indiansubmariner

IS 'IZZAT-O-IQBAL'?

2008-07-24T06:35:00.000-07:00

The country-wide demonstrations by ex-Servicemen (ESM) on 26th April and 7th May 08 to protest against the 6th Pay Commission report, were, by all accounts, conducted in a dignified and orderly manner; and that is exactly how it should have been. Now one hears some talk of a 'hunger strike' by ESM, but it is my fervent hope that this will not come to pass.

I have a nagging feeling that by these uncharacteristic and extraordinary gestures we, the ESM, have diminished ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen. One can just visualize people who have never had the privilege of wearing uniform or of serving the nation's tricolour, smugly saying to themselves: 'We always knew that their attitude of soldierly discipline and fortitude was only a facade. Deep down they are just like any of us.'

I am aware that these remark are likely to upset many of our Veterans who, despite advancing years, are going to great lengths to make a dramatic gesture on behalf of their comrades-in-arms. To them, let me just say that my criticism is directed, not so much at their actions, as at the insensitive and callous system which has driven them, in extremis, to such an unfortunate step.

An Ungrateful Nation?

In civilized nations the world over, the soldier, sailor and airman – and more so the Veteran – is an object of spontaneous respect, affection, admiration and the highest public esteem. These sentiments are made manifest by the people and the government of a grateful nation, in countless ways, in thought word and deed. There are monuments celebrating victories, statues of military heroes, war memorials for those who fell on the field of battle, avenues and squares named after soldiers and concessions for Servicemen in every sphere. Above all, Servicemen receive warm respect, affection and consideration from the general public as well as the media. None of this exists in India today.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that in cities like London, Paris, Washington or Moscow the dismal spectacle of Veterans reduced to 'demonstrating' in public to ask for their dues, would have wrought agony in their countrymen. The citizens of New Delhi, God bless them, chose to ignore this 'cry from the heart' of old warriors. The media, otherwise so intrusive and inquisitive, and so proud of their 'independence' almost completely blacked out this significant gesture by the Veterans. The one TV channel which planned to air a related programme chickened out at the last minute. We can only speculate about the reasons for the media's sudden coyness.

From Major Som Nath Sharma who died fighting the Pakistani tribals in Badgam in 1947, to Captain Vikram Batra who laid down his life in the icy wastes of Kargil in 1999 there is a long Roll of Honour which lists the heroes and battle-casualties of the Indian Armed Forces. Just reading about their exploits of valour and self-sacrifice is enough to give one goose pimples. It is the inspiration provided by such brave men which motivates our Armed Forces to great heights of dedication and commitment to the motherland. But does anyone else in the country remember their sacrifice? Or care?

Not even a decade has passed since Tiger Hill and Tololing were won back by our soldiers in the face of intense enemy opposition at a horrific cost in lives. But our citizens do not have the time to even light a candle in memory of those who fell in Kargil, or a hundred other battles, because their adulation seems to be reserved exclusively for cricketers, cine stars and politicians. One often wonders if patriotic young soldiers should be shedding blood for the safety and well being of a society as ungrateful as ours?

'Izzat-O-Iqbal'?

Let us not be fooled by the razzmatazz that economists are feeding us about India's 9% GDP growth, or get carried away by the fabulous salaries offered by MNCs to young IIT and IIM graduates. As Indians, let us instead firmly bear in mind that 400-500 million of our brothers and sisters still survive on less than 40 rupees a day. I personally think that within the means available to the nation, the Armed Forces, and most of the ESM are paid enough. I say this without prejudice to the perfectly justified protest of the Armed Forces against the insidious manner in which the IAS has been steadily propelling itself upward to their detriment.

Really, it is not the money that bothers us. What the Serviceman and the Veteran find inexplicable and galling is something altogether different. They wonder why there has been a steady and continuing erosion in the soldier's position and status in society while the responsibilities, hardships and hazards of soldiering have grown over the years.

Apart from their crucial role in defending the nation against every threat and calamity, the Armed Forces are making a vital contribution to the country's social fabric. It is they who have promoted the ideals of integrity, discipline, professionalism and excellence, sadly lacking in every other walk of life. In the midst of prevailing chaos, the Armed Forces have remained an embodiment of order and discipline, and have faithfully upheld India's secular and democratic traditions. There just isn't any group, organization or set of individuals which has sustained the integrity, security and stability of the Indian state, with the steadfastness and loyalty demonstrated by the Indian Armed Forces.

Is it then surprising if the Soldier agonizes over the fact that in spite of his huge contribution to the nation, his Izzat has been deliberately denuded by vested interests, and Iqbal denied to him by his countrymen?

I do not claim to have answers to the Soldier's dilemma, but I think that the issues involved have assumed such importance that they need to be examined in some depth. Let me place before the reader, four factors which I think have contributed to the steady and ongoing erosion of the soldier's image, and the degradation of his status in Indian society, with consequential effects.

Political Antipathy

Mahatma Gandhi's firm adherence to the noble principle of non-violence throughout India's independence struggle has no parallel in history. He was a great man with profound values, but misinterpretation of his unique vision led to the emergence of two surreal perceptions amongst India's political leadership.

For one they were convinced that since a non-violent India would have no enemies, the armed forces would become redundant after independence. Their second conviction was that the Indian Army was a mercenary force which had been used as a tool by the British to suppress the freedom movement, and deserved to be shown its place. They were utterly wrong on both counts, and such myths need to be demolished, because a man in uniform can today sense the cognitive lack of empathy, if not antipathy, to his cause in the in the political establishment of all shades.

Major General KM Cariappa (later the first Indian Commander-in-chief) called on Gandhiji in December 1947 and sought his advice on how he should put across the concept of ahimsa to his soldiers whose dharma was to fight for the nation. The Mahatma pondered over the question and replied: 'I am still groping in the dark for the answer. I will find it and give it to you one day.' A month later he fell to an assassin's bullet, and Cariappa never received an answer. But by then the first of our illusions had already been shattered in October 1947, when Pakistani hordes came pouring into Baramulla and it was only the Indian Army's gallantry which saved the Valley.

The politicians were right that the British Indian Army, true to its salt, had served the King-Emperor loyally in both World Wars. But after the string of early British defeats in WW II, Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) in Singapore, Germany and Italy were confronted with the most awesome moral dilemma that a soldier can ever face; a choice between the oath they had given to the King and the chance to fight for freedom of the motherland, being offered by Netaji Subhash Bose.

After agonizing over this veritable dharma sankat and fully recognizing the terrible consequences of either option, many Indian officers and jawans decided for their motherland, with the result that:

3000 Indian PoWs were formed into the Legion Freies Indien or Free Indian Legion as a unit of the German Wehrmacht.
A unit named the Battaglione Azad Hindoustan was formed out of Indian PoWs in Italy.
40,000 out of 45,000 PoWs in Singapore joined the Azad Hind Fauj or INA as it was commonly known..

The story of these expatriate Indian warriors is a romantic but forgotten chapter in India's freedom struggle. Suffice it to say that the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (Provisional Government of Free India) formed in Singapore by Bose in 1943 declared war on the British Empire, and the INA units fought a bitter campaign against them in Burma with 'Dilli Chalo' as their inspiring slogan.

In early 1946, ratings of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, and the insurrection spread right across the country, with units of the RIAF, Army Signal Corps and EME joining their naval comrades in revolt. These events not only inspired and galvanized the freedom movement in India, but also struck fear into British hearts. General Wavell, the C-in-C admitted in a secret report: 'It is no use shutting one's eye to the fact that any Indian soldier worth his salt is a Nationalist…'

Disciplined Services never dwell on mutinies, regardless of the cause, and that is why these events rarely find mention in our Armed Forces, but the powerful impact on the British Sarkar of these acts of great moral courage, must not be disparaged, belittled or forgotten. So anyone who says that the Indian soldier did not contribute to India's freedom movement is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the truth.

The phase immediately post-Independence too, was extremely difficult for our fledgling nation. To forget the sterling role played by the Armed Forces during the violence and turbulence of partition, and in integrating the recalcitrant princely states would be an act of rank ingratitude. Over the years, as our glaring strategic naiveté repeatedly led to adventurism by our neighbours in 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999, it was invariably the gallantry and patriotism of the Armed Forces which saved the nation from disintegration and dishonour.

The Bureaucracy Strikes

From many post-Independence historical accounts it appears that the politician possibly felt not only ill at ease with the soldier, but also disdained the 'military intellect'. This was an ideal situation for the civil servants to exploit to the hilt.

Although the British had devised a workable interim organizational structure for the divided Indian armed forces, it fell to the bureaucracy to work out the nuts and bolts, and to implement it. Showing the Armed Forces 'their place' was simple for the mandarins of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Possibly holding out the spectre of a military coup to the gullible politician, and deliberately misinterpreting the principle of 'civilian control', they created a structure which suited them ideally, and brought the Armed Forces under bureaucratic control.

In the UK the Navy, Army and Air Force were then run respectively by the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Each of these were ministries, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank designated by convention as the 'Secretary of State for…' and often referred to as just 'Secretary'. In India the ICS created a unique structure with a 'Ministry of Defence' composed of a number of Departments, manned exclusively by itinerant civilian generalists, and headed by a bureaucrat of Secretary rank. External to the MoD and subordinate to the Department of Defence they created three 'Attached Offices' one each for the Army, Navy and Air Force HQs.

So at one fell swoop, the bureaucracy had:

* Placed the Service HQs well outside the Government of India, whom they could only approach through the MoD.
* Effectively subordinated the Service Chiefs to decision-making at the lowest rungs of the MoD, since every file 'submitted' by the Service HQ had to be routed bottom-upwards in the MoD, starting at Under-Secretary level.
* Kept the Service Chiefs and the Defence Minister safely distanced from each other.
* The political establishment of the day was probably informed that the affairs of the Services were being run by a Secretary, 'just like in the UK' and they must have been relieved to have the bureaucracy manage complex defence matters for them. The military leadership of the time was probably too naïve and inexperienced to even realize the iniquity of the system imposed on them. The feeble noises that we have made thereafter, have naturally fallen on the deaf ears of the IAS bureaucracy; successor service to the 'heaven born' ICS.

No one seems to have pointed out the fact that in the best and oldest democracies of the world, 'civilian control' over the Armed Forces is best exercised by the simple expedient of having the head of the Armed Forces (be it a CDS, Chairman Joint Chiefs or Chef d'Etat Majeur) as the right hand of the President or the Prime Minister, and charged with rendering advice on strategic/military matters.

The Damage Inflicted by Media

Possibly the greatest damage to the public image of the Armed Forces as well as to their self-esteem has been inflicted by the Indian media. This predatory beast finds, in the Armed Forces, instant gratification and tremendous payback for very little effort. They see an institution, and a set of people who set for themselves, extraordinarily high standards of conduct, and when accused of misdemeanor, react with pain and anguish. What can be more satisfying for the slavering media hounds?

That their uniformed victim is bound and gagged, and unable to respond, is even better for them because he can then be maligned with impunity for the sake of mindless sensationalism. Regrettably, many of the young media-persons are neither well informed about the Armed Forces, nor do they undertake serious study of the subject.

It is for this reason that one rarely sees serious, well-researched and thought provoking articles on defence matters. On the other hand it appears that every trivial issue relating to the Armed Forces has to be either a sensational 'scam', 'cover-up' or 'serious embarrassment', otherwise it is perhaps not considered news-worthy by the editors. The hostile attitude of the media towards the only institution in the country which undertakes quick investigation and fixation of accountability, and metes out swift justice is inexplicable.

Today any disgruntled person, vested interest or even agent of a foreign power can entice the India media with the promise of a 'defence scandal', and they will happily proceed to malign the Armed Forces. Neither the good name and reputation of its leadership, nor morale of the rank and file of the Armed Forces, nor indeed any concern for the truth are matters of slightest concern for the irresponsible journalists or their arrogant editors.

Having done their best to denigrate the nation's Armed Forces in the public eye, the media will then report with great glee, the number of unfilled vacancies in National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. Need the Armed Forces look any further? The enemy is within.

The Inner Discord

Such is the power of Jointmanship, that whenever the Chairman COSC has occasion to use the phrase, 'the three Chiefs are of the view…' whether in writing or verbally, all obstacles in the MoD and elsewhere tended to melt away. Unfortunately, there are not too many instances when this phrase can actually be used.

Disagreements between the Chiefs on professional issues will take place, and can be resolved in the COSC room, but it is discord among the three Services more than any other factor that is exploited to the fullest by the political establishment and the bureaucracy, and which has led to the devaluation which we lament today. On any difficult issue taken up by the Armed Forces the attempt by the MoD will be to strike separate bargains with the Services and defuse the issue.

So if the Services keep sliding down the Warrant of Precedence, or one rank one pay is denied to ESM, or the War Memorial is kept in limbo, the Services have only their own disunity to blame.

This is a subject on which volumes could be written to the delight of our detractors, and therefore need not be discussed here. In the context under discussion, suffice it to say that a sea change can come about, if the Service Chiefs, placing the larger interests of the Armed Forces above all other considerations, jointly request the government to take forward the process of integration to implement the following at the earliest:

A full time Chairman COSC who can devote 100% of his time to common issues affecting the three Services, and then spend as much time as required in pursuing them with the Government.

Actual integration of the Service HQ with the MoD (the current term 'Integrated HQ of MoD' is a complete charade), so that civilian and uniformed functionaries can be deployed interchangeably in the Ministry.

These are by no means magic mantras and will neither end discord nor bring harmony into the Services overnight. But they are the first steps to ensure that the Armed Forces speak with one voice and thus protect themselves against exploitation.

The 6th Pay Commission

I come finally to the burning issue of the day, the 6th Pay Commission, because the Internet is rife with disinformation today.

Setting out at great length, the historical and contemporary reasons for his request, on 12th April 2006 the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri (RM), seeking his '…personal intervention for the appointment of a Service Officer as a constituted member of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, likely to be announced shortly.' The letter went on to remind the RM that, '…while the first two Pay Commissions were dedicated exclusively to the Armed Forces, from the third CPC onwards, the emoluments of the Armed Forces became just one more issue to be examine, but a lack of Service representation was perhaps one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed by the Services post 5th CPC award.'

Four weeks later, on 16th June 2006, the Chairman followed up this letter with a reminder, forwarding the names of three serving and two retired officers as possible candidates, with the request that, 'the RM may like to have the panel vetted by the MoD in order to select the best qualified candidate' to serve on the 6th Pay Commission.

During frequent discussions that took place in the three months that remained to him as RM, the Minister did convey to the Chiefs that he was experiencing difficulties in convincing his cabinet colleagues regarding this issue, but expressed optimism that he would find a way for the CPC to receive a direct input from the Services.

It is a tradition in the MoD not to respond to any communication from the Service Chiefs in writing, and therefore the Service HQs will have no record of what transpired within the MoD. However, a letter from the Chairman COSC has to be placed on file and discussed at length between the bureaucracy before a recommendation is made to the Minister. At this juncture, only a request to the MoD under the RTI can bring out the record on file, as to what the MoD recommended and why this request was denied.

The fact however remains that for the sixth time in succession, the Armed Forces remained unrepresented on a Pay Commission. The resulting unhappiness amongst the Services and the ESM was a foregone conclusion.

Conclusion

Bitterly recounting poetic verse about soldiers 'slighted' or 'ignored' by an ungrateful nation is not going to stir many consciences in India. Also one cannot help having serious reservations about public protests through the medium of marches, dharnas or hunger-strikes by ESM. Whether they have the desired impact or not (many states imposed Section 144 in affected towns) such displays of 'trade unionism' will erase the last distinction between the proud ethos of the Armed Forces/ESM and the rest; both in our own minds as well as in the minds of our countrymen.

It is rightly said that there is nothing easier than for Veterans, free of any responsibility, to render advice to their serving comrades from the safety and security of retirement. Therefore, having drawn attention to the factors which need to be tackled by the Services with resolve and unity, I shall refrain from adding anything further.

Except to quote a few lines from the autobiography of General Lord Ismay, in the hope that they will be read by those at the helm of the nation: 'A country may have powerful armed forces, led by brilliant commanders; it may have statesmen of great competence; it may have immense wealth; it may have industries which are most efficiently run; but unless the statesmen and soldiers at the summit work together in a spirit of mutual esteem, the essential coordination will be lacking, and there is bound to be deadly waste of blood and treasure.'

General Ismay should know; he was Churchill's Chief of Staff, confidante and alter ego right through World War II.

** 'Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal' is the hybrid Sanskrit-Persian post-Independence motto of the Regiment of Artillery, which means: 'Honour and Esteem Everywhere'.

by

Adm. Arun Prakash (Retd)

India needs a strategic ‘quick fix’ before Sept

2008-07-07T09:24:00.000-07:00

The passing away of Field Marshal Sam "Bahadur" Manekshaw on June 27 marks the end of an era. Sam was not only independent India’s most successful Army Chief, but was also the last "top link" of the brief period of revival in India’s strategic culture under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In all fairness, there was another briefer period of realpolitik in 1947-48, when "Iron Man" Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel unified India. The Kashmir problem would have been solved permanently had the government heeded the advice of then Maj. Gen. K.S. Thimmaiya and allowed the Army another fortnight to clear out the Pakistani raiders from what is now Occupied Kashmir.

All Indians are aware of the Chinese obsession with Arunachal Pradesh and the Pakistani obsession with Kashmir. Few, however, are aware that in addition to the illegal occupation of Aksai Chin (38,000 sq.km), China has additional claims in areas of Uttarakhand (1,818 sq.km) and Himachal Pradesh (303 sq.km). Thus, at its convenience, China can choose to "reactivate" tensions along the entire northern border, or lull our politico-bureaucratic setup with "sweet talk". While the commonly-held view is that China will not open a second front against India till it resolves the Taiwanese problem, it would be prudent to be prepared, especially given India’s tragic history of being surprised due to a lack of strategic culture. In any case, India can safely assume that China will continue to "blow hot, blow cold" till it is confronted with a decisive Indian political leadership, backed by conventional and strategic military deterrence capability.

In 1980, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi approved a 15-year plan to upgrade defence along India’s entire 4,056-km northern border with China. This was indeed a very good decision as in 1986-87 China tested India’s resolve in the Sumdorong Chu faceoff in Arunachal Pradesh. Here, some six well-equipped Indian mountain divisions faced an equal number of Chinese troops. Realising that they lacked overwhelming advantage — military and infrastructure — the Chinese blinked first. However, they waited for the right time to hoodwink India with sweet talk.

Mrs Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. In 1989, Pakistan-backed insurgency started in Kashmir. The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, and along with the loss of this strategic partner (Mrs Indira Gandhi had signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty in 1971 to offset any American or Chinese pressure) and low-cost supplier of military hardware, India faced a severe economic crisis. This led, once again, to the downgradation of the military. Mrs Gandhi’s 15-year plan of defence upgrade was abandoned and no funds were spared for uranium mining. The border peace and tranquillity agreement with China was signed in 1993.

While India forbade any development activity on its side of the border (some airfields became non-operational due to neglect), China utilised the next 10 years in settling land-border disputes with its neighbours (except India), provided large-scale military and economic assistance to Pakistan along with nuclear weapons and delivery systems and built up infrastructure for effective border management with India. India, in keeping with its naïveté, lapped up the Chinese talk about "a border agreement without populated areas", verbally accepting that "Sikkim is a part of India" etc. In 1998, India conducted its second series of nuclear tests, and like the first test in 1974, shied away from fully testing another device despite the window of opportunity created by Pakistan’s tit-for-tat tests of a proven Chinese weapon two weeks later. Worse still, India declared a voluntary moratorium on further testing. In 2003, India formally threw away its last bargaining chip by agreeing to the Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. India’s politico-bureaucratic security setup was suddenly faced with hundreds of border incursions. India has now (belatedly) begun to build up infrastructure and its military capabilities. It is still some 10 years behind China.

Well aware of its present military and economic lead, and India’s preoccupations — with Pakistan, jihadi strikes in the hinterland and internal coalition politics, which prevent strategic decisionmaking — China has done what it does best: combine sweet-talk with a steel fist to keep India guessing.

The signs are ominous given that the incursions are continuing despite China’s preoccupation with the earthquake rehabilitation work and the Beijing Olympics. Similarly, Pakistan, despite its preoccupation on the western front, has breached the four-year ceasefire more than once.

By September 2008, Beijing would be "free" from its Olympics duties and will be able to concentrate fully on India. At the same time, Pakistan (and the jihadi elements) too would be tempted to cause mischief before the Kashmir elections in October.

So what can India do to deal with the three immediate threats — China, Pakistan and the terrorists?

It is clear that trying to please China has failed. Our enemies will only respect a strong and decisive Indian government. In the next five years, India has to solve its hardware and manpower problems. In my opinion, the Army urgently requires modern artillery and much more than the two new mountain divisions planned (as per press reports). The IAF too requires twice the number of the 126 MMRCA jets planned, and the Navy needs to import a squadron each of modern, multi-role submarines and corvettes.

On the strategic front, the answer with regards to first and second-strike capability is obvious: India needs operational versions of the proposed Agni-5, ICBM and the proposed new indigenous ABM system at the earliest. Our immediate stockpile of nuclear weapons and delivery systems need to be well above the three-figure mark. There is also a need for our DRDO scientists to stop making statements and deliver "real systems" instead of having "items under trial" for decades or promising "technology demonstrators".

Here are a few measures the Government of India should take before September 2008:

l Institutionalise India’s defence and strategic posture by fully integrating the three service headquarters with the ministry of defence. This induction of "vertical specialisation," should ensure that we do not suffer anymore tactical or strategic surprises.

l Create a modified version of the CDS with a separate budget for acquisitions and maintenance. This newly-created four star officer, could initially be the single point of advise to the government only for the use of strategic weapons and out of area contingencies. The present IDS HQ, Strategic Forces Command and the Andaman-Nicobar Command can come directly under him. Subsequently, by 2012, his role can be reassessed, and enlarged if necessary.

l Reassess India’s "no first use" policy with regards to nuclear weapons. This is to cater for specific contingencies.

l Secure a part of our energy requirements by signing the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline deal.

l Use the strategically-located Andaman and Nicobar Islands as "unsinkable aircraft carriers" by basing fighter and long-range maritime patrol aircraft there. Assure all friendly countries that these are purely defensive measures.

l Provide the military, civil intelligence agencies and counter terrorist forces with the necessary manpower and latest weapons.

l Take a quick "yes or no" decision on the Indo-US nuclear deal. A country of India’s size, population and growing economy should not cut a sorry figure by "sitting on the fence" on most issues. In this case, the deal will make little difference economically (it will contribute only six to eight per cent to the national power grid over the next century) or even politically (because India will have to "test" sooner than later).

l Review the defence budget which (as per the Army Chief and media reports), has fallen to 1.98 per cent of the GDP (the lowest since 1962) taking 11.5 per cent inflation into account.

l Take a good hard look at the Rs 60,000-crore farm loan waiver and the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, which combined amount to 10 per cent of the GDP. With the Indian economy in a tailspin due to rising oil prices and domestic populist policies, its growth rate may fall to 6.5 per cent. As per a recent Goldman & Sachs report, India is placed last in the BRIC economies. In my opinion, the root cause of discontent among government employees is the disproportionate hike given to the IAS community by the Pay Commission. A simpler and more cost-effective solution would be to reduce the number of IAS officers (from its present 225 to 35 secretaries, as it was in 1981) and amend the newly-introduced 14-year promotion rule for joint secretaries and make it 21 years (only two per cent of defence personnel reach equivalent rank in over 28 years) while upgrading the armed forces, police and paramilitary.

While the above proposals would contribute towards reviving India’s strategic culture, I think two more gestures are needed. The first is to set up a National War Memorial. The second is to posthumously award the Bharat Ratna to Sam Manekshaw, so that the present list of 37 (which includes 25 politicians and five artistes) has at least one deserving soldier.

— Vice-Admiral Arun Kumar Singh retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

Stand up for the Indian soldier

2008-06-30T22:09:00.000-07:00

It is with a sense of disbelief that one hears the Indian minister of state for defence, sitting in his cozy air-conditioned seminar room, pontificating that 'it is unbecoming' of former soldiers to protest against the treatment meted out to them by the government. So here's a non-soldier making a public protest. One hopes that it is not below the dignity of the minister to read this.
The minister would not have dared to make such a comment had the protestors been a part of his or his party's vote bank. The fact that the Indian armed services do not go public with their grievances does not mean that they do not have any concerns and the fact that they have been forced to come to the streets should make the minister and his government acknowledge how desperate the situation might be.
The Indian government is fooling itself if it thinks that by dragging its feet on the issue of the armed forces dissatisfaction with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, it can make the issue go away. A country that refuses to respect its armed forces will eventually end up getting forces that will not respect the nations' aspirations. A country makes a sacred contract with its soldiers that while he/she will lay down his/her life when called upon to do so, the nation will take good care of his/her and his/her family's needs to the extent its resources would permit.

This contract underpins the very survival of a nation as when its territorial integrity and political independence are under threat, the nation looks upon the only instrument that can protect it -- its armed forces.

While all governments have to look for a considered bargain between their commitments and power and between power and resources, a responsible government will always be aware of the serious implications of not spending adequate resources on defence.

The debate as it has been made out to be in some quarters between defence and development is a spurious one. Unless adequate provisions are made for defence, no state will be able to pursue its developmental agenda. This is much more important for a country like India that faces a unique security environment with two of its 'adversaries' straddling it on two sides of its borders and problems on all sides of its periphery.

A government can keep spouting pious rhetoric about global peace and non-violence but it realises fully that force is the ultima ratio in international relations. Politics among nations is conducted in the brooding shadow of violence. Either a state remains able and willing to use force to preserve and enhance its interests or it is forced to live at the mercy of its militarily powerful counterpart.

Even Nehru, after neglecting defence for all the years after independence had to eventually concede in 1962 that India's military weakness 'has been a temptation, and a little military strength may be a deterrent.'

The Indian public and press remain apathetic on defence issues. We make Kargil into a television spectacle, an opportunity for our journalists to try to show their temporary bravery by going to the frontlines for a few hours and getting the excitement of covering a war from the inside. And then when it is all over, our soldiers have been interred into their graves, we move on to new and more exciting spectacles -- to our song and dance reality shows and saas-bahu sagas, forgetting that soldiers are still on guard.

This is a nation that will cry with Lata Mangeshkar when she sings Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon but will not make any effort to understand the real problems and concerns of its soldiers. It is a sign of the highly skewed priorities of the Indian media that the rising turmoil and dissatisfaction within the ranks of nations' armed forces is being given only perfunctory coverage.

It is an issue of nation's very survival yet the media seems busy with its devotion of superficialities. Every rave and rant of Bollywood actors is religiously covered, detailed dissection of seemingly never-ending cricket matches are conducted, exorbitant pay rises in the corporate sector make it to the headlines but the one issue that can make or break the future of this country is consigned to the margins.

We continue to pray at the altar of our false heroes while our real heroes continue to face neglect and scorn.

The armed forces feel they have never got their due from various pay commissions over the years but the government in its wisdom decided to keep the armed forces away from any representation in the latest Pay Commission. The dominance of bureaucrats meant that while the interests of the bureaucrats were well-recognised, the armed services once again ended up getting a raw deal.

The discontent is so serious that some of the best and brightest in our services have refused to go for the Higher Command Courses and more and more are seeking an early retirement. Indian armed forces are desperately trying to fill vacancies

If you have to die, do so around Delhi or Mumbai

2008-06-30T00:41:00.000-07:00

The passing away of the only Indian to be appointed Field Marshal when in active service has been remarkable for the warmth of the ordinary men and women, who queued up to say meebeenamet to the adorable dikra who put his life on the line for them.

It has also been remarkable for the complete lack of grace and gratitude, civility and courtesy, decency and decorum on the part of the bold-faced names rapaciously grazing the lawns of power in Delhi and elsewhere, for the brain behind India's only decisive military victory.

Sam, the Bahadur, had been unwell for a while now. From about 1000 hours on June 26, reports of his being "critically ill" had appeared in the media. Yet, when the "expected tocsin" sounded at 0030 hours till the guns were fired in salute around 1500 hours on June 27, "civil society" chose to show its incivility.
Pratibha Patil, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces with all the time in the world: Absent
Hamid Ansari: Vice-president releasing books and writing reviews of books by fellow-travellers: Absent
Manmohan Singh, the prime minister who could do with a bit of the field marshal's charisma and heroism: Absent
Sonia Gandhi : daughter-in-law of the woman the field marshal called "sweetie": Absent
L K Advani: prime minister in waiting of the party which would like to do to Pakistan what Manekshaw did: Absent
M Karunanidhi and Surjit Singh Barnala: chief minister and governor of the state which Manekshaw had made his home for 35 years: Absent

Politicians may have their reasons. They always do. Maybe, there are issues like protocol. Maybe, this is one way in which 'civil India' shows the armed forces its place. Maybe, this is why we are not as militaristic as Pakistan. Maybe, the knees are just too old to climb the hills.

But what about the armed forces itself?
A K Antony: the defence minister 'now behaving like the chairman of the confederation of the armed forces' trade unions: absent 'due to prior political engagements'.
The chief of army staff: absent (away in Russia )
The chief of navy staff: absent
The chief of air staff: absent

The fact that the defence minister was represented by his deputy Pallam Raju, the fact that the navy and air staff sent two-star general rank officers, shows that however high or mighty, however rich or powerful, civilian or military, if you should die as you must, you should do so somewhere in the vicinity of New Delhi -- or Bombay. Or else, they must have some use for you.

Or else, too bad.

As he rightly surmised once: "I wonder whether those of our political masters who have been put in charge of the defence of the country can distinguish a mortar from a motor; a gun from a howitzer; a guerrilla from a gorilla -- although a great many of them in the past have resembled the latter."

The contrast couldn't be starker:
When Amitabh Bachchan [Images] was ill after being socked in the stomach during the shooting of Coolie, Indira Gandhi [Images] flew down to Bombay to show her concern.
When Dhirubhai Ambani died, L K Advani cut short his Gujarat tour to pay his respects to an 'embodiment of initiative, enterprise and determination'.
When Pramod Mahajan was shot dead by his brother, Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekawat had the time to attend the funeral.

Our VIPs and VVIPs have time for dead and dying celebrities, charlatans, fixers. Not for a field marshal?

In his biography, K M Cariappa, the only other field marshal India has had (and who too died at age 94), writes of his father's cremation in May 1993:

"Honouring him in death as they did in life were Field Marshal Manekshaw, the three service chiefs all of whom belonged to the same course and at whose passing out parade from the joint services wing father had presided, the gracious chief minister M Veerappa Moily and C K Jaffer Sharief, Minister for Railways representing the President as the supreme commanded of the armed forces."

Somebody should have told the geniuses in Delhi that Sam, the Bahadur, passed away in Wellington, Ooty, not Wellington, New Zealand. The nearest civil airport is Coimbatore, just 80 km away.

If this is how we say goodbye to Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, any wonder why Rang de Basanti could successfully tap into the angst of an entire generation?

Why do I still serve you?

2008-06-30T00:21:00.000-07:00

How you play with us, did you ever see?
At Seven, I had decided what I wanted to be;
I would serve you to the end,
All these boundaries I would defend.

Now you make me look like a fool,
When at Seventeen and just out of school;
Went to the place where they made "men out of boys"
Lived a tough life …sacrificed a few joys…

In those days, I would see my 'civilian' friends,
Living a life with the fashion trends;
Enjoying their so called "College Days"
While I sweated and bled in the sun and haze…
But I never thought twice about what where or why
All I knew was when the time came, I'd be ready to do or die.

At 21 and with my commission in hand,
Under the glory of the parade and the band,
I took the oath to protect you over land, air or sea,
And make the supreme sacrifice when the need came to be.

I stood there with a sense of recognition,
But on that day I never had the premonition,
that when the time came to give me my due,
You'd just say," What is so great that you do?"

Long back you promised a well to do life;
And when I'm away, take care of my wife.
You came and saw the hardships I live through,
And I saw you make a note or two,
And I hoped you would realise the worth of me;
but now I know you'll never be able to see,
Because you only see the glorified life of mine,
Did you see the place where death looms all the time?
Did you meet the man standing guard in the snow?
The name of his newborn he does not know...
Did you meet the man whose father breathed his last?
While the sailor patrolled our seas so vast?

You still know I'll not be the one to raise my voice
I will stand tall and protect you in Punjab Himachal and Thois.

But that's just me you have in the sun and rain,
For now at Twenty Four, you make me think again;
About the decision I made, Seven years back;
Should I have chosen another life, some other track?

Will I tell my son to follow my lead?
Will I tell my son, you'll get all that you need?
This is the country you will serve
This country will give you all that you deserve?

I heard you tell the world "India is shining"
I told my men, that's a reason for us to be smiling
This is the India you and I will defend!
But tell me how long will you be able to pretend?
You go on promise all that you may,
But it's the souls of your own men you betray.

Did you read how some of our eminent citizens
Write about me and ridicule my very existence?
I ask you to please come and see what I do,
Come and have a look at what I go through
Live my life just for a day
Maybe you'll have something else to say?

I will still risk my life without a sigh
To keep your flag flying high
but today I ask myself a question or two…
Oh India…. Why do I still serve you?

Gen Malik's letter informing all Veteraans of the outcome of his interaction with the PM

2008-06-23T06:26:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,
As you are aware, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (PM) on April 27, 2008 (copy attached) to apprise him of the low state of morale caused by the 6th Pay Commission Report amongst serving and retired soldiers and their families, particularly in the Army. The PM acknowledged the letter. His Principal Secretary, Mr Nair, rang me up to convey that the PM wished to convey his assurance that the Government will take note of my inputs in resolving the anomalies and the Armed Forces will be looked after. He said that my letter with PM's remarks is being sent to the Cabinet Secretary. A similar reply came from the Defense Minister.

On May 10, I met the PM in his house. I conveyed the gravity of the situation on two counts:

· Shortage of officers in combat units and inadequate intake; its present and future impact on the efficiency, discipline, morale and value system.

· Public agitations by ex- servicemen, intensification in future with the likelihood of leadership getting into the hands of some radical elements; possibility of public nuisance and flash points. I conveyed to him very clearly that such a display of frustration, despondency and anger by ex-servicemen in public will neither be good for the armed forces nor for the country.

The PM once again tried to assure me that the Government will take care of all legitimate interests of the armed forces. He has already conveyed it to the Review Committee. I said that this matter now needs to be handled at political level and should not be left to the bureaucrats. Armed forces personnel no longer have confidence in the Review Committee of bureaucrats, particularly when this Committee does not have representation from the armed forces despite repeated requests made within the Government and outside. The fact that the PM had passed this problem to such a Committee had not gone well with military personnel. It had strengthened the feeling that the status of the armed forces stands eroded more than ever before, military leadership has no say, and the Government continues to be insensitive to their problems and is unlikely to give them justice. The military should have had a seperate pay commission, as in other countries.

At this stage, the PM remarked that the Defense Secretary will represent the armed forces. I reiterated that when the armed forces did not have confidence in the bureaucracy, how can he represent them and get them justice. This conversation led to the PM stating that this is the institutionalized manner in which the Government exercises civilian control over the armed forces.

I told the PM that the civilian control over military means political control and not bureaucratic control. If all military inputs were to be filtered through the bureaucracy, we will never be able to fight a war well or defend the country. The political leaders must deal directly with the military on all important issues. I then informed him of two past practices (a) Mrs Gandhi and Mr Vajpayee used to meet the three Chiefs privately once in a month to discuss their views on various diplomatic and military strategic issues (b) The CCS discusses procurement issues with the Secretaries. Service Chiefs, who are directly affected, are not even called. I had gone through a war situation and have first hand experience of the harm that it does. The PM said that these were good suggestions. He will go over them for future.

The meeting ended with the PM trying to assure me once again that he will look after the interest of the armed forces. However, he gave no assurance that he will introduce political handling of the 6th Pay Commission anomalies at this stage.

Please note that:
· The above-mentioned letter and meeting minutes indicate where the serving and ex-servicemen appear to stand in our efforts to get the Sixth PCR anomalies corrected.
· I have deliberately refrained from conveying any personal comments/impression of the meeting.

With regards and best wishes,

Ved Malik

--
General V P Malik
Former Chief of Army Staff,
251, Sector 6,
Panchkula (Haryana) 134 109
India
Tele: +91 172 2586390

Salary & Govt. Concessions for a Member of Parliament (MP)

2008-06-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

Salary & Govt. Concessions for a Member of Parliament (MP)

Monthly Salary : 12,000

Expense for Constitution per month : 10,000

Office expenditure per month : 14,000

Traveling concession (Rs. 8 per km) : 48,000 ( e.g..For a visit from kerala to Delhi & return: 6000 km)

Daily DA AT during parliament meets : 500/day

Charge for 1 class (A/C) in train: Free (For any number of times)
(All over India )

Charge for Business Class in flights : Free for 40 trips / year (With wife or P.A.)

Rent for MP hostel at Delhi : Free

Electricity costs at home : Free up to 50,000 units

Local phone call charge : Free up to 1 ,70,000 calls.

TOTAL expense for a MP [having no qualification] per year : 32,00,000 [I.e . 2.66 lakh/month]

TOTAL expense for 5 years : 1,60,00,000

For 534 MPs, the expense for 5 years :
8,54,40,00,000 (nearly 855 crores)

AND THE PRIME MINISTER IS ASKING THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED, OUT PERFORMING CEOs TO CUT DOWN THEIR SALARIES.....

This is how all our tax money is been swallowed and price hike on our regular commodities.......
And this is the present condition of our country:

855 crores could make their life livable !!
Think of the great democracy we have..............
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL REAL CITIZENS OF INDIA ...
I'M,
STILL Proud to be INDIAN

Salary & Govt. Concessions for a Member of Parliament (MP)

Monthly Salary : 12,000

Expense for Constitution per month : 10,000

Office expenditure per month : 14,000

Traveling concession (Rs. 8 per km) : 48,000 ( e.g..For a visit from kerala to Delhi & return: 6000 km)

Daily DA AT during parliament meets : 500/day

Charge for 1 class (A/C) in train: Free (For any number of times)
(All over India )

Charge for Business Class in flights : Free for 40 trips / year (With wife or P.A.)

Rent for MP hostel at Delhi : Free

Electricity costs at home : Free up to 50,000 units

Local phone call charge : Free up to 1 ,70,000 calls.

TOTAL expense for a MP [having no qualification] per year : 32,00,000 [I.e . 2.66 lakh/month]

TOTAL expense for 5 years : 1,60,00,000

For 534 MPs, the expense for 5 years :
8,54,40,00,000 (nearly 855 crores)

AND THE PRIME MINISTER IS ASKING THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED, OUT PERFORMING CEOs TO CUT DOWN THEIR SALARIES..... AND OFFER PEANUTS TO THE DEFENSE WHO GET NONE OF THE ABOVE, BUT ARE EXPECTED TO DIE ?!

This is how all our tax money is been swallowed and price hike on our regular commodities.......
And this is the present condition of our country:

855 crores could make their life livable !!
Think of the great democracy we have..............
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL REAL CITIZENS OF INDIA ...
But,
STILL Proud to be INDIAN

Insult to Soldier, Injury to Nation!

2008-06-11T09:25:00.000-07:00

In India, unlike armies in our neighbourhood, our armed forces have
been traditionally apolitical and exceedingly disciplined. The Indian
soldier has acquitted himself with honour in the wars that, thanks to
his valour, ignited great patriotic fervour among all men and women of
the country. Unfortunately for the Indian soldier, however, the worst
of these wars – the ongoing 'proxy war' – is not as spectacular as
all-out Indo-Pak wars and yet it has taken heavier toll than the
combined toll of all those wars in terms of lives of our soldiers and
national wealth. And it goes on unabated.

It is in such trying times that the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission have delivered a shattering blow to the soldiery
demoralising the rank and file very badly. Officers and men across the
three Services are stunned even though solemn and silent. Never before
has the Indian soldier needed and deserved more honour, respect, love
and remuneration for his sacrifices and dedication. Constitutionally,
the Defence Forces have their constraints and cannot express their
problems in the manner in which most of our civil services and
brethren do through public demonstration. This handicap often sends
wrong signals to the political leaders who are used to noise,
pandemonium and violence in streets or in the House rather than quiet
presentations marked with etiquette and restraint. Over the years,
they have taken the silence of the armed forces for granted.

But times have changed now. Easy access to advanced means of
communication has laid the whole world bare for the soldier to form
his own perceptions. The speed and magnitude of socio-economic changes
have obliterated the class demarcations in our society to a large
extent giving rise to higher ambitions even among the village youth.
The profile of Indian soldier is no longer that of the proverbial
Sepoy Bhup Singh who would 'do or die without questioning why'. The
level of awareness among rank and file in the armed forces is
stunningly high today. Whereas life is becoming more and more
comfortable for everyone in the modern world, his operational burden
is becoming heavier by the day degrading his basic comforts and
heightening danger to his life. And his role is not limited only to
fight terrorism and the enemy. Almost every failure of the civil
administration comes to him to be redeemed. Be it emergencies like
natural calamities, disaster management, or man-made catastrophic
situations like communal violence, blasts, strikes, service breakdown
or even heaving hapless children from death traps like bore wells left
open in villages, everyone turns to the soldier – administration's
last resort and people's most reliable saviour! A soldier is a jack of
all trades!

He has had enough of it. He knows his power but is restrained by his
discipline and value system drilled into him through training and
tradition of chivalry by his leaders. But increasing pressures and
declining honour of the profession have pushed him to the corner. He
has no more space to manoeuvre and is left with only one option to
choose from: kill or get killed. The writing on the wall is clear and
people must be blind not to read it from the increasing number of
incidents like suicide, fratricide, desertion with a large number of
their frustrated leaders already queuing up to leave the service
prematurely. Are our political leaders able to fathom the seriousness
and real dimension of the problem? Is it merely a Services' problem?
No, it is a big national problem because our Defence Forces are the
guarantors of nation's safety and security against all kinds of
threats; and their higher motivation level will always be the most
significant factor in safeguarding our national interests. Therefore,
those in charge of affairs of the nation have a duty to ensure
maintenance of a high level of morale and motivation by requiting the
soldier honourably.

Does the following verse composed in anguish by Francis Quarles long
ago describe today's Indian psyche in painfully apt terms?

"Our God and soldiers we alike adore

Only at the brink of danger; not before;

After deliverance, both are alike requited –

Our God's forgotten and our soldiers slighted."

Now I understand why there was mass hysteria in Indian masses
eulogizing and adoring the soldier during Kargil War and why they
appear oblivious of all that is happening to their hero now.. Who
dared touch our soldier then? And now, who cares for a soldier whose
ongoing battle and sacrifices continue but are not melodramatic enough
to entertain or scare us!

High morale and fighting potential of the armed forces are a national
asset and worth as much as the cost of freedom and security of the
country. What you give to the soldier is not his remuneration; it is
your investment in national defence. Economic growth alone cannot make
India a super power in the world. Richness actually carries an element
of vulnerability along. It is the strong and able armed forces that
would provide credibility to the concept of 'super power'. Belittling
the soldier is, therefore, belittling the nation and weakening its
defence potential at a time when India, though poised to emerge as a
super power, is threatened by hordes of evil forces seeking to weaken
and disintegrate India from within and without. Even as we progress
economically, let us also make our future generations safe.

Whatever the notion of some of the politicians, Indian generals have
an accountability and owe clarifications to the Indian public who pay
for the hefty defence budget and for whose security the armed forces
are maintained. And we know for certain that our generals are
professionally as competent and morally as upright as the best in the
world, odd aberrations here and there notwithstanding. It was a
different army and their generals on whom Arthur Wellesley, Duke of
Wellington had lamented in one of his military dispatches in these
words:

"When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of our General
officers of this army – on whom I am to rely – I tremble; and, as Lord
Chesterfield said of the Generals of this day, 'I only hope that when
the enemy reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do!"

Indian generals must not be snubbed and their opinion – be it on
matters of national security or border disputes must be respected
because most of those who shamelessly comment on a General's propriety
to speak to media on such matters have not treaded where the general
has. In fact others must not speak out on such matters without the
general's informed counsel.

There was a time when bureaucracy in the US was influencing the
political leadership in somewhat similar manner while deciding on
army's budgetary needs. In 1933 Gen MacArthur, then Chief of the US
Army, did not hesitate to protest against the deep cuts in the Army's
budget. And when President Franklin Roosevelt did not relent, he
roared with his characteristic disregard to personal interests, "Mr.
President, when we lose the next war and an American boy lying in the
mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly and an enemy foot on his
throat, spits out his last curse, I want the name on his lips to be
Roosevelt, not MacArthur." He concluded by saying that he was
resigning although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after
Roosevelt finally yielded and reversed most of the proposed cuts.

All top generals, admirals and air marshals of India are today
squirming with similar belly aches and may stand up putting country's
interests ahead of their own. Let us hope the government will not
compel them to speak out loudly because military 'loudness' is never
good for ear drums!

stand up for the indian soldier

2008-06-11T09:10:00.000-07:00

It is with a sense of disbelief that one hears the Indian minister of state for defence, sitting in his cozy air-conditioned seminar room, pontificating that 'it is unbecoming' of former soldiers to protest against the treatment meted out to them by the government.. So here's a non-soldier making a public protest. One hopes that it is not below the dignity of the minister to read this.
The minister would not have dared to make such a comment had the protestors been a part of his or his party's vote bank. The fact that the Indian armed services do not go public with their grievances does not mean that they do not have any concerns and the fact that they have been forced to come to the streets should make the minister and his government acknowledge how desperate the situation might be.
The Indian government is fooling itself if it thinks that by dragging its feet on the issue of the armed forces dissatisfaction with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, it can make the issue go away.
A country that refuses to respect its armed forces will eventually end up getting forces that will not respect the nations' aspirations. A country makes a sacred contract with its soldiers that while he/she will lay down his/her life when called upon to do so, the nation will take good care of his/her and his/her family's needs to the extent its resources would permit.
This contract underpins the very survival of a nation as when its territorial integrity and political independence are under threat, the nation looks upon the only instrument that can protect it -- its armed forces.
While all governments have to look for a considered bargain between their commitments and power and between power and resources, a responsible government will always be aware of the serious implications of not spending adequate resources on defence.
The debate as it has been made out to be in some quarters between defence and development is a spurious one. Unless adequate provisions are made for defence, no state will be able to pursue its developmental agenda. This is much more important for a country like India that faces a unique security environment with two of its 'adversaries' straddling it on two sides of its borders and problems on all sides of its periphery.
A government can keep spouting pious rhetoric about global peace and non-violence but it realises fully that force is the ultima ratio in international relations.. Politics among nations is conducted in the brooding shadow of violence. Either a state remains able and willing to use force to preserve and enhance its interests or it is forced to live at the mercy of its militarily powerful counterpart.
Even Nehru, after neglecting defence for all the years after independence had to eventually concede in 1962 that India's military weakness 'has been a temptation, and a little military strength may be a deterrent.'
The Indian public and press remain apathetic on defence issues. We make Kargil into a television spectacle, an opportunity for our journalists to try to show their temporary bravery by going to the frontlines for a few hours and getting the excitement of covering a war from the inside. And then when it is all over, our soldiers have been interred into their graves, we move on to new and more exciting spectacles -- to our song and dance reality shows and saas-bahu sagas, forgetting that soldiers are still on guard.
This is a nation that will cry with Lata Mangeshkar when she sings Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon but will not make any effort to understand the real problems and concerns of its soldiers. It is a sign of the highly skewed priorities of the Indian media that the rising turmoil and dissatisfaction within the ranks of nations' armed forces is being given only perfunctory coverage.
It is an issue of nation's very survival yet the media seems busy with its devotion of superficialities. Every rave and rant of Bollywood actors is religiously covered, detailed dissection of seemingly never-ending cricket matches are conducted, exorbitant pay rises in the corporate sector make it to the headlines but the one issue that can make or break the future of this country is consigned to the margins.
We continue to pray at the altar of our false heroes while our real heroes continue to face neglect and scorn.
The armed forces feel they have never got their due from various pay commissions over the years but the government in its wisdom decided to keep the armed forces away from any representation in the latest Pay Commission. The dominance of bureaucrats meant that while the interests of the bureaucrats were well-recognised, the armed services once again ended up getting a raw deal.
The discontent is so serious that some of the best and brightest in our services have refused to go for the Higher Command Courses and more and more are seeking an early retirement. Indian armed forces are desperately trying to fill vacancies as other professions are luring the young of the country.
Against the sanctioned strength of 300 per batch, the National Defence Academy finds that it can only attract 192 cadres (cadets?) this year. The same story repeats itself in the Indian Military Academy . A country that purports to be a rising power is facing a shortage of more than 11,000 officers.
The reason is pretty obvious: One can't think of any major power in the world that treats its soldiers the way India does. It is indeed a sorry sight when India 's bravest have to literally cry out for help from a callous politico-bureaucratic elite.
Our politicians remain more than willing to waste tax payers money by routinely boycotting Parliament and have never shied away from increasing their own pay and allowances, claiming that they remain underpaid. Yet those who defend the sanctity of Parliament are given a short shrift.
The abysmal knowledge of defence issues that pervades the Indian political class probably gives them an illusion that the country is being protected by divine blessings.
Political apathy and bureaucratic design are rapidly eroding the self-esteem of our forces. A functioning liberal democracy needs a loyal soldier that can take care of the state's security, allowing the state to look after its citizenry.. In India , the State is gradually withering away, all that's left is the loyal soldier. How long will this soldier, under siege from all sides, remain steadfast to its commitments, is a question all Indians should seriously ponder on.

Dr Harsh V Pant teaches at King's College London .

Kautilya's wisdom ...... why don't our politicians and babus get some

2008-05-15T18:31:00.000-07:00

Pretty interesting read. Its a letter written to Chandragupt Maurya by his Prime Advisor Chanakya and reproduced in "Kautilya" , his monumental State treatise.
He Wrote:

"The Mauryan soldier does not the Royal treasuries enrich nor the Royal granaries fill. He does not carry out trade and commerce nor produce scholars, littérateurs, artistes, artisans, sculptors, architects, craftsmen, doctors and administrators. He does not build roads and ramparts nor dig wells and reservoirs. He does not do any of this directly. The soldier only and merely ensures that the tax, tribute and revenue collectors travel forth and return safely; that the farmer tills, harvests, stores and markets his produce unafraid of pillage; that the trader, merchant and financier function and travel across the length and breadth of the realm unmolested; that the savant, sculptor, maestro and mentor create works of art, literature, philosophy and astrology in quietitude; that the architect designs and builds his Vaastus without tension; that the tutor and the priest teach and preach in peace; that the rishis meditate in wordless silence; that the doctor invents cures and medicines undisturbed; that the mason and bricklayer work unhindered; that the mother and the wife go about their chores and bring up children in harmony and tranquility; that the cattle graze freely without being lifted or stolen. Pataliputra reposes each night in peaceful comfort, O King, secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks only to the Mauryan Army standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action, day and night, in weather fair and foul, all eight praharas (round the clock), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, all through the year, year after year. While the citizenry of the State contributes to see that the State prospers and flourishes, the soldier guarantees it continues to EXIST as a State! To this man, O Rajadhiraja, you owe a debt: please, therefore, see to it, suo motu, that the soldier continuously gets his dues in every
form and respect, be they his needs or his wants, for he is not likely to ask for them himself. The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be King!

No honour please, you are Indian Navy Chief

2008-05-11T18:18:00.000-07:00

TEN YEARS ago, the Indian Navy suffered a disgraceful defeat. The humiliation was inflicted not by any inimical foreign power, but by powers-that-be in New Delhi's South Block. In December 1998, the then Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, was unceremoniously booted out at the instance of 'honourable' defence minister George Fernandes, who could not make him bootlick.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, a staunch nationalist, expected to be the last person to hurt the country's honour, had his compulsions to back the Defence Minister. Fernandes was playing a key role in letting the government survive, acting as go-between with Tamilnadu chief minister Jayalalithaa. The Defence Minister's main job, in fact, was to rush to Chennai to satiate her routinely. Bhagwat's refusal to have vice admiral Harinder Singh, enjoying Fernandes' confidence, as his deputy was the ostensible reason for the sack. Actually, the purpose was to teach a lesson to the service chiefs; they were harming entrenched interests doing deals in South Block.

In July that year, defence secretary Ajit Kumar had conveyed Fernandes' instructions to the service commanders that they should seek prior approval of the ministry before intercepting any vessel suspected to be carrying narcotics and arms. The three service chiefs jointly wrote back that interdiction operations in the Andamans were 'mandated operations', which did not require the 'prior approval' of the ministry.

It was open secret, later caught in camera by Tehelka that the drug and arms mafia had links with socialites and 'friends' of George. The Admiral was bold enough to publicly ask, "Why are Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Burmese and the northeastern rebels operating from the house of the Defence Minister?" According to the Navy Chief, as per the policy framework, 'civilian control' does not allow criminals in Parliament and government to boss over the Armed Services. He asserted, "Never in the 50 years of our history since 1947 has the subversion of the chain of military command been carried out in such a blatant manner – destroying the entire civil-military relationship, undermining the disciplinary framework of an armed force of the union." Sadly, it was the South Block mandarins who triumphed over the Navy Chief.

Ever since November last year, South Block had been uncomfortable again at the service chiefs asserting their dignity. They wanted to get honoured as much as Robert Vadra – son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi – without realising that even their 'supreme commander' has to pay obeisance to her! The civil aviation minister grudgingly admitted, "The men who guard our borders should not have to be frisked. There are already 11 people who are exempt. The chiefs of defence services come in at number 12." Even that number 12 required a salvo from former Army chief Gen S Roychoudhary: "It's a small symbolic gesture and the government should have gone ahead with exempting the three service chiefs. In public eye, men in uniform are iconic figures." Indian netas, babus and their cronies, however, do not agree that they should be iconic figures!

It is now the turn of Navy Chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, to be shown his place by South Block babus and defence minister. Significantly, Admiral Mehta happens to be the senior-most among the heads of the three services. As the chairman of Chiefs of Staff (CoS) committee, he is the vital contact point between civilians and the military. Humiliating him must teach a lesson to others!

Officials of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and armchair strategic affairs pundits have not been too happy in recent years with initiatives taken by Manmohan Singh's government. Recently, inaugurating the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) at New Delhi, the PM pointed out that it was not a military pact where a set of nations joined forces against another; it aimed to bring regional states together to fight terrorism, piracy and natural disasters. Singh urged the gathering of naval chiefs to develop a "comprehensive cooperative framework of maritime security." Admiral Mehta contrasted IONS – a collective grouping of states that are arrayed against common security challenges and threats – with cold-war constructs of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact.

Indian Foreign Service (IFS) babus, with a mindset belonging to cold war time warp, do not find the doctrine palatable. Also, high-science babus in outfits like Defence Research and Development (DRDO), adept at siphoning off monstrous sums to unveil fictitious breakthroughs to drum up hollow national pride, are alarmed at the prospect of exposure of their real prowess. Left Front politicians – chief beneficiaries of 'deals' with their old Russian masters – too resist the change in attitude.

MEA has been taking exceptions to the Navy taking decisions, which have 'foreign policy implications' without consultation. Antony, at their instance, had earlier reprimanded the Admiral for not defending the retrofitting of the junked Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov at huge expense and renaming it as Vikramaditya. His 'friends' from Kerala and Bengal had also bitterly opposed the Indo-US Malabar exercises, in which ships from Japan, Australia, Singapore participated. The comrades organised 'dharnas' (protest road shows) along the coast.

At the instance of the comrades, Antony recently criticised the naval headquarters for embedding a US warship – USS Cole – in the Indo-British Konkan 2008 exercise – part of UK's Orion 08 Deployment. It was the Royal Navy that considered USS Cole eminently suited to be an observer. It symbolises the cooperation of navies across the world to jointly foil terrorism at sea. Suspected Al Qaida suicide bombers had attacked it in October 2000 at the Yemeni port of Aden. But it is back. The pro-Iran lobby in MEA found its presence offending during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's India visit.

The Royal navy's decision to embed USS Cole in replacement for a Spanish ship had, in fact, been conveyed to the defence ministry two days in advance. But, Antony was probably busy in powwows with the Left and could not see it. He instructed that from now on, contours of naval exercises with any country must be spelled out to the last detail and 'well in advance'! That ominously smacks of his predecessor George Fernandes, who insisted on obtaining 'prior approval' by the babus before catching arms traffickers!

Like Vajpayee's government in 1998, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of Singh too survives with 'outside support' from the Left Front. Singh is reckoned as the proxy of Sonia Gandhi and the weakest and meekest PM India has ever had. The Congress is aware of the compulsion to maintain cordial relations with the Left to stay in power. No wonder, Manmohan Singh, like Vajpayee, chooses to look the other way when his defence minister, who is the go-between with 'outside supporters' to prop his government, causes to the Armed services worse humiliation than any enemy country!

This month, Antony shot down the Navy's recommendation to give a two-year extension to Commodore M Gidwani, the present Judge Advocate General. The babus of his ministry judged that the Judge Advocate General was not fully qualified to head its legal branch. Captain Harinder Gupta, the senior most officer from the Navy's legal cadre, has instead been appointed to take charge from July 1. This reminds one of what Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat said 10 years ago about 'civilian control' of the country: "It relates to issues of war and peace; it relates to matters of strategic consequence. It prohibits day-to-day interference in matters of appointment, posting and promotion."

Defence and MEA babus, who were taken aback at the frigid reception to Pranab Mukherjee and Antony given at Moscow last year, were also furious at Admiral Mehta's 12-day long trip to the US recently. They feel that the absence of a service chief during Parliament session is against 'democratic norms'! Next, they may want the Armed Forces bosses to be compulsorily present in the House to watch how convicted criminals, supari-takers (hired murderers), movie stars, and just plain goons make war while transacting business of enacting law!

It is now learnt that the Navy Chief has been asked to take a commercial flight, like any ordinary chap, for his upcoming visit to Thailand, which is part of Manmohan Singh's strategy spelled out at IONS. The defence minister does not want Admiral Mehta to use one of the four Embraer VVIP planes available.

Speaking on a report this week in Janes's Defence Weekly about the ongoing construction of a formidable, state-of-the-art marine and submarine base by China, Antony bragged, "Whether in sea lanes or in the land bodies, our armed forces are always taking all precautions to protect our security interests!" What better way to protect the country's interests than to deny basic honour and esteem, deserved by the officers directing the armed forces! And how long is the farce going to continue?

It pays to be a "Babu"

2008-05-11T18:16:00.000-07:00

It was meant to hand out sops to government servants ahead of an election year, but the Sixth Central Pay Commission is fast turning into an acrimonious and divisive affair.

Disagreements have been a hallmark of the last two pay commissions, which covered the two decades since 1986, but this time the tone of the protests is more serious.

The armed forces, constituting 42 per cent of the government staff, and the police force, accounting for nearly 37 per cent, which are responsible for the external and internal security of the country, have said that they feel let down by the latest pay commission’s recommendations.

The armed forces have rejected it outright. “There is no question of us accepting the pay commission’s recommendations in their present form,” says a senior army official.

The target of all this ire is the bureaucracy, which comprises 22 per cent of the government. The armed forces feel that the bureaucratic arm is wielding its clout over others and have voiced their disappointment with Minister for Defence A.K. Antony, while ex-servicemen met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi.

Now Indian Police Service (IPS) officers have joined the chorus, warning that the pay commission has widened the gap between the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the IPS.

Members of the IPS Central Association met Sonia and Minister for Home Affairs Shivraj Patil, seeking their intervention and pointing out what they claimed were discriminatory proposals.

This dissatisfaction stems from the fundamental change brought about by the Sixth Pay Commission in the way relative statuses will be defined in the bureaucracy. Currently, the basic pay of an officer is used as the parameter for defining the status of the position he holds.

Higher the basic pay, higher is the position. According to the new recommendations, however, the basic pay will not define status. In the scheme that has now been formulated, a grade pay has been defined for the purpose.

A higher grade pay will indicate a higher status. When grade pays are equivalent, higher total emoluments including all special pays will define a higher status.

The pay commission has thus created a select club of 8,000 officers in the highest pay bracket of PB-4, with salaries upward of Rs 52,000 per month. The IAS, which generally witnesses faster promotions, will no doubt form the majority in this club.

Armed forces personnel retire early, while civil servants serve till the age of 60. Besides, career progression in the armed forces is slow and limited.

All IAS officers can become joint secretaries in just 14 years, while only 3.5 per cent of army officers can reach the equivalent rank of major general, and that too, after 33 years of service. Even after attaining the position, an army officer will only serve for another five years before he retires.

The bureaucrat, on the other hand, will enjoy the benefits of the equivalent position for 19 years before retiring. “It is the third battle of the pecking order (after the two previous pay commissions),” says Major General Surjit Singh (retired), adding, “It is difficult to say who will win or lose this struggle, but the nation will definitely lose.”

The IPS Central Association has also expressed concern over the downgrading of the position of state directorgeneral of police (DGP) vis-à-vis that of the state chief secretary.
Bureaucracy
All civil servants can reach the New Pay Bracket 4, which starts at Rs 52,000 per month.
Grade pays for all IAS officers. Since grade pays will now define the status of a position, IAS will benefit.
According to the recommendation, all IAS officers can reach the rank of joint secretary in just 14 years. The IAS witnesses faster promotions.

Armed forces
Only 3.5 per cent of armed forces officers of the rank of major general and above draw Rs 52,000 a month.
Grade pay is available to just 15 per cent of the officers, i.e., brigadiers and above.
It will take an army officer 33 years to reach an equivalent rank of major general. He can serve in the position for just five years before retirement.

Police
Less than a dozen police officials will enjoy parity with close to 200 secretary-rank IAS officials.
Grade pays for all IPS officials is three-four years slower than in the administrative service.
Promotion to the post of inspector general will take 20 years. The deputy inspector general’s post is now functional, not supervisory.

“The pay commission has only formalised the discrimination against the police force and perpetuates a colonial practice that favours the IAS. If the suggestion is to have different pay scales for IPS officers in the states and the Centre, then it should be done for IAS officers as well,” a state DGP told India Today.

Another big anomaly concerns the position of deputy inspector general (DIG) of police, which was earlier equivalent to that of a state commissioner from the IAS, but has now been made equivalent to an inspector general’s.

Even as the police service has demanded that the DIG’s post be put under a higher pay scale, it has been made a functional post instead of a supervisory one.

The army is unhappy with the imbalances in the military service pay, a monthly allowance that has been introduced by the pay commission. The IPS wants a similar police service pay, arguing that its personnel face greater risks—such as threats from anti-social elements—as compared to the other civil services.

Police officials have also been demanding risk-based pay, citing threat to life and injury. Indeed, the police force lost 4,972 officers in the last five years, with 994 casualties and over 8,000 personnel maimed/injured per year. Yet, some of the key proposals by the IPS, including a grant of hardship pay, have been turned down.

There are divisions among the Central police organisations (CPOs) too, with officials alleging that IPS officers are more concerned with their own cadre than the CPOs they head. The IPS Central Association, in a wish-list presented to Patil, has sought parity with the director-generals (DGs) of CPOs, who have been placed in a higher grade.

But as per the commission’s present recommendations, only DGs of the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Sashastra Seema Bal are in the higher pay band of Rs 80,000.

Another issue is that of grade pay for field postings at the district level. The police association has sought a higher grade pay for IPS officers in the districts so that they are not at a disadvantage as compared to IAS officers like the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate, who now come under a higher grade.

While the battle lines are drawn, it seems that the Government, which does not want any unpopularity creeping into the administrative and police machinery in a pre-election year, will extend an olive branch to calm the men in khaki.

It has already set up a high-level official committee headed by Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar to look into the pay commission report. The prime minister, too, admitted that the Commission may have fallen short of expectations.

“I would like our civil and defence services to be properly rewarded,” he told a gathering of civil servants. A vast majority of his government machinery will be waiting to see if he puts his money where his mouth is.

Insult to Soldier, Injury to Nation!

2008-05-11T03:49:00.000-07:00

In India, unlike armies in our neighbourhood, our armed forces have been traditionally apolitical and exceedingly disciplined. The Indian soldier has acquitted himself with honour in the wars that, thanks to his valour, ignited great patriotic fervour among all men and women of the country. Unfortunately for the Indian soldier, however, the worst of these wars – the ongoing ‘proxy war’ – is not as spectacular as all-out Indo-Pak wars and yet it has taken heavier toll than the combined toll of all those wars in terms of lives of our soldiers and national wealth. And it goes on unabated.

It is in such trying times that the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission have delivered a shattering blow to the soldiery demoralising the rank and file very badly. Officers and men across the three Services are stunned even though solemn and silent. Never before has the Indian soldier needed and deserved more honour, respect, love and remuneration for his sacrifices and dedication. Constitutionally, the Defence Forces have their constraints and cannot express their problems in the manner in which most of our civil services and brethren do through public demonstration. This handicap often sends wrong signals to the political leaders who are used to noise, pandemonium and violence in streets or in the House rather than quiet presentations marked with etiquette and restraint. Over the years, they have taken the silence of the armed forces for granted.

But times have changed now. Easy access to advanced means of communication has laid the whole world bare for the soldier to form his own perceptions. The speed and magnitude of socio-economic changes have obliterated the class demarcations in our society to a large extent giving rise to higher ambitions even among the village youth. The profile of Indian soldier is no longer that of the proverbial Sepoy Bhup Singh who would ‘do or die without questioning why’. The level of awareness among rank and file in the armed forces is stunningly high today. Whereas life is becoming more and more comfortable for everyone in the modern world, his operational burden is becoming heavier by the day degrading his basic comforts and heightening danger to his life. And his role is not limited only to fight terrorism and the enemy. Almost every failure of the civil administration comes to him to be redeemed. Be it emergencies like natural calamities, disaster management, or man-made catastrophic situations like communal violence, blasts, strikes, service breakdown or even heaving hapless children from death traps like bore wells left open in villages, everyone turns to the soldier – administration’s last resort and people’s most reliable saviour! A soldier is a jack of all trades!

He has had enough of it. He knows his power but is restrained by his discipline and value system drilled into him through training and tradition of chivalry by his leaders. But increasing pressures and declining honour of the profession have pushed him to the corner. He has no more space to manoeuvre and is left with only one option to choose from: kill or get killed. The writing on the wall is clear and people must be blind not to read it from the increasing number of incidents like suicide, fratricide, desertion with a large number of their frustrated leaders already queuing up to leave the service prematurely. Are our political leaders able to fathom the seriousness and real dimension of the problem? Is it merely a Services’ problem? No, it is a big national problem because our Defence Forces are the guarantors of nation’s safety and security against all kinds of threats; and their higher motivation level will always be the most significant factor in safeguarding our national interests. Therefore, those in charge of affairs of the nation have a duty to ensure maintenance of a high level of morale and motivation by requiting the soldier honourably.

Does the following verse composed in anguish by Francis Quarles long ago describe today’s Indian psyche in painfully apt terms?

“Our God and soldiers we alike adore

Only at the brink of danger; not before;

After deliverance, both are alike requited –

Our God’s forgotten and our soldiers slighted.”

Now I understand why there was mass hysteria in Indian masses eulogizing and adoring the soldier during Kargil War and why they appear oblivious of all that is happening to their hero now.. Who dared touch our soldier then? And now, who cares for a soldier whose ongoing battle and sacrifices continue but are not melodramatic enough to entertain or scare us!

High morale and fighting potential of the armed forces are a national asset and worth as much as the cost of freedom and security of the country. What you give to the soldier is not his remuneration; it is your investment in national defence. Economic growth alone cannot make India a super power in the world. Richness actually carries an element of vulnerability along. It is the strong and able armed forces that would provide credibility to the concept of ‘super power’. Belittling the soldier is, therefore, belittling the nation and weakening its defence potential at a time when India, though poised to emerge as a super power, is threatened by hordes of evil forces seeking to weaken and disintegrate India from within and without. Even as we progress economically, let us also make our future generations safe.

Whatever the notion of some of the politicians, Indian generals have an accountability and owe clarifications to the Indian public who pay for the hefty defence budget and for whose security the armed forces are maintained. And we know for certain that our generals are professionally as competent and morally as upright as the best in the world, odd aberrations here and there notwithstanding. It was a different army and their generals on whom Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington had lamented in one of his military dispatches in these words:

“When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of our General officers of this army – on whom I am to rely – I tremble; and, as Lord Chesterfield said of the Generals of this day, ‘I only hope that when the enemy reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do!”

Indian generals must not be snubbed and their opinion – be it on matters of national security or border disputes must be respected because most of those who shamelessly comment on a General’s propriety to speak to media on such matters have not treaded where the general has. In fact others must not speak out on such matters without the general’s informed counsel.

There was a time when bureaucracy in the US was influencing the political leadership in somewhat similar manner while deciding on army’s budgetary needs. In 1933 Gen MacArthur, then Chief of the US Army, did not hesitate to protest against the deep cuts in the Army’s budget. And when President Franklin Roosevelt did not relent, he roared with his characteristic disregard to personal interests, “Mr. President, when we lose the next war and an American boy lying in the mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly and an enemy foot on his throat, spits out his last curse, I want the name on his lips to be Roosevelt, not MacArthur.” He concluded by saying that he was resigning although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after Roosevelt finally yielded and reversed most of the proposed cuts.

All top generals, admirals and air marshals of India are today squirming with similar belly aches and may stand up putting country’s interests ahead of their own. Let us hope the government will not compel them to speak out loudly because military ‘loudness’ is never good for ear drums!

A General's letter in anguish to the PM

2008-05-02T03:08:00.001-07:00

Retired officers of the Indian armed forces took out a rally in Gurgaon, Haryana, on Sunday to protest against the sixth Pay Commission report. The rally was held in Gurgaon as the Central government refused to allow it to be held in New Delhi and didn't even allow them to lay a wreath on India Gate to pay homage to soldiers who gave their lives for the country.

Commodore Uday Bhaskar told rediff.com, "The Sixth pay commission's recommendation, if implemented, will not help raise the morale of the armed forces. The Indian fauj (forces), once the noble 'profession of arms', will be reduced to a ignoble 'profession of alms' by a callous politico-bureaucratic elite."

General Nirmal Chander Vij, former Chief of Army Staff, wrote a letter in anguish to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh against the adverse implications of the sixth pay commission on the armed forces.

The army's foremost strategist and a Kargil war-decorated soldier, General Vij was country's 21st Chief of Army Staff. The letter written on April 17, 2008, speaks volumes about the armed forces' dissatisfaction, which no government can ignore.

The copy of the letter written by N C Vij to Dr Singh is reproduced below.

Adverse implications of sixth Pay Commission report on the armed forces

Last week I had gone to Amritsar [Images] to attend a regimental function. I was surprised to note the intense disappointment and despondency in all the jawans, officers and their families as they spoke vociferously about how let down they felt with the sixth Pay Commission report. The services chiefs have already met the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri (defence minister) and expressed their deep concern.

As a former chief, I feel morally duty-bound to bring this fact to the notice of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in my personal capacity. I take heart from the fact, that it is under your leadership, that, in my tenure, the government went for a major improvement in the 'operational posture by sanctioning South Western Command and 9 Corps HQs with full complements and also for some restoration of self esteem of the young officers through addressing their delayed promotions-cum-service conditions, by approving Part 1 of Ajay Vikram Singh Committee report'.

If this had been followed up, through a balanced PCR and implementation of Part II of the 'AVS Report', things would have reasonably improved, but unfortunately the very opposite has happened.

The PCR has hurt the Armed Forces on the following major accounts:

Military Service Pay - (X Factor): The Military Service Pay, which has now been introduced, is intended to compensate service personnel for intangible difficulties and risks, which they experience during their service careers. While this is a welcome step, the jawans who face the greatest privations, have been given a paltry amount of Rs 1000/-.

As recommended by the three services to the Ministry of Defence, this compensation be fixed in the following manner; (i) for jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers (below Lt rank), MSP should be 62.5 per cent of their basic pay (ii) for officers, MSP be fixed at 56.5 per cent of basic pay (iii) since there is no justification for excluding Maj Generals and Lt Generals from this pay (just 300 in number), they should also be included. (iv)Lastly, as these difficult service conditions have been existing all along, the arrears must be paid wef Jan 1, 2006, as in the case of other recommendations of the Pay Commission. All these recommendations have already been made by the Defence Services.
Depressed Pay Scales and Lowering of Status of Officers: (i) In determining the grade pay of officers of the rank of Brigadiers and below, the Pay Commission has excluded the rank pay, from the scale of officers, on the ground that rank pay is an element of Military Service Pay now proposed. The exclusion of the rank pay from the pay scale has led to depressed grades of pay and lowering 'Services' status in different ranks by one rung below the extant position. This will cause immense functional problems not only for inter-se functioning vis-a-vis the civilian/police counterparts etc but also within the Armed Forces, wherein a large number of civilians are working.

The Pay Commission has upgraded the DsG of certain police forces and certain specific posts in other civil services. It is important to note that (i) Lt Generals and equivalent comprise just 0.13% of the Services Officer Cadre as against at least fifteen-twenty times more posts at that level in civil/police services and more than a hundred times in the IAS. Furthermore, the creation of posts of Special Secretaries like the earlier Additional DGP will further upset the entire status equation. The promotions in the Services are achieved (if one escapes the most extraordinary degree of supercessions) with much longer service. For example at the lower level, a Brigadier is promoted after 28 years service and a Major General with 33 years service, whereas their counterparts (in non-military services) get these promotions with 14-16 and 20 years service resulting in huge disparities. The service officers thus suffer both on account of status and total take home salary to the tune of 30-40 lakh and more.

In order to restore parity, I, therefore, strongly recommend that:- (i) ideally, the rank pay should be restored or in the very least, grade pay be linked to the length of service equivalent to that of the IAS, since the promotions in services are much slower and;(ii) For protecting the status equation of 'Lieutenant Generals' it is recommended that they must remain above DsG of Police forces and equivalent to five DsG of the PMF. It may be mentioned that in the Warrant of Precedence, all 'Lt Generals' have been placed in Article 24, whereas, DsGP are in Article 25. Hence, any disparity in pay structure will lead to an anomalous situation. Similarly, the status equations finalized in the Fifth Pay Commission for all levels must be maintained. Any further erosion of status will undermine the military leadership in the eyes of their own subordinates.
Introduction of Running Pay Band and Adverse Impact on Junior and Middle Piece (Majors to Colonels) and Brigadiers level Officers: The new scales now introduced have hurt officers of these levels very badly and are resulting in virtually negligible benefits amounting to just 10 percent or so. This aberration is likely to start a trend of resignations of large number of officers, in these ranks soon on completion of the mandatory minimum 20 years service. I gather that already more than approx 650 officers have been waitlisted for premature release. The Services, which are already heavily undersubscribed, cannot sustain this exodus. One additional pay band is required to be introduced here to ensure suitable benefits to officers at all levels. There is, thus, a need to have two pay bands, one between Lt to Lt Colonels and the other between Colonels to Brigadiers with suitable raise linked to the length of service.
Lateral Shift and Assured Second Career for Men-'A Myth': The Pay Commission recommendations for the Services hinge, largely, on the successful implementation of the lateral transfer of the service personnel, into the PMFs/Central Police Organizations (CPOs). Thus, these recommendations have been 'based on and got eroded' in the garb of a possible future lateral shift and assured second career. The scheme of lateral transfer, if not implemented or delayed, would negate the most core underlying concept/assumption of these recommendations. I may submit here, that this particular recommendation has been attempted for implementation for decades (included in the Fifth Pay Commission Report also) but with no success earlier. Nor will it succeed in future for the obvious reasons. All Pay Commission recommendations thus need to be re-examined in the absence of this basic assumption of lateral transfer. The lateral transfer was also considered earlier actively and dropped, when I was the Vice Chief.
Safeguarding of Interest of the Pensioners: Over the past two decades, the government has been able to achieve some parity in the pensions of the current and past retirees. 'One rank one pension' was more or less achieved for the men, and in the case of officers, some minimum parity was brought in by grant of pension at the bottom of scale of the rank in which they retired. However, with introduction of running pay bands and the absence of top and bottom of the scales for any rank, the parity with specific bands, achieved over some time now, will be lost. There is, thus, a need to protect the interests of the past retirees by suitable modifications and thereby ensuring enhanced pensionary benefits to the tune of minimum 30%.
'Anomalies Committee' is Unlikely to Succeed in Addressing the Grievances of the Armed Forces: I have read in the media that an Anomalies Committee has been set up to look into the issues raised by everyone. This will not solve the problems of the Armed Forces for two reasons: (a) The Lack of Sensitivity/ Understanding -- This committee, which does not even have representatives of the armed forces as their members, will never be able to achieve a deep understanding or be sensitive enough to their problems. It is for this reason of lack of sensitivity, that the status of the Indian Armed Forces has undergone constant erosion with every Pay Commission Report. (b) Problems are of Basic Principles and Not Mere Technicalities -- The anomalies committees can address the technicalities but our problems are on account of the core concepts and approach and not merely of technicalities. The problems of the Services can be solved, only with the involvement of the leadership of the country. Therefore, a 'Group of Ministers' alone will be able to address these issues.
Summary of Recommendations:
(a) Lateral Shift and Assured Second Careers for Men: Since all recommendations for the men are based on an assured second career, which is likely to be a non starter, a time limit of one year be fixed for implementation of the proposal of 'lateral shift'. In the interim, all related recommendations for men be reviewed and made applicable as suggested in this paper based on the existing scenario.
(b) Military Service Pay: As recommended by the three services to the Ministry of Defence, this compensation be fixed in the following manner (i) for jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers, MSP should be 62.5 per cent of their basic pay (ii) for officers at all levels, it should be fixed at 56.5 per cent of their basic pay (iii) since, there is no justification for excluding Major Generals and Lt Generals from this pay (just 300 in number), they should also be included for benefits as all other officers. (iv)Lastly, as these difficult service conditions have been existing all along, the arrears must be paid wef January 1 2006, as in case of other recommendations of the Pay Commission.
(c) Depressed Pay Scales and Restoration of Status of Officers: In order to restore parity, the recommendations are (i) ideally, the rank pay should be restored or alternatively the grade pay be linked to the length of service equivalent to that of the IAS, since the promotions in the services are much slower and fewer. (ii) with a view to protect the status equations of Lt Generals, they should be above DsG of Police forces and be equivalent to that of the five DsG of the PMFs and remain in Article 24 of the Warrant of Precedence and lastly (iii) the status equations finalized in the Fifth Pay Commission report must be maintained in all the ranks.
(d) Introduction of Running Pay Band and Adverse Impact on Junior and Middle Piece Officers: To offset the disadvantages of virtually no benefits to junior and middle level officers and also the factor of much delayed-cum-fewer promotions, an additional pay band be introduced. There should, thus, be two pay bands; one for Lt to Lt Cols and second for Colonels to Brigadiers with suitable raise linked to the length of service.
(e) Protection of Pension for Past Retirees: Fixation of pension scale for the past retirees be done in a manner that their interests are protected and they get raise in their pensions to the tune of minimum 30 percent.
(f) Group of Ministers: It is recommended that a GOM be appointed to examine the grievances of the Services. Till the time, their recommendations are finalized, the Pay Commission Report for the Services be held up.

Conclusion
Sir, you yourself hail from a state, which has traditionally produced soldiers. You would have often wondered, as to why a supremely fit jawan/JCO who retires at the young age of 42-48, ages and grows old so fast. It is because he has no resources to fall back upon to ensure a decent living for his family after his early retirement. This problem gets further accentuated with the constraints of even poor farming conditions. Why should a soldier retire at this early age (other services serve upto 60 years) and why this man who has served the Nation so valiantly not be given a second career by way of 'lateral transfer', which alas will never come about.

The service conditions have become even tougher and more risk prone today than what they were when we joined the service in 1962, because of the pressures of 'insurgency'. Insurgency poses nearly as much physical danger as a war. A soldier is thus exposed to constant risks and yet he retains the motivation to build a 'fence of 650 km length at varying altitudes upto 14000 ft' in six to nine months flat, to successfully defeat the infiltration. The foreign armies are studying the underlying reasons of such a high level of motivation and dedication.

In the Indian Armed Forces, a jawan/officer serves almost every alternate tenure of three years in the insurgency environment, whereas all other armies in the world are not being able to sustain even one 'nine months' tenure. Officers and their jawans do it for the izzat (honour) but this raison d'etre is now getting deflated with such Pay Commission reports, and all their expectations are being shattered.

I strongly urge you Sir, to appoint a 'GOM' for the armed forces and withhold the implementation of this report, for the defence services, till the justice is given to them. The armed forces cannot sustain any continuation of poor intake of officers and also current wave of resignation requests. Already, the Indian Military Academy and OTA, Chennai are reporting a drop in the intake by over 70 per cent. In case of jawans, this recruitment trend will continue yet for a few more years, but their level of motivation will drop. The country cannot afford either of these situations.
N C Vij

LET DOWN BY SIXTH PAY COMMISSION

2008-05-02T03:01:00.000-07:00

Omission & Commission

Unfortunately the Sixth Pay Commission has not been able to address to the perennial problems of the services-inspite of giving some financial benefits which appear bloated on careful analysis. This has happened due to the absence of any member from the services which constitute 40% of the central government employees. Perhaps such a dispensation had been intentional to deny to the services their due as always?

Comparing the Comparables

Comparisons are odious & should not be made unless there is common denominator. Therefore equating service officers with others having civil interface is based on wrong premises as evident from long que for premature retirement only amongst defence officers & total absence on the other side. While most of the service personnel have to work post retirement to keep the wolf away-there is seldom even naib- tahsildars that any such have such need. Has this reality of modern India engaged the attention of the Pay Commission? This Why so has to considered as Factor Y into any new pay dispensation.

Should the salary of a pilot flying ancient single engine MiG -21 from desert airfields in the hot afternoons have some semblance with that of a commercial pilot cruising latest multi -engine Airbus with co-pilot, state of the art autopilot & latest navigational aids? Similarly the pay of captain of an old aircraft carrier with unfaithful Harriers now not onboard must have some correspondence with the Captain of maritime ship who earn upward of a few lacs a month. And what should be the salary of an Air Commodore commanding n airbase base with one fighter squadrons & two transport squadrons doing day & night flying –carrying out air supply missions to far flung border outposts on the roof of Himalaya- besides supporting civil air traffic-in addition to defending the air space over an entire region? By that count where should the Corps Commander of J&K fit in? There is no use equating a brigadier with a DIG or the Chief of Air Staff to the Cabinet Secretary. Comparing a fighter pilot with commercial pilot, an engineer in the armed forces with another manger in say L&T would seem more logical than equating a Lt Gen with a Secretary to the GOI?

Century for Pensioners

Defence pensioners have been left high & dry once again. One rank one pension or restoration of full pension after 12 years has been thrown out. Increasing pension at 80, 90 & 100 years is symbolism at its best or double century which never was. The number of centurion pensioners at best could be in two figures at All India level? What about lowering the age bar by 10 years at every stage -starting at 70 years with full restoration & 20% hike?

With faster promotion these days & upping at least by one rank due to abolition of the 2 Lt rank- the pension of old timers could have been fixed appropriately instead of unnecessary mathematical tabulation. An old timer Lt Col can be given pension applicable to the present day Colonel. Major Dhanapalan anomaly of mass scale deprivation of an entire class of service officers which really fixed them during the fourth CPC has been just carried over.

Interim Measure

Now that every one in defence is unhappy about the recommendations -best should be to ignore it & give reasonable interim relief say @ 50 % of the basic plus dearness pay or 20000/- for officers & 50% of pay & dearness pay or Rs 8,000/- for the soldiers –whichever be higher as on 01 Jan 2006. The interim relief can be half of this amount for pensioners.

Defence Commission

The way there has been chorus against the Sixth CPC & even the service chiefs are unhappy about it-the Govt would do well to constitute a new Commission with adequate members from armed forces –both serving & retired –to focus on the problems faced by the services in holistic manner. We need a person who can be Shri Krishna & guide the nation in how to bring up the sagging morale of the defence forces as manifest from unacceptable number of vacant berths in the services. Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh, DFC best fits the bill. May be the Five Star living legend of our times can do justice where Sixth CPC could not go beyond superfluous touches in the passing.

Areas of Concern

The Defence Commission could look into the following problems-

In depth Analysis. Candid study should be made why services has become the last choice of our young men these days. Apart from low pay, unsettled life and remote chances of going beyond Colonel’s rank – the services have lost the glory & pride it used to command once upon a time. The service people must get place in the present day money driven society. Barring few exceptions the wards of service personnel are shunning services. Therefore there must be something drastically wrong which needs to identified & remedied.

Pay & Perks. The pay should get multiplied by Factor X to take into account-Hard service conditions, being on duty 24 hours a day, risk involved, unsettled & separated life, need to have two establishments etc. Then there could be Factor Y multiplier as above. Apart from this there could incentives like Income & Municipal tax breaks. Like agricultural income, the services pay & pension can be taken out of IT net to salute the soldier?

Service Conditions. There is urgent need to improve service conditions like-accommodation, clothing, ration, transportation, number of postings, education facilities & opportunity for the spouse to work in the same station.

Younger Services . Human factors involved in retiring soldiers at an age when they are not young enough to pick up the threads of an entirely a new profession or old enough to idle at home on meager pension be studied & resolved. Soldiers can be given some land under ceiling in cities or along the borders to bolster security besides helping them out? If land could be given to multinationals –it could be as well those who are keeping us united in the face of so much adverse conditions?

Lateral Induction. The scope of lateral entry needs to be enlarged to include professionals like airmen from technical trades who can be issued Basic Aircraft Maintenance Engg License (BAMEL) by the service instead of going through the DGCA loop. It would be quite interesting to note that most of the instructors in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering schools training aspirants for BAMEL- have retired airmen as instructors. Those who have spent an entire lifetime in servicing military aircraft like AN-32, Gajraj, Boeings in VIP Squadron or the Mirage-2000 would require DGCA certificate even to put chocks or refuel an airliner! Similar arrangements also need to be made for the service pilots for issue of Commercial Pilot License by the services. The gaps in civil requirements can be filled up by in-house pre-release training by the services. To keep the services young there could be lateral induction in IAS/IPS also from the defence forces.

University Diplomas. There are lots of other trades in the three services which can be useful in civil sector provided there is recognized certification. The retiring soldiers can be issued proper degree or diploma certificates based on trade tests/ service courses by tie up with Universities of repute.

We owe it to them? Retired soldiers are great human resource asset of our nation & must be dovetailed into the economy for growth. They can also be brand ambassadors of the services more than futile ad campaigns –only if they are not forgotten as these days. The Sainik Boards can be put under dynamic senior retired generals- who can really look after the welfare of retired people. There could be surplus land allotment to the retiring soldiers & the state governments too can do their bit by earmarking plot for the serving & retired defence persons. It was long ago in the Sixties when S Partap Singh Kairon – showed such empathy for the service personnel.

Paradise Lost. Problems we all have been loath to discuss like restoration of lost glory & protocol apart from attractive pay package to attract bright young men to the profession of soldiering once again needs to be addressed by the proposed defence commission. The bottom line is that the armed forces are short of 25% officers & cradles of leadership both at National Defence Academy & Indian Military Academy are half empty.

Safeguarding Freedom

If we have to safeguard our independence- gained just six decades back after centuries of subjugation-even under slave dynasty, there in need to make services once again preferred career destination for intelligent young men of courage & conviction who can fire straight from the gun. The recent defence budget of merely 1.98 % of the GDP has already put us in the danger zone. In the present uncertain geo-political situations, unrest in Tibet & Chinese postures in Arunachal Pradesh, hostile neighbor hood, possible disruptions by various terror groups, naxalism & immature divides amongst people- the armed forces remain the only hope to keep us united. This hope must be kept alive at all costs.

Setting Example
Once upon a time, even the scions of royalty used to deem it a great honor to serve in the armed forces. To understand what it means to defend the nation our leaders must make it a matter of pride to have at least one of their sons or daughters in the armed forces to serve the nation instead of straightway making them members of the legislatures. They can take heart from Prince Harry of Britain who came back safe from the military stint in Afghanistan-undoubtedly one of the most dangerous place on earth,

A shattered army - Pay commission has ill-served the nation

2008-04-25T18:39:00.000-07:00

THE Indian army, used here generically to include the navy and the air
force, has now reached the end of its tether, with the Sixth Pay
Commission's recommendations for the defence forces. The citizens of
our country have not really understood the magnitude of despair
amongst the rank and file of the army. There is great anger and a high
degree of frustration at every level, but particularly at the level of
the PBORs (personnel below officers' rank) and the junior and middle
level officers. Both constitute the 'cutting edge' of the defence
forces.

India has a hundred per cent volunteer army. Officers and men have
joined the army for a variety of reasons, the main ones being the
honour that comes by wearing the uniform; a desire to serve the nation
in the best way possible; family traditions; and of course, suitable
remunerations that are compatible with the highly turbulent conditions
of service.

Its ethos has been painfully nurtured by the hierarchy of the army for
the last 60 years, despite major provocations from many quarters,
especially the self-serving bureaucracy, which the country has to
unfortunately endure. The latter has consistently prevailed on the
political leadership and subtly instilled fear amongst them that the
army needs to be kept down, lest it also follow what militaries in the
immediate neighbourhood and in the extended region have done, in
usurping power by force.

This is despite the unflinching loyalty the army has displayed in even
the most difficult circumstances. It is surprising that our political
leadership, which is so astute in politicking, nurturing vote banks
and diffusing highly volatile situations of all types, has been unable
to see through this game of the bureaucrats. Or is it that they
deliberately do not want to understand it?

The institutions, structures, ethos and working environment built
painstakingly and prevailing in the army, ensures that all ranks fully
understand their duties, obligations and power-equations in a
democracy like ours. In simple terms, it means that the nation has
nothing to fear from the army. The earlier it is understood by the
political leadership and all other instruments of the state, the
better.

The defence forces came under the purview of pay commissions with the
Third Pay Commission and since then every pay commission, loaded as it
was by the bureaucracy, has worked very hard to ensure that there is a
gradual decline in the pay, emoluments and the status of all military
personnel.

All requests by the hierarchy of the defence forces to set up separate
pay commissions for the military have been studiously ignored and at
the behest of the bureaucracy, even a representative of the defence
forces has not been permitted to form part of any of the pay
commissions. This, when nearly 40 per cent of the government servants
under the purview of the pay commission are defence forces personnel!

That the defence forces have tolerated this skewed arrangement speaks
on one side of the perseverance, patience and discipline of the
defence forces and, on the other, the utter insensitivity of the
political leadership to the only institution that works effectively in
our country. The Sixth Pay Commission has of course taken the cake for
their utterly callous approach to the guardians of the nation.

There is no need to emphasise what has already been stated regarding
the highly adverse effect the recommendations of the pay commission
will have on the intake of officers in the defence forces, except to
state that every middle level serving officer I have talked to has
either already put in his papers or is planning to do so shortly.

The disastrous implications need not be amplified when it is well
known that our fighting units are already functioning at 50 per cent
strength of officers. The PBOR, unfortunately, do not have the option
of leaving the service, because they will end up with no jobs,
considering the present situation in the country of gross unemployment
and under-employment. However, in the long run, the impact of the
recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission on the PBOR is bound to be
a fall in standards of the recruits who will be willing to serve for
the peanuts thrown at them by the Commission.

The government's response to the large-scale resentment has been the
usual ploy of forming a committee! First, a committee of three
bureaucrats was formed, but it was the Railway Minister, at whose
behest an enlarged Review Committee has now been formed, while the
Minister of Defence only repeated homilies and soothing words, as he
had done in the past!

Even the Review Committee has no representative from the defence
forces, while the railways, the postal department and sundry others
not so well known, have found a place for themselves. So, we are back
to square one. This committee will repeat, ad nauseum, what the
Commission has stated, perhaps in more flowery language, except for
some minimal tinkering that will satisfy no one in the defence forces.

A continuation of such inadequate and delaying tactics will slowly
destroy a first rate army, which has served the nation with sacrifices
and élan and has saved the nation umpteen times in these last 60
years. The political leadership is either unable or unwilling to
ameliorate the genuine demands of the defence forces.

Under the circumstances, it may be best to disband the army and let
the bureaucracy become 'pseudo soldiers' and look after the security
of the nation. In the bargain, they will be able to further improve
their cadre too! If the reader discerns a sense of cynicism, déjà vu
and desperation, it is indeed intended. Sudden death would any day be
a more satisfactory arrangement. The noble "profession of arms" is
being turned into a "profession of alms"!

DDA eyeing Navy submarine for museum

2008-04-17T07:19:00.000-07:00

So what if the Capital is thousands of miles away from the sea? If the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has its way, Delhiites will soon have an added attraction on their must-see list in the form of a submarine. The Indian Navy has offered DDA one of the two Russian-made Foxtrot submarines it plans to decommission soon. The idea is to use the mammoth seacraft - 92 metres in length - to create a submarine museum which will be an educational and tourist attraction in the run-up to the 2010 Commonwealth Games.

Having decided in principle to accept the Navy's offer, DDA is now working on the modalities of who would bear the cost of transporting the submarine from its present base in Vishakhapatnam. A DDA team recently visited the southern port town where the country's first submarine museum was set up by the development authority there. The museum today is a major tourist attraction and boasts of a decommissioned submarine. The idea is that instead of letting decommissioned submarines rot as scrap, it is better to use them for educational purposes.

DDA's director public relations Neemo Dhar told TOI that in principle DDA has decided to opt for the offer. "But first we want to work out the modalities of bringing the submarine to Delhi and the cost involved. Also the location where the craft will be placed too has to be finalised," Dhar said.

According to senior officials, DDA has carried out inspections of various green spaces under its purview like the Millennium Park, the Swarn Jayanti Park in Rohini and another location in Dwarka but as of now a large open space near the Delhi-Noida-Delhi flyover has emerged as a plausible option for setting up the mega museum. The location has another plus to its credit as it falls along the route of the yet to be built elevated road over the Barapulla drain, connecting the Games Village to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium. If the submarine is located in the open space along this route then it will be visible to players who will use the stretch during the 2010 Games.

In the proposed museum, visitors will be introduced to the internal mechanisms of a submarine and it is likely that officials from the Navy will themselves be stationed there to impart technical information.

The Indian Navy acquired eight Foxtrot submarines between 1964 and 1974. Six of them have already been decommissioned. As of now the Navy has two of these sea crafts - INS Vela and INS Vagli - which are functional. One of these is likely to be decommissioned soon and would be the one to be handed over to the DDA for the museum. These submarines cost around Rs 75 crore and require a crew of 75, led by eight Naval officials.

The Indian Navy has 16 submarines as of now. These include 10 kilo class Russian submarines, four HDW submarines from Germany and two Foxtrot submarines.

Armed forces: Too little, too late

2008-04-17T07:17:00.001-07:00

Huge hikes for greenhorns will make the forces attractive but not enough to retain the flock. Half the army’s officer corps is still unhappy.

The armed forces hoped the Sixth Pay Commission would improve their attractiveness, increase their retainability and reduce the deficiency in the officer corps. These are three of the biggest problems the world’s second largest armed forces are grappling with and yet the report has addressed only the first problem.

A hike of over 60 per cent for young officers has somewhat levelled the playing field in the hunt for young talent and in reducing a shortage of nearly 12,000 young officers. However, a modest hike for mid-level officers like lt-colonels, colonels and brigadiers—from where the exodus is taking place—means nearly half the army’s officer corps feels left out.

A paltry pay hike for soldiers (they will get a military service pay of only Rs 1,000) is a reflection of how there is no shortage of aspirants for persons below officer rank. The new running pay band means the service chiefs, now treated on par with the cabinet secretary, will get huge pay hikes amounting to Rs 90,000 per month.

The commission has recommended a military service pay of Rs 6,000 per month for officers and lateral absorption of retired personnel of armed forces into the paramilitary forces (the armed forces retire their personnel earlier). However, the proposed pay hike will create fresh inequalities.

A young lieutenant now earning Rs 8,250 will receive Rs 25,760 or a pay hike of over 60 per cent. However, his commanding officer, a colonel with 19 years of service, will take home only Rs 44,140. The running pay band has also triggered angst because most of the armed forces’ personnel will continue to draw lower pay through their career. Almost all civil servants will reach the rank of joint secretary in 16-17 years service and remain in the higher pay band for a period of another 20 years. On the other hand, approximately 87 per cent of armed forces’ officers will never rise to the equivalent rank of major general.

The commission has recommended a significant improvement in terminal benefits—gratuity has been raised from Rs 3.5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. The underlying message to the armed forces is “come join us if you have it in you. Serve for 20 years and then go fend for yourselves”, says Major General Surjit Singh (retired).

The commission is silent on short service commissions, something critical for ensuring the army can fill in vacant slots and has shot down the one-rank-one pension scheme which figured in the UPA’s election manifesto and was meant to redress the imbalance between retired personnel. The forecast is that after the initial euphoria, old problems will return to haunt the armed forces

to the editor

2008-04-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Editor,

1. This in reference to the article carried in your newspaper, New Delhi
Edition, 30 Mar 2008 : Cost to Govt 4 Times the salary on paper. (Article
attached).

2. I think the article is totally misleading and will spread
misinformation amongst the masses! How has Ashish Sinha and XLRI Jamshedpur
arrived at the conclusion that Cost to Government (CTG) of Armed Forces
officers is 4.5 times of the salary is baffling. The conclusion is
scandalous, blasphemous and in poor taste! Ironically, these are the same
arguments which have been presented in the VI Pay Commission report while
fixing the salaries of defence Forces officers. Let me decimate these so
called 'intangibles' given by Ashish Sinha and possibly XLRI Jamshedpur in
support of this conclusion one by one.

3. Housing : Where are these 'sprawling bungalows' in which the defence
officers are supposedly living. Being an Army Wife of an officer who has
had an unblemished 31 years career in the Army so far and who has not done
so badly, I have never ever lived in any of these sprawling bungalows. We
have been always been allotted dilapidated flats, crumbling at the seams
and the houses and the colonies represent Bombay Chawls. Mostly even this
sub standard accommodation is not available and one has to make do with
temporary arrangements ranging from a single room in a crumbling British
era building, to a lower class of accommodation till one finally gets the
authorised accommodation (Mind you it is 1500 square feet and not 3500
square feet as stated by the VI pay commission in its report). If one gets
authorised scale of accommodation at all before one gets posted out. All
this in the same station involving two to three shiftings in a two years
tenure. The houses are poorly constructed to begin with and are maintained
by an organisation called MES (Has XLRI interacted with MES??). The icing
on the cake is provided by MES by simultaneously charging rent for all the
accommodations (once occupied by you in this shifting process). It is often
very late that one realises that one is supposedly occupying so many
accommodations simultaneously on paper and being charged for them!!! The
sorting out process which involves another such organisation as the MES,
gives one a real taste of the bureaucratic process!!! So much for the
sprawling bungalows!!!!

4. CSD : What is available in the CSD and how much of these items does
one buy monthly? The total items purchased per month do not cost more than
Rs 600/- to 700/- and the saving accrued is not more than Rs 200/- per
month i.e. if one discounts the effort involved to get to the CSD (i.e.
when it is open) provided the required item is available and finally the
quality is good and competitive brands and contemporary brands are
available. With the retail revolution now taking place in the country, most
of the times better stuff is available in the market at lesser or same
rates and then these can be bought at 11.00 p.m at night!! In my entire
life as an army wife (25 years), I do not think we have saved more than Rs
70,000/- by buying things from CSD. This includes purchase of a car!!! So
much for CSD contributing to 4.5 times CTG!!!

5. House Building Advance : Please tell XLRI Jamshedpur and Ashish Sinha
to publish factual details of total housing loans taken by Army Officers
from private banks (HDFC, ICICI) vis-à-vis the government loan. The
details will be eye opening!! Haat kangan ko arsi kya, parhe likhe ko
pharsi kya!!! Had these Govt loans been so easily available and so
lucrative, 90% loans would not be taken by officers from private banks!!!

6. 90 Days Leave : You need leave when you serve away from families. Let
Ashish Sinha do a stint in a field area and probably then he'll start
campaigning for even more leave for soldiers. Secondly, which soldier gets
full quota of leave? Lastly, do not private companies give all expenses
paid holidays to their employees? Any such parallel in a govt job?

7. Travel Passes : Need for travel arises only because one serves away
from home. Even then, the annual saving on account of subsidised travel by
any average army family (including travel not necessitated by service
conditions and for personal purposes alone) cannot exceed Rs 4-5 K
annually. Mind you, this figure too is on the higher side!!

8. I guess it has become rather fashionable to talk about the abnormal
privileges being enjoyed by defence services. Some other so called perks
have not been touched upon in your article hence I need not elaborate on
those and make efforts to decimate them too. But I assure you that they too
are all a fallacy and are easily torn to shreds.

9. Finally, I have one suggestion to make to the powers that be and to
those who are responsible for perpetrating this fallacy that an army
officer's CTG is 4.5 times his salary – please withdraw all such
intangibles {CSD, govt houses (ramshackles), free rations, form D and
warrants, 50% air travel concession (who travels and when??) orderlies etc
etc!!} and pay us 4.5 times of what has been proposed by the VI pay
commission!!! Acceptable? I am sure I am voicing the opinion of bulk of the
middle rung officers of the Army!

10. Please do publish our sheer disappointment with your esteemed
newspaper for carrying such blasphemous articles!!

11. JAI HIND!!

RUN SILENT RUN DEEP

2008-04-01T10:07:00.000-07:00

The Evolution of the Submarine

The submarine came into its own during World War I, it’s devastating lethality and near-invincibility reinforced during and after World War II, and its nuclear propulsion and teeth giving it virtually limitless range and calamitous destructive power during the post-World War II years. However, it made a fairly late entry into India's naval fleet, possibly because the submarine was earlier considered an 'offensive' weapon platform and hence could not have a place in the arsenal of a country that had pledged to abide by the principles of peace.

Since the capability to operate in the third element - me subsurface -has now been added to the Indian Navy's repertoire, it is essential that the evolution of the submarine from its tentative conceptual state in the 16tR: century to its present day status of being the prime dealer of destruction at sea, as well as the significant role it played in shaping the ends of the two World Wars, be studied in detail before apprising oneself of the process of establishment of the submarine arm in the Indian Navy. This chapter provides a brief resume of such developments around the globe.

While addressing the men of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service during World War II, Winston Churchill had said; 'Of all the branches of men in the Forces, there is none that shows more devotion and faces greater perils than the submariner . . . great deeds are done in the air and on the land, nevertheless nothing surpasses your exploits.' Indeed, nothing can transcend the tour de force that the submarine has displayed and the impact of the revolutionary changes in the concept; both strategic arid tactical, of the war at sea brought about by its invention. Besides, its use for opera-ions against a wide variety of targets during the last century have been far greater than that of the supersession of the oared galley by the sailing galleon, the sailing ship of the line by the steam ironclad, the battleship by the carrier-borne and shore-based maritime aircraft, and the diesel-electric propulsion systems of submarines, by the nuclear power plant.

Adoption of new techniques, technology, strategy or tactics, weaponry and weapon platforms generally require a fairly long lead time because their potential and advantages over the existing techniques, tactics, etc, have to be convincingly established before they are introduced in any Service. Oared galleys continued to be constructed for England's Navy for several years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada; even thirty years after the first battleship had been fitted with engines, steam ironclads continued to be equipped with sails, and when World War II was coming to an end in 1945, the British Admiralty was still working on a new design for a 16-inch gun turret. For similar reasons, despite the developments in submarine technology in Europe and America concurrently with those in Great Britain, the Royal Navy woke up to the danger posed by submarines only after the outbreak of World War I when the armored cruisers, Cressy, Hoque and Aboukir, were sunk by one small German U-boat as a result of which the Grand Fleet's method of cruising the sea had to be drastically altered. J& fact, until the time they learnt their lessons the hard way, the British had been doing their best to discourage the development of submarines because they still believed that they, with their huge surface navy, had nothing to gain and much to lose by their development. As a result of the adoption of this attitude, the design of the first submarine for the Royal Navy had to be purchased from America for construction in Britain and, what is even more surprising, this class of submarines were built not to supplement the British war effort but only to enable the British designers to find an antidote to them! It is significant to note that until October 1, 1901, when the Royal Navy's Submarine Service came into being with the launching of Submarine No, 1(129 tons), the popular view in Britain, which has a seafaring history spanning several millennia, was that submarines were 'underhand, unfair and damned un-English'.

This is of course not surprising as there is no profession so wedded to tradition as the military. During World War I the machine gun had been scorned as the 'much-overrated weapon'; the tank was thought of as a 'toy'; Marshal Joffre had refused to have a telephone installed in his office; poison gas was reluctantly adopted by the British after its use by the Germans was classified as a mere 'accessory'; the trench mortar was projected twice by the British War Office and was finally accepted after a cabinet minister secured the funds for it from an Indian maharaja; British subalterns got 'their swords sharpened before crossing to France; and as late as 1918 ‘Pershing had cluttered up his supply lines with mountains of fodder for useless horses, still dreaming of Custer and Sheridan and the glint of Virginia moonlight on the shirting saddles of Stuart's cavalry.’

Early History

There are occasional references in ancient history to the attempts made by man to seek stealth and surprise by operating from submerged or semi- submerged vessels during wars at sea. The very early protagonists of the submarine were not so much inspired by the desire to descend below the surface of the sea to explore the depths of the sea as to devise a method of rendering a warship invisible to the enemy so that it could carry out surreptitious attacks and escape at will.

The earliest reference to attempts made at waging underwater warfare is found in the writings of Aristotle who recorded that Alexander the Great used diving bells to enable his men to descend below the surface of the sea during the siege of Tyre in 332 B.C. He also ordered his divers to impede or destroy the defensive barriers still in use and known as boom defenses) the city was likely to build to prevent the movement of submerged vessels. In fact, according to legend, Alexander himself made a descent into the sea in a device which kept its occupants dry and admitted light-However it is believed that nearly a century earlier than Alexander's experiments; the Athenians had used divers to clear the entrance to the Syracuse harbour during its siege from 415 to 413 B.C.

Over the following two millennia the potential and the tactical advantages of operating below the surface of the sea continued to be appreciated by many military thinkers and several attempts were made during this period to develop an underwater platform that could be used against enemy shipping and war vessels far more effectively than surface ships, both for offensive and defensive operations. In the 16th century, during the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci, is said to have designed a vessel which could dive, remain submerged for some time and surface unaided end could surreptitiously plant bombs or mines on enemy vessels, but the design of this submarine was kept secret because da Vinci he felt that man would misuse it- 'He knew a method of remaining a long time underwater, but he refused to tell of it because of the "evil nature of man”.

The Submersible Takes Shape

Experiments in diving and moving underwater continued but the first recorded mention of a submarine design conforming to the basic principles of submersion is found in the writings of a British naval officer, William Bourne, who published a detailed design of a 'boat that may go under the water' in 1578. The vessel was a completely enclosed boat which could be submerged by reducing its volume by contracting the sides through the use of hand vices, which could bring the boat back to the surface by increasing the volume. This vessel could also move underwater by using watertight oars. This realistic design provided for both submersibility and propulsion underwater but was never built.

Twenty-seven years later, in 1605, using a design similar to Bourne's, Magnus Pegelius constructed a submersible boat but due to the viscosity and adhesive properties of underwater mud the craft never surfaced after diving.

In 1620, a Dutch physician, Cornelius van Drebel, built a submarine and successfully conducted trials in the Thames River, making the craft cruise repeatedly on the surface, dive, maneuver underwater and then surface for several hours at a stretch. He later built two more craft, embodying the same principles, but larger in size. Van Drebel’s craft had an outer hull made of greased leather stretched over a wooden framework. Propulsion was provided, both on the surface and while submerged, by oars which extended through the sides and which were sealed and rendered watertight with tight-fitting leather flaps which allowed free transverse movement while anchoring the oars to the hull. The underwater endurance of the submarine crew was sought to be enhanced by using compressed oxygen to 'restore to the troubled air such portion of vital parts as would make it again, for a good while, fit for respiration/After repeated trials in the Thames river had established the capabilities of the new 'boat' in travelling on the surface and maneuvering underwater at depths of 12 to 15 feet, King James I is reported to have taken a trip in one of the larger models to demonstrate its safety. But despite the conclusive proof of the designers having evolved a powerful two-dimension weapon platform, the novel features of the submarine failed to arouse the interest of the British Navy.

The wars in the 17th century in Europe, however, Jed to a proliferation of submarine designs some of which were the work of men from professions other than those associated with the navy or seafaring; in fact some of the designers were men of peace, i.e., priests and monks! One such designer was Oliver Cromwell's brother-in-law, John Wilkins, Bishop of London. His device for jettisoning gash through an underwater lock while remaining submerged led to the development of underwater lavatories in the latter-day submarines which obviated the need for the submarine to surface repeatedly. He also wrote on future naval developments and centuries later many of his predictions turned out to be true; such as his prediction of journeys by submarines under the Polar ice-cap, an idea which was dismissed as science fantasy In the 17th century.

By the middle of the 17th century, many naval architects had conceptualized and experimented with possible submersible weapon platforms. In 1653, a Frenchman, de Son, designed and built a 72-foot submarine 'that doeth undertake in one day to sink 100 ships' but his submarine never sailed, as its prime mover, a clockwork device, was not powerful enough to propel it on the surface or underwater.

The earlier decades of the 18th century saw numerous 'underwater boats' built, the British designers alone having patented no fewer than fourteen types by 1727. The concept of using a ballast tank for submerging and diving was first visualized by an inventor who described his design in the Gentleman's Magazine ml747. The hull of his craft was equipped with a bank of goatskins which would be filled with water to make the vessel submerge and a 'twisting rod' would be used to force the water out of the goatskins which would provide positive buoyancy and bring the Vessel back to the surface. This craft, however, was never built. At this time the mechanical and physical principles involved in diving and surfacing were yet to be fully understood and hence many of the ideas put forward turned out to be impractical, fanciful or, in some cases, even grotesque. Besides the lack of understanding of the principles, the general impression at this time was that it would be impossible to navigate a craft underwater and even if it became possible, its tactical advantages in naval warfare would be minimal.

The First Submarine, Bushnell's Turtle

However, developments of a submersible craft with weapon delivery capability received a shot in the arm in 1776 when the first submarine that could dive, surface, cruise -both on the surface and underwater-and plant explosives on enemy vessels while remaining submerged, made a dramatic appearance during the American War of Independence. David Bushnell, an American farmer's son, had developed the technique of exploding gunpowder underwater and had followed it up with the invention of the first one-man submersible that was to be used as a weapon platform, the Turtle. Shaped like a wooden beer-barrel, it was powered by a hand-operated screw propeller which could move it at a speed of three knots. It could stay submerged for 30 minutes during which it had to approach its target underwater, plant an explosive on its hull and get away.

It was on September 6, 1776, 29 years before the Battle of Trafalgar, that Ezra Lee, a sergeant in the American Revolutionary Army and the first submariner to launch an underwater operation against enemy vessels, undertook to scuttle Eagle, the Flagship of the British Fleet which was blockading New York Harbour, by planting a powerful explosive on its hull. He set off on his historic mission all by himself on board the Turtle and, operating the handle of the screw-propeller hard for several hours, reached the Eagle and dived. The Turtle then got under the hull of the Flagship and Lee tried to bore a screw device into the Eagle's hull for securing the explosive device to it. Later, a pre-set clockwork mechanism would trigger the explosive device. Unfortunately for Lee, the wooden hull of the Flagship had a sheathing of copper for reinforcement and prevention of the formation of any marine growth. Despite repeated attempts, Lee failed to penetrate the hull. He persisted with his efforts to plant the device, but soon the effects of carbon dioxide poisoning overwhelmed him. He then withdrew, surfaced and set course for shore but was spotted and pursued by a British patrol-beat. Lee jettisoned the explosive cargo and it went off, almost blowing the patrol-boat out of the water.

The Commander of the British Fleet soon realised that his Flagship had had a narrow escape and ordered the blockading ships of his fleet to withdraw to the outer harbour, where they were comparatively safer, but the effectiveness of the blockade was considerably reduced. Thus while the first sub-surface attack in. the history of submarines had proved to be abortive, it brought home one lesson which holds good even today- that the mere presence of a submarine lurking below the surface can upset the plans of a tactical commander over a large area far more than the sinking of a ship. In other words, the fear of the unknown and the element of surprise area greater deterrent at sea than an actual attack. Submarine warfare thus became a reality, even though the first ever submarine attack had failed to cause any physical damage.

Fulton's Nautilus

Robert Fulton, the American inventor who was the first to propel a boat by steam in 1803, and the first to build a steam warship, the Fulton, in 1815, is better remembered for having constructed a three-man submarine boat, the Nautilus, in 1795. Incorporating nearly all the main features of a modem submarine and shaped like one, the Nautilus, which was built of steel and shaped like an elongated oval, was powered by sails on the surface and by a hand-driven screw-propeller under water. Since the periscope was yet to be invented, a primitive form or a conning tower, equipped with a watertight port hole was provided and was used for observation and maneuvering the craft underwater. It was also equipped with ballast tanks for diving and surfacing, as modern submarines are, and had a submerged endurance of three hours for four men to breathe and two candles to bum! Like the Turtle, it had a device which could attach explosives to the hull of a ship while remaining underwater. During its trials at Brest, the Nautilus had also proved its capabilities by sinking an old schooner.

Since the war was over, the American naval authorities showed little interest in Fulton's submarine design, compelling him to build the Nautilus at Paris. He offered it to the authorities to deploy it off the French coast against British warships but it failed to sink or damage any ship.

Disappointed, Fulton then approached the British authorities and demonstrated the capability of his submarine craft by sinking a ship in 1804. The Prime Minister, William Pitt, was so impressed by the submarines performance that he asked the Admiralty to acquire the craft. His request was, however, dismissed by the First Sea Lord (then Earl St. Vincent) with the rather intemperate remark, 'Pitt was the greatest fool that ever existed to encourage a mode of war which those who command the sea do not want and, if successful, will deprive them of it/

For about 60 years after the disappearance of the Nautilus, inventors continued to test various designs of small, hand-propelled submersibles with a crew of six to eight men. None of these was, however, an improvement on Fulton's craft, and hence no progress towards further development of submersibles was discernible. However, during the American Civil War the next nautical milestone in submarine development was recorded, with the sinking of a warship by a submarine, when a Federal corvette, the Housatonic, which v/as blockading Charleston harbour, was scuttled by the Confederate submersible David (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the name of the submersible was Hartley) in 1864. An explosive pack, suspended ahead of the bow of the David from a bowsprit, accomplished the feat when the submersible rammed the corvette. However, when the Housatonic was salvaged, the mangled wreck of the David was found sandwiched between the corvette's hull and the seabed. Because of the submersible's proximity to the Housatonic, the explosive had proved to be as much of a danger to the attacker as to its target. The Housatonic thus had the dubious honour of being the first surface vessel to be sunk by a submarine (and the first surface vessel to have crushed a submarine in an unintended Kamikaze attack).

Progress in submarine development continued to be bedeviled by the absence of a suitable propulsion device to enable the submarine to operate underwater for long periods, and an explosive which, rather than being planted, could be launched or fired by the submarine from a safe distance.

Steam and Electric Propulsion

Steam engines, though bulky and messy, were tried for some time for the propulsion of submersibles and in 1880, George Garret, an English clergyman, built a submarine which was propelled by two propellers driven by steam from a coal-fired boiler, which featured a retractable smokestack for ventilation. About this time, a Swedish gun designer, Norden felt, also constructed a submarine powered by steam. This submarine was capable of submerging to a depth of 50 feet, had an underwater endurance of 20 miles and was the first submersible to be fitted with a practical torpedo tube. The novelty of the new weapon-launching device appealed to the Turks and Russians, who acquired some of these craft but, because of their limitations, could not achieve anything worthwhile.

Experiments with the still new form of energy, electricity, had in the mean time proved successful, and storage batteries with several hours of endurance had been developed for the propulsion of submarines with electric motors. In 1886 two Englishmen, Campbell and Ash, developed an all-electric submarine which was powered by two 50-horse-power motors operated from a 100-cell storage battery. It was capable of maintaining a surface speed of six knots but the storage capacity of its battery being very low, its effective range was limited to only 80 miles.

The endurance of the storage battery for submarines was considerably improved by a Frenchman, Claude Gombat who, between 1888 and 1890, built some small battery-powered submarines which were acquired and used by the French Navy for about 10 years. These submarines were about 160 feet long, had a maximum speed of 13.5 knots and an effective range of 200 miles.

The 'Holland Type' Submarine -Ballast Tanks and Hydroplanes

Meanwhile John P. Holland of New Jersey, an ex-Irish school teacher who had migrated to the USA and who was to virtually become the creator of the Royal Navy's submarine service, had launched his first submersible in 1875. In 1882 he constructed the Fenian Ram which was tested on the Hudson River, and which was propelled by gasoline engines en the surface and electric motors underwater. These submersibles had several features which had to be discarded later, but some of Holland's innovations, perfected during the following years, have been incorporated in the latter-day submarine design. Of these, the most important are the use of ballast tanks for submerging and surfacing, and horizontal rudders or hydroplanes for maneuvering the craft in the vertical plane for depth control.

For some years Holland and Nordenfelt were vying with each other for an order from the United States Government for building a submarine and it finally went to the former in 1895. The vessel that was designed, the Plunger, was to be powered by a coal-fired steam engine on the surface, and battery-operated twin motors under water. Numerous designing defects came to light during construction and the craft was eventually abandoned. A new model, Holland's ninth, was built in his shipyard and delivered to the United States Government in 1900 and was used as the basic design for all the submarines that were built subsequently. This submarine, which was launched in 1897 and which was tested for three years before delivery, was named the Holland.

A contemporary of Holland, Max Lanbeuf of France, also built a submarine, Nerval, which was similar in construction to Holland's submarines and it was also powered by a coal-fired steam engine but, instead of tanks, it used the space enclosed in its double hull for ballast.

Internal Combustion Engine

The submarines of Holland and Lanbeuf were the prototypes for submarines built for several decades thereafter and they had almost all the essential features of modern day conventional submarine -ballast tanks, internal combustion engines for surface propulsion at nine knots and for charging batteries whilst on the surface and electric motors for underwater propulsion at seven knots; Us effective operational range was an impressive 1,000 miles. However, the internal combustion engines used at that time were gasoline engines which were a fire hazard because they gave off highly noxious and inflammable gasoline fumes, and, later were replaced by diesel engines developed by the German engineer, Rudolph Diesel, during the last decade of the 19th century.

Another submarine designer, Simon Lake, had built a submarine, the Argonaut Junior, in 1894 which was primarily meant for use in such peacetime operations as the exploration and exploitation of the living and mineral wealth below the surface of the sea and under the seabed, and for commercial salvage operations. The submersible was made of two layers of yellow pine with a sheet of canvas between them to render it impervious to water. This submarine could move about on the seabed and had an air-lock device which permitted its crew, using diving helmets, to emerge from the submarine and explore the surroundings.

In 1897, Lake built his second submarine, the Argonaut, which was powered by a 30-horse-power gasoline engine, had a 36-foot cigar-shaped hull and could submerge to the bed of a river or the bottom of a lake and move along the bed on three wheels which could be retracted and housed in the keel when the submersible was navigated. A year later, i.e., in November 1898, the Argonaut had the honour of being the first submarine to cross the Atlantic when she sailed from Norfolk and, despite heavy storms encountered on the way, reached New York.

Another submarine, the Protector, was built by Lake in 1906 and sold to Russia. After it was tested and accepted in Russia, he built several more, submersibles for the Russian Government.

The French Submarine -The Gustav Zede

Claude Gombat, a Frenchman, built some small but effective submarines between 1888 and 1890. One of these, the Gustav Zede, which was in service with the French Navy for over ten years, had a hull 160 feet long, was powered by storage batteries and had a range of 200 miles at a cruising speed of six knots and a maximum speed of 13.5 knots.

In 1901, this submarine, while taking part in exercises, staged a mock attack on the French Mediterranean Fleet after travelling 160 miles under her own power. While remaining totally undetected, the submarine hit the battleship Charles Martel, the pride of the French Navy, with a dummy torpedo. The successful 'sinking' of a fully protected battleship by a tiny submarine which could approach its target, deliver a lethal blow and escape without being detected, was a watershed in the history of submarines and was an object lesson to the naval planners of all major countries, in the changes that were going to be wrought into the future shape of sea power.

By the end of the 19th century, only six navies in the world had acquired a total of 10 submarines and eleven more were being built. Leading the submarine-owning countries was France, which had a total of 14, built or building, followed way behind by the United States which had only two, one of these two being of the Holland-type which was at that time reckoned to be the best design in the world. The other countries which had acquired submarines were Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey which had one craft each. Britain, which had one of the mightiest navies at that time, was yet to acquire one because of active and continued discouragement from the British Admiralty.

The 1901 success of the French submarine, Gustav Zede, however, came as a rude shock and an eye-opener to the mandarins of the Admiralty, and so it overruled the policy of the First Sea Lord, Earl St. Vincent, and promptly ordered five submarines of the Holland type of the US Navy -not for using them against enemy warships or for coastal defense- but for intensive research into antisubmarine measures! The first submarine built for the Royal Navy, Submarine No. 1 (with only one torpedo cube) was thus launched on October 2, 1901 and the submarine service of the Royal Navy was born.

Submarines for the British Navy -Acute Submarine-Phobia

The policy of active discouragement against submarine development had prevailed in the British Admiralty for about a century. Hence there had been practically no research in submarine development in England during the 19th century. As a consequence the design for the first submarine for the Royal Navy had to be acquired from the USA. In trying to perpetuate this bias, even as this submarine was being commissioned, the Admiralty had decided to curtail the formalities associated with the commissioning of the new vessel to the minimum. To quote an official notice reproduced in the journal Naval and Military Record of October 3, 1901, the day after the launching: It is understood that no ceremony will take place at the forthcoming launch of the first British submarine at Barrow-in-Furness. The Admiralty regard these boats as wholly in the nature of an experiment and, like all other experiments conducted from time to time, this one will be carried out with all privacy.

Despite the official stance against the development of the underwater craft, shipbuilders in Britain had actually started building submarines as early as in 1885 - full sixteen years before the construction of the first submarine for the Royal Navy. In that year work had commenced on me construction of an experimental submarine at the Barrow- in-Furness shipyard. This submarine, which had a 100-foot hull, had been built in sections by 1886, sold to the Turkish Government, shipped out to that country, and assembled there for the Turkish Navy. Soon, another submarine, 123 feet long, was built at Barrow and sold to the Imperial Russian Navy. It is interesting to note that 'underhand, unfair and un-English' warfare wasn't acceptable to Britain but others could indulge in it so long as it yielded lucre for her!

After building five Holland-type submarines, Britain built the first A-class submarine (with one torpedo tube) in 1902, B-class (with two torpedo tubes) in 1905, C-class (with two torpedo tubes) in 1906, D-class (with three torpedo tubes, one tube being in the stern, and a 12-pounder gun) in 1908, and E-class (with five torpedo tubes, and one six-pounder or four-inch gun) in 1913. The B-class was the first to be fitted with surface weapons, and the D-class was the first to be equipped with a diesel engine and stern torpedo tube -all earlier classes having used gasoline engines for propulsion, and being fitted with forward torpedo tubes.

The submarine-phobia and surface-vessel mania of the British Admiralty, even after submarines had begun to the built for the Royal Navy, is evident from what Captain Hugh Oliphant, who was the Commanding Officer of Dolphin, the Royal Navy's submarine training establishment, and Captain, First Submarine Squadron some years ago, said about the prevailing ambience at that time: 'One serving British Admiral was at that moment publicly demanding that submarine crews (captured) in war should be treated as pirates and hung; the Director of Naval Construction was warning non-expendable senior officers "never to go below water", and the Engineer-in-Chief considered that the running of a petrol engine in a confined space was so dangerous that the first submarine moorings in Portsmouth were among the remote quarantine and powder hulks’. The first submarine 'depot ship' and training school was thus given the not inappropriate name of Hazard’.

By now, even in the Royal Navy, some of the senior officers had realized the potential of the submarine and were quite vociferous in demanding a change in the naval policy. In 1904, Admiral Lord Jacky Fisher wrote prophetically:

It is astounding to me, perfectly astounding, how the very best amongst us absolutely fail to realize the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish!'

Here, just to take a simple instance, with the battleship Empress of India, engaged in maneuvers and knowing the proximity of submarines, so self-confident of safety and so oblivious of the possibilities of modern warfare.. . and suddenly they see a Whitehead torpedo miss her stern by a few feet!

And how fired? From a submarine of the 'pre-Adamite' period; small, slow, badly fitted, with no periscope at all.

. . . . I have not disguised my opinion in season and out of season as to the essential, imperative, immediate, vital pressing, urgent (I can't think of any more adjectives) necessity for more submarines at once, at the very least 25 in addition to those now ordered and building and 100 more as soon as practical, or we shall be caught with our breeches down....

The turn of the century was thus a watershed in the history of submarines, for the fundamental principles of the construction and operation of submersibles had taken, concrete shape and been demonstrated to the world by this time. It continues to be valid even today. Internal combustion engines, both gasoline and diesel, had proved to be the most efficient and practical power plants; electric propulsion, as an alternative or in tandem with diesel or gasoline engines, had proved a success; the invention of the periscope had increased the feasibility of underwater navigation and improved the potential of the submarine for surveillance and for carrying out attacks while remaining submerged; and the torpedo, the primary weapon of the submarine, had been perfected and had proved its deadly capability. The manually propelled and operated one-man submersibles had been replaced by the larger and more versatile, long-range and long-endurance submarine. These would soon become a major component of naval strategy, both for offence and defense. Anew chapter had begun in the history of naval warfare.

Special Features of Submarines Developed

Some of the features peculiar to these submarines were the all-welded hull, the periscope, the schnorkel or the snort, the diesel-electric propulsion system and the revolutionary weapon - the torpedo.

Below the superstructure deck was the hull which had to withstand the tremendous pressure of sea water while submerged, and to maintain its watertight integrity under varying pressure conditions. The shape of the vessel had evolved from Bushnell's spherical Turtle to the cylindrical Holland genre over a period of 125 years, the latter being constructed on the basis of the fabrication of a series of watertight containers by means of watertight joints. In the double-hull type of submarines, the pressure hull was inside the outer hull and between these hulls were the water and fuel oil tanks.

The space between the non watertight superstructure deck and the pressure hull was used as locker space for stowing anchor gear, lines, ammunition for the submarine guns, boats and other equipment that did not get damaged by immersion in Water. Extending upwards through the superstructure amidships was a watertight tower known as the conning tower, the top of which was the bridge from where the vessel was controlled when on the surface. But when submerged, it was controlled from the conning tower or from a compartment directly below it, known as the control room. For making observations while totally submerged, periscopes extending above the bridge were operated from the conning tower.

Evolution of the Torpedo

The submarine is essentially a torpedo vessel, launching Its torpedoes while surfaced or submerged, and hence it has basically evolved over the years as a torpedo-launching platform, though today its weapon outfit includes missiles. The torpedo too has been developed into a highly complicated underwater projectile with a heavy explosive charge. It is detonated by an exploding mechanism when in contact with, or in proximity to, the hulls of target vessels. Today, high-power engines drive it at high speed and sophisticated instruments control its course. Torpedoes are fired by, or launched by, surface vessels, aircraft or submarines. Its capability of being launched, approaching the target and striking with little or no warning makes it particularly useful to submarines, which can frequently carry out an attack and escape without being detected.

The word torpedo is derived from the word Torpedinidae, the family name for the fish called electric rays. These fish and electric eels have been referred to as torpedoes. The term torpedo was first applied to an explosive device around 1800 and, in its various experimental forms, this name was used for the next 65 years or so for a type of floating mine.

The first to use an explosive device of this category was David Bushnell in 1776. His was a simple type of floating mine with a clockwork mechanism which was designed tc be secured to the bottom of an enemy vessel with the help of a screw driven into the latter's hull, and to go off after the pre-set interval. As described earlier, no damage was caused to the target, the British warship Eagle, as the submersible, Turtle failed to secure the explosive device to the ship's hull.

Robert Fulton, the American genius whose talents had been recognized not at home but in France and England, used 'a catamaran torpedo' developed by him in an attack on the French Fleet at Boulogne on October 2,1804. Twelve of these devices were turned loose against the French ships, creating great excitement but causing no damage as they exploded short of their intended targets.

During the American Civil War, various kinds of torpedoes were used by the Union and Confederate forces. Some of these were simple beer kegs filled with gunpowder whose use was responsible for the well-known outburst from Admiral David Farragut, 'Damn the torpedoes... Go ahead!' At the other extreme were the gigantic electric torpedoes carrying over 90 kilograms of explosives each, one of which was used to blow the Federal gunboat Commodore Jones to smithereens.

It was an English engineer, Robert Whitehead, who, in 1868, perfected the first practical self-propelled torpedo, the forerunner of the modern torpedo. The Whitehead torpedo used all the basic principles that are used even today, such as hydrostatic depth control lateral control, and an engine which powered two contra-rotating propellers; the source of power for the 'cold-running' torpedo was compressed air contained in a metal flask which produced a speed of seven knots over a range of 700 yards. During the last decade of the 19th century, the US Navy used this torpedo, its speed increased to 27 knots though its range had been extended only by 300 yards.

The first 'hot-running' version, the Bliss-Levitt torpedo, was designed by an American, E.W. Bliss, in 1904 and featured a combustion chamber burning alcohol, preheated from the flask in which the pressure was increased. The combination of higher pressure and preheating increased the range to 4,000 yards.

Meanwhile, the introduction of torpedoes had radically changed naval warfare. In 1877, a superior Turkish naval formation was forced to keep clear of the Russians off Odessa because the latter had equipped its ships with torpedoes. With their rabidly increasing speed, range and hitting power, torpedoes soon became a serious threat to capital ships, i.e. the larger ships of the fleet in later years. Since the torpedoes caused the greatest damage when they hit their targets underwater and since it was impractical to make extensive use of armor for the protection of the 'soft underbellies' of these ships, naval designers modified their hulls by providing double or triple bottoms and highly compartmentalized hulls. An excellent example of this is provided by the hull design of the German battleship Bismarck which, despite being repeatedly hit by torpedoes from destroyers and aircraft during a lengthy engagement in World War II in May 1941, remained afloat because of her excellent watertight integrity produced by her multi-bottom and multi-compartment design.

About the time of the Spanish-American War, the torpedo-boat came into being and was used to great effect against heavier ships. As a defense against these boats, larger torpedo-boat destroyers were developed, the latter finally evolving into the destroyer whose principal weapon for many years was the torpedo it had originally been designed to counter.

During this period all torpedoes were designed for underwater launching and until 1922 even battleships used torpedoes. A torpedo for being launched above the surface was first developed in 1910; it incorporated a horizontal type turbine instead of the earlier vertical type, had a 'hot-running' engine, a speed of 35 knots and a range of 2,000 yards. Later there was some improvement in torpedo operation but torpedo design virtually remained unchanged until the end of World War I.

During World War I, Germany sank 1,381 Allied merchant ships by using torpedoes alone, and during World War II, German naval designers developed the acoustic torpedo which virtually brought the Allies to the brink of defeat. It played havoc with Allied shipping during the Battle of the Atlantic but the downslide was stopped in the nick of time by developing a device that provided fairly effective defense against the acoustic aspect of these torpedoes.

After the target had been identified and its direction and range established, the acoustic torpedo was launched in the general direction of the target. After traversing some distance, the acoustic device of the torpedo would pick up the noise made by the target's propellers and would then 'home' on to the source of the noise. This torpedo posed the greatest danger to large conveys as it could be launched in the general direction of the target without having to solve what is known as the fire control problem and leave the rest to the torpedo itself. Another advantage of the acoustic torpedo was that it did not require high speed to intercept its target; so long as its speed was higher than that of the target, it homed on to it though it had to run for a little longer period. This led to the development of the torpedo which could zigzag, popularly referred to as the Wobbly Willie, or follow a spiral track, as did the Curley Charlie, during its course until it picked up the target and homed on to it.

The acoustic torpedo played havoc with Allied shipping during the Battle of the Atlantic. The only defense against this torpedo was a noisemaker which was developed during the war. Being louder than the target's propellers the noisemaker diverted the torpedoes to erratic tracks until they lost contact or ran down after exhausting their fuel.

Most of the torpedoes used until the 1950s came in two sizes - those fired by submarines and destroyers were 21-inches in. diameter and 21 feet long and those fired by torpedo planes and, during the later part of World War II, by patrol-torpedo boats (P.T. boats) were 225 inches in diameter and 13.5 feet in length. The cylindrical steel flask containing compressed air at a pressure of 3,000 pounds per square inch was fastened to a pointed nose-piece containing several kilograms of explosives. An exploder mechanism, which was set to detonate when it came into contact with any object, was inserted in the warhead before the torpedo was fired.

During actual operation, in order to prevent discovery by the enemy of an unsuccessful attempt, live torpedoes were designed to sink at the end of their run if they did not explode. Japanese torpedoes were, however, designed to explode at the end of their run if they failed to hit a target. A few years earlier, German torpedoes were designed to remain afloat at the end of the run so that they could be used as mines, i.e., there could be some chance of the torpedo being struck by another ship.

The electric torpedo, which was powered by batteries and was cheaper and easier to produce, was slower than the steam torpedo and of less range, but did not produce any air bubbles and hence did not produce any wake. While the steam torpedo had a speed of 45 knots and a range of 4,500 yards which increased to 15,000 yards if the speed was reduced to 30 knots, the electric torpedo had a range of 4,000 yards at 30 knots.

Until the early 1950s the mobile platforms used for launching torpedoes included destroyers, submarines, patrol-boats and aircraft. Destroyers and P.T. boats launched torpedoes by ejecting them from tubes mounted on their decks with a charge of powder, the latter also carrying aircraft torpedoes which were merely dropped over the side. These torpedoes were used by the P.T. boats to launch attacks on all types of vessels including battleships.

Torpedoes were launched by submarines from tubes fitted in their bows and sterns with a charge of compressed air. Cruisers were initially fitted with torpedo tubes but discontinued using them after 1936; battleships never used them mainly because their gun range far exceeded the torpedo range and at torpedo range they presented very large targets to the enemy vessels.

The greatest torpedo threat during World War II came from the torpedo planes because the attack could come from a number of directions at once and the warning was very short because of the high speed of the planes. Because of this advantage and better cost effectiveness of torpedo planes over destroyers, World War II saw increasing employment of aerial torpedo attacks.

During World War II submarine warfare was almost exclusively fought with torpedoes; and the effectiveness of the torpedo against surface vessels can be gauged from the fact that out of a total of 10,583,755 tons of Japanese naval and merchant shipping sunk by the Allied forces during World War II, 5,320, 094 tons, i.e., over 50 per cent was accounted for by torpedoes fired from United States' submarines alone.

Other Important Features

As is well-known, the eye of the submarine is the periscope which was invented and developed solely for the purpose of providing a means to view the surface or sky without detection by surface vessels or aircraft. The earlier designers of submarines didn't provide for any viewing device for submarines when they were in a submerged or semi-submerged state, as a result of which they had to grope their way blindly after diving. But the need for a suitable viewing device was soon realized and in 1854 a Frenchman, E.M. Marie-Davy, designed a submarine sight tube containing two mirrors, one above the other, held at the angle of 45 degree and facing in opposite directions. These did provide some degree of sight to the submerged vessels but were rather limited in performance and were hence substituted in 1872 with prisms. The credit for inventing the original periscope goes to Thomas H. Doughty, who developed the basic form during the American Civil War.

The first American submarine to use an internal combustion engine was fitted with 45 horse-power, two-cylinder, four-stroke gasoline engines while the British preferred gasoline engines fitted with 12 or 16 cylinders. The inherent hazards of these engines were soon realized, for stowage was a constant problem and handling of fuel was extremely dangerous. Also, internal explosions were frequent and many of the engines gave off considerable carbon monoxide fumes, creating a menace to personnel.

M.A.N. (Maschinenfabrik Augsberg-Nwinberg A.G.) of Germany had developed a four-stroke diesel engine, capable of producing 1,090 horse power but all these engines developed structural weaknesses in the crankcase. Until 1930 the engines used in most submarines of all the larger naval powers with the exception of Great Britain were four-stroke diesels.

With the development, however, of fleet type submarines, the need for more powerful engines became apparent and eventually a 16-cylinder single-acting engine was developed as well as a 9-cylinder double-acting engine. The fact that submarines are both surface and sub-surface vessels places definite restrictions on size, hull design and shape. The total weight of the submarine is also a factor having considerable bearing on underwater operations. In the first engine powered submarine, the engines were mechanically connected directly to the propeller shafting. It, however, became apparent after testing various types and designs, that the diesel-electric drive was the best. In this type, the engines were connected only to the generators, which in turn supplied power to the main motors driving the propeller shafting. Another function of the generators was charging the storage batteries.

Today's fleet type submarines are generally powered by four main propulsion diesel engines, each capable of driving a generator producing around 2,000 horse-power which in turn drives a slow-speed motor or charges a bank of batteries. An auxiliary engine is also available for driving the generators.

As is known, the conventional submarine does not use the diesels or generators while submerged, and power for the motors is supplied by two sets of storage batteries, which are charged by the auxiliary and main generators during surface operations. The two main storage batteries consist of two groups of over 100 cells each, each one of these cells weighing several quintals.

During the latter part of World War II, the Germans adopted a radical change in submarine design known as the 'schnorkel' -an invention made by the Dutch in 1936 for replenishing air supply of the crew of their submarines. The spelling was simplified by the Americans to 'snorkel' and further abbreviated by the British to 'snort'. The Germans were forced to develop the new device because of the rapid strides already made in the development of improved sonar (underwater sound-aided detecting and ranging equipment) and radar, used by the Allied aircraft and surface vessels against German vessels.

The schnorkel was originally a breathing tube which was raised while the submarine was at periscope depth. When it was raised in position, air for the crew was obtained from the surface. In 1944 the Germans equipped their submarines with double-tube schnorkels, one for Jetting in air for the submarine's diesel engines and crew and the other as an exhaust for diesel fumes, carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The intake tube projected by a foot or so above the sea surface while the exhaust gases were discharged into the sea. This considerably reduced the visible portion of the submarines and also consumption of electric power, since the submarine could cruise almost totally submerged on its engines and conserve its battery power for attacks and evasive measures.

The schnorkel had only one drawback. While by itself it was too small to be spotted from a distance or from the air ii left a distinct wake which could be visually picked up from an antisubmarine ship or aircraft in calm weather. It could also be detected by the radar fitted on ships or aircraft. Darkness or fog could not provide any camouflage any more.

The United States Navy developed an improved schnorkel and also the 'guppy' submarine at the end of World War II. The guppy (greater underwater propulsion power) had the same type of hull as that used for the fleet submarine of World War II fame, was 306 feet long and displaced about 1,800 tons. The only change in the hull was in the superstructure which was radically changed by reducing the surface and streamlining every protruding object. The life lines and all guns were removed, the bitts (posts) to which ropes were secured were made retractable and the periscope shears (supports) enclosed in a streamlined metal fairing. All topside armament and equipment were
RUN SILENT RUN DEEP

The Evolution of the Submarine

The submarine came into its own during World War I, it’s devastating lethality and near-invincibility reinforced during and after World War II, and its nuclear propulsion and teeth giving it virtually limitless range and calamitous destructive power during the post-World War II years. However, it made a fairly late entry into India's naval fleet, possibly because the submarine was earlier considered an 'offensive' weapon platform and hence could not have a place in the arsenal of a country that had pledged to abide by the principles of peace.

Since the capability to operate in the third element - me subsurface -has now been added to the Indian Navy's repertoire, it is essential that the evolution of the submarine from its tentative conceptual state in the 16tR: century to its present day status of being the prime dealer of destruction at sea, as well as the significant role it played in shaping the ends of the two World Wars, be studied in detail before apprising oneself of the process of establishment of the submarine arm in the Indian Navy. This chapter provides a brief resume of such developments around the globe.

While addressing the men of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service during World War II, Winston Churchill had said; 'Of all the branches of men in the Forces, there is none that shows more devotion and faces greater perils than the submariner . . . great deeds are done in the air and on the land, nevertheless nothing surpasses your exploits.' Indeed, nothing can transcend the tour de force that the submarine has displayed and the impact of the revolutionary changes in the concept; both strategic arid tactical, of the war at sea brought about by its invention. Besides, its use for opera-ions against a wide variety of targets during the last century have been far greater than that of the supersession of the oared galley by the sailing galleon, the sailing ship of the line by the steam ironclad, the battleship by the carrier-borne and shore-based maritime aircraft, and the diesel-electric propulsion systems of submarines, by the nuclear power plant.

Adoption of new techniques, technology, strategy or tactics, weaponry and weapon platforms generally require a fairly long lead time because their potential and advantages over the existing techniques, tactics, etc, have to be convincingly established before they are introduced in any Service. Oared galleys continued to be constructed for England's Navy for several years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada; even thirty years after the first battleship had been fitted with engines, steam ironclads continued to be equipped with sails, and when World War II was coming to an end in 1945, the British Admiralty was still working on a new design for a 16-inch gun turret. For similar reasons, despite the developments in submarine technology in Europe and America concurrently with those in Great Britain, the Royal Navy woke up to the danger posed by submarines only after the outbreak of World War I when the armored cruisers, Cressy, Hoque and Aboukir, were sunk by one small German U-boat as a result of which the Grand Fleet's method of cruising the sea had to be drastically altered. J& fact, until the time they learnt their lessons the hard way, the British had been doing their best to discourage the development of submarines because they still believed that they, with their huge surface navy, had nothing to gain and much to lose by their development. As a result of the adoption of this attitude, the design of the first submarine for the Royal Navy had to be purchased from America for construction in Britain and, what is even more surprising, this class of submarines were built not to supplement the British war effort but only to enable the British designers to find an antidote to them! It is significant to note that until October 1, 1901, when the Royal Navy's Submarine Service came into being with the launching of Submarine No, 1(129 tons), the popular view in Britain, which has a seafaring history spanning several millennia, was that submarines were 'underhand, unfair and damned un-English'.

This is of course not surprising as there is no profession so wedded to tradition as the military. During World War I the machine gun had been scorned as the 'much-overrated weapon'; the tank was thought of as a 'toy'; Marshal Joffre had refused to have a telephone installed in his office; poison gas was reluctantly adopted by the British after its use by the Germans was classified as a mere 'accessory'; the trench mortar was projected twice by the British War Office and was finally accepted after a cabinet minister secured the funds for it from an Indian maharaja; British subalterns got 'their swords sharpened before crossing to France; and as late as 1918 ‘Pershing had cluttered up his supply lines with mountains of fodder for useless horses, still dreaming of Custer and Sheridan and the glint of Virginia moonlight on the shirting saddles of Stuart's cavalry.’

Early History

There are occasional references in ancient history to the attempts made by man to seek stealth and surprise by operating from submerged or semi- submerged vessels during wars at sea. The very early protagonists of the submarine were not so much inspired by the desire to descend below the surface of the sea to explore the depths of the sea as to devise a method of rendering a warship invisible to the enemy so that it could carry out surreptitious attacks and escape at will.

The earliest reference to attempts made at waging underwater warfare is found in the writings of Aristotle who recorded that Alexander the Great used diving bells to enable his men to descend below the surface of the sea during the siege of Tyre in 332 B.C. He also ordered his divers to impede or destroy the defensive barriers still in use and known as boom defenses) the city was likely to build to prevent the movement of submerged vessels. In fact, according to legend, Alexander himself made a descent into the sea in a device which kept its occupants dry and admitted light-However it is believed that nearly a century earlier than Alexander's experiments; the Athenians had used divers to clear the entrance to the Syracuse harbour during its siege from 415 to 413 B.C.

Over the following two millennia the potential and the tactical advantages of operating below the surface of the sea continued to be appreciated by many military thinkers and several attempts were made during this period to develop an underwater platform that could be used against enemy shipping and war vessels far more effectively than surface ships, both for offensive and defensive operations. In the 16th century, during the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci, is said to have designed a vessel which could dive, remain submerged for some time and surface unaided end could surreptitiously plant bombs or mines on enemy vessels, but the design of this submarine was kept secret because da Vinci he felt that man would misuse it- 'He knew a method of remaining a long time underwater, but he refused to tell of it because of the "evil nature of man”.

The Submersible Takes Shape

Experiments in diving and moving underwater continued but the first recorded mention of a submarine design conforming to the basic principles of submersion is found in the writings of a British naval officer, William Bourne, who published a detailed design of a 'boat that may go under the water' in 1578. The vessel was a completely enclosed boat which could be submerged by reducing its volume by contracting the sides through the use of hand vices, which could bring the boat back to the surface by increasing the volume. This vessel could also move underwater by using watertight oars. This realistic design provided for both submersibility and propulsion underwater but was never built.

Twenty-seven years later, in 1605, using a design similar to Bourne's, Magnus Pegelius constructed a submersible boat but due to the viscosity and adhesive properties of underwater mud the craft never surfaced after diving.

In 1620, a Dutch physician, Cornelius van Drebel, built a submarine and successfully conducted trials in the Thames River, making the craft cruise repeatedly on the surface, dive, maneuver underwater and then surface for several hours at a stretch. He later built two more craft, embodying the same principles, but larger in size. Van Drebel’s craft had an outer hull made of greased leather stretched over a wooden framework. Propulsion was provided, both on the surface and while submerged, by oars which extended through the sides and which were sealed and rendered watertight with tight-fitting leather flaps which allowed free transverse movement while anchoring the oars to the hull. The underwater endurance of the submarine crew was sought to be enhanced by using compressed oxygen to 'restore to the troubled air such portion of vital parts as would make it again, for a good while, fit for respiration/After repeated trials in the Thames river had established the capabilities of the new 'boat' in travelling on the surface and maneuvering underwater at depths of 12 to 15 feet, King James I is reported to have taken a trip in one of the larger models to demonstrate its safety. But despite the conclusive proof of the designers having evolved a powerful two-dimension weapon platform, the novel features of the submarine failed to arouse the interest of the British Navy.

The wars in the 17th century in Europe, however, Jed to a proliferation of submarine designs some of which were the work of men from professions other than those associated with the navy or seafaring; in fact some of the designers were men of peace, i.e., priests and monks! One such designer was Oliver Cromwell's brother-in-law, John Wilkins, Bishop of London. His device for jettisoning gash through an underwater lock while remaining submerged led to the development of underwater lavatories in the latter-day submarines which obviated the need for the submarine to surface repeatedly. He also wrote on future naval developments and centuries later many of his predictions turned out to be true; such as his prediction of journeys by submarines under the Polar ice-cap, an idea which was dismissed as science fantasy In the 17th century.

By the middle of the 17th century, many naval architects had conceptualized and experimented with possible submersible weapon platforms. In 1653, a Frenchman, de Son, designed and built a 72-foot submarine 'that doeth undertake in one day to sink 100 ships' but his submarine never sailed, as its prime mover, a clockwork device, was not powerful enough to propel it on the surface or underwater.

The earlier decades of the 18th century saw numerous 'underwater boats' built, the British designers alone having patented no fewer than fourteen types by 1727. The concept of using a ballast tank for submerging and diving was first visualized by an inventor who described his design in the Gentleman's Magazine ml747. The hull of his craft was equipped with a bank of goatskins which would be filled with water to make the vessel submerge and a 'twisting rod' would be used to force the water out of the goatskins which would provide positive buoyancy and bring the Vessel back to the surface. This craft, however, was never built. At this time the mechanical and physical principles involved in diving and surfacing were yet to be fully understood and hence many of the ideas put forward turned out to be impractical, fanciful or, in some cases, even grotesque. Besides the lack of understanding of the principles, the general impression at this time was that it would be impossible to navigate a craft underwater and even if it became possible, its tactical advantages in naval warfare would be minimal.

The First Submarine, Bushnell's Turtle

However, developments of a submersible craft with weapon delivery capability received a shot in the arm in 1776 when the first submarine that could dive, surface, cruise -both on the surface and underwater-and plant explosives on enemy vessels while remaining submerged, made a dramatic appearance during the American War of Independence. David Bushnell, an American farmer's son, had developed the technique of exploding gunpowder underwater and had followed it up with the invention of the first one-man submersible that was to be used as a weapon platform, the Turtle. Shaped like a wooden beer-barrel, it was powered by a hand-operated screw propeller which could move it at a speed of three knots. It could stay submerged for 30 minutes during which it had to approach its target underwater, plant an explosive on its hull and get away.

It was on September 6, 1776, 29 years before the Battle of Trafalgar, that Ezra Lee, a sergeant in the American Revolutionary Army and the first submariner to launch an underwater operation against enemy vessels, undertook to scuttle Eagle, the Flagship of the British Fleet which was blockading New York Harbour, by planting a powerful explosive on its hull. He set off on his historic mission all by himself on board the Turtle and, operating the handle of the screw-propeller hard for several hours, reached the Eagle and dived. The Turtle then got under the hull of the Flagship and Lee tried to bore a screw device into the Eagle's hull for securing the explosive device to it. Later, a pre-set clockwork mechanism would trigger the explosive device. Unfortunately for Lee, the wooden hull of the Flagship had a sheathing of copper for reinforcement and prevention of the formation of any marine growth. Despite repeated attempts, Lee failed to penetrate the hull. He persisted with his efforts to plant the device, but soon the effects of carbon dioxide poisoning overwhelmed him. He then withdrew, surfaced and set course for shore but was spotted and pursued by a British patrol-beat. Lee jettisoned the explosive cargo and it went off, almost blowing the patrol-boat out of the water.

The Commander of the British Fleet soon realised that his Flagship had had a narrow escape and ordered the blockading ships of his fleet to withdraw to the outer harbour, where they were comparatively safer, but the effectiveness of the blockade was considerably reduced. Thus while the first sub-surface attack in. the history of submarines had proved to be abortive, it brought home one lesson which holds good even today- that the mere presence of a submarine lurking below the surface can upset the plans of a tactical commander over a large area far more than the sinking of a ship. In other words, the fear of the unknown and the element of surprise area greater deterrent at sea than an actual attack. Submarine warfare thus became a reality, even though the first ever submarine attack had failed to cause any physical damage.

Fulton's Nautilus

Robert Fulton, the American inventor who was the first to propel a boat by steam in 1803, and the first to build a steam warship, the Fulton, in 1815, is better remembered for having constructed a three-man submarine boat, the Nautilus, in 1795. Incorporating nearly all the main features of a modem submarine and shaped like one, the Nautilus, which was built of steel and shaped like an elongated oval, was powered by sails on the surface and by a hand-driven screw-propeller under water. Since the periscope was yet to be invented, a primitive form or a conning tower, equipped with a watertight port hole was provided and was used for observation and maneuvering the craft underwater. It was also equipped with ballast tanks for diving and surfacing, as modern submarines are, and had a submerged endurance of three hours for four men to breathe and two candles to bum! Like the Turtle, it had a device which could attach explosives to the hull of a ship while remaining underwater. During its trials at Brest, the Nautilus had also proved its capabilities by sinking an old schooner.

Since the war was over, the American naval authorities showed little interest in Fulton's submarine design, compelling him to build the Nautilus at Paris. He offered it to the authorities to deploy it off the French coast against British warships but it failed to sink or damage any ship.

Disappointed, Fulton then approached the British authorities and demonstrated the capability of his submarine craft by sinking a ship in 1804. The Prime Minister, William Pitt, was so impressed by the submarines performance that he asked the Admiralty to acquire the craft. His request was, however, dismissed by the First Sea Lord (then Earl St. Vincent) with the rather intemperate remark, 'Pitt was the greatest fool that ever existed to encourage a mode of war which those who command the sea do not want and, if successful, will deprive them of it/

For about 60 years after the disappearance of the Nautilus, inventors continued to test various designs of small, hand-propelled submersibles with a crew of six to eight men. None of these was, however, an improvement on Fulton's craft, and hence no progress towards further development of submersibles was discernible. However, during the American Civil War the next nautical milestone in submarine development was recorded, with the sinking of a warship by a submarine, when a Federal corvette, the Housatonic, which v/as blockading Charleston harbour, was scuttled by the Confederate submersible David (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the name of the submersible was Hartley) in 1864. An explosive pack, suspended ahead of the bow of the David from a bowsprit, accomplished the feat when the submersible rammed the corvette. However, when the Housatonic was salvaged, the mangled wreck of the David was found sandwiched between the corvette's hull and the seabed. Because of the submersible's proximity to the Housatonic, the explosive had proved to be as much of a danger to the attacker as to its target. The Housatonic thus had the dubious honour of being the first surface vessel to be sunk by a submarine (and the first surface vessel to have crushed a submarine in an unintended Kamikaze attack).

Progress in submarine development continued to be bedeviled by the absence of a suitable propulsion device to enable the submarine to operate underwater for long periods, and an explosive which, rather than being planted, could be launched or fired by the submarine from a safe distance.

Steam and Electric Propulsion

Steam engines, though bulky and messy, were tried for some time for the propulsion of submersibles and in 1880, George Garret, an English clergyman, built a submarine which was propelled by two propellers driven by steam from a coal-fired boiler, which featured a retractable smokestack for ventilation. About this time, a Swedish gun designer, Norden felt, also constructed a submarine powered by steam. This submarine was capable of submerging to a depth of 50 feet, had an underwater endurance of 20 miles and was the first submersible to be fitted with a practical torpedo tube. The novelty of the new weapon-launching device appealed to the Turks and Russians, who acquired some of these craft but, because of their limitations, could not achieve anything worthwhile.

Experiments with the still new form of energy, electricity, had in the mean time proved successful, and storage batteries with several hours of endurance had been developed for the propulsion of submarines with electric motors. In 1886 two Englishmen, Campbell and Ash, developed an all-electric submarine which was powered by two 50-horse-power motors operated from a 100-cell storage battery. It was capable of maintaining a surface speed of six knots but the storage capacity of its battery being very low, its effective range was limited to only 80 miles.

The endurance of the storage battery for submarines was considerably improved by a Frenchman, Claude Gombat who, between 1888 and 1890, built some small battery-powered submarines which were acquired and used by the French Navy for about 10 years. These submarines were about 160 feet long, had a maximum speed of 13.5 knots and an effective range of 200 miles.

The 'Holland Type' Submarine -Ballast Tanks and Hydroplanes

Meanwhile John P. Holland of New Jersey, an ex-Irish school teacher who had migrated to the USA and who was to virtually become the creator of the Royal Navy's submarine service, had launched his first submersible in 1875. In 1882 he constructed the Fenian Ram which was tested on the Hudson River, and which was propelled by gasoline engines en the surface and electric motors underwater. These submersibles had several features which had to be discarded later, but some of Holland's innovations, perfected during the following years, have been incorporated in the latter-day submarine design. Of these, the most important are the use of ballast tanks for submerging and surfacing, and horizontal rudders or hydroplanes for maneuvering the craft in the vertical plane for depth control.

For some years Holland and Nordenfelt were vying with each other for an order from the United States Government for building a submarine and it finally went to the former in 1895. The vessel that was designed, the Plunger, was to be powered by a coal-fired steam engine on the surface, and battery-operated twin motors under water. Numerous designing defects came to light during construction and the craft was eventually abandoned. A new model, Holland's ninth, was built in his shipyard and delivered to the United States Government in 1900 and was used as the basic design for all the submarines that were built subsequently. This submarine, which was launched in 1897 and which was tested for three years before delivery, was named the Holland.

A contemporary of Holland, Max Lanbeuf of France, also built a submarine, Nerval, which was similar in construction to Holland's submarines and it was also powered by a coal-fired steam engine but, instead of tanks, it used the space enclosed in its double hull for ballast.

Internal Combustion Engine

The submarines of Holland and Lanbeuf were the prototypes for submarines built for several decades thereafter and they had almost all the essential features of modern day conventional submarine -ballast tanks, internal combustion engines for surface propulsion at nine knots and for charging batteries whilst on the surface and electric motors for underwater propulsion at seven knots; Us effective operational range was an impressive 1,000 miles. However, the internal combustion engines used at that time were gasoline engines which were a fire hazard because they gave off highly noxious and inflammable gasoline fumes, and, later were replaced by diesel engines developed by the German engineer, Rudolph Diesel, during the last decade of the 19th century.

Another submarine designer, Simon Lake, had built a submarine, the Argonaut Junior, in 1894 which was primarily meant for use in such peacetime operations as the exploration and exploitation of the living and mineral wealth below the surface of the sea and under the seabed, and for commercial salvage operations. The submersible was made of two layers of yellow pine with a sheet of canvas between them to render it impervious to water. This submarine could move about on the seabed and had an air-lock device which permitted its crew, using diving helmets, to emerge from the submarine and explore the surroundings.

In 1897, Lake built his second submarine, the Argonaut, which was powered by a 30-horse-power gasoline engine, had a 36-foot cigar-shaped hull and could submerge to the bed of a river or the bottom of a lake and move along the bed on three wheels which could be retracted and housed in the keel when the submersible was navigated. A year later, i.e., in November 1898, the Argonaut had the honour of being the first submarine to cross the Atlantic when she sailed from Norfolk and, despite heavy storms encountered on the way, reached New York.

Another submarine, the Protector, was built by Lake in 1906 and sold to Russia. After it was tested and accepted in Russia, he built several more, submersibles for the Russian Government.

The French Submarine -The Gustav Zede

Claude Gombat, a Frenchman, built some small but effective submarines between 1888 and 1890. One of these, the Gustav Zede, which was in service with the French Navy for over ten years, had a hull 160 feet long, was powered by storage batteries and had a range of 200 miles at a cruising speed of six knots and a maximum speed of 13.5 knots.

In 1901, this submarine, while taking part in exercises, staged a mock attack on the French Mediterranean Fleet after travelling 160 miles under her own power. While remaining totally undetected, the submarine hit the battleship Charles Martel, the pride of the French Navy, with a dummy torpedo. The successful 'sinking' of a fully protected battleship by a tiny submarine which could approach its target, deliver a lethal blow and escape without being detected, was a watershed in the history of submarines and was an object lesson to the naval planners of all major countries, in the changes that were going to be wrought into the future shape of sea power.

By the end of the 19th century, only six navies in the world had acquired a total of 10 submarines and eleven more were being built. Leading the submarine-owning countries was France, which had a total of 14, built or building, followed way behind by the United States which had only two, one of these two being of the Holland-type which was at that time reckoned to be the best design in the world. The other countries which had acquired submarines were Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey which had one craft each. Britain, which had one of the mightiest navies at that time, was yet to acquire one because of active and continued discouragement from the British Admiralty.

The 1901 success of the French submarine, Gustav Zede, however, came as a rude shock and an eye-opener to the mandarins of the Admiralty, and so it overruled the policy of the First Sea Lord, Earl St. Vincent, and promptly ordered five submarines of the Holland type of the US Navy -not for using them against enemy warships or for coastal defense- but for intensive research into antisubmarine measures! The first submarine built for the Royal Navy, Submarine No. 1 (with only one torpedo cube) was thus launched on October 2, 1901 and the submarine service of the Royal Navy was born.

Submarines for the British Navy -Acute Submarine-Phobia

The policy of active discouragement against submarine development had prevailed in the British Admiralty for about a century. Hence there had been practically no research in submarine development in England during the 19th century. As a consequence the design for the first submarine for the Royal Navy had to be acquired from the USA. In trying to perpetuate this bias, even as this submarine was being commissioned, the Admiralty had decided to curtail the formalities associated with the commissioning of the new vessel to the minimum. To quote an official notice reproduced in the journal Naval and Military Record of October 3, 1901, the day after the launching: It is understood that no ceremony will take place at the forthcoming launch of the first British submarine at Barrow-in-Furness. The Admiralty regard these boats as wholly in the nature of an experiment and, like all other experiments conducted from time to time, this one will be carried out with all privacy.

Despite the official stance against the development of the underwater craft, shipbuilders in Britain had actually started building submarines as early as in 1885 - full sixteen years before the construction of the first submarine for the Royal Navy. In that year work had commenced on me construction of an experimental submarine at the Barrow- in-Furness shipyard. This submarine, which had a 100-foot hull, had been built in sections by 1886, sold to the Turkish Government, shipped out to that country, and assembled there for the Turkish Navy. Soon, another submarine, 123 feet long, was built at Barrow and sold to the Imperial Russian Navy. It is interesting to note that 'underhand, unfair and un-English' warfare wasn't acceptable to Britain but others could indulge in it so long as it yielded lucre for her!

After building five Holland-type submarines, Britain built the first A-class submarine (with one torpedo tube) in 1902, B-class (with two torpedo tubes) in 1905, C-class (with two torpedo tubes) in 1906, D-class (with three torpedo tubes, one tube being in the stern, and a 12-pounder gun) in 1908, and E-class (with five torpedo tubes, and one six-pounder or four-inch gun) in 1913. The B-class was the first to be fitted with surface weapons, and the D-class was the first to be equipped with a diesel engine and stern torpedo tube -all earlier classes having used gasoline engines for propulsion, and being fitted with forward torpedo tubes.

The submarine-phobia and surface-vessel mania of the British Admiralty, even after submarines had begun to the built for the Royal Navy, is evident from what Captain Hugh Oliphant, who was the Commanding Officer of Dolphin, the Royal Navy's submarine training establishment, and Captain, First Submarine Squadron some years ago, said about the prevailing ambience at that time: 'One serving British Admiral was at that moment publicly demanding that submarine crews (captured) in war should be treated as pirates and hung; the Director of Naval Construction was warning non-expendable senior officers "never to go below water", and the Engineer-in-Chief considered that the running of a petrol engine in a confined space was so dangerous that the first submarine moorings in Portsmouth were among the remote quarantine and powder hulks’. The first submarine 'depot ship' and training school was thus given the not inappropriate name of Hazard’.

By now, even in the Royal Navy, some of the senior officers had realized the potential of the submarine and were quite vociferous in demanding a change in the naval policy. In 1904, Admiral Lord Jacky Fisher wrote prophetically:

It is astounding to me, perfectly astounding, how the very best amongst us absolutely fail to realize the vast impending revolution in naval warfare and naval strategy that the submarine will accomplish!'

Here, just to take a simple instance, with the battleship Empress of India, engaged in maneuvers and knowing the proximity of submarines, so self-confident of safety and so oblivious of the possibilities of modern warfare.. . and suddenly they see a Whitehead torpedo miss her stern by a few feet!

And how fired? From a submarine of the 'pre-Adamite' period; small, slow, badly fitted, with no periscope at all.

. . . . I have not disguised my opinion in season and out of season as to the essential, imperative, immediate, vital pressing, urgent (I can't think of any more adjectives) necessity for more submarines at once, at the very least 25 in addition to those now ordered and building and 100 more as soon as practical, or we shall be caught with our breeches down....

The turn of the century was thus a watershed in the history of submarines, for the fundamental principles of the construction and operation of submersibles had taken, concrete shape and been demonstrated to the world by this time. It continues to be valid even today. Internal combustion engines, both gasoline and diesel, had proved to be the most efficient and practical power plants; electric propulsion, as an alternative or in tandem with diesel or gasoline engines, had proved a success; the invention of the periscope had increased the feasibility of underwater navigation and improved the potential of the submarine for surveillance and for carrying out attacks while remaining submerged; and the torpedo, the primary weapon of the submarine, had been perfected and had proved its deadly capability. The manually propelled and operated one-man submersibles had been replaced by the larger and more versatile, long-range and long-endurance submarine. These would soon become a major component of naval strategy, both for offence and defense. Anew chapter had begun in the history of naval warfare.

Special Features of Submarines Developed

Some of the features peculiar to these submarines were the all-welded hull, the periscope, the schnorkel or the snort, the diesel-electric propulsion system and the revolutionary weapon - the torpedo.

Below the superstructure deck was the hull which had to withstand the tremendous pressure of sea water while submerged, and to maintain its watertight integrity under varying pressure conditions. The shape of the vessel had evolved from Bushnell's spherical Turtle to the cylindrical Holland genre over a period of 125 years, the latter being constructed on the basis of the fabrication of a series of watertight containers by means of watertight joints. In the double-hull type of submarines, the pressure hull was inside the outer hull and between these hulls were the water and fuel oil tanks.

The space between the non watertight superstructure deck and the pressure hull was used as locker space for stowing anchor gear, lines, ammunition for the submarine guns, boats and other equipment that did not get damaged by immersion in Water. Extending upwards through the superstructure amidships was a watertight tower known as the conning tower, the top of which was the bridge from where the vessel was controlled when on the surface. But when submerged, it was controlled from the conning tower or from a compartment directly below it, known as the control room. For making observations while totally submerged, periscopes extending above the bridge were operated from the conning tower.

Evolution of the Torpedo

The submarine is essentially a torpedo vessel, launching Its torpedoes while surfaced or submerged, and hence it has basically evolved over the years as a torpedo-launching platform, though today its weapon outfit includes missiles. The torpedo too has been developed into a highly complicated underwater projectile with a heavy explosive charge. It is detonated by an exploding mechanism when in contact with, or in proximity to, the hulls of target vessels. Today, high-power engines drive it at high speed and sophisticated instruments control its course. Torpedoes are fired by, or launched by, surface vessels, aircraft or submarines. Its capability of being launched, approaching the target and striking with little or no warning makes it particularly useful to submarines, which can frequently carry out an attack and escape without being detected.

The word torpedo is derived from the word Torpedinidae, the family name for the fish called electric rays. These fish and electric eels have been referred to as torpedoes. The term torpedo was first applied to an explosive device around 1800 and, in its various experimental forms, this name was used for the next 65 years or so for a type of floating mine.

The first to use an explosive device of this category was David Bushnell in 1776. His was a simple type of floating mine with a clockwork mechanism which was designed tc be secured to the bottom of an enemy vessel with the help of a screw driven into the latter's hull, and to go off after the pre-set interval. As described earlier, no damage was caused to the target, the British warship Eagle, as the submersible, Turtle failed to secure the explosive device to the ship's hull.

Robert Fulton, the American genius whose talents had been recognized not at home but in France and England, used 'a catamaran torpedo' developed by him in an attack on the French Fleet at Boulogne on October 2,1804. Twelve of these devices were turned loose against the French ships, creating great excitement but causing no damage as they exploded short of their intended targets.

During the American Civil War, various kinds of torpedoes were used by the Union and Confederate forces. Some of these were simple beer kegs filled with gunpowder whose use was responsible for the well-known outburst from Admiral David Farragut, 'Damn the torpedoes... Go ahead!' At the other extreme were the gigantic electric torpedoes carrying over 90 kilograms of explosives each, one of which was used to blow the Federal gunboat Commodore Jones to smithereens.

It was an English engineer, Robert Whitehead, who, in 1868, perfected the first practical self-propelled torpedo, the forerunner of the modern torpedo. The Whitehead torpedo used all the basic principles that are used even today, such as hydrostatic depth control lateral control, and an engine which powered two contra-rotating propellers; the source of power for the 'cold-running' torpedo was compressed air contained in a metal flask which produced a speed of seven knots over a range of 700 yards. During the last decade of the 19th century, the US Navy used this torpedo, its speed increased to 27 knots though its range had been extended only by 300 yards.

The first 'hot-running' version, the Bliss-Levitt torpedo, was designed by an American, E.W. Bliss, in 1904 and featured a combustion chamber burning alcohol, preheated from the flask in which the pressure was increased. The combination of higher pressure and preheating increased the range to 4,000 yards.

Meanwhile, the introduction of torpedoes had radically changed naval warfare. In 1877, a superior Turkish naval formation was forced to keep clear of the Russians off Odessa because the latter had equipped its ships with torpedoes. With their rabidly increasing speed, range and hitting power, torpedoes soon became a serious threat to capital ships, i.e. the larger ships of the fleet in later years. Since the torpedoes caused the greatest damage when they hit their targets underwater and since it was impractical to make extensive use of armor for the protection of the 'soft underbellies' of these ships, naval designers modified their hulls by providing double or triple bottoms and highly compartmentalized hulls. An excellent example of this is provided by the hull design of the German battleship Bismarck which, despite being repeatedly hit by torpedoes from destroyers and aircraft during a lengthy engagement in World War II in May 1941, remained afloat because of her excellent watertight integrity produced by her multi-bottom and multi-compartment design.

About the time of the Spanish-American War, the torpedo-boat came into being and was used to great effect against heavier ships. As a defense against these boats, larger torpedo-boat destroyers were developed, the latter finally evolving into the destroyer whose principal weapon for many years was the torpedo it had originally been designed to counter.

During this period all torpedoes were designed for underwater launching and until 1922 even battleships used torpedoes. A torpedo for being launched above the surface was first developed in 1910; it incorporated a horizontal type turbine instead of the earlier vertical type, had a 'hot-running' engine, a speed of 35 knots and a range of 2,000 yards. Later there was some improvement in torpedo operation but torpedo design virtually remained unchanged until the end of World War I.

During World War I, Germany sank 1,381 Allied merchant ships by using torpedoes alone, and during World War II, German naval designers developed the acoustic torpedo which virtually brought the Allies to the brink of defeat. It played havoc with Allied shipping during the Battle of the Atlantic but the downslide was stopped in the nick of time by developing a device that provided fairly effective defense against the acoustic aspect of these torpedoes.

After the target had been identified and its direction and range established, the acoustic torpedo was launched in the general direction of the target. After traversing some distance, the acoustic device of the torpedo would pick up the noise made by the target's propellers and would then 'home' on to the source of the noise. This torpedo posed the greatest danger to large conveys as it could be launched in the general direction of the target without having to solve what is known as the fire control problem and leave the rest to the torpedo itself. Another advantage of the acoustic torpedo was that it did not require high speed to intercept its target; so long as its speed was higher than that of the target, it homed on to it though it had to run for a little longer period. This led to the development of the torpedo which could zigzag, popularly referred to as the Wobbly Willie, or follow a spiral track, as did the Curley Charlie, during its course until it picked up the target and homed on to it.

The acoustic torpedo played havoc with Allied shipping during the Battle of the Atlantic. The only defense against this torpedo was a noisemaker which was developed during the war. Being louder than the target's propellers the noisemaker diverted the torpedoes to erratic tracks until they lost contact or ran down after exhausting their fuel.

Most of the torpedoes used until the 1950s came in two sizes - those fired by submarines and destroyers were 21-inches in. diameter and 21 feet long and those fired by torpedo planes and, during the later part of World War II, by patrol-torpedo boats (P.T. boats) were 225 inches in diameter and 13.5 feet in length. The cylindrical steel flask containing compressed air at a pressure of 3,000 pounds per square inch was fastened to a pointed nose-piece containing several kilograms of explosives. An exploder mechanism, which was set to detonate when it came into contact with any object, was inserted in the warhead before the torpedo was fired.

During actual operation, in order to prevent discovery by the enemy of an unsuccessful attempt, live torpedoes were designed to sink at the end of their run if they did not explode. Japanese torpedoes were, however, designed to explode at the end of their run if they failed to hit a target. A few years earlier, German torpedoes were designed to remain afloat at the end of the run so that they could be used as mines, i.e., there could be some chance of the torpedo being struck by another ship.

The electric torpedo, which was powered by batteries and was cheaper and easier to produce, was slower than the steam torpedo and of less range, but did not produce any air bubbles and hence did not produce any wake. While the steam torpedo had a speed of 45 knots and a range of 4,500 yards which increased to 15,000 yards if the speed was reduced to 30 knots, the electric torpedo had a range of 4,000 yards at 30 knots.

Until the early 1950s the mobile platforms used for launching torpedoes included destroyers, submarines, patrol-boats and aircraft. Destroyers and P.T. boats launched torpedoes by ejecting them from tubes mounted on their decks with a charge of powder, the latter also carrying aircraft torpedoes which were merely dropped over the side. These torpedoes were used by the P.T. boats to launch attacks on all types of vessels including battleships.

Torpedoes were launched by submarines from tubes fitted in their bows and sterns with a charge of compressed air. Cruisers were initially fitted with torpedo tubes but discontinued using them after 1936; battleships never used them mainly because their gun range far exceeded the torpedo range and at torpedo range they presented very large targets to the enemy vessels.

The greatest torpedo threat during World War II came from the torpedo planes because the attack could come from a number of directions at once and the warning was very short because of the high speed of the planes. Because of this advantage and better cost effectiveness of torpedo planes over destroyers, World War II saw increasing employment of aerial torpedo attacks.

During World War II submarine warfare was almost exclusively fought with torpedoes; and the effectiveness of the torpedo against surface vessels can be gauged from the fact that out of a total of 10,583,755 tons of Japanese naval and merchant shipping sunk by the Allied forces during World War II, 5,320, 094 tons, i.e., over 50 per cent was accounted for by torpedoes fired from United States' submarines alone.

Other Important Features

As is well-known, the eye of the submarine is the periscope which was invented and developed solely for the purpose of providing a means to view the surface or sky without detection by surface vessels or aircraft. The earlier designers of submarines didn't provide for any viewing device for submarines when they were in a submerged or semi-submerged state, as a result of which they had to grope their way blindly after diving. But the need for a suitable viewing device was soon realized and in 1854 a Frenchman, E.M. Marie-Davy, designed a submarine sight tube containing two mirrors, one above the other, held at the angle of 45 degree and facing in opposite directions. These did provide some degree of sight to the submerged vessels but were rather limited in performance and were hence substituted in 1872 with prisms. The credit for inventing the original periscope goes to Thomas H. Doughty, who developed the basic form during the American Civil War.

The first American submarine to use an internal combustion engine was fitted with 45 horse-power, two-cylinder, four-stroke gasoline engines while the British preferred gasoline engines fitted with 12 or 16 cylinders. The inherent hazards of these engines were soon realized, for stowage was a constant problem and handling of fuel was extremely dangerous. Also, internal explosions were frequent and many of the engines gave off considerable carbon monoxide fumes, creating a menace to personnel.

M.A.N. (Maschinenfabrik Augsberg-Nwinberg A.G.) of Germany had developed a four-stroke diesel engine, capable of producing 1,090 horse power but all these engines developed structural weaknesses in the crankcase. Until 1930 the engines used in most submarines of all the larger naval powers with the exception of Great Britain were four-stroke diesels.

With the development, however, of fleet type submarines, the need for more powerful engines became apparent and eventually a 16-cylinder single-acting engine was developed as well as a 9-cylinder double-acting engine. The fact that submarines are both surface and sub-surface vessels places definite restrictions on size, hull design and shape. The total weight of the submarine is also a factor having considerable bearing on underwater operations. In the first engine powered submarine, the engines were mechanically connected directly to the propeller shafting. It, however, became apparent after testing various types and designs, that the diesel-electric drive was the best. In this type, the engines were connected only to the generators, which in turn supplied power to the main motors driving the propeller shafting. Another function of the generators was charging the storage batteries.

Today's fleet type submarines are generally powered by four main propulsion diesel engines, each capable of driving a generator producing around 2,000 horse-power which in turn drives a slow-speed motor or charges a bank of batteries. An auxiliary engine is also available for driving the generators.

As is known, the conventional submarine does not use the diesels or generators while submerged, and power for the motors is supplied by two sets of storage batteries, which are charged by the auxiliary and main generators during surface operations. The two main storage batteries consist of two groups of over 100 cells each, each one of these cells weighing several quintals.

During the latter part of World War II, the Germans adopted a radical change in submarine design known as the 'schnorkel' -an invention made by the Dutch in 1936 for replenishing air supply of the crew of their submarines. The spelling was simplified by the Americans to 'snorkel' and further abbreviated by the British to 'snort'. The Germans were forced to develop the new device because of the rapid strides already made in the development of improved sonar (underwater sound-aided detecting and ranging equipment) and radar, used by the Allied aircraft and surface vessels against German vessels.

The schnorkel was originally a breathing tube which was raised while the submarine was at periscope depth. When it was raised in position, air for the crew was obtained from the surface. In 1944 the Germans equipped their submarines with double-tube schnorkels, one for Jetting in air for the submarine's diesel engines and crew and the other as an exhaust for diesel fumes, carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The intake tube projected by a foot or so above the sea surface while the exhaust gases were discharged into the sea. This considerably reduced the visible portion of the submarines and also consumption of electric power, since the submarine could cruise almost totally submerged on its engines and conserve its battery power for attacks and evasive measures.

The schnorkel had only one drawback. While by itself it was too small to be spotted from a distance or from the air ii left a distinct wake which could be visually picked up from an antisubmarine ship or aircraft in calm weather. It could also be detected by the radar fitted on ships or aircraft. Darkness or fog could not provide any camouflage any more.

The United States Navy developed an improved schnorkel and also the 'guppy' submarine at the end of World War II. The guppy (greater underwater propulsion power) had the same type of hull as that used for the fleet submarine of World War II fame, was 306 feet long and displaced about 1,800 tons. The only change in the hull was in the superstructure which was radically changed by reducing the surface and streamlining every protruding object. The life lines and all guns were removed, the bitts (posts) to which ropes were secured were made retractable and the periscope shears (supports) enclosed in a streamlined metal fairing. All topside armament and equipment were

New Mariner Stories

2008-03-27T08:04:00.000-07:00

FAREWELL TO THE ARM

Cmde Subhash Kapur (Retd.)

Twas almost a score and a half ago,

Just out from school, and full of go,

While friends made up their minds,

I had not to think twice.

Mystified by the splendour of the sea,

Since as long as I remember

The smell of ships, the grace of sails,

Their soft and lazy movements,

The roar and whisper of the sea

And the promise of land yonder,

Did it leave me any choice?

Disappointed at Academy: this was no Navy,

Came the thrills on becoming a Snotty,

The uncaring life, rewards for piracy at sea,

It was fulfillment of a dream.

To relive that year, I’d give my rest.

Watchkeeping on ships was some fun,

But crazy friends would have it none.

Monstrous dolphins had just arrived,

Slithery and slimy, they'd caught our sight.

Manned by those Russian -singing,

Vodka -drinking guys,

They looked good, fun- loving types,

Promising of adventure, deceit and filth,

And boasting of sleepless nights to ships.

Again, did we have any choice?

Brar, Bhate, Subbu, Gary and I,

The Craziest of thirty -first might,

In a bar, THE decision was made,

We'd join the gang, and make hay.

Kunte, my CO, was mighty upset,

'It's a foolish mistake, my son, 'is what he said.

Karanj, my first, taught me all:

Weapons and navigation, watchkeeping and war.

Submarine at sea, and fun ashore,

Others were envious to see our spirits soar.

Those were great days, with 20 to watchkeep,

You could disappear, and never be missed.

When it party- time, though,

Headcount was more than Sehkawat would

ever know.

Vagir, my next, was a wonderful experience,

An education that I shall never forget.

For humour we faced challenging times.

Coping with the antics of Vaghsheer.

Khanderi, my final love, is regrettably no more,

She was my joy, my dream, faithful to the core.

Understanding and responsive, energetic and

cunning,

Never a let-down, but always to the fore,

Could I have asked for more?

She fulfilled my dreams in the challenging times.

Jal Tarang or East Wind, she always had her bite

When times were easy, she was a real sport

Twice did she take us to the Far Eastern ports.

A demise in the family brought me to Delhi,

How I loathed to be one in the jamboree,

Files upon Files, notes and notings,

Brief Briefs, detailed briefs, revised and up-to-date

Briefs,

All this was too much for a man from the field.

Strange, but true, this nothingness grows on you

For the results are slow and may benefit a few,

Manipulation and cunning, our traits at sea,

Are the tests I faced in my Delhi life,

The sooner I learnt to master these,

My mind was at rest and communication eased.

Four years here, and enough was enough,

Moved to Mumbai, but the stay was snubbed

When personnel branch threatened to moved me

East,

I howled and cried, but they would not yield,

Easter and Easter, they said, and move me to

Tokyo,

A welcome surprise, how could I say no?

Japan and Korea, the wonder of Asia,

Fulfilled the promise of land yonder,

Lion and Tiger, I heard them roar,

Softly but surely, like geishas and sumos,

I am proud to say, we were looked after well,

Interesting life, and enough to spend.

I wasn't assumed when I returned to Delhi,

Same old office, you can imagine my plight

Seven years plus in DSMO,

Enough to drive even hard - cores overboard.

Personal compulsions now force me to leave,

Why I wonder, can't we always be free

To do what we want,

I like Hemingway’s The old man and the sea?

Of the two scores and four in the Navy,

I’ve been a submariner for twenty two.

Water from the deep runs in my veins

And shall be my lifeline until I remain.

More than a profession, a way of life

Submarining has been more than a wife.

Honest but ruthless, full of deceit,

These are our ingredients when at sea,

Convinced I am, that when we fight,

Submarines are the ones that'll prove their might.

Now that it's time to say good- bye,

To this rich, and sheltered life,

All we'd like to say is this:

The bonds of friendship and affection you all gave.

Will see us through our remaining days.

A wonderful innings it's been so far,

We'll fight for the arm wherever we are.

Sayonara is not for us to say,

You all may go, but we shall stay,

Delhi is our home, and we're settling here,

We'll be in touch, wherever you are.

The undermentioned story was originally printed in the inaugural issue of the Periscope – Journal of the Indian Naval Submarine Arm in the year 1973.

STORM IN A BALTIC HARBOUR

- Commander (later Admiral) V S SHEKHAWAT (Retd.)

Day by day, the November sky darkened and the wind from the South-West freshened. The fog never too far away to come swirling in, began to be blown in woolly, wet patches across the harbour, shrouding the ships and sailors in eerie shapes Finally, with the mounting fury of the wind, the fog melted away altogether, joining the dark ominous clouds that raced over head as if to escape this dreadful thing that was making them fly.

We awaited the approaching storm with trepidation. Snugly berthed on the windward side of the Depot Ship, the submarine did not move excessively as yet. But the icy cold Baltic wind that tore through the foul-weather clothing and the thick woolen jerseys and shirts underneath, was already causing a 50-year old Destroyer tender berthed one cable across the shallow tidal basin to pull and strain at her hawsers as if to say "Leave an old woman alone and go your way". The shrieking wind which pushed our submarine and the Depot ship on to the jetty, was an off-shore wind for the old, coal-fired tender of some 10,000 tonnes, and threatened any moment to launch her into the stream, a tired old hulk ready to drift straight on to our sleek, brand-new submarine.

Further up this narrow creek, a host of small craft and three or four submarines bobbed and surged on the usually tranquil water, taking such precautions as they could against the gathering storm. Bits of rafts, pieces of wooden jetties, splintered by the chafing of steel hulls, and small buoys broken from their moorings, were already beginning to float about the tidal basin. But sailors in their ships and submarines, huddling, shivering and determinedly preparing to give battle, if only in self-defence, to the raging, howling monster that, tore at them as they tended ropes and fenders, paid scant attention to the debris drifting by from the creek into the swelling river. Their thoughts were on saving their ships from the clutches of this rampaging demon who reached out with icy fingers to display his power and majesty.

And powerful and majestic he was! One could not help being over-awed by his pent up anger and might as the wind buffeted the ships with hammer blows, hurling one against the groaning jetty and trying to tear away another from the opposite side.

On the fourth day of its coming the storm attained its full, magnificent, roaring splendor. The temperature was only just above freezing. The rain' which had started on the first day, came down in blinding torrents, the drops of water tossing and whirling before being flung into the faces of the weather deck watch like slivers of cold steel. The small tidal basin churned and frothed with white foam. The water level had already risen more than three metres, and our Depot Ship stood high above the jetty as if poised to leave the water to escape the storm's onslaught. A tug on the other side of the jetty from the Depot Ship looked as if it would go under any moment. Its gallant crew of 4 or 5, including a pretty girl, probably the cook, took turns on the deck and when it was her trick she could be seen at her post a brave, slim little figure which could not hide its feminity even under the storm gear she wore.

Two submarines had cast off from their berths, left the creek which no longer protected them, and entered the turbulent, rushing river, there to seek safety rather than be battered and sunk at their moorings. Numerous rafts and small boats had been flung clear out of the water and piled up in the shallows or were hopelessly adrift, bound where wind and water took them.

The old Destroyer tender could bear her agony no longer. For four days she had hung on to her ropes and wires, creaking and groaning with age, protesting at this indignity in her twilight years. She must have seen many a hurricane in her youth, for she had sailed in the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean, and then had come through the. Indian and Atlantic oceans to this her final resting place on the Baltic coast. Though tired and old, memories of those grim battles fought and won against the elements in distant seas lingered in her rusted rivets and ancient wooden decks. She clung to her bollards through the wild and fearful night of the fourth day, her weary and exhausted crew fighting the storm like watchful cavemen of old keeping a ravening beast at bay. Just before noon the next day, when it seemed the cyclone had no fresh forces to throw into the fray, the old tender, still with all her hawsers intact, tore off the bollards from the jetty where her back springs and stern rope were secured and swung in an arc until her stern was only about 50 metres from our submarine.

But that was as much as the storm could do to the old lady. Her head ropes and head springs held firm, and now with her bow into the wind, she rode lightly and comfortably, no longer taking the brunt of the storm beam-on. As if in mortification at this final rebuff to its power and glory, the storm seemed to lose heart, and after a few more hours of desultory blowing sped away to the East, there to dissipate itself over the endless forests and steppes of Russia.

And what of our submarine? By a curious juxtaposition against the Depot Ship, the submarine felt hardly any of the fury of the storm. The wind, deflected by the wall like sides of the Depot ship, produced a counter turbulence which reduced the direct force of the storm, and enveloped the submarine in a protective cocoon of relatively weak, random air streams. The buffeting from the short, confused sea did cause a lot of surging, but the doubled-up springs and ropes held securely and there was seldom a moment of anxiety. The weather deck watch swore at the rain and the cold as they huddled in their foul-weather clothing, but a half-hour trick at a time up top wasn't so bad after all.

For us at least, it was only a storm in a Baltic tea cup!

Transition to Eminence - Indian submarines

2008-03-22T23:23:00.001-07:00

Chapter 10 - Indigenous Submarine Construction - The SSK Project

Contents

- Preamble

- The Considerations That Led to the Selection of HDW

- The Considerations That Led to the Selection of HDW

- The May 1977 Delegation to Evaluate European Submarine Building Yards

- The May 1979 Policy Technical Delegation to Italy, Germany and Sweden

- Indo German 'Agreement on Technical Assistance'

- Contracts Signed on 11 December 1981

- Contracts Signed on 11 December 1981

- Teams Deputed to Germany for Overseeing Construction and Design Technology

- Submarine Construction Schedule

- Commencement of the Type 1500 Design by IKL

- Full Scale Submarine Model

- Transfer of Submarine Design Technology

- Construction of SSKs 1 and 2 in Germany

- MDL's Submarine Construction Facilities

- Construction of SSK 3 and 4 in Mazagon Docks

- Dropping of SSKs 5 and 6 and Discontinuance of Indigenous Submarine Construction

Preamble

In the 1960s, the conventional wisdom, based primarily on Western naval journals, was that “Russian submarines were noisy and that Western submarines were quieter”. In the deadly game of hunter killer submarine warfare, where one submarine stalks another submarine deep under the sea, the quieter submarine has the advantage of being able to detect earlier, the noisier submarine.

As early as 1960s, the Navy started considering the construction in India of smaller SSK submarines specifically for submarine versus submarine operations.

By 1969, ideas crystallized to build small SSK submarines in India in collaboration with a European firm, on lines similar to what was being done for surface ships in the Leander Frigate Project. Discussions had been initiated with Dr Gabler, the reputed and experienced designer of German submarines during World War II.

What started as a project to build small submarines gradually ballooned into a larger coastal submarine. By the time Dr Gabler's design met the Navy's staff requirements, its cost had overshot the resources available. These discussions however, helped the Navy to understand the complexities of submarine design and the tradeoffs that had to be made in the 'staff requirements'.

Since foreign exchange was always a constraint on acquiring ships, submarines or aircraft from European sources, enquiries were initiated with the Soviet Union. Their response was that they did not have any submarines of the size and characteristics that the Navy wanted, but they could design one.

After the 1971 Indo Pakistan War, the project for indigenous submarine construction resumed momentum. In response to enquiries for constructing SSK submarines in India, proposals were received from the reputed submarine manufacturers of Europe.

Evaluation of these proposals helped to update the staff requirements for a SSK submarine of about 1,500 tonnes.

A delegation visited Sweden in 1973 to discuss the feasibility of collaborating with Kockums for building submarines in India.

The steep rise in oil prices after the 1973 Arab Israel War perpetuated the shortage of foreign exchange and the SSK project had to be deferred. Comparative evaluation continued of the various proposals.

A study was also carried out as to which of the shipbuilding yards Mazagon Docks in Bombay or Garden Reach in Calcutta or Hindustan Shipyard in Vizag should undertake the SSK project. Submarine fabrication required specialised heavy duty machines. For fabricating the hull, the shipyard had to have a Plate Bending Machine to bend the ring frames made of special, 35 mm thick, steel plate. The shipyard had to have Platter and Assembly Shops for profile cutting and edge preparation of these thick steel plates prior to welding. Highly specialised welding skills were required to weld these ring frames together to form a circular pressure hull, which would withstand the crushing pressure of the sea at deep depth.

Mazagon Docks in Bombay had some of these machines in its yard where oilrigs were being fabricated for the Bombay High Offshore oilfield. And Mazagon Docks was near to the engineering subcontractors in the Bombay industrial area to whom the machining and fabrication of non-critical jigs and fixtures could be entrusted. It was decided that Mazagon Docks was best suited for collaboration in the building of SSK submarines. MD started preparing for this project.

Also by 1979, the Navy was able to evaluate in great detail the pros and cons of the German HDW Type 1500 and Kockums Type 45, both of which were still on the drawing board. Kockums shipyard, despite being highly automated (all designing was done by computer, without the help of a scale model) and having excellent infrastructure, had not exported any submarines and their experience was limited to building submarines of 1,400 tons for the Swedish Navy. On the other hand, the HDW shipyard had built 130 submarines for the German Navy, had exported 60 submarines. It was building submarines for numerous countries and was backed by the design organisation IKat Lubeck. IKhad an efficient design facility founded by Dr Gabler and fully backed the HDW shipyard in submarine design.

The Considerations That Led to the Selection of HDW

In 1975, the Apex Defence Review Committee supported the Navy's proposal for constructing submarines. The Soviet Union had already indicated that it did not have submarines of the size that the Navy was looking for. In 1977, Government accepted the requirement for looking at alternate sources for building submarines.

The May 1977 Delegation to Evaluate European Submarine Building Yards

The delegation was led by Rear Admiral NP Datta and comprised three submariners Commanders (X) VS Shekhawat, (L) Thukraand (E) Chaudhury.

Rear Admiral (later Vice Admiral) NP Datta recalls:

“As DCNS, I was part of the delegation which went in 1977 to five European countries France, Germany (two shipyards in Germany), Holland and Sweden to evaluate the various types of submarines offered to us. We shortlisted two possible sources of cooperation. These were the two German shipyards and the Swedish Kockum shipyard.

“We ruled out the French Agosta primarily because it was too small for our requirement, it was not fully tropicalised and they had no great advantage in sensors and weapon systems over the Russian submarines that we had.”

Commander (later Admiral) VS Shekhawat (who had commanded submarines) recalls:

“I accompanied Admiral Datta to Europe in the early part of 1977. We visited shipyards in Germany, Sweden, Holland and France to see what they had to offer which could be compared with the earlier Swedish offer, both in technological terms as well as in financial terms, transfer of technology, support, documentation, etc.

“The visit to France was disappointing. They were reluctant to even show us their Agosta class submarine. After some pressure had been exercised, they agreed to take us to see an Agosta that was building in Cherbourg.

“As far as the Dutch submarine was concerned, it was too small for our requirement though they showed us two submarines of a very interesting design.

“Germany's HDW seemed well positioned to build submarines for us. They had already supplied a number of submarines to other countries. They had the background and experience of the German Submarine Fleets during the First and Second World War a considerable body of experience and data available from what were extensive seagoing operations. And German Industry, both prewar and postwar, had a reputation for engineering skills and thoroughness.

“Having studied the Kockums submarine theoretically and having had a glimpse of the HDW facilities and visited a submarine being built for a South American country, my own views were that eventually it did not very much matter which of these two submarines we went in for because the idea was that we should develop the capacity to design and build for ourselves.”

Captain M Kondath was the Director of the Submarine Arm and dealt with the SSK Project from 1977 until the contract was signed in 1981. He recalls:

“In the Directorate of the Submarine Arm, we analyzed the report of this 1977 delegation. When it was put up the Government, the Ministry suggested that every submarine building shipyard, including Russian, should be invited to offer their proposals. Britain did not respond except for offering their wire guided torpedoes.

“Formal proposals were received from:

- Howal Deutsch Werke (HDW) of Kiel, Germany for their Type 2091.

- Thyssen Nord See Werke (TNSW) of Emden, Germany for their Thyssen 1500/1700.

- Italcantieri of Italy for their 'Sauro' class.

- DTCN of France for their 'Super Agosta' class.

- Kockums of Sweden for their Type 45 B/Naaken.

- Nevesbu of Holland for their 'Swordfish” class.

- Vickers of Britain for the wire guided Tigerfish torpedo.

“A paper evaluation was carried out of these offers. Based on this initial evaluation, the shipyards were requested to indicate if they were prepared to modify their design or alternatively design a submarine to meet the Navy's staff requirements. Holland and France declined and withdrew from the list of contenders.

CCPA Approval in Principle

“Approval in principle' was accorded in February 1979 for the induction of four submarines from non Soviet sources, two to be built abroad and two to be built in India. The total outlay estimated at that time was Rs 350 crore (including Rs 275 crore in foreign exchange). Mazagon Docks, which was to build the submarines, was to invest around Rs 10 crores on infrastructure. Approval was also accorded for setting up a Negotiating Committee.”

The May 1979 Policy Technical Delegation to Italy, Germany and Sweden

The Shipyards were informed of the points that the Indian side wanted included in an inter Government MOU:

- The foreign shipyard has the necessary authorization of its Government to sell submarines to India.

- The shipyard is authorized to collaborate with India for constructing submarines in India under license and with provision for incorporation of subsequent improvements and modifications.

- Assurance of the supplier Government for continued product support in alights aspects for the life cycle of the submarines or for 25 years.

- Similar assurance that no prohibitions or restrictions will be imposed by the supplier Government on the supply and services and continued flow of product support for that period.

- Authorizing the shipyard for transfer of the full range of technology for the construction of submarines in India.

- Transferring from the supplier's Navy the full range of design technology for the development of submarine design capability in India.

- Government clearance for sale to India of connected weapons, armament, sensors, machinery and systems.

- Support by the supplier Navy for the training of:

o Naval and Dockyard personnel for the operation, maintenance, repair and overhaul of submarines and the related systems.

o Naval crew in all aspects of submarine warfare including tactical doctrines and electronic warfare, consistent with national commitments.

o Indian personnel for the logistic support for the submarine and its systems.

- Quality control, certification, trials and acceptance of the submarine and its related systems by the supplier's Navy and supply of necessary documentation.

- Assurance by both sides regarding security of information and equipment.

- Consultations between the two Governments to resolve problems, if any, arising out of the implementation of the collaboration project.

Indo German 'Agreement on Technical Assistance'

As a policy, the German Government avoided defence supplies that might aggravate tension. After the 1971 Indo Pakistan War, the Indian subcontinent had been declared an area of tension. It was also reluctant to supply defence equipment to non NATO countries because such equipment might be used against their allies.

In the end 1970s and early 1980s there was skepticism in Germany, France, Britain and Italy, that if the scope of defence cooperation with India was enhanced, India because of its close relationship with the Soviet Union may not be able to protect NATO hi-tech information from Soviet espionage.

In view of these considerations, India considered it essential, as a measure of abundant caution, that before contracts were signed, there should be agreement at the Government to Government level to safeguard Indian interests. The 1979 Delegation had already informed the European shipyards of the safeguards that the Navy would like incorporated in an Inter Government Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Between June 1980 when the CCPA approved the collaboration with HDW for the SSK Project and December 1981 when the contracts were signed, there were detailed discussions to formulate the MOU. The best that could be achieved was an 'Agreement on Technical Assistance' between the German and Indian Ministries of Defence. This was signed in July 1981.

Contracts Signed on 11 December 1981

After detailed negotiations, contracts were signed in on 11 December 1981:

- To build two submarines at the HDW yard in Germany, where Indian personnel would acquire practical training in submarine construction techniques and Indian naval architects and overseers would learn how to design, understudy how to build and oversee the construction of submarines.

- To transfer technology and material packages to MDL for building two more submarines in India. MD personnel would acquire on job training in Germany during the period when the first two submarines were under construction.

- Giving the Indian side the option of ordering material packages for two more submarines before December 1982 at the same baseline cost as the first four submarines.

- Supply of wire guided torpedoes.

Subsequently, in 1985, a contract was signed for the SSK Simulator for installation in the Submarine Headquarters Complex in Bombay.

Teams Deputed to Germany for Overseeing Construction and Design Technology

The teams deputed to the HDW shipyard at Kiel were:

- Overseeing and Quality Control Teams of the two submarines to be built there.

- Key personnel of the commissioning crews.

- Base and Dockyard Teams to undergo training for manning, maintaining and repairing sonar, torpedoes, shafting, main diesel, compressors, auxiliary machinery, hydraulic systems, damage control, power generation distribution and propulsion, ESM, gyro and navigation aids, refrigeration and air conditioning, etc.

- Material Management and Logistics Group and the Documentation Cell.

The Submarine Design Team was deputed to IKat Lubeck and the Naval Armament Inspectors were deputed to Wede to inspect and accept the torpedoes.

Submarine Construction Schedule

- 12 months for planning.

- 6 months for preparation of detailed engineering drawings.

- 6 months for part fabrication and assembly of subunits.

- 12 months for complete fabrication.

- 6 months on the pontoon for fitting out.

- 6 months for sea trials escorted by a HDW vessel.

- Total time 48 months.

Commencement of the Type 1500 Design by IKL

IKL started work on the detailed design only after the conclusion of the contract because the weight and volume calculations could only be carried out during placement of orders.

Full Scale Submarine Model

To aid production by HDW, IK produced a finished model of the Type 1500 submarine. All equipment, machinery, cables and pipe fittings were modeled. Three Indian Navy shipwrights participated in the production of this model.

Transfer of Submarine Design Technology

The programme for the transfer of design technology was formulated through extensive discussion between IKL and NHQ. It was decided that the ideal method for achieving this would be in two distinct phases:

By a combination of formal lectures and discussions with IK experts, IK would give to the Design Team complete details of the design of the Type 1500 submarine.

To check whether the Design Team had fully understood the complexities of submarine design, it would, under the guidance and supervision of IKL's experts, develop de novo a new design according to the staff requirements specified by NHQ.

Design Training started in 1982. By mid 1984, 98% of the syllabus was completed and the Design Team became fully occupied with the de novo design.

Construction of SSKs 1 and 2 in Germany

Captain (later Rear Admiral) DN Thukral, an experienced submariner, was deputed to HDW as the leader of the Indian Naval Submarine Overseeing Team (INSOT) from 1982 to 1987 when the first two submarines were under construction in Germany. He recalls:

“In Germany, Professor Gabler was known as the 'Father of Submarine Design.' Ingeneer Kontor Lubeck (IKL), the design arm and Machinen Bow Gabler, the manufacturing arm, were located in contiguous premises he looked after both of these. While we were there, he turned 75, there was a big function, and he handed over charge of both the design and the manufacturing aspect to two directors who had been with him for a number of years. It was a very professionally run organisation.

“Our submarines were designed by Professor Gabler. He was with us throughout the period when HDW was constructing our submarines. There is no doubt that his experience was unbeatable. He treated the Indian Design Team with great respect because he realised that the IQ level of the technical officers that the Navy had sent was high. He was with them not only at the senior level, but also at the junior level when they were doing the design and doing mock ups. He would saunter into the Design Room and interact with our people. He really was a 'father figure'. I have a lot of respect for him.

“There were two separate contracts one for the submarines to be built in Germany and one for the submarines to be built by MDL. There was a dual responsibility. Firstly, to inspect the submarines being built in Germany and secondly to build the submarines in India.

“The task of building the submarines in India was that of Mazagon Docks. Their team was the first to arrive in Germany. They had been carefully selected to learn all aspects of submarine construction. MDL's team was also responsible for the inspection of the German material packages to be shipped to India for the 3rd and 4th submarines.

“Right from the initial planning stages, it was decided at Naval Headquarters that there had to be a dual presence in the shipyard at Kiel. The first was that of the Naval overseers who were directly from the Navy as the Indian Naval Submarine Overseeing Team. The second presence was of MD who had to learn how to build the submarine, how the material package was to be dispatched to India in a phased and timely manner and to ensure that the inspectors who were from the Navy would eventually transfer their expertise to MDL.

“In the overseeing team I had two categories of people. The first lot were there for approximately a year and a half they were supposed to learn their part of it, then go back to India and start the inspections for the first one and a half years of the MD programme. By this time, the rest of the Kiel team would have learnt the balance part of inspections and would go back to India and take on the specialised inspections of the latter half.

“My team had technical professionals from the Engineering, the Electrical and the Hull side. We laid down our own priorities. Quality was to be Number One priority because there is nothing like a 99% safe submarine; it has to be 101% safe. The second priority was Timely Completion. Most projects had the bad reputation of having time and cost overruns. Quality and Time were the two major aspects that we looked at, at every stage.

“I must highlight that we were concurrently learning and applying the knowledge to inspection. We were learning from the German Organisation called the BWB, which oversees quality assurance for the German Navy, as well as for a foreign Government if the foreign Government decides to use their facility. It was recommended by HDW that BWB were meant for this purpose and, for a small fee, one could use their facilities. So we had a presence of BWB in the shipyard.

“Initially, we learnt from them and finally, having picked up whatever was required, we carried out the inspection ourselves. The important thing was that our team realised that time overruns are caused whenever there is a delay in inspection. If a certain function by the shipyard has been completed and the next step can only be taken after inspection, then it has to be done immediately. There is no question of weekends or waiting for the next morning. If a schedule was made that a certain inspection was to be done at a certain time, we were there to do so, all the time.

“Initially, in the implementation stage, we had very few hiccups in Germany. Those that did occur were absorbed well in time, because when the contract was finalized with the Germans, tremendous penalties had been stipulated for delays.

“But soon we had problems. The first problem was the rejection of a number of sections of the first submarine hull. And linked with this were 'welding technology' problems.

“There were a certain number of ring frames, which had been specially designed for automatic welding. The welding of these sections required a very carefully controlled environment temperature wise and humidity wise to make sure that the weld was totally defect free. Earlier, most of HDW's welding was manual. These automatic welding stations had their teething problems and some of these problems caused permanent damage. Repairing a badly welded frame costs four times more than a new frame. The Germans initially tried to say that 'This is OK, we will get the welding institutes to have a look at it'. But I would like to compliment the support we got from Naval Headquarters who said, 'Just make sure that you do not get pressurized. Go ahead and take the assistance of anybody, whether in India, or Germany or abroad.'

“Luckily, when we approached the welding institutes and the people who were welding technology experts in Germany, they agreed with our stand. The BWB also supported us 100% and said 'Yes, you are right to reject them. There are hair line cracks and we cannot accept any kind of nonsense as far as quality is concerned.' And, therefore, some seven or eight sections had to be rejected.

“It probably cost HDW a few million marks but finally they accepted the fact. Later, after a couple of years, we read reports in various technical journals where HDW tried to tell the world that for the sake of quality they had sacrificed so many million marks. As far as we were concerned, we never allowed any aspect of submarine quality to be jeopardized. Eventually, the HDW yard realised that we were professionals.

“German Navy submarines had not experienced this kind of welding problem because all German submarines were of smaller lengths and their sections were welded manually. This was the first time that specially constructed automatic welding stations were being used by HDW. I can only say that these were teething problems.

“With a view to becoming self reliant in submarine design, Naval Headquarters had deputed a separate design team to IKL to acquire hands-on design experience under the supervision of Dr Gabler. Project X was the code name given to an indigenous design of a submarine. It was supposed to be a little larger submarine than the Type 1500. It had a dual objective. Firstly, to learn how to design a submarine. Secondly, to meet the staff requirements, which were given to the Project X team.

“The Overseeing Team was also involved in the training of the crews and the sea trials. Our crews had two elements of training. One was classroom training. We had selected experienced submariners for these submarines and very few were new, so that aspect was not difficult at all.

“For sea training, we divided the crews into two halves. One on morning shift and one on evening shift, on the same submarine, depending on the time available. Sometimes, when both our submarines were at sea, we had a little more flexibility. Let me take one submarine, one crew. Normally, the Germans did the operation of the submarine during sea trials. Because of the safety aspect and the fact that you cannot cross the figure of 40 because of the limitation of the size of the rescue sphere. These were some of the mandatory aspects that you just cannot avoid. You cannot carry 41 bodies on board. Therefore, it had to be 20 German crew and 20 of our crew Consequently, training had to be slightly lengthened to make sure that every man got his man days or man hours on a particular equipment or in operations or in navigation or whatever. This had been carefully planned and, therefore, the entire submarine training as far as the crew was concerned went more or less on schedule.

“Then there were other elements where the inspection teams were not involved in the full aspect, except for relevant people. For example, the sonar trials and the weapon firing trials etc were done by the HDW team teaching our people. The German Navy provided targets as and when required and the training aspect was generally handled by HDW.

“As regards sea trials, we had difficulties from time to time. Certain equipment that did not function absolutely correctly had to be either replaced or repaired. I would say that by any universal standard, it was a satisfactory period. Hitches are there in any choice and I do not think we got a larger share of problems than normal.

“The specifications of the submarines that we ordered were spelt out in tremendous detail in various volumes. Except for minor changes, which resulted on the basis of trials carried out or some technical reason, no major changes were brought about. Minor changes of adding a weight here or shifting an item from A to B were effected as necessary. Technically, the submarines are absolutely sound.

“Right from day one, the Submarine Overseeing Team found themselves in a very professionally run organisation. We realised that we had a lot to learn and to apply that learning to inspection. Therefore, the interaction with the shipyard personnel had to be very professional. This paid us dividends eventually because the quality of our submarines has been outstanding as has been borne out of the experience of the last 13 years.”

The first two submarines built in Germany were commissioned as INS Shishumar (S 44) on 22 September 1986 and INS Shankush (S 45) on 20 November 1986.

MDL's Submarine Construction Facilities

MDL had started liaising with HDW immediately after the CCPA had decided on HDW in June 1980. In May 1982, a separate liaison office was started at the HDW shipyard at Kiel.

Separate and dedicated submarine construction facilities were set up in MDL's East Yard. They consisted of three large workshops and a dry dock:

- The first workshop, 50 m x 25 m, had two 20tonne cranes for fabricating the ring frames of the pressure hull.

- The second workshop, 100 m x 30 m, had two 60tonne cranes for fabricating pressure hull sections.

These two workshops were completed in February 1984.

The Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, formally inaugurated the 'submarine construction facilities' on 6 May 1984.

- The third workshop, 99 m x 35 m, was for fitting out and joining the pressure hull sections to form a complete submarine. This workshop and the 90 m x 17 m dry dock, with alights services, were completed in February 1986.

A separate dedicated Pipe Shop and a Stores Complex were also built in the East Yard.

Construction of SSK 3 and 4 in Mazagon Docks

The shipping, from Germany, of the material packages, along with the first set of drawings, had commenced in 1982 and went on till 1983.

Construction of the third SSK commenced on 12 January 1984. It took five years for her to be launched on 30 September 1989 and three more years till she commissioned as INS Shalki (S 46) on 7 February 1992.

Construction of the fourth SSK began on 12 September 1984. She commissioned ten years later as INS Shankul (S 47) on 28 May 1994.

Dropping of SSKs 5 and 6 and Discontinuance of Indigenous Submarine Construction

The HDW contract contained an option clause, to be exercised by end 1982, for two more SSK submarines at the 1981 baseline price, but to which escalation would be 'addable'. For various reasons, NHQ and MoD were unable to exercise the option by 1982 and sought, and obtained, extensions from HDW to hold the baseline price.

From MDL's point of view, it was essential that the submarine production line was not interrupted. If SSKs 5 and 6 were not ordered in time, it would be forced to divert to other jobs, the manpower that was being trained for submarine construction at such high cost.

In the intervening years, NHQ had interacted with HDW on improving the operational capability of SSKs 5 and 6 and for incorporating changes like the better supercharged diesel engine, better sensors and weapons, substitution of obsolescent equipment etc.

By 1985, three options were considered for SSKs 5 and 6:

- Build both in HDW (Favoured by HDW and those who wanted to upgrade the design with the latest equipment).

- Build both in MD(Favoured by MD'to keep the submarine production line going').

- Build one in HDW and one in MD(To get the best of both options).

In October 1985, approval was accorded for the acquisition of two more HDW submarines. Negotiations were to be based on the “one by HDW and one by MDL” option.

The preliminary discussions in 1985 revealed that the prices quoted by HDW had increased steeply. These were never built / acquired.

MDL delivered SSK 3 in 1992 and SSK 4 in 1994. Their operational performance met the Navy's expectations.

Chapter 13 - The Submarine Arm

Contents

- Preamble

- Submarine Warfare

- Submarine and Anti Submarine Tactics

- Submarine and Anti Submarine Tactics

- Stealth and Snorting

- Submarine and Anti Submarine Tactics

- Sonar Propagation

- Submarine Location, Detection and Attack

- MRASW Aircraft

- Anti Submarine Ships and Their ASW Helicopters

- Submarine Search and Kill (SSK) Submarines

- The State of the Submarine Arm in 1975

- The State of the Submarine Arm in 1975

- The First Eight Submarines

- Submarine Depot Ship - Amba

- Shortage of Submarine Personnel

- Submarine Infrastructure Facilities

- Developments Between 1976 and 1990

- Developments Between 1976 and 1990

- Six-Yearly Refits (Medium Repairs) of Kalvari and Vela Class Submarines

- The Indigenization of Submarine Propulsion Batteries

- Indigenous Submarine Construction - The SSK Project

- The Induction of Russian 877 EKM (Kilo Class) Submarines

- Personnel Shortages

- Very Low Frequency Communications with Submarines at Sea

- Command and Control of Submarine Squadrons

- Flag Officer Submarines (FOSM)

- FOSM's Interface with the Navy's Command and Control Organisation

- Submarine Rescue

- Nuclear Propulsion for Submarines

- The Lease of Nuclear Submarine Chakra

- The Utilization of Chakra

- Developments After 1990

- Kalvari / Vela Class Submarines

- Chakra

- Submarine Propulsion Batteries

- German HDW 1500 Shishumar Class (SSK) Submarines

- Overview of the Submarine Arm 1976-1990

- Retrospect

Preamble

This chapter starts with a retrospect of the international law aspects of submarine warfare.

It is followed by an overview of submarine and anti submarine tactics to help the reader to better understand the concerns that drove several inter-related naval developments during the period 1976 to 1990:

- The taking over of the Maritime Reconnaissance role from the Air Force, the induction of Russian I38 MRASW and TU 142 LRMP ASW aircraft and the induction of British Seaking Mk 42 B and Russian Kamov ASW helicopters. These have been dealt with in the chapter on the Air Arm.

- The selection of the German HDW 1500 design for commencing indigenous construction of SSK submarines in India. This has been dealt with in the chapter on “Indigenous Submarine Construction - The SSK Project”.

- The acquisition from the Soviet Union of the latest 877 EKM (Kilo class) SSK submarines to replace the earlier Russian submarines.

- The indigenous manufacture of submarine propulsion batteries for all classes of submarines in service with their designs improved for better performance in tropical conditions.

- The leasing of a Russian nuclear propelled submarine to better understand its capabilities and limitations.

Submarine Warfare

The London Protocol of 1936 stated that submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subject; and these rules included the provisions that a merchant ship's crew must, before the ship itself was destroyed, be put in a place of safety. Moreover a ship's boat is not a 'place of safety'.

An attempt to fulfill this condition was made in the case of SS Laconia in 1942 when three U boats towed boats full of survivors for several days until attacked by Allied aircraft. Admiral Donitz thereafter sent his famous “Be Harsh” signal to all U boats.

At Nürnberg, the Tribunal gave a hedged judgment:

- It recognized that both sides had conducted submarine warfare of considerable ferocity, and that there had been justification for German attacks on British shipping, particularly as that shipping was defensively armed and had orders to report submarines.

- But it found against Admiral Donitz for conducting attacks on neutral vessels without warning and for the fact that submarine crews had failed to rescue survivors.

During war, international law places submarines under stringent constraints. On the other hand, “It is universally recognized that in every war, the actions of any nation are influenced substantially by the behavior of its opponent.”

The following excerpts from the memoirs of Grand Admiral Raeder, the Chief of the German Navy during the 1939-1945 World War, are pertinent.

“The German Naval War Staff ensured that:

- Every precaution was taken against any violation of the rules of international law in regard to war at sea.

- No actions should be taken, no orders or directives issued, which could lead to a violation of the moral law of the sea as it is recognized by all civilized peoples.

“I knew positively that Admiral Donitz, as Commander of the Submarine forces, had on several occasions deliberately put some of our U-boats and their crews in positions of utmost danger from enemy attack in order to insure the safety of surviving crew members of torpedoed ships.”

At the 1945-46 “trials of war criminals” held in Nürnberg by the Allied International Military Tribunal, Admirals Raeder and Donitz were charged with having 'conducted naval warfare contrary to the rules of civilised warfare' with particular reference to unrestricted submarine warfare by the German Navy. To prepare the defence against this charge, their defence counsel sent questionnaires to the British and American Navies.

“From the answers of the British Admiralty, it was established, and accepted by the court, that at the very beginning of the war, the British Navy had begun arming British merchant ships in accordance with directives already laid down in 1938 in their Handbook for the Merchant Marine. It had also sent ships out under armed escort. British merchant ships had orders to report all submarines sighted, and for this purpose were made part of the British Navy's reconnaissance and warning system. On 1 October 1939, the British Navy had directed British merchant ships to ram German submarines whenever possible. And on 8 May 1940, the British naval forces had received orders to sink, without warning, any ship encountered in the Skagerrak.”

“Admiral Nimitz was equally frank and helpful in his answer to the questionnaire. Immediately upon outbreak of the war with Japan, he avouched, the US Government had declared the whole Pacific Ocean a war zone, and had ordered all-out war against Japan. In this war zone, the largest ocean area in the world, US submarines had authority to attack, without warning, all merchant ships sighted. Hospital ships, and other vessels proceeding under security protection for humanitarian purposes, were the only ships exempted from this directive.

“The crucial question in the questionnaire sent to Admiral Nimitz was this: 'Were American submarines forbidden, either by specific order or recognized practice, to take measures for rescue of the passengers and crews of ships sunk without warning if the safety of the submarines themselves were endangered by these measures?'

The unequivocal reply of the US Admiral was: “In general practice, the US submarines did not rescue enemy survivors if such an attempt meant an unusual additional risk or if the submarine was thereby endangered in the further execution of its tasks.”

“These replies proved to the Nürnberg court that the German Navy had conducted its own naval warfare in accordance with the same rules and customs that were observed by the two largest sea powers with whom it was engaged. As a result, the International Military Tribunal completely vindicated the German Navy in its methods of warfare, certifying that such warfare had been conducted in full accord with the rules of international law.”

Submarine and Anti Submarine Tactics

Stealth and Snorting

Stealth is the watchword of all submarines. The modern, diesel-electric propelled SSK submarine is very stealthy, provided the utmost care has been taken to minimize its self noise. Carefully handled, she can be as quiet as the grave. At low speeds, the soft hum of her electric propulsion power unit is almost un-discernable. Unlike a nuclear propelled submarine, she has no reactor requiring the support of numerous mechanical subsystems, aloof which are potential noise-makers.

When dived, the submarine is propelled by a set of huge electric batteries. Depending on how much battery power is used up (the higher the speed, the quicker the battery runs down), the batteries require to be recharged regularly by diesel generators. Just as a car engine needs an intake of oxygen, so do the two internal combustion diesel generators in a submarine. The diesel engine must have air. To get air, a submarine must come up to at least periscope depth and then she becomes vulnerable to detection.

Batteries can be recharged either by being on the surface (more vulnerable) or by remaining at periscope depth and sucking in air (less vulnerable). When a diesel-electric submarine comes to periscope depth and raises her snort mast to suck in the air required to run her diesel generators to recharge her batteries, the process is known as 'snorting'.

Even though a submarine hull is not visible whilst snorting, the acoustic noise of its diesel engines can be heard by another submarine if in the vicinity. Its periscope and snort masts that stick out above the water can be detected on ship and aircraft radar. The ions in the diesel exhaust can be 'sniffed' by detectors fitted in MRASW aircraft. There is little a submarine can do about these limitations, except to stop recharging and crash dive every time her ESM detects radar emissions of an approaching ASW aircraft/helicopter or her passive sonar detects the noise of approaching ships.

During war, a submarine patrolling in hostile waters comes up near the surface only when she has to recharge her batteries. Even then, she will only do so at night, and for the shortest possible time, so as to minimize the chance of being detected and 'localized' for attack.

Submarine and Anti Submarine Tactics

For successful attack, a submarine relies on concealment and surprise rather than concentration of force. A submarine attack is more successful because it detects the ship earlier and can deliver a high weapon density attack before being detected - this quality provides surprise.

To avoid mutual interference, submarines operate singly. When more than one submarine is deployed in the same region, each submarine is given a specific demarcated area in which to operate.

A submarine stalks its prey. Its target - a warship, a merchant ship, or a convoy - seeks clues as to a submarine's presence in order to take evasive action. In anti submarine warfare, MRASW aircraft, ASW helicopters, sonar fitted warships and SSK submarines are the predators and submarines the prey.

When a submarine closes its target ship or submarine, the latter try to counterattack and evade the blow. When anti submarine forces localise a submarine, it either fights like a cornered beast or goes silent and tries to slip away.

The crux of all submarine warfare is to sink the enemy target, get away from the area and survive the anti submarine chase that is sure to follow.

Sonar Propagation

Sound is virtually the only form of energy that propagates usefully underwater, where electromagnetic waves, including light, are rapidly attenuated.

The temperature of the sea becomes cooler as depth increases. This change in temperature affects the velocity (and hence the path) of the sound waves transmitted by a sonar. Temperature layers in the sea refract sound waves much the same way that a prism refracts light.

The sound velocity gradient near the sea surface is considered 'positive' if velocity increases with depth, 'negative' if velocity decreases with depth.

A positive gradient causes upward refraction of sound energy. Upward refracted rays will be reflected by the air-sea interface at the surface and surface reflection will be continued. Positive velocity gradients give rise to surface bounded ducts that can carry acoustic energy for very long distances since the spreading is two-dimensional. Long-range detection can be made under these conditions if the sonar and its target are both located in this duct.

A negative velocity gradient refracts sound waves downwards. As a result, a shadow zone is created which is not insonifield. Under these conditions, by operating in this shadow zone, a submarine can, without being detected, move close to its target to within torpedo firing range.

The way to detect a submarine lurking in a shadow zone or below a temperature layer is to position the sonar in the same shadow zone or below the same temperature layer. This is achieved on board ships by lowering a large towed sonar dome (called Variable Depth Sonar - VDS) to the required depth whilst maintaining speed. Anti submarine helicopters lower their small sonar dome (called 'dunking sonar') whilst hovering.

Submarine Location, Detection and Attack

Submarines are potent weapon platforms. Their traditional task is to attack enemy warships and enemy submarines. They are designed to minimize the chances of their being detected and to withstand anti submarine attacks. They are equipped with accurate and lethal weapons for attack and for self-defence.

A submarine's asset is its invisibility when dived. Its limitation is that its underwater mobility is constrained by the endurance of its propulsion batteries. When recharging batteries, a submarine loses its asset of invisibility.

As mentioned, when dived, a submarine is propelled by electric motors that are powered by batteries. The endurance of these batteries depends on the speed of the submarine. The faster it goes, either to get as far away from the position where it was first detected or to evade the weapons fired at it, the quicker the batteries get exhausted. The submarine then has to surface and recharge its batteries before it can dive again with its mobility restored by recharged batteries.

The crux of anti submarine warfare is to compel the submarine to remain dived by repeated and intense attacks and thereby exhaust its batteries, to reduce its mobility to evade attack and hit it with weapons to force it to surface and surrender.

In ASW tactics, the ship tries to evade or avoid a submarine probability area. It endeavors to confuse and constrain submarine tactical choices by deft combinations of speed and maneuvers.

MRASW Aircraft

When a submarine is sighted on surface or it makes a wireless transmission that betrays its presence by giving Direction Finding (D/F) equipment an approximate position of the transmission, a maritime reconnaissance anti submarine warfare (MRASW) aircraft speeds to that position. It drops a number of sonobuoys to 'localize' the contact and if possible to attack it. The MRASW aircraft, therefore, is in the first line of submarine location, detection and attack.

The objective of an MRASW aircraft is to obtain an initial position of a submarine. For example an indication on its detector of the 'magnetic anomaly' created by the submarine's steel hull or a 'sniff' of diesel exhaust ions or a disappearing radar contact suggestive of a submarine having crash dived to evade detection. As soon as the MRASW aircraft obtains an initial position, it drops a pattern of passive sonobuoys to localize the contact.

Modern conventional submarines (and their batteries) are designed to minimize the need to snort to a few hours every few days. This time is too short for an MRASW aircraft to get an accurate enough localization. On the one hand, an MRASW aircraft may choose not to use its radar to detect the submarine's snort mast sticking out of the water - but to do so would reveal its presence to the submarine. On the other hand, continuous patrols by MRASW aircraft operating their radar can constrain a submarine's freedom to recharge its batteries.

In rough weather and poor sonar conditions, localization by an MRASW aircraft could be as poor as an area of several hundred square miles, almost like looking for a needle in a haystack.

However as soon as a submarine has been localized and accurately tracked, the aircraft attacks it with its own weapons. Additional MRASW aircraft can help to maintain pressure on the submarine to remain dived.

Anti Submarine Ships and Their ASW Helicopters

As soon as the MRASW aircraft localizes a contact, ships designed for anti submarine warfare and having anti submarine helicopters on board proceed to the area where the MRASW aircraft's sonobuoy patterns have been laid.

Anti submarine helicopters can search a given area quicker and, being airborne, they cannot be hit by submarine fired torpedoes. After ascertaining the progress on localization from the MRASW aircraft, they either lay their own sonobuoys to localize the contact or use their dunking sonar to search. If the sonar search is passive, their sonars listen for tell tale noise of submarine presence.

If the sonar search is active and a submarine is present, the sonar receives an acoustic echo back from the submarine hull and the submarine can be tracked by sonar transmissions. As soon as the submarine's position and movements are accurately determined, helicopters release their anti submarine homing torpedoes. Helicopter attacks continue until the submarine is hit and sinks or the submarine surfaces and surrenders because its batteries have exhausted.

A submarine knows when it has been detected on sonar - it can hear the sonar transmissions. It knows it will come under attack. It will try to evade helicopters. When cornered, it may choose to attack the ship because a ship can be instantly sunk by submarine fired torpedoes.

The role of the anti submarine ship is to stand-off outside the range of the submarine's torpedoes and keep on re-fuelling and re-arming the helicopters until the submarine nears exhaustion. She then moves in to fire intensive barrages of anti submarine rockets.

Submarine Search and Kill (SSK) Submarines

The advantage of having submarines to search and kill enemy submarines is that both share the same undersea environment to detect and track each other, without being limited by shadow zones and temperature layers. Using active sonar would immediately betray presence. Detection by passive sonar requires high skills in picking up even the faintest noise emanating from the opposing SSK. Hence the emphasis, during SSK designs, on silent machinery and minimum noise levels.

SSKs are deployed in areas where there is likelihood of encountering only enemy submarines and no possibility whatsoever of own anti submarine forces mistaking own SSK for an enemy SSK. The contest is between two dived SSKs.

Once the opposing SSK has been detected and tracked and the fire control problem solved, wire guided torpedoes are fired in a way that the target SSK would not have time to fire its own wire guided torpedoes in self defence. In effect, this means getting as close as possible to the victim before firing - but in so doing, it also means that the victim SSK may hear you and fire its own torpedoes before you fired yours. The direction from which the retaliatory torpedoes would come is predictable - straight down the direction that the incoming torpedo's homing head starts its active sonar transmissions. At this moment, decoys can be released to seduce the incoming torpedo away.

Both submarine warfare and anti submarine warfare are driven by constantly evolving frontier technologies. With long years of peace interspersed by short sharp wars, success requires:

- The continuous intensive training of highly motivated and experienced personnel.

- Sustaining the highest standards of material readiness of the platforms (ships, submarines, aircraft and helicopters) and their sensors (sonars, radars and ESM) and their weapons (torpedoes, rockets, and depth bombs).

The State of the Submarine Arm in 1975

The First Eight Submarines

The Submarine Arm started with the acquisition from the Soviet Union of four of their latest Project i 641 K (NATO classification Foxtrot class) 2,000 tonne ocean going submarines. These arrived between 1968 and 1970. The problems experienced in operating the first of these Kalvari class submarines in tropical conditions were fed back to the design bureaus in Russia. Improvements were gradually introduced in the remaining three submarines before delivery.

Another four submarines were contracted for in 1971. These improved Vela class submarines arrived between 1973 and 1975.

By 1975, the material state of the first four submarines had deteriorated. This was a cumulative result of several factors:

- The tropical, hot and humid Indian climate, the corrosion caused by the higher salinity of tropical seas and the corrosive atmospheric pollution caused by the industrial emissions at Vishakhapatnam.

- Bunching. The induction of the first four submarines in 24 months and the next four submarines in 16 months meant that their major six-yearly refits would also have to be undertaken after six years within periods of 24 and 16 months respectively. This bunching of major refits could not have been avoided - it made no sense to order one submarine at a time when starting a Submarine Arm.

- Submarine repairs required highly skilled, experienced and deeply specialised expertise. The Navy did not have this expertise. It could only be built up slowly because officers and artificers were periodically transferred and the civilian cadres of the new Dockyard were being built up from scratch.

Six-yearly refits could not commence on time because the submarine refit workshops and facilities were still coming up in the new Dockyard. The new civilian workforce had no knowledge of submarine repair technology. Even though vertically specialised and experienced Soviet specialists in submarine repair were available, they had no Indian counterparts to whom they could transfer their technology and expertise.

All these factors were aggravated by the procedural delays in the delivery of submarine refit spares from Russia. The only solution was for submarines to be refitted in Russia.

Initially, the Indian side found it difficult to countenance sending submarines to Russia for refit. Not only might it indicate lack of self-confidence, but also because heavy investments had been made in setting up the new Dockyard for this very purpose.

The Russian side too, perhaps for security reasons and their own submarine refit workload, was reluctant to accept Indian submarines in their dockyards. After considerable interaction, both sides realised that there was no other option.

Submarine Depot Ship - Amba

The Submarine Depot Ship Amba had commissioned in 1968 and had been based in Vishakhapatnam. Between 1969 and 1971, Amba supported the submarines operating on the West Coast.

After it was decided to base the four new submarines of the Vela class at Bombay, Amba was re-based at Bombay. She provided the essential battery recharging facilities until a full-fledged battery charging facility was established ashore in 1978. In addition, she had a recompression chamber, could prepare torpedoes, recharge High Pressure air and provide comfortable accommodation for submarine crews.

Shortage of Submarine Personnel

In the short period of eight years between 1966 and 1974, the Navy had manned eight submarines as well as their technical facilities ashore. Personnel shortages began to cause concern. The 'rejection' procedure was reviewed and made more pragmatic. To induce personnel to volunteer, monetary incentives like Submarine Allowance, Submarine Pay, and Hard-lying Money at full rates were sanctioned, special benefits like Special Submarine Rations and Special Submarine Clothing were authorized, procedures were simplified and sustained recruitment drives were resorted to.

Submarine Infrastructure Facilities

The 1965 agreement with Russia covered not only the delivery of ships and submarines, but also the creation of a modern dockyard at Vishakhapatnam, along with infrastructure.

The shore infrastructure for the Submarine Arm comprised a submarine base, a submarine training establishment, submarine maintenance and repair workshops, facilities to charge submarine propulsion batteries and high-pressure air bottles and facilities for blowing the ballast tanks and preparing submarine torpedoes. Since the new Dockyard would take several years to come up, interim arrangements were made for the Base Repair Workshop in Vishakhapatnam to be expanded.

Developments between 1976 and 1990

Six-Yearly Refits (Medium Repairs) of Kalvari and Vela Class Submarines

It was decided that the first submarine, Kalvari would be refitted by the Russian side in Vladivostok and that the second submarine, Khanderi would be refitted in Vishakhapatnam. A team from the Naval Dockyard Vishakhapatnam was deputed to participate in Kalvari's 18-month refit in Russia to acquire hands-on experience of a six-yearly refit and, on return to Vishakhapatnam, to assist in carrying out Khanderi's refit with the help of Russian specialists.

Kalvari started her refit on 1 January 1975 and returned to Vishakhapatnam in mid 1976 with 'zero defects'. The performance of her equipment was so satisfactory that Kalvari provided the benchmark for the high standard that Vishakhapatnam had to achieve for Khanderi's refit.

When Khanderi's refit started in mid 1976, the position was:

- The new Naval Dockyard under construction at Vishakhapatnam was nowhere near ready to undertake such a complex refit. The only facilities available were a two-and-a-half-bay, rudimentary, Base Repair Workshop, the submarine battery commissioning / charging-discharging facility called the Energy Block, and the Torpedo Preparation Workshop.

- There was neither the capability for the survey of a submarine's pressure hull nor a naval dry dock in which to dock a submarine.

- The team of Dockyard officers and civilian foremen that had been deputed to Russia to participate in Kalvari's refit had, to a limited extent, imbibed what needed to be done, how it was to be done and how best to improvise facilities in Vishakhapatnam until the new workshops were ready.

- The set of Refit Spares required for the mandatory, time-bound replacement / overhaul of critical equipment had not arrived.

- The Repair Technical Documents (RTDs) required for the repair and refit of equipment were incomplete. Whatever had been received was in the Russian language. There was a shortage of translators and a backlog had built up of documents awaiting translation from Russian into English.

On the plus side, the expert civilian Russian specialists from the factories that manufactured equipment could be requested for to assist and provide guidance on how to refit the equipment.

However, Russian specialization was very narrow - each specialist from each manufacturing factory knew all about his specific equipment but not much about the other equipment.

The Indian side was reluctant to afford the high costs that would have to be incurred for the deputation of such a large number of specialists.

The Khanderi refit was beset with all these problems. There was no way to overcome the inexperience of dockyard workers, their low productivity, their learning curve, their low expertise, the shortage of spares and documentation and the inadequate infrastructure.

In 1980, the Naval Expert Committee was constrained to comment:

“Over 80 Soviet specialists had been imported for facilitating Khanderi's medium refit. Each one of them was a specialist in repair of submarines. The Chief Shipbuilder had an experience of about 12 years in refitting submarines alone. Soviet specialists included ship builders, designers, technologists, specialists in quality control, electro-deposition and specialists on almost each important equipment and system on which they had long experience.

“Despite the Soviet specialists, the refit was taking more than twice as long and was nowhere near finishing. If the Navy had to acquire and replicate the expertise possessed by the Soviet specialists, in time to come, the following steps were unavoidable:

- Undertake most meticulous planning of work and material requirements.

- Create Bureaus of ship builders, technologists and designers as recommended by the Soviet side, consisting of 32 Technologists and 15 Designers for submarines alone.

- Create a core of supervisory staff and workers and specialise only in refit of submarine hull and its equipment. This would mean a larger requirement of manpower, but narrow specialization to preserve the quality of work appeared to be the only answer to the problems being experienced.”

Kalvari's refit in Vladivostok had lasted 18 months. Khanderi's refit in Vizag lasted five and a half years, from 1976 to 1981. It was, nevertheless, a significant learning experience. Considerable innovation had to be resorted to as was done for testing critical equipment like high-current-carrying propulsion battery breakers and the back-to-back testing of the overhauled main electric-propulsion motor.

In subsequent years, both expertise and productivity gradually improved. For the reasons discussed in the chapter on Logistics, the delivery of Refit Spares continued to remain untimely. Delays were inescapable in the completion of a massive project like the new Vishakhapatnam Dockyard. And because the submarines were acquired in bunches of four, there was no escape from the 'bunching' of their six-yearly refits.

Kursura was laid off for a number of years and cannibalized to keep the other submarines operational. In 1985, it was decided to make her operational. Subsequently, she sailed and dived for a full operating cycle before she was pulled up on to Vishakhapatnam beach after decommissioning in 2001 and made into a museum. In 1987, Khanderi was laid up for cannibalization, as Kursura had been earlier.

The overall sharing of the six-yearly refits (Medium Repairs) of the first eight submarines between refit yards in Russia and Vishakhapatnam was:

- Russia:Kalvari (1975-76), Karanj (1978-79), Vela (1980-82), Vagli (1981-84), Vaghsheer (1983-85)

- India:Khanderi (1976-81), Kursura (1977-95), Vagir (1981-84), Kalvari (1984-88), Vela (1986-88), Karanj (1988-96),Vela (1993-98),Vagli (1997-99)

The Indigenization of Submarine Propulsion Batteries

From the inception of the submarine acquisition programme, the Navy had decided to become self sufficient for its requirements of submarine propulsion batteries. The offers of competing Indian firms and their foreign collaborators were evaluated. Standard Batteries of Bombay were chosen in 1973 to manufacture propulsion batteries in technological collaboration with Tudor of Sweden.

The first eight submarines had commissioned with Russian propulsion batteries. Each submarine's set of batteries weighed over 300 tonnes and comprised 448 battery cells, each one meter high, and half a meter wide. The set had to be charged before loading on board. To recharge the batteries at sea, a submarine had either to come to the surface or, to be safer, come to snort depth, and use the diesel generator for recharging. The battery set had a life of 100 charge-discharge cycles or two and a half years, whichever was earlier. The Russian Navy had adjusted their submarine operating cycle such that these 100 cycles would be expended between three-yearly refits called Current Repairs. To avoid having to lay off an operational submarine during its operational cycle, the Russians always installed a set of new batteries during the three-yearly refit.

The Navy's experience with Russian batteries soon revealed that in Indian tropical conditions, the evolution of hydrogen when recharging the batteries was much greater than in the cooler Russian weather. Mixing additives to the electrolyte solved this problem partially. A basic design problem, however, was the inability of the electrolyte cooling system in the Russian battery to cope with high tropical temperatures.

Standard Batteries modified the design of the Swedish Tudor battery to overcome these problems. It innovated tubular construction instead of grid construction and, instead of having cooling coils in the electrolyte, it achieved more efficient cooling through ducts in the bus bars. After the initial teething troubles had been overcome, the performance of indigenous batteries proved to be better in Indian conditions than that of imported batteries.

The German HDW submarines, which entered service in 1986, were equipped with German Hagen batteries. The design of the Hagen battery was indigenized by Chloride India, the makers of Exide batteries.

The Russian EKM submarines started entering service from 1986 onwards. The indigenization of their batteries was once again entrusted to Standard Batteries.

In 1990, the Battery Commissioning Facility in Bombay was completed. It met the requirements of the both the EKM and HDW submarines based at Bombay and dispensed with the need for Russian submarines to go all the way round to Vizag to replace their batteries.

The indigenization of submarine propulsion batteries was a success story. Despite setbacks and teething problems, perseverance, innovation and close interaction between submariners and the factories culminated in the production of propulsion batteries that had superior cooling power in the tropics, longer life, higher capacity, superior plate technology all of which helped to lower indiscretion rate. In later years, Russia and other countries started importing these batteries from India.

Indigenous Submarine Construction - The SSK Project

In the early 1970s, proposals were invited from reputed and well-established submarine manufacturers. Based on the technologies reflected in the offers that they sent, the Navy incorporated the desired features of each proposal and informed them of its 'revised staff requirements'.

In 1981, after prolonged evaluations, a contract was signed with HDW of Germany for four 1,500-tonne submarines - the first two to be built in Germany and the next two by Mazagon Docks, Bombay. The German-built submarines commissioned in 1986. Due to initial start-up problems, the submarines built by MD commissioned in 1992 and 1994.

The selection and construction of these submarines have been discussed in the chapter on “Indigenous Submarine Construction - The SSK Project”.

The Induction of Russian 877 EKM (Kilo Class) Submarines

In the late 1970s, the Russian side was requested to suggest replacements for the eight Foxtrot class submarines that had been inducted in earlier years, concurrently as the case was on for building SSK submarines in India. The Russian response in 1978 was that the EKM design was on the drawing board and that India should make up its mind quickly so that its requirements could be bulked. The Navy was hesitant to do so, seeing in the Russian offer, perhaps rightly, that it was to compete with the Swedish and German SSK evaluations then in progress. Years passed. In February 1981, the Russian side offered the 877 EKM submarines. The Navy asked for its team to see the 877 but was asked to wait. By this time, the decision had already been taken to collaborate with HDW of Germany for the indigenous construction of submarines and final negotiations were in progress. The German HDW SSK agreement was signed in December 1981.

In 1983, an Indian team visited and evaluated the 877 and found that its design and performance as an SSK was comparable to that of the HDW SSK. In 1984, an agreement was signed for six submarines. The seventh submarine was contracted in 1987 and the eighth submarine in 1988.

These eight 877 EKM Sindhughosh class submarines (NATO classification Kilo class) were commissioned between 1986 and 1990. They were a generation ahead of the earlier i641 Foxtrot class and on par with the German HDW 1500 submarines.

The Moscow newspaper Pravda published the following report in 1988:

“The Sinduratna is an 877 EKM submarine of the Kilo class. When surfaced, she displaces 2,300 tonnes and is capable of a speed of 10 knots. Fully autonomous for 45 days, it can dive to 300 metres, carries a crew of 52 and is equipped with six 533 mm torpedo tubes. The submarine was developed at the Rubin Design Bureau in St Petersburg.

“The 240 feet long, 3,000 tonnes dived, extremely quiet, diesel-electric Kilo class SSK can run submerged at speeds up to 17 knots.

“The battery gives the Kilo a range of some 400 miles, running slowly and silently, before she needs to recharge. She can trave6,000 miles 'snorting' before refueling.”

Almost all the officers who underwent EKM training in Russia gathered the impression from their Russian instructors that the EKM's teardrop hull, its anechoic rubber tiling and other attributes were features of a submarine that was supposed to take a miniaturized nuclear reactor. But during development, either the reactor could not be fitted in the space available or technical problems constrained further miniaturization and it was converted into a diesel-electric propelled boat. This helps to explain why, despite the Russian Design Bureau's experience of the Indian side's need for more air conditioning capacity when operating Russian submarines in tropical conditions, the shortfall in air conditioning could not be remedied before the submarines commissioned.

Commander (later Captain) KR Ajrekar underwent training in Russia and on return to India became Commanding Officer of the Sindhughosh. He recalls:

“Russian training was the best training we ever received. The best part was the training on the torpedo fire control system. The instructor was a commanding officer who had just come from an operational submarine. He had 15 years experience in operational submarines and it was absolutely invaluable. After each attack, we had to point out our own mistakes and the rest of the junior officers watched the commanding officer analyse his mistakes. I found that people did come out with their own mistakes and such mistakes were not repeated a second time.”

Recalling the qualities of the EKM submarine that he commanded, he said:

“The tear-drop hull configuration, being hydro-dynamically the best underwater, the underwater management of the EKM is excellent. The EKM has auto diving control you can steer the submarine automatically even from the fire control computer. The hydroplanes are located in the midship portion where there is no interference with the sonar. The submarine hull is covered with rubber tiles that absorb the acoustic energy of enemy sonar transmissions. The radiated noise of the submarine was very low. The sonar could pick up HE at very long ranges. Never before had I picked up those kinds of ranges. In fact, we thought that we would pick up these ranges only in Arctic waters or the Baltic Sea. However, within a month of our arrival in India, extensive sonar trials were carried out and the ranges obtained were just slightly less than what we had obtained in the Baltic. The sonar is excellent, the underwater telephone facility is excellent, and the intercept sonar is very good. In addition there is mine hunting sonar which is very useful.”

In the initial years, the EKM submarines suffered inadequacy of air conditioning in tropical conditions. This was progressively resolved by increasing the air conditioning capacity. The acute shortage of fresh water was eventually resolved by fitting reverse osmosis plants.

Personnel Shortages

The tempo at which submarines were inducted necessitated measures to increase induction of personnel into the submarine cadre. Basic submarine courses were increased from one per year to two per year and recruitment drives were intensified. But it was only after the Fifth Pay Commission in the 1990s that emoluments improved sufficiently to start attracting personnel of the desired caliber to volunteer for the Submarine Arm.

Very Low Frequency Communications with Submarines at Sea

Whereas a submarine on the surface can transmit and receive wireless messages just like a ship can, submerged submarines can only receive wireless messages on Very Low Frequency (VLF). VLF transmitters require huge antennae suspended high above the ground.

The initial discussions were solely with the Russian side, from whom the submarines had been acquired. Later enquiries with western manufacturers indicated that better technology might be available from America. Parallel discussions were, therefore, pursued both with Russia and with America.

Between 1979 and 1984, modalities were worked out for Continental Manufacturing Company of America, in collaboration with Triveni Sangam Ltd of India, to be responsible for the detailed design, manufacture, site installation and commissioning of the VLF Transmitter and the Auto Transmitting Units.

The hardware arrived by 1986. Installation of the VLF Transmitter commenced in 1987. Trials were completed in 1989.

During the same period, the Defence Research and Development Organisation undertook the design of the antennae to be fitted in submarines for receiving VLF transmissions.

On 20 October 1990, the VLF Transmitting Station was commissioned as INS Kattaboman in Tamil Nadu on the southern tip of India.

Command and Control of Submarine Squadrons

After the arrival from Russia of the fourth submarine in end 1969, all four submarines of the Kalvari class (Russian Project i 641, NATO designation Foxtrot class) constituted the 8th Submarine Squadron. It was based at Vishakhapatnam under INS Virbahu, which commissioned in 1971. CO Virbahu functioned as Captain SM 8 and Class Authority for all submarines.

The next four Vela class improved versions of the Kalvari class were based in Bombay. When the fourth submarine arrived in end 1974, these four submarines, under Captain SM 9, constituted the 9th Submarine Squadron. Captain SM 8 at Vishakhapatnam continued to function as the class authority for submarines.

The first submarine of the Sindhughosh class (Russian Project 877 EKM, NATO designation Kilo class) arrived in 1984. The first four submarines constituted the 11th Submarine Squadron and were based at Vishakhapatnam to facilitate the training of EKM commissioning and replacement crews. Facilities to carry out their annual repairs were taken in hand for completion by 1990.

The first two Shishumar class SSK submarines arrived in Bombay from Germany in 1987 and constituted the 10th Submarine Squadron.

The next four EKM submarines that arrived by 1990 were based in Bombay and constituted the 12th Submarine Squadron. The four ageing Vela class submarines of the 9th Submarine Squadron gradually relocated to Vishakhapatnam.

The last two, MDL-built SSK submarines joined the 10th Submarine Squadron in 1992 and 1994.

Until INS Vajrabahu was commissioned in Bombay in 1996, the submarines based in Bombay were administered locally and Submarine Headquarters in Vishakhapatnam dealt with technical matters.

With multiple squadrons based in Bombay and Vishakhapatnam, the Commanding Officers of Virbahu and Vajrabahu were initially designated as COMSUB East and West and later re-designated as Commodore Commanding Submarines (COMCOS) East and West respectively.

Submarines were placed under the operational and administrative control of the respective Cs-in-C, who were designated as Submarine Operating Authorities. The COMSUBs were responsible to their Cs-in-C for operational readiness and providing their submarines with 'Base' and 'Material' support.

Flag Officer Submarines (FOSM)

The constitution of FOSM was promulgated in 1986 after the arrival of the first EKM submarine from Russia and implemented in 1987 just prior to the arrival of the SSK submarines from Germany.

- FOSM responsible to NHQ for all Class Authority and training functions in regard to submarines.

- FOSM under the administrative control of FOCINCEAST.

- FOSM to interact with both FOCs-in-C on all matters related to his charter of duties.

- Captain/Cmde (SM) on the East Coast and CO Virbahu to be separate entities.

FOSM's Interface with the Navy's Command and Control Organisation

CNS (NHQ)

FOCINC WEST

FOCINC EAST

capt/cmde (sm)
fosm
capt/cmde (sm)

Vela
Shishumar
Sindhughosh
CO Satavahana
Kalvari
Sindhughosh

Class S/Ms
Class S/Ms
Class S/M
CO Virbahu
Class S/Ms
Class S/Ms

9 SS
10 SS
12 SS

8 SS
11 SS

Submarine Rescue

Submarine Rescue Vessel (SRV) Nistar was acquired from Russia, commissioned in 1971 and based at Vishakhapatnam. She conducted the diving operation on the Pakistan Navy submarine, Ghazi, which sank outside Vishakhapatnam harbour in December 1971. From 1972 onwards, Nistar helped train the Navy's Deep Divers and Clearance Divers.

In 1975, a full-fledged medical organisation was sanctioned to provide cover for submarine rescue operations. In 1977, a safe 'Submarine Bottoming Area' was established off Vishakhapatnam to exercise mating trials between Nistar and submarines.

Between 1982 and 1987, contemporary European SRVs were evaluated for their suitability. A study was carried out of the utilization, on payment, of the US Navy's air-portable Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel (DSRV) rescue system. Each of these had pros and cons in Indian conditions.

The drought of the late 1980s and the ensuing shortage of resources led to the acquisition of a new SRV being postponed and the search for an interim solution.

In 1988, a vessel, which Mazagon Docks had built as a Diving Support Vessel for offshore oil exploration work became available for acquisition. It had a dynamic thruster facility and a recompression chamber. It was taken on dry charter and fitted with the diving bell and other essential rescue equipment removed from Nistar. After trials, she was commissioned as INS Nireekshak on 8 June 1989. Even though she was not a perfect SRV, she was better than the Nistar, which had become due for decommissioning. The roles envisaged for Nireekshak were:

- Facilitate rescue from a submarine in distress.

- Facilitate training of saturation divers.

Transformation of INS Satavahana into the School for Submarine Warfare

When INS Satavahana commissioned in 1974, the Submarine Training Wing and the Submarine Escape Training Facility formed part of the Integrated Type Training Establishment for the Russian acquisitions.

In 1986, when Southern Naval Command was assigned the task of 'Training', NHQ decided that submarine training would remain under Flag Officer Submarines.

To concentrate surface ship training in Cochin and to make space available in Satavahana for the training equipment of the newly inducted 877 EKM submarines, all the training equipment in the Surface Training Wing of Satavahana was carefully disconnected, bodily lifted into a landing ship and transported to Cochin where it was reinstalled and reconnected.

In 1989, Satavahana was designated as the School for Submarine Warfare.

By 1990, the EKM training equipment and the EKM command and control/ attack simulator had been installed.

Nuclear Propulsion for Submarines

“Nuclear propulsion in India was first mooted in 1967 when a naval officer and a BARC scientist prepared a feasibility report. A more detailed report was prepared in 1971 as the Committee of Secretaries felt that R&D on nuclear propulsion technology was inescapable if India was not to be left too far behind by the end of the century, when atomic energy would be a major source for both propulsion and energy requirements. A small nucleus of engineers was located in BARC as early as 1978.”

“Seeing the advent of nuclear propulsion in submarines of other navies, a study was undertaken by BARC to study a nuclear propulsion package for naval ships and submarines. A stage arose when it became necessary to train serving personnel in this very important area of propulsion technology.”

“The offer by the Soviet authorities of a 'nuclear powered submarine fleet' for the Indian Navy was made by Marshal Ogarkov during his visit to India in Apri1981. The Soviets offered to arrange a two-year training programme for Indian naval personnel, lease one nuclear submarine for five years for practical training and to render technical assistance for creating maintenance facilities in India for nuclear powered submarines. He added that the sale, as also assistance for designing and constructing nuclear‑powered submarines, could be taken up later.”

“An agreement was concluded with the Soviet Union and a team of officers under the supervision of Vice Admiral MK Roy was formed to steer the project. After a rigorous selection procedure, the first batch of the nuclear submarine crews, under the command of Captain S Daniel commenced their training in the USSR. The training was, perhaps, the most thorough and taxing course that any of the Indian submariners, most of whom had over a decade of submarining behind them, had ever undergone. They absorbed the new technology with professional aplomb.”

Between 1982 and 1986, the crew was trained. The base facilities were set up by 1987.

“On September 14, (1987) Admiral Roy, Vice Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, conveyed to me the pleasant news that the Government had finally decided to take the first nuclear-propelled submarine from the Soviet Union on lease, as purchase would entail acceptance of NPT conditions.

“The idea of acquiring a nuclear propelled submarine was floated by me as Defence Minister and after months of bargaining the Soviets agreed. A training programme was arranged for Indian sailors. I had visited the trainees in Leningrad and Riga. I was also happy that the lease amount charged by the Soviet Union was fairly reasonable. The nuclear propelled submarine had the advantage of remaining under water, which was not possible for the conventional submarines. It was also proposed at that time that a second nuclear-propelled submarine would be built in India. The Atomic Energy Commission experts were confident of producing an atomic power pack for the submarine.”

The Lease of Nuclear Submarine Chakra

On completion of the sea training commitment, the submarine was taken in hand to prepare her for the three-year period of lease.

The Utilization of Chakra

Chakra commissioned on 5 January 1988 and sailed for India on 15 January 1988. Except when transiting through shallow waters in the South China Sea, the Singapore Straits and the Strait of Malacca, her passage was submerged. Throughout her passage, she was tracked by Australian and American MRASW aircraft. The frigate, Dunagiri rendezvous’ her in the South China Sea to escort her homeward. On arrival Vishakhapatnam, she was received by Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, the Defence Minister KC Pant and the CNS Admiral Nadkarni. After embarking, they were taken to sea for an outing.

During the three years of her lease, Chakra worked with both the Fleets off the east and west coasts of India.

Developments After 1990

Kalvari / Vela Class Submarines

The four submarines of the Kalvari class decommissioned between 1989 and 2003 (giving an average in-service life of 28 years). Of the four Vela class, two underwent 6-yearly refits between 1995 and 1999 and are stilin service. The other two decommissioned between 1997 and 2001.

Chakra

On completion of the lease, Chakra sailed for Russia on 16 December 1990 and was thereafter decommissioned in January 1991.

Submarine Propulsion Batteries

The programme for the indigenization of propulsion batteries for the 877 EKM submarines that had been initiated in 1987 had not completed when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. By 1992, however, part supply of the first battery set for both EKM and SSK submarines started being received from Standard Batteries and Chloride India respectively. It took some years for indigenous batteries to completely replace those coming from Ukraine.

German HDW 1500 Shishumar Class (SSK) Submarines

SSK 3, Shalki, commissioned on 7 February 1992 and SSK 4, Shankul, commissioned on 28 May 1994. After Shankul's commissioning, the indigenous submarine construction programme at Mazagon Docks came to an end.

Overview of the Submarine Arm 1976-1990

Year
Russian KALVERI & VELA CLASS
GERMAN HDW CLASS
RUSSIAN EKM CLASS
RUSSIAN NUCLEAR CHAKRA
INFRASTRUCTURE

1975
KALVERI under refit in Russia Jan 75-Jul76 KURSURA continued torpedo firings for NST58
Under evaluation

Escape Training Tower commissioned

1976
KHANDERI commenced refit in Visakhapatnam
Under evaluation
-
-
Indigenous production established of batteries for KALVARI and VELA class

1977
KALVERI-NISTAR submarine escape trials
Under evaluation

1978
KARANJ under refit in Russia Feb 78-Oct79
Under evaluation
Russian side mentions EKM
-
-

1979
-
Under evaluation
-
-
Refit facilities established in Visakhapatnam First submarine docked in ND(V) for repairs

1980
KHANDERI completed refit in Visakhapatnam KURSURA under refit in Russia Sep 80-Apr 82 VELA under refit in Russia Sep 80-Apr 82
Under evaluation
Russia side offers EKM

1981
VAGIR under refit in Visakhapatnam Ju81-Oct 84
Contract signed in Dec 1981
Russian side repeats offer
-
-

1982
VAGLI under refit in Russia Sep 82-Mar 84
-
-
Agreement signed Crew selected

1983
-
SSKs 1 and 2 construction commenced in Germany
Indian side visits EKM
Crew commenced training in Russia

1984
Kalveri under refit in Visakhapatnam Nov 84-Oct 88
SSKs 3 and 4 construction commenced in India
-
-

1985
-
-
-
-
-

1986
-
SSSKs 1 and 2 commissioned in Germany
EKM 1 commissioned
Crew completed training and returned to India
-

1987
-
-
EKMs 2 and 3 commissioned
Crew standing by
Construction of VLF station commenced

1988
KARANJ under refit in Visakhapatnam Sep 88-Dec 90
Indigenous production established of batteries for SSK and EKM submarines
EKMs 4,5 & 6 commissioned
CHAKRA commissioned
-

1989
KARANJ under refit in in Visakhapatnam
-
EKM 7 commissioned
-
Diving Support VesseNIREEKSHAK chartered as interim Rescue Vessel

1990
KARANJ under refit in Visakhapatnam
-
EKM 8 commissioned
-
VLF station commissioned

Battery Commissioning Facility estalished in Bombay

1990
-
-
-
CHAKRA returned to Russia

1992
-
SSK 3 commissioned in India
-
-
-

1993
-
-
-
-
-

1994
-
SSK 4 commissioned in India
-
-
-

Retrospect

By any yardstick, the achievements of the Submarine Arm were remarkable. In the thirty years from 1962 when, starting from scratch, the very first submariners underwent training in the British Navy, unti1991, the Navy inducted eighteen of the latest conventional submarines of their time, sixteen from Russia and two from Germany (with two more German submarines under construction in Bombay) and also manned, operated and maintained a missile-firing nuclear propelled submarine for three years, apart from setting up submarine infrastructure facilities at Bombay and Vishakhapatnam.

The difficulties encountered in attracting into, and retaining in, the submarine cadre sufficient technical personnel (officers, artificers and non-artificers), the difficulties in refitting submarines and the difficulties in coping with the ripple effects of inadequate air conditioning in tropical conditions were tackled with the typically Indian tenacity to keep things going until solutions were found.

The best features of four distinct traditions (three pertaining to conventional submarines - the British tradition in the early 1960s, the Russian tradition in the 1970s and 1980s, the German tradition in the 1980s and the fourth tradition in the 1980s pertaining to Russian nuclear submarines) were adapted and synthesized into a tradition uniquely appropriate to Indian conditions and climate.

As in the case of warships, Admirals Gorshkov and Chernavin of the Soviet Navy did their utmost to help the Submarine Arm. The assistance of the Soviet and German governments and their navies was very valuable. Most valuable of always the understanding of the Indian Government of the future potential of the Navy's Submarine Arm.

Submariners have always been an elite fraternity. The unique characteristic of submariners in every Navy, and one which India's submariners have nurtured with the utmost care, is the awareness that when dived, the safety of their submarine depends on every member of the crew doing everything right. Each one of the crew knows that the lives of all depend upon each one doing the right thing. Mishaps have been manageable and non-catastrophic.

Submariners also have unique customs. Writing in the Navy Foundation's annual magazine Quarterdeck 1987, Commodore (later Rear Admiral) KR Menon said:

“Submarines may change, but customs and traditions don't. Submarines still leave homeport for change of base with a band on the jetty, and come back to be received by the Captain SM and the traditional cake.”

Transition to Eminence - Indian submarines

2008-03-22T23:23:00.000-07:00

Indian Navy to achieve unique feat by conquering North Pole

2008-03-17T17:59:00.001-07:00

New Delhi, Mar 5 (ANI): The Indian Navy is all set to enter the record books by becoming the first ever organisation in the world to conquer all the three poles - Mount Everest, South Pole and North Pole.

Till now, only 23 persons have achieved the rare feat of visiting all three poles, and only 64 people in the world have visited one of the poles and Mt. Everest. Therefore, any organisation or nation in the world cannot rival the feat.

The Navy had already achieved the feat of conquering Mt. Everest under the leadership of Commander Satyabrata Dam on May 19, 2004. The Naval team successfully completed their ski traverse to the Geographic South Pole on December 28, 2006.

The success of the above two missions made the Navy team the first Indian Team to Ski Traverse to the Geographic South Pole, the first submariners in the World to reach the South Pole and first Indian Everest Summiteers to reach the South Pole.

After this stupendous success, the Indian Navy again under the leadership of Commander Dam, is set to conquer the North Pole. The team will leave India on March 24 and reach the North Pole around the second week of April.

This expedition would unfurl the flags of India and the Navy at the final frontier of adventure activity that challenges the human spirit of courage and survival.

The North Pole expedition team comprises of Commander Satyabrata Dam, Lt Avinash Khajuria, Surgeon Lt Ajay Sharma, MCERA 1 Raj Kumar, POMA Rakesh Kumar, POMA Vikas Kumar, LME R Pandey, SEA 1 B Singh, Sea 1 Manoj Vats, MA 1 Sonam Tamchos.

Commander Dam, Vikas Kumar and Rakesh Kumar were also part of the Navy team, which conquered Mt. Everest and the North Pole. Eight members of the North Pole team were also part of the South Pole expedition.

Surgeon Lt Ajay Sharma will become the only doctor in the world to go to both poles. The oldest member of the team is Commander Dam, who is 43, and the youngest member is Sonam Tamchos, who is yet to celebrate his 21st birthday.

Among the challenges the team will have to face are temperatures ranging between minus 30 to minus 35 degrees Celsius, and average wind speeds of 80 km an hour.

The team, which includes members from West Bengal, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, represents a microcosm of India.

The expedition would involve very little rest, reserves of determination, stamina, skill and team spirit. The team will take about 15 days, walking 10 to 12 hours a day.

To communicate with the rest of the world the team would be carrying an Iridium hand held satellite phone. (ANI)

WINNERS – LOSERS

2008-03-17T17:57:00.000-07:00

This had appeared in the Quarterdeck some years ago in another Avatar. I do not have the original and hence am rewriting it in another format.

I have never served with or known Raja Menon from close quarters. He has a brilliant mind; of this I have no doubt. I have read some of his articles in magazines though I have not read any of his books. I wish the Mandarins at New Delhi’s South Block had included him in their think tanks. His mind is a national asset; at least as far the defence of this country is concerned. Let me tell you of the other side of this ‘Beautiful Mind’ that I have actually encountered.

We were a carefree newly married couple staying temporarily on the second floor of Vizag’s Amzari Park apartment allotted to Ashim Gupta who had loaned us its use while he was away on annual leave. The Menons were on the ground floor. The first floor was also allotted to a newlywed couple where the doctor husband was posted away in Port Blair. Newlyweds are expected to be carefree. We were no exception. We forgot the house keys inside and inadvertently locked ourselves out when we went to Officers Institute for the evening. There being no duplicate keys, we had no other means to gain entry into the apartment when we returned. In desperation, I asked my ground floor neighbor and fellow submariner for help. He offered me a ladder, which I was to use to gain access to the first floor balcony and then use it to climb on to my own balcony. Simple plan but difficult in execution. The lady shrieked when she saw a stranger emerge from nowhere in her balcony. I was at a loss of words but Raja, who was holding the base of the ladder was not. ‘This guy is not stopping by, he is only passing through.’ He explained to the frightened young bride.

Several years later, Vagir was operating off the East Coast. I was the mate. We had a very tough schedule and were drained out by the time the exercises concluded. There was still one final serial left. We were to double bank with Amba anchored off Pudimadaka Lighthouse near Vizag. It was an interactive exercise to test the Submarine support capabilities of Amba. Raja Menon was in command of this Submarine Support Ship. He used to send us Puri Bhaji by boat, whenever we surfaced at the end of the day’s exercises with the fleet. Expecting similar treatment we had mentally prepared ourselves for a couple of days R&R in Amba’s air-conditioned cabins. We tied up alongside Amba and the Sangway was lowered from the Mother vessel. Imagine our horror when Amba’s telegraphist handed us a two-page exercise schedule. The first serial was a tug-of-war competition with the Amba team scheduled to commence in 15 minutes time.

‘Their’s not to question why. Their’s but to do and die.’ Alfred, Lord Tennyson put down words to this effect when he wrote his famous poem, ‘The charge of the Light Brigade’. Still sweating in our greasy Khakis we mustered on Amba’s Quarterdeck, ready to meet the challenge. A team was quickly formed and we were ready. Our opponents appeared not only fresh and eager but seemed to have been picked from ENC’s best sportsmen.

The result was a foregone conclusion. Our team was dragged away in each of the rounds as if overcome by a giant Tsunami. Absolutely one-sided competition if ever there was one. How could a fellow submariner do this to us we wondered. If the whole world wondered at the charge of the light brigade, (That is if you believe Lord Tennyson) then this tug of war would also be a subject of conversation in many a submarine wardroom as well as crew quarters in the Fore and Aft ends. And subject of conversation it did become, but of a different kind. For, you see, there was a twist in this tale.

The two Ships Companies gathered for the inevitable prize distribution, however one sided the competition may have been. A cake was brought and the Captain began his speech. ‘Vagir put up a good fight but Amba did well to win the competition’ said the Captain. A big cheer went up from Amba Ship’s company. The Chief PTI of Amba prepared to receive the prize and even took a couple of steps towards it when the Captain resumed, ‘and the prize goes to ………the losers.’