Wednesday, December 24, 2014

My website

Please visit my website for latest publications:

Monday, October 27, 2014

Civilian supremacy and defence reforms

COMMENT (39)   ·   PRINT   ·   T  T  

India should not wait for another crisis to recognise the pressing need for higher defence reforms. There are sufficient studies, reports and recommendations that the government can depend on while planning the restructuring process. It can also consider an Act of Parliament to offset the existing resistance to defence reforms

Prime Minister Narendra Modi should appoint a defence minister — a full-time one — and demonstrate a great deal of administrative acumen and political will if he is serious about his declared intent to strengthen India’s national security and defence preparedness. Indeed, the absence of a full-time defence minister is merely symptomatic of a larger set of serious structural problems being faced by the country’s higher defence management today, which is in urgent need of innovative reforms and radical restructuring. Mr. Modi’s address to the Combined Commanders Conference in New Delhi on October 17 found no mention of structural reforms in higher defence management whereas his predecessor did mention it from time to time even though the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had sidestepped implementing the crucial reforms.
The disturbing reality today is that in the absence of a full-time defence minister and by not introducing defence reforms, it is the civilian bureaucracy — having generalist IAS officers whose expertise in defence matters is questionable — that has a major say in the country’s defence planning and decision-making. This needs to change.
Committee recommendations

The demand for reforms in India’s higher defence management is a long-standing one and has grown in strength ever since the Kargil Review Committee (KRC) recommended a number of reforms. In 2000, the then National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government appointed a Group of Ministers (GoM), with four task forces on intelligence reforms, internal security, border management, and higher defence management, to review the country’s defence preparedness in the light of the KRC’s recommendations. Many of the recommendations made by the GoM were only partially implemented. And the most important one, of creating the post of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), was ignored.
It is the civilian bureaucracy that has a major say in the country’s defence planning and decision-making. This needs to change.
As a result, it has been widely perceived over the past decade or so that the country’s defence sector needs further restructuring. In response, the UPA government appointed a task force on national security under the chairmanship of Mr. Naresh Chandra in 2011; it submitted its report a year later. Although classified, some of its content has been leaked to the press. Many of its recommendations were not to the liking of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Defence Minister. As a result, the UPA government lost an opportunity to introduce crucial reforms. The report was to have been taken up by the Cabinet Committee on Security in February this year — after the government sat on it for no less than one-and-a-half years, but it was too late by then as the UPA government felt that it should not take key national security decisions in its final days in office. It’s now the turn of the NDA government to act.
Key issues

One of the key issues that should be addressed by the Modi government is the GoM’s recommendation to appoint a five-star military officer to serve as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) who then will be the single-point military adviser to the government. The CDS will chair the meetings of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (CoSC) and smoothen the process of military planning, streamlining budgetary requisitions and effecting coordination between the three services. This proposal was earlier shot down by the MoD as it feared that a “super general” would bypass the civilian bureaucracy in defence decision-making. There has also been opposition to the idea from within the military, by the Indian Air Force (IAF). The Chandra committee, being cognisant of the bureaucratic opposition to the CDS proposal, watered down the authority of the CDS and instead recommended the creation of a four-star permanent chairman of the CoSC. According to reports, this chairman, to be appointed on a two-year tenure on a rotational basis among the three services, will not only coordinate various inter-service issues but will also be in charge of the country’s tri-Service Commands: the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) dealing with India’s nuclear forces and the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC). This too was put on the back burner after opposition from the MoD.
Another issue is the creation of tri-service theatre commands. While the future of warfare lies in joint planning and operations, the Indian defence establishment has ignored it. As a result, the country’s defence planning is deeply reflective of service-specific strengths, weaknesses and visions. Issues that should be addressed jointly by all three services are hardly ever the priority of any of the services. Without a common leader, each service chief tends to be the spokesman of his own service. The primary concern is about a protection of autonomous turfs, and not in promoting jointness as it is bound to challenge claims of autonomy. The IAF’s opposition to the establishment of tri-service theatre commands is one such example.
Building expertise

The other area of concern is the absence of synergy among the various arms of the state dealing with defence and national security: the armed forces, the MoD, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). An attempt at synergy was made in 1986 when the Directorate General of Defence Planning Staff (DGDPS) was formed, but it never got anywhere because civilian officers were not keen on working in the DGDPS which functioned under the CoSC. Post-Kargil, the KRC report had proposed the integration of the armed forces headquarters with the MoD, as doing so would have led to more cohesion in the country’s defence planning. Instead, the government created the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) — run by three-star officers and with hardly any role in the defence decision-making. It does not fulfil any of the intended purposes. In June this year, Union Defence Minister Arun Jaitley laid the foundation stone of the IDS building in New Delhi. He emphasised the need to develop “synergy between the services to achieve optimum force application”. But the IDS, Mr. Jaitley should know, is a stillborn institution and cannot contribute to synergy among the forces.
The GoM and Chandra committee reports strongly recommended the posting of military officers to important posts in the MoD to improve defence planning. Generalist IAS officers who spend one or two years in the MoD are unlikely to understand the highly complex nature of defence issues and strategic planning. This is the result of an unhealthy tendency in the government to prioritise routine administrative management over strategic planning based on specialised domain knowledge. It is time the government realised the need for specialised knowledge and expertise in the MoD. This can be taken care of by encouraging civilian officers to build expertise in strategic affairs and involving the services in strategic decision-making.
Standing committee reports

It is not as if politicians are unaware of what ails India’s higher defence structures. Various defence related parliamentary standing committee reports have not only supported reforms but have often expressed displeasure over the lack of their implementation by the MoD. In 2007, one such report, on the CDS, said that “the Government should take the GoM’s recommendations as well as this Committee’s concern in this matter seriously and take the final decision on CDS at the earliest.”
In 2009, another standing committee on defence (SCD) said that it is “of the considered view that the creation of an additional post of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to act as Chairman of the CoSC is essential to ensure optimum level of jointness among the different wings of the Armed Forces and to provide single-point military advice to the Government.” Parliamentary committees have also been critical of the Defence Ministry’s unwillingness to implement the required reforms. The second SCD report of the 15th Lok Sabha said: “Merely writing letters even from the level of the Defence Minister is not sufficient. There is an urgent need to use the various fora of interaction with the leaders of the political parties … The Committee expects the Ministry to take the effective steps as suggested above so that the institution of CDS is set up expeditiously.”
The Defence Ministry’s favourite excuse for not carrying out defence reforms is that there is no political or inter-service consensus on what shape the reforms should take. The reality is that it has never been serious about creating such a political consensus, and it will remain a pipe dream. The lack of inter-service agreement on defence reforms is not difficult to overcome. Today, there is clear consensus among the services on the issue of the CDS even though such consensus has still to be arrived at on the issue of tri-service commands.
The other excuse is that keeping the military out of decision-making strengthens civilian supremacy over the armed forces, a flawed argument for a number of reasons. One, while civilian supremacy should imply the supremacy of the political leadership, in India it translates into the overlordship of the civil services over the armed forces given that political bosses hardly have any time to manage defence related issues. As a result, the defence secretary, a generalist IAS officer, is the one who advises the minister on defence issues besides “managing” the armed forces. Second, since generalist bureaucrats in the Defence Ministry are not experts in the defence sector, they are either reluctant to carry out reforms whose importance they don’t understand, or actively obstruct them fearing the loss of the authority they have traditionally enjoyed. Creating a special cadre of defence specialists is one way to overcome this problem.
India should not wait for another crisis to recognise, all over again, the need for higher defence reforms. There are already sufficient studies, reports and recommendations that the government can depend on while planning the restructuring process. The government could also consider an Act of Parliament to offset the existing resistance to defence reforms.
(Happymon Jacob teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. E-mail:
(Source: The Hindu, October 28, 2014. URL -

  • shaurya  
    The solution does not lie in passing the baton to a single person. Here again decentralisation is important. Generals, admirals, air marshals should prepare a list of equipment and technology needed to match global progress. Like corporate sector meetings, their proposals should be discussed with defence secretary and minister and passed after conducting pilot projects. we donot need to create specialists in every field as there are plenty, the only thing needed is stengthening the existing.
    2 days ago ·   (0) ·   (2) ·  reply (0) · 
    ranjit  Down Voted
    • Rameshwar Kalel  
      IAF should consent to structural reforms of CDS in defence. It will improve coordination between three armed forces.
      3 days ago ·   (1) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
      • Col.JB Singh  
        Time is not far when China will teach us a lesson once again, so will the mujahids and the Taliban.The ostrich has to take its neck out of the sand and realize the ground reality. Babu will never be held responsible / accountable.Fauji has to inculcate the confidence in the PM and assure him that we only mean good of the country. Time is running out, the Faujis will also start saying its not only my job to defend the nation and rescue flood-hit at the same time. Pakis will have a big laugh, reading all this, as they always do on TV channels.
        3 days ago ·   (1) ·   (1) ·  reply (0) · 
          Down Voted
        • Rajiv  
          Ultimately, there has to be transparency. If there is no transparency, there can be malfeasance. We are literally on the horns of a dilemma. We need things desperately for the betterment of our nation.
          3 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
          •  Virender Kumar Singla  
            What was mentioned by earlier Naval Chief Admiral Joshi is very important. If he has no authority to procure even small items how such a big network can survive. Immediate reforms are required.
            3 days ago ·   (1) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
            • Parveen Thakur  
              At present Indian defence services are using age old machinery and equipments, modernisation at faster pace is required. Appointment of chief of defence staff alone could not solve the problem which defence services are facing. But this is good opportunity for new government to start from here .
              3 days ago ·   (5) ·   (1) ·  reply (0) · 
              • Col A  
                Need of the hour is & has been to have CDS- single point adviser to a civilian govt in a parliamentary/ Prez form of governance. Security of the country is too important & professional advice is needed on military matters.
                3 days ago ·   (5) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                •  Kantesh Kantesh  
                  We need a full time Defence Minister.At a time when Pakistan is frequently violating the truce and China is regularly demonstrating it's expansionist mindset,we are craving for a competent person at office for parrying these threats.
                  3 days ago ·   (6) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                  anvikk  Up Voted
                  • s. ponnusamy  
                    Need of the hour is a combined command structure where the chiefs of the defence wings report to one single commander - give it any name you want - who will have the knowledge in all three wings. There should be a meeting every fortnight and security situation on the entire border discussed with decision taken on precision action . The body should have its own intelligence in states and should take into account their report including that of any media reporting. No religious sentiments shall be allowed to whipped up and if so deal with such elements too in an effective manner no matter of any political pressure or so called human rights pressure. Nation's security is important and that should be the prime motto of this structure. The armed forces preparedness with the effectiveness of available arms and ammunition also should be periodically reviewed and the forces given frequent training.
                    3 days ago ·   (6) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                    • venkatesh  
                      The author has failed to underscore the significance of bureaucrats,though generalists but committed and well acuminated, and modernisation of defence equipment.Advocating for the establishment of "chief of Defence Staff" , would serve the much needed synergy among the forces but lead to wider repercussions in the morale of defence staff.Furthermore,the centralisation of defence forces bypassing the civilian supremacy would undermine the democratic set-up in India.One should learn lessons from the neighbouring Pakistan in which powerful army always try to destabilize the democratically elected government. As a final point, the recent grounding of the entire Sukhoi fighter aircrafts and also the recent protests by the wives of Air force officers reveal the dire status of our defence equipment,need to be modernised at the earliest to prevent further loss of precious lives.
                      3 days ago ·   (6) ·   (4) ·  reply (0) · 
                      anvikk  Up Voted
                      • Vida  
                        This is a timely article. However the BJP has shown a stronger image and taken stronger actions against a nasty neighbour like Pakistan. The UPA was soft and allowed Pakistan to do as they wished on the border and meeting the Hurriyat in Delhi. But onto the main subject, yes a Defence Minister is necessary who has to thoroughly plan the upgradation of India's armed forces and also plan tactics to permanently stop Paki aggression on the border and to eradicate the terror camps in POK. Chinese threats to Indian terrirotry also has to be addressed urgently.
                        3 days ago ·   (25) ·   (34) ·  reply (0) · 
                        • Ananthanarayanan  
                          At present, India's internal threat is greater than external one. In the absence of strong policing, there should be synergy between para-military and military for applying optimum force on civilians.
                          3 days ago ·   (8) ·   (1) ·  reply (0) · 
                          •  Ravinder Brar President at Lal Bag Welfare Society 
                            The article's focus on full time defence minister and substituting civilian supremacy with 'professionalism' deserve endorsement.
                            3 days ago ·   (7) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                            •  Ravinder Brar President at Lal Bag Welfare Society 
                              The article is well researched on "defence reforms".Civilian supremacy has outlived its generic performance in defence sector;Professionalism n expert committees can take us to higher level of defence sector.A full time defence minister is must.We spend far less on defence than china.Hence,FDI n refroms-a top priority
                              3 days ago ·   (4) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                              • V.  
                                This is a timely paper, especially about the CDS. No one in his senses will fear an armed forces coup against the civilian government. A ‘cadre of defence specialists’ may turn into an ‘Indian Defence Service’, which is not altogether undesirable. Such a cadre should provide for lateral entry of outsiders at all times and at all levels without restriction of age or qualifications but concentrate on personal suitability seen from their work and expertise. There needn’t be an age of retirement: one works as long as one is fit and able to contribute. This will ensure availability of specialized counsel at all times, while younger people should be groomed and built up all along the line, not shutting one’s eyes to complete outsiders. Retiring officers of defence services should be encouraged to remain associated and to take close interest in decision-making. Greater interaction with universities and think tanks will be wholly desirable.
                                3 days ago ·   (4) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                • Rahul  
                                  It is time we put aside lordship IASs and boasting of minister about Defense Portfolio and start taking decisions in the interest of National Security and Armed Forces.
                                  3 days ago ·   (4) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                  • umesh  
                                    In any country an important role is being played today by the defence forces. Had our defence personnel not been on the Pak. border, Pak. would have already taken not only J&K but the rest of the country from us. But the defence forces also need to upgrade themselves with the rest of the world. Once in a decade, testing that too to 50 success by the DRDO can't alone solve the problems of the defence personnel who protect our borders with the most aggressive neighbors. Defence reforms are the most important thing today with China and Pak flexing their muscles on a daily basis.
                                    3 days ago ·   (3) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                    • Prashant Talluri  
                                      The lack of willingness ,to initiate defense reforms at both political level and bureaucratic levels has placed national security at high risk. Many committee reports submitted, but no action, or impartial implementation of recommendations . This indecisiveness has created a precarious security environment, where our weapons systems are becoming obsolete, threat perception has increased many folds and our procurement cum decision making process is a turtle walk However, ever since NDA regime has been voted to power, decisions are taken at a brisk pace and projects worth 1Lakh cr. were approved. With PM indirectly monitoring the pace of defence projects and meeting military chiefs atleast once a month. The new system devised, shares the burden of a part time defence minister and provides confidence to defence forces. Modi government has its task cut out with filling the chinks in the armour and later sychronize the babus at MOD and defence forces. The change has just begun.
                                      3 days ago ·   (4) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                      • Rajiv Sharma  
                                        Despite observing a considerable increase and up-gradation in defence sector, author seems to be seeking for more defence reforms. He must be knowing that the very extravaganza and lavish spending on defence sector is actually making the locals to suffer. They equally have the right to have social reforms and on this government money. Defence must not be the only sector to be developed. Our social infrastructure is badly rupturing because of poor government policies and social reforms.
                                        3 days ago ·   (3) ·   (12) ·  reply (2) · 
                                        MG-Rao · MG-Rao · ram  Down Voted
                                      •  Sajal Liza  
                                        I think there is a big vacuum in Indian states planning and defence craftsmanship. Despite spending too much on defence sector, we are still not satisfied with our defence credentials. The lack of decision power in defence is only due to the reason that we don’t trust Indian defence or forces; this is the basic reluctance which made us least devoted to make changes. We are afraid of military coup that’s why wanted Army to be dependent on politicians. Those very politicians who just nod their heads to trigger border tensions. Very recently, Chinese leader visited India during standoff on borders. So-called statesmen are self-interested.
                                        3 days ago ·   (4) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                          Respected Sir, you have made very valid point about reforming the macro issues facing the services.But at the ground level situation is alarming at best. In the name of modernisation, weapons and machinery are getting inducted but training is not imparted properly to the soldiers. Instead of training, soldiers are just doing cleaning of those weapons and the weapons are kept always ready for'' inspection'' purpose.Officers from lower to higher levels are just busy in giving presentation to their superiors.If you do not believe in me then just go and see to any Army training school where new weapon systems are getting inducted.Soldiers are made to work like slaves and are treated badly. They neither get adequate exposure to the equipment nor proper rest to get the skill to handle it.When any '' VIP'' visits to them, before that they are threatened not to open their mouth, otherwise they will face the consequences. Commanding Officers of these Units are also indulging in huge corruption.
                                          3 days ago ·   (7) ·   (1) ·  reply (1) · 
                                        •  Aazar Kund Senior Research Associate at Researcher 
                                          What is threatening about Indian defense is that Shive Sina, violent group is more close to policymaking body. Even RSS is active and influential in BJP's decision making center. That's why Mr Modi has not handed over Defence Ministry to any other person. He is dealing aggressively which shows political immaturity.
                                          3 days ago ·   (8) ·   (14) ·  reply (0) · 
                                          raj · raj  Down Voted
                                            Apart from the point of full-time defence minister , other points are quite acceptable. Coordination among the institutions is really very important for internal security or at borders.
                                            3 days ago ·   (1) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                            •  captainjohann Samuhanand Independent Aviation & Aerospace Professional 
                                              The single important reason for not having a COSD is due to fear that the military can take over. This became all the more important when General V K Singh did some sabre rattling on his own and even carried out his ow Intelligence operation. With Americans and Europeans getting into the defence sector through private sector this threat becomes very real.
                                              3 days ago ·   (1) ·   (1) ·  reply (0) · 
                                              •  Mukul Singh Sr. Engineer at GAIL 
                                                Well I may be wrong but perhaps one of the reasons for keeping civil supremacy over defence is that India never wanted things like coups that have happened in various other countries which became independent after World War 2 . Former PMs and bureaucrats were not fools and saying that they did it just because they didn't want to lose power is very narrow thinking.
                                                3 days ago ·   (2) ·   (2) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                MG-Rao · MG-Rao  Down Voted
                                                • Dhruv Gurjar  
                                                  It is wrong to claim that the defence secretary or other officers in MoD are incompetent or reluctant. Expertise is gathered with experience and Indian bureaucracy has stood the tide of time in every field (including defence) and empowering military generals beyond a point will have its own consequences. Defence planning may also include other aspects like budgeting where our generals may fail to deliver. Indeed, increased cooperation between the three forces, MoEA and MoD is the need of the hour but I differ with his proposition. Let the NSA chair the proposed committee and I only have one question: If not IAS officers, then who?
                                                  3 days ago ·   (2) ·   (2) ·  reply (1) · 
                                                  MG-Rao  Down Voted
                                                  • MG Rao  
                                                    Expertise gained on paper is not enough. A board of Senior Defence Offiers will suffice --- Gopi
                                                    a day ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                  • dhiru  
                                                    There should be balance between civilians and defence personnel in MoD. Dominance of anybody will not bring good days for the nation.
                                                    3 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                    • Venkata Govindasamy  
                                                      The concern expressed on civil bureaucratic overplay in the decision making process of defence establishment is a well founded thesis that deserves fullest attention of all the stake holders who are involved in the affairs pertaining to defence. It would be better should there be more number of officers in higher defence management were to be from uniformed class rather than babus class.In the interests of soverign, to preserve the external supremeness the era of civil bureaucrats' high-handedness should make way for defence specialists by an enactment of an appropriate legislation.One expects that NDA dispensation would do well to introduce a bill that seeks to reform the existing structure of defence management hierarchy and ensure it gets passed in both Houses sooner than later.
                                                      3 days ago ·   (1) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                      • venky  
                                                        I think the biggest issue here is the politics that goes on at the top of the Army. My friends who are Generals and commanders in the Army have often quoted that there is high level of politics involved at the top of the chain. Adding to this, as the writer points out is the issue of lack of defence experts as secretaries. If not appointing a 4 star or 5 star officer, Defence Ministry can empower people in the IDS and begin a new empowered way of working. As the author himself said, Chief of Staff will have 2 year tenure and has already created some friction with the Air Force. If heads of defence sectors themselves are not in line, how can we expect the government with mere IAS officers to do something? Even the Army people must be loathing at the inexperienced IAS officers, let alone anyone else.
                                                        3 days ago ·   (12) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                        • Anthony Illuri  
                                                          In view of 'string of pearl' and other international circumstances, we are already late for the structural changes in the Defence reforms
                                                          3 days ago ·   (10) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                          • AMIT  
                                                            The author is missing the point that in case of full time Defence Minister also, still he will be advised by the defence secretary! Its upto the PM to take the decision. I think Rs 80,000 crore sanction for the defence sector wouldn't have been easily done if the defence minister and finance minister were not the same. Actually it helps in smoothing the process.
                                                            3 days ago ·   (232) ·   (1) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                            • S  
                                                              The Congress Party was against the Defence Forces from Nehru's days.Indira Gandhi realised it's importance after the 71 war. Due to the antics of the military in Pakistan there is a lurking fear that the same may happen in our country. The Defence Forces have ben loyal to the country in spite of being cheated by the bureaucrats on Pay Commission recommendations and indirectly not being allowed to vote in elections. In fact as per rumours when Mrs,Gandhi lost the election after the Emergency she asked the COAS to take over which he refused. All that the Congress did was it used Defence to make money for the Party and individual members. In between there were even efforts to cut down the size of the Army. The last straw was when the 3 Chiefs were brought down in the protocol seniority. In today's environment since more and more sophisticated weapons systems are being used there is a crying need for technically qualified officers in higher management. The Soviet Army has engineers on top
                                                              3 days ago ·   (16) ·   (1) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                                Down Voted
                                                              • pradeep  
                                                                I agree with author, and I have pointed out myself in several comments - role of IAS officers has been detrimental to the progress on many fronts where decision requires expertise beyond general and routine administration. Defence is key area, but there are others. Science and Technology is another area. Where their presence and interference has hurt most is in areas of education and development. How would you expect an IAS to develop understanding of what a villager requires or what a modern village looks like for example? Similarly they have no idea workings of market forces, but they run finance ministry like their fiefdom. It is not an attack on individuals, it is the institution, it exists to perpetuate itself, not the country. Equally well put is author's premise that generals are answerable to elected leaders, not IAS. Our defence policies should come from generals, answerable to elected officials, not some babu sitting in MOD.
                                                                3 days ago ·   (9) ·   (2) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                                raj · raj  Up Voted
                                                                •  Hariharan Pv at Sumangali Seva Ashrama, Bangalore 
                                                                  The conclusion, "India should not wait for another crisis to recognise, all over again, the need for higher defence reforms ... The government could also consider an Act of Parliament to offset the existing resistance to defence reforms", is apt. The various studies and inferences are kept as records covered in accumulating dust. India's important need of a sound, independent dynamic Defence management system is continually being sidelined. We have an excellent Election Commission; Collegium of Judges, and various other performing systems for a Dynamic Democracy to function; but we still continue to be guided by a "note-put-up and submitted" culture of the IAS obsession and obsolescence in our security/defence management. The answer is to have a central Authority that would include a Five star Officer, a supreme court Judge, a Bharat Ratna, and a prominent personality, presided over by the PM as Chair as an independent Defence Authority. The need to act is now
                                                                  3 days ago ·   (2) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) · 
                                                                  • Lak  
                                                                    One thing I agree is there should be a full time Defense minister. I dont know why Modi has decided to continue this uncertainty.
                                                                    3 days ago ·   (11) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·