« Hire Vets First | Main | Diplomatic History is Taking Place Even As We Speak »
January 12, 2006
Interview: Army officer who studied in India
[Sometime ago I encounted an Army Major who was an Olmstead Scholar studying at the University of Mumbai (Bombay). Wow, I thought: that would make an interesting interview. Here it is. A short one, but he may be able to answer reader questions in the comments. We'll call him MC for now.]
TAOC: How long were you in India and where? Did you have a choice of educational institution, or is there a set program?
MC: We were in India for 25 months, from late May 2003 to late June 2005. We lived in Bombay, which is what most people still call it despite the attempts to get people to call it Mumbai. I did try to travel around the country as much as possible (but not as much as I would have liked). I attended the University of Mumbai and studied for and earned a Master of Arts in Political Science. The Olmsted foundation, which is a private foundation that sponsors the scholarship in conjunction with the Departmentof Defense, (www.olmstedfoundation.org) puts no requirement on course of study except that it cannot be in a science/technical field, i.e. it should be language, literature, history, political science, economics, etc. Generally, the Scholars have the choice of school so long as there are not other Scholars studying at the same school; however, there is only one university in Mumbai. But in a place like Beijing, you'll have two-three Scholars in the city at a time at different universities. I had a fairly rare experience in that I was the first Scholar to a country, city and university and all three were my first choice. Sometimes the Olmsted Foundation is more directive in their requirements for a variety of reasons and in it not unknown for someone to get their third or fourth choice of country.
TAOC: What kinds of contact with the Indian military did you have?
MC: The Scholarship is most definitely not a mil-to-mil exchange or a Foreign area officer training program, but you can develop contacts depending on the country and our Defense Attaché in country. You have to seek them out, though and leverage opportunities, such as visits from our War Colleges(National War College and Air War Colege have been frequent visitors) and CAPSTONE. Here I want to emphasize the importance of having some "purple" in you. You will be the regular face of America's military outside of New Delhi and Wellington (the location of the Indian Defence Services Staff College). Having a pretty good depth of knowledge on our sister services beyond the US Army was enormously helpful and opened many doors. Our Attaché in India was reasonably supportive and with India being a friendly country (the situation is markedly different for my colleagues studying in
China and Russia for instance), I was able to do a fair amount of interaction with the Indian military, often through their retired officer community and usually with the Indian Navy as Bombay is a big Navy town. I interacted with a large number of retired Brigadiers/Commodores/Air Commodores and General and Flag officers, all of whom still maintain some level of influence, as do our retired "gray-beards." I gave presentations at numerous conferences on Goldwater-Nichols, US nuclear strategy, the Unified Commands, and officer promotion and selections in the US Army to audiences that included many three and even four-star retired officers (very rare in India as each service only has one four-star billet).
TAOC: What are your impressions of Indian power? The influences of the British on the subcontinent? The Indian military?
MC: India will continue to be a regional player and will likely expand its regional influence in the years to come, but is its own worst enemy in so many ways and I am less confident now than before I went over that they will emerge as a true world player within the next 10-years. India has a good military, one that could certainly defeat Pakistan conventionally and probably reverse the embarrassment of their 1962 War with China, but the costs would be significant. Personally, I don't think they are as good as they seem to think they are. They are still struggling with two very diverse insurgencies in their own country both in Jammu-Kashmir and northeastern states. Their concept of logistics is pretty shallow at all levels. They are having a serious recruiting problem for their combat arms officer ranks and this is causing various troubling second and third order effects such as earlier and earlier promotions as an incentive to keep officers in the ranks thereby creating lieutenant colonels with 8-9 years of experience. Their depth of population is such that they have an unlimited supply of people from which to draw upon for their jawans (troops) but cultural and educational inconsistencies make the pool from which they can draw officers is very limited. India has a need for the "gentleman officer" up from the educated middle class as they do not have an NCO corps comparable to US, UK or Australian forces. Unfortunately, the people that would make the best officers are eschewing military service (and the civil service) for the lure of Dalal Street (Bombay's equivalent of Wall Street). India has emerged as a capitalist society and part of Hindu philosophy revolves around material wealth, ergo while the Indian military is highly respected and admired, more and more of the middle class see service with the defense forces as someone else's responsibility. This is a generational change.
Posted by Chester at January 12, 2006 10:57 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/815
Comments
I'll be happy to answer further questions from readers to the best of my ability. My experience there transcends the military; in fact, my experience was mostly not military-focused which is in keeping with the Olmsted (no "a") Foundation's guidance. Be advised, these are my opinions and my opinions only. I deeply love India and have high hopes for it in the coming years and decades. A large and growing Asian democracy with strong economic power and shared liberal values is in America's and the world's best interest. I hope to see it become more than an ally and emerge as a true friend of America, but I will not pull punches on issues and areas where I think they (and we) are floundering.
Posted by: MAJ C at January 13, 2006 8:39 AM
MAJ C,
I have a deep interest in India as well -- I am married to a Bengali lady! Indiana University has recently established an excellent India Studies program, which brings in a number of high-level speakers each year. Twice now, General Malik (retired), who was the Chief of Staff during the latest 'crisis' with Pakistan, has given a great overview of Indian military capabilities and his perspectives on the region. My impression from this, and other sources of information, is that the Indian military is rather 'brittle'. It is quite capable in a short conflict, but lacks the flexibility and support structures to fight a sustained war. In fact, it has no experience with a sustained war, as its conflicts have tended to be short affairs. In fact, the Indian response to the Pakistani incursion was to throw inordinate numbers of troops at the relatively small insurgency. They obviously wanted to get it over with quickly, and I wonder now if that was driven by politics, or military realities? It also seems that they have only recently allowed mid-level commanders (birgade/division) the freedom to pursue operational opportunities during training exercises, preferring to maintain fairly strict top-down control over field elements. Perhaps the 'rapid promotion' issue has led them to a lack of trust in their critical mid-level officers (lt Colonel, Colonel, Brig. General), since they obviously lack the seasoning required of their duties.
That said, what do you see as the prospects for increased US-India military cooperation, especially in the area of logistical integration? Our strength in logistics can only help one of thier weaknesses, and having ports-of-call and forward logistical bases in the sub-continent outside of Pakistan can only help our presence in a region that China is beginning to build its presence in.
Posted by: QuantumDefect at January 13, 2006 9:39 AM
Maj C,
If you are still monitoring the thread, I have a question:
Last week I read an archived article at the American Enterprise Insitute:
The Big Four Alliance. In it, Donnelly states his belief that the Bush administration, and possibly even the Clinton administration, are moving toward a de facto alliance of sorts between US-UK-Japan-India. Donnelly notes that it will be years before this turns into anything more than an ad hoc relationship, and that there are problems in the bilateral relations with each potential member. But he is convinced nonetheless. For India in particular, he sees the non-aligned era as having come to an end.
What are your reactions to this piece? What are the chances that such an alliance or other security relationship might effectively be implemented, and moreover, do you think India will be a valuable member of such an alliance? Can it successfully counterbalance China?
I know that's a lot . . .
Posted by: Chester at January 15, 2006 10:04 PM
Chester,
I read that article, but I think the writer is reading too much into the coalescence of those four nations into a de-facto 'alliance'. Those are the four democratic nations that have the wherewithal and the means to support strong policy stands with military force (well, not Japan, yet). In addition, those are the four democracies that aren't prone to the herd instinct in the international arena. I think that these four nations realize implicitly that there would be benefits to stronger cooperation among them -- sort of like four grizzled warriors joining together to watch each other's back in a hostile environment.
BTW, I don't think India would response postively to the US considering them as the "counterbalance to China". In fact, I would imagine that they would see us as the counterbalance to China! The Chinese-Indian border is such a rugged environment that decisive conventional military action there is hardly possible. Thus, these two nations are effectively isolated from one another. Yet, they are both growing in regional economic and military power, especially regarding SE Asia and the vital sea routes through that area. I think the US navy would be interested in being able to call on Indian ports, have forward logistics facilities in the sub-continent, and possibly basing rights for aircraft as well (especially naval patrol aircraft). The Indians would welcome US military technology, logistical support, and assurance that should conflict erupt with China, the US would likely intervene on their behalf. I seriously doubt that the US would be counting on India sending serious assistance to the Seventh Fleet should a conflict break out between the US and China.
Posted by: QuantumDefect at January 17, 2006 12:24 PM