close_game
close_game

Govt must rethink the role of defence attaché

ByAnit Mukherjee
Feb 19, 2024 08:07 AM IST

With growing capabilities and interests, India needs to reconsider the current terms of the partnership between the military and our diplomats.

In international politics, diplomacy and the military are inextricably linked. There is no consensus, however, on the precise boundaries separating the military and foreign policy domains. For instance, should the depth and extent of foreign military cooperation be decided by diplomats or military professionals? Ideally, this is a deliberative process, but, as with matters pertaining to different bureaucracies, there is always some tension. Many American diplomats deride the outsized role of the Pentagon in the United States (US)’s foreign policy. India’s story reflects its tradition of strong civilian control over the military — diplomats, for better and for worse, have been firmly in the driving seat. But with growing capabilities and interests, we need to reconsider the current terms of the partnership between the military and our diplomats. Ironically, recent policy measures — of redeployment of military attachés — may end up narrowing the scope of the military’s overseas engagements.

The military’s main point of contact for its overseas engagements is through the office of the defence attaché. Since Independence, India has progressively increased the number of defence attachés posted worldwide(File Photo / HT) PREMIUM
The military’s main point of contact for its overseas engagements is through the office of the defence attaché. Since Independence, India has progressively increased the number of defence attachés posted worldwide(File Photo / HT)

The military’s main point of contact for its overseas engagements is through the office of the defence attaché. Since Independence, India has progressively increased the number of defence attachés posted worldwide. Currently, there are around 64 military officers, and supporting enlisted staff, assigned to about 55 military missions. The number of staff posted at these missions, and their service affiliations, divulge the “revealed preferences” of its military and foreign engagements. For instance, until very recently, India had 10 officers posted to its mission in Moscow, indicative of its military-technical exchange and its Cold War-era reliance on Russian platforms. Moreover, indicative of the leading component of its bilateral engagement, the three services have divided up their responsibilities. For instance, naval officers serve as defence attachés to Sri Lanka, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, and Japan, among others, whereas Army officers are posted to countries like Turkey, Malaysia, South Korea, and Italy, and air force officers to countries like Brazil, Egypt and Israel.

Recently, the strength of military officers posted to different missions was “rationalised”. Citing the need to enhance defence exports and engagement with other countries, officers and their supporting staff were reduced and “redeployed” from some missions to others. Hence, the number posted in Russia was cut from 10 to seven, in France from three to two and, quite surprisingly, in the United Kingdom (UK), from three to one. The officers were removed altogether from countries like Chile and Sudan, among others. For the first time ever, officers were posted in countries such as Spain, Djibouti, Philippines, Tanzania and Poland. This was perhaps necessary to fill voids and explore opportunities for defence trade. However, the reduction inevitably decreases the capabilities of these missions.

Such tinkering also reveals a piecemeal approach to this issue. Instead, the government should think more creatively about defence diplomacy. First, there is a strong case to be made to drastically increase the number of such military missions worldwide. The number of Indian military attachés abroad stands at 64 currently, with unconfirmed reports that this may rise to 70. This is grossly inadequate for the expanding arc of India’s interests and engagements. In contrast, China has military attachés in over 110 countries, with varying numbers of officers posted in each. The UK has around 145 attachés whereas the US has a much larger number. To be sure, all three are resource-rich countries and so these numbers should be considered aspirational rather than absolute.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the government should stop thinking of military attachés as mere procurement officers posted to further technical and defence trade. Instead, military attachés have other equally critical functions, such as influencing and interacting with the host country and with other members of the diplomatic community, gathering intelligence, and projecting perspectives. To be sure, these are intangibles — and bureaucrats abhor unquantifiable outcomes. Nonetheless, military attachés should be essential to any diplomatic strategy. They are even more important as a potential channel of engagement in the Global South, where the military is a prominent political actor.

Third, the military itself needs to rethink its policy on posting attachés. So far, it posts career officers, which is a great exposure and learning curve for such officers. However, this also prevents an in-depth knowledge and continuing regional expertise among the officers. To address this, the military may consider creating a separate stream, akin to the US foreign area officers, for individuals inclined towards such a career. It may be best, therefore, to have a mix of careerists and area specialists. Unfortunately, however, the military seems stuck in desultory debates about inter-services allocations of attachés.

Eventually, military attachés are best utilised if they are adequately empowered. In fact, current service rules, relics of a bygone era, prohibit officers from interacting with foreigners. The ministry of external affairs also needs to shed a gatekeeping attitude towards military diplomacy. There are ambassadors and high commissioners who confidently engage and utilise the services of the military. Equally, there are others who keep the military at a distance. India’s interests are best served with a partnership between these two equals — confidently projecting and protecting our country’s interests.

Anit Mukherjee is a senior lecturer at the India Institute at King’s College London. The views expressed are personal

rec-icon Recommended Topics
Share this article

For evolved readers seeking more than just news

Subscribe now to unlock this article and access exclusive content to stay ahead
E-paper | Expert Analysis & Opinion | Geopolitics | Sports | Games
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On