Can we really counter the world's second super power with war cries and military might? The very rationale of Mukherjee's 'no-conflict' thesis is that war hysteria is not an ideal condition for a growth-oriented economy. He has come down heavily on those who are stuck in the 60's cold war mindset. The war mongers forget that we are in an era of economic clout, not military might alone. Had it been the latter, Russia, still the second military power, should have influenced the course of events. Instead, what we hear is the talk of a US-China G-2.

This is not to say that India should neglect defence. No modern nation can keep its high growth rate without a strong military machine to defend. But where we go wrong is in ignoring the significance of building our own military might along with economic clout. It is here we have to take cue from countries like China and Israel. Both have been persistently building their own vast military industrial complexes which will enable them to free themselves from external arm-twisting at the time of armed conflicts. Just this one factor evokes awe and respect for Beijing.

Our acquisition of Gorshkov aircraft carrier illustrates this point. In early 2004, the then defence minister George Fernandes sent an experts team to Russia, made a quick look at the ship and decided to buy it. He was so much in a hurry to include it in the defence budget that he forced the Russians to submit a quick estimate of the refitting cost. The subsequent controversy over the refitting charges is a different story. What is worth mentioning is how the Chinese had acted in a similar case.

In 1998, they had bought a similar aircraft carrier from Ukraine. Instead of a contract for refitting and repairs, they toed away the old ship to a Chinese yard, studied the drawings, improved its features with inputs from modern US carriers and is in the process of finishing it by 2011. While doing so, they trained hundreds of designers and engineers. Now they have begun building two more aircraft carriers and trying to get orders from other countries. Incidentally, China does not have an aircraft carrier now.

No country can emerge as a military power on outsourced fighters, tanks and guns. During their last military parade in 1990, half of China's hardware on display was Soviet-era remnants. Old Russian fighters zoomed past the parade route. Each of the 160 odd items displayed at last month's military parade had come from domestic military complexes. Their indigenously made J-10 series of fighters led the fly past, not the borrowed Mirages or MiGs. J-10 is a third generation F-16. As of now, the only superior fighter to it in service is US F-22. Pakistan is negotiating to buy 150 J-10s. Its fourth generation is in the process of production.

In India, we are still caught in the old pre-meltdown anti-Nehruvian time warp. While the whole world is striving hard to strengthen the national industrial base and domestic growth engine, those at our economic management still scorn the concept of self-sufficiency. Look at Israel. A country, much smaller than India that was looking at the US for its defence supplies, has in a short time emerged as one of the pioneers of defence production. They have already replaced Russia as India's biggest arms supplier.

And we? During the brief Kargil war, we had to hurriedly import even coffins for the dead soldiers. Here the great defence debate is on from which country a fighter or tank be imported. This archaic doctrinaire mindset is not confined to defence. Our economic mandarins were bent on global tenders for airport renovation before the commonwealth games. Before the Olympics, China began building new airports for Shanghai and Beijing. But by the time their airports were ready, they had developed their own domestic expertise. Since then they have built a hundred modern airports in smaller cities and towns. Now they are serious global competitors for airport construction.

And see what we did with Awacs. Our own scientists had developed a system but in the final stage India entered into a joint development project with Israel. Then the Israelis were awarded bid for the same system which in effect is inferior to what our scientists had developed. The only serious effort for building a domestic production base in India are the Brahmos missile and advanced fighter projects with the Russians. Even these are being systematically sabotaged by the arms import lobby. If these are still moving ahead, it is only due to A.K. Antony's persistence.

Indira Gandhi was the one who had realised the need for an arms production base. Hence we had imposed pre-conditions like domestic production of contracted militaryware. Pranab Mukherjee had evolved 'offset' clauses under which the arms suppliers will have to invest part of the sales money in India. All this is now being systematically subverted by vested interests. The government is under intense US pressure to abandon Mukherjee's 'offset' clause. The two agreements (end-use verification agreement and technology safeguards agreement) signed with the US during Hillary Clinton's recent visit and a third one for the 'coordination' of military ware of the two countries will complete the permanent dependence on outside supplies.

In matters of defence and military spare supplies, contractual obligations have little meaning. We have seen it in many dependent countries at the time of armed conflicts. Foreign governments can arm twist the arms importer to arbitrarily impose ceasefire. Pakistan has been the worst case. So far we have been spared such hoodwinking due to USSR's cold war-driven commitment. The efficacy of India's ongoing acquisition spree from non-Russian sources will be tested only in the course of an armed conflict.

Then there are the uncertainties flowing from regime change as in US. What is crucial is not just the relative military strength or war shrill but a dependable domestic production base. That is the best way to cope with the dragon. Sadly, even Antony seems to be more keen on warding off defence purchase scandals rather than building a credible indigenous capability. It is here that we have to draw lessons from China and Israel. (IPA Service)