the judiciary as well. Shouldn't the judiciary, too, be cautious about the procedure of merit?

Judiciary in today's democracy 

Today, the functions of the judiciary are not limited merely to the pronouncements of the judgements but it has expanded to more fields of governance. The judiciary is not only defending the law but it is also making the law and also directing the authorities to implement the law. In simple political science language, democracy rests on the principle of the 'separation of power', where there is no institution that is all-powerful and has the authority of almost doing everything. 
                                                                                              
All democracies try to practice it. We have the ministers (the executive) who direct the authorities to implement decisions, we have legislature (parliament) to make laws and we have judiciary to see if the law is constitutional or not. But sometimes all three organs interfere in each other's business, and sometimes there are instances of excessive interference. 

Remember the BCCI Case? 

In the BCCI Case, the Supreme Court felt that the administration of the BCCI is not running as it should be. Then what did it do? It asked retired Chief Justice of India, Justice Lodha, to draft new rules as to how BCCI should be run. During this whole development of events, the Supreme Court made laws (which is generally done by the Parliament) and made appointments (which is done by the Government). The Supreme Court, in this case, assumed the all-powerful status and exercised all the powers which democracy offers by itself. And these decisions did not have any responsibility towards the people. 

While making these decisions, not a single time it was considered that what if the decisions go wrong? Who will be responsible? Certainly, those who made these laws were and are not responsible to us. We hold the elected government responsible and also we can throw them out of power after five years if their decision stands uncorrected. What responsibility the Supreme Court and its Hon'ble Judges hold when they make a decision? Isn't it true that whatever decisions were made in the context of the BCCI case, all of them have backfired?

The logic which was used and still used in such instances is that it is the failure of the government that people come to us (the Supreme Court) to implement changes in the existing system. Fair enough. Point taken. But then comes an important aspect of the whole exercise - what is the merit of the people who are exercising this enormous amount of power through which they can make laws, have them implemented and also validate? 

Why merit is questioned? 

It is correct that the Supreme Court judges are far more knowledgeable and intellectually superior than a common man, but what is their status among their peers? Why this question is asked, because there is no clear mechanism as who will be appointed as the judge of the high court and what will be the requirements for that? Practising senior lawyers can be appointed as High Court judge if it is found that they are talented enough to hold the position of the judge. A sessions court judge too can be appointed as the supreme court judge, if she is considered to be meritorious enough. 

But the question is, what stands for merit? What is the definition of merit? Under what circumstances one person is chosen and the other is not? There are no guidelines throughout the country. The decision is left into the hands of the judges themselves. 

This situation must be considered attentively. A person who is going to exercise huge power is unknown to the common people of the country. His merits are unknown, why he was promoted on the first place is unknown, all the decisions he is going to make, do not come under any popular responsibility. So can we leave this important institution in a state where there is no transparency? 

In 2019 we saw a case (the NJAC) in which the Supreme Court of India filed a petition in the Supreme Court. Yes, you read it correctly, the Supreme Court of India filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India against the Union Government. The petitioner was the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court was going to pronounce judgement. Now consider if such a situation may arise again in future, will the decisions of Supreme Court shall be trusted if there will be no transparency in the judicial appointments? How do we know that the person sitting on the chair will be the best possible legal luminary of the country at that point of time? (Ref)

Therefore, when the Supreme Court is prescribing the conditions for merit in educational institutes, it is also necessary that the Supreme Court must come up with a mechanism that provides a transparent procedure for the appointment of judges in the judiciary, both in High Courts and in the Supreme Court. This will only strengthen the confidence of "We, the people of India".

Credits: Shubham Rajput 

Most appropriate time for departure from the Gujaral’s doctrine (May 2020)

Inder Kumar Gujaral was a person who was woken up by his colleagues in the midnight, and was told, “get up, you have to sworn in as the Prime Minister of the country”. Such was the level of fortune associated with him. This happened in 1997-98, when Congress decided to remove H. D. Devegowda as the Prime Minister of the country, after his 9-month run. In those 9 months, one such event happened which changed the dynamics of the Indian diplomacy. That was the famous, “Gujral Doctrine”. 
Inder Kumar Gujaral was the Foreign Minister of India, in Devegowda’s cabinet, and being a Foreign Minister, he came up with an idea as how to deal with neighbours. These ideas came to be known as the ‘Gujaral Doctrine’. One of the many ideas in the doctrine was to extend unconditional support to the five neighbouring countries – Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. No other nation than Nepal, made full use of the doctrine. Using the stance of the Indian Foreign Minister, Nepal was successful in asserting its claims on Kalapani District, which has currently resulted in the escalations of Indo-Nepal tensions. To understand is happening today, we need to understand what happened before. 
In 1824, a battle was fought between East India Company and Nepal, which came to be known as the Anglo-Nepal war. The war ended with the ‘’treaty of Sagauli’’. In the treaty, it was decided that the Kali river will be the boundary between the East India Company territories and Nepalese territories. The East India territories were inherited by the British Government, and from them, Indian government. Therefore, the Kali river became and remained the boundary between India and Nepal. The turn in the stance came only when I. K. Gujaral, in the capacity of the Foreign Minister of India went to Nepal and extended his doctrine. Which fool would ignore such offer? Therefore, Nepal grasped the opportunity from both hands. 
Nepal claimed that the Kalapani district belongs to Nepal and not to India, for which he stated some geographical misinterpretations. And surprisingly, the Foreign Minister, without any due consultations accepted the Nepalese claims. 

How the Gujaral Doctrine worked out since then? 

Simply put, pretty bad. India did not cease to follow the Gujaral doctrine, even after I. K. Gujaral cease to be the Foreign Minister and then the Prime Minister (both combined is equal to 1 and half years). Successive governments in the Centre continued to follow the doctrine, and this was not confined to only five countries but was extended to Maldives and few other countries. Due to this doctrine, Indian position was and is being taken for granted. 

What’s wrong with Nepal here? 

Currently, Nepal is going through lot of political instability. The incumbent Prime Minister K. P. Oli’s position is bit shaky. His inclination towards China, followed by smuggling of girls from Nepal to China, hacking activities by the Chinese hackers in the Nepalese database, mishandling of the Covid-19 outbreak has earned him fury of his people. Speculations are being made in favour of Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who is considered to be more leaned towards India than China. In the midst of all the tragedies taking place under Oli’s leadership, anti-India rhetoric, sponsored by China seems to be only way out. 
Not that Nepal enjoys such position through which it can change the status quo and can take control of what it claims its own. But all this gimmickry can do is to divert attention from the present crisis and turn it towards the so called ‘’arm twisting exercise of India’’. 
No one seems to be happier than China in this case, as this whole development lowers the credibility of India as a regional power centre. And this is the reason, why India should now throw the Gujaral doctrine into the garbage bin. As long as Indian position will be taken for granted, every country will continue to create such rhetoric which will lower down India’s credibility. 
India has the opportunity to show everyone of its neighbouring countries that goodwill is not a free food. If you wish to have it from India, you need to replicate it as well. As long as there is reciprocity in the relations, there is no need for diplomatic goodwill. Probably India can achieve it through trade and economy, the nerve centre of the diplomatic relations today. The tactics adopted in the Maldivian crisis, in which a President (anti India) is replaced by a President (anti-China and pro India) wont simply work here. 

Credits: Shubham Rajput 

Indian finance minister’s proposals for the defense sector show bright days ahead (May 2020)

If only, the finance minister’s economic stimulus package will be remembered in future, then it will be remembered for her defence sector reform announcements she made in the capacity of not the 'defense minister' but the 'finance minister'. In her announcements, she freed the Indian forces from the clutches of the Babus sitting in the air-conditioned room planning for the defence equipment purchases for those who will be fighting at the battlefront using the equipment.

Agatha Christie had written in her book, ‘ABC Murders’: “What you do not see and what I do not see, stands a volume between that”. In the course of this long-form article, we are going to rewrite this quote and represent it in the context of today’s Indian Defence conditions. But first, let’s go through a few stories, the real ones.

December 9th, 1971, three Indian ships, all of them were Interceptors were sent to intercept the advance of Pakistani Submarine Ghanghor. One such Indian ship was, INS Khukhri, commanded by Capt. Mahendra Nath Mulla. When INS Khukhri went into the Arabian Sea to find out the location of the Pakistani Submarine and to intercept it, the SONAR (the device which is responsible for finding the submarine) of the INS Khukhri was not working. The INS Khukhri was hit by the torpedo, fired by Ghanghor. Despite the ship being hit by the torpedo, Capt. Mahendra Nath Mulla decided not to leave the ship. Instead, he stayed in the ship to make sure that all his naval soldiers leave the ship safely. He took the ‘Jal Samadhi’, only to get immortal.

May 26th, 1999. Flight Lieutenant Nachiketa was flying MIG-25 in Kargil region. The MIG-25, requires a high supply of oxygen from the surroundings to continue the fire rounds of bullets. In the Himalayas, this much amount of oxygen was not possible. As a result, engine crashed and he landed up in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. After diplomatic pressure, Flight Lieutenant Nachiketa was returned to India after 8 days.

February 27th, 2019. Wing Commander Abhinandan was intercepting a 5th Generation fighter jet plane, F-16, with his 2nd generation MIG-21 Bison. What happened, we all know.

Question is, what is the common denominator in all of the above-mentioned events? It was the obsolete quality of the Indian fighting equipment against far more superior equipment. These were only three such incidences. Otherwise, in almost all such interactions, it was the skills of Indian army men, which not only saved them but won India wars. But how long will we keep risking our men’s lives? Who is responsible for the risks they face today?

The answer is - the procurement policy of the Indian Government. Now you might think that the quality standards of the Indian procurement of defence equipment are low, but it is just the opposite. In fact, the quality standards are that high that the Defence Minister, Manohar Parriker had once remarked that the Indian Defence procurement requirements are similar to Marvel Comics.

If we rewrite the Agatha Christie’s quote in the context of the Defence Procurement Policy of the Government, then it can be written as: “what can be delivered and what you desire, a volume is missed in between”.

The high-quality standards which are set by the Indian officers for the procurements of the defence equipment, are neither feasible to the Indian manufacturers of defence equipment (all of which are government-owned companies) nor they can be easily fulfilled by the foreign defence manufacturing companies. What is then done is, the Government of India, invites bids from the foreign manufacturers for the defence equipment needs of the Indian armed forces. The round of bureaucratic process continues to delay the delivery of the equipment. 

The most recent example is of Rafale fighter jets, whose procurement policy was kicked off in the year 2003, and not one of the fighter jet has landed in India yet. During this time, one of our very dear neighbours had developed almost 6 new squadrons of its air force, many of which were composed of only 5th generation fighter jets. If somebody asks the question that, ‘how many 5th generation jets do we have? not the squadron but the jets? The answer would have been zero, as of May 2020.

Therefore, it was absolutely necessary to ease and relax the quality requirements for the defence procurements, to at least start the procurement. At the present juncture, it is sad to say, but is correct that our army is not well equipped to deal with strategic situations if ever the situation commanded to be so. How the policy announcements can bring a paradigm change in the defence procurement policy is the question. 

First of all, it should not be seen as a stand-alone policy decision. In the line of reforms, several policy decisions were announced in the last few years. One such was taken in December last year, when the Indian Air Force decided to dismantle one of its MIG squadrons, which will be replaced by a new squadron with newer fighter jets. One might be amazed that these jets were operational in India since 1970s. No other country in the world, yes, no other country in the world use this much old fighter jets for its army. And we, the country aims to be a superpower, are using these.

Another important decision taken by the Government was the creation of the Department of Military Affairs, which was not headed by a Civil Servant, but by Chief of Defence Staff, who shall be responsible for the procurements related policies. This was a paradigm shift. The government shifted the decision-making calls from the civilian bureaucracy to the military personnel, who are much better equipped to make decisions on such issues. 

Not that the IAS Officers were incompetent, but they feared, and still fear 4Cs – Courts, CVC, CAG and CBI, while they are making any decision. Their policy decisions may be practical to the current requirements, but if those decisions are not in conformity with the pre-decided government protocols and procedures (which most of them are rudimentary and deserve to be placed in the dustbin) the officers are always subjected to the litigation process.

The fear they share is genuine, therefore it was necessary that the Quality Requirements, which were set by the government, need to relaxed and should be readjusted keeping in mind current requirements and practical situations. A boy walking barefoot never has the luxury to choose what kind of shoe he wants to wear. Such is the situation of the Indian defence forces. We cannot afford to be choosy when we don't have anything to serve our present-day purposes. Otherwise, our defence manufacturing industries will continue to manufacture only that equipment which were approved by the Government in 1960s. 

It is important that we understand today that we don’t need to be the best to start, but to be the best, we need to start. The policy changes in the defence sector are encouraging signs, and only these changes can attract the much needed FDI in the defence sector, which we desire at the moment. Already, establishment of two Defence Corridors has been announced, one in Uttar Pradesh and another in Tamil Nadu, it will be worth to see how far can we march in this direction. 

Credits: Shubham Rajput