|
In all the debates on the Tehelka tapes , the role of
the middleman in arms marketing and their modus operandi have not received
adequate attention. Given that mystery surrounds their work style, it is
but inevitable that incorrect accusations should be bandied about. The
middleman is retained by armament firms in India not only to facilitate
actual deals but also to generate the market. Indeed, armament firms
finance not only most of defence technical journals in the world but also
a number of think-tanks of the West. When details of arms transfers are
published, it is not the result of any investigative reporting or
intelligence operation, but information made available by armament firms
to stimulate arms purchases by countries which feel threatened as
neighbors of the fist recipient weapons. Similarly, articles comparing
performance characteristics of weapons are often based on information
supplied by armament firms to promote their own sales and to run down the
products and systems of the competitors. This background should help place
in context the information war currently being waged in our media on the
pros an cons of different armament systems. Unfortunate as this is,
armament firms use journalists, civil servants, ex-service officers and
even serving officers in uniform and often without their knowledge.
Information could be leaked uniform to a reporter about defects in a
weapon system – whether being evaluated or already purchased – through
the medium of a middle-level serving officer. The reliability of the
source makes the story seem sound. This is what happened with the Bofors
system. The underlying idea was that the exposure would lead to
blacklisting of the Bofors gun, thus opening the doors to other armament
suppliers. A few very senior retired officers too could have been enlisted
in this effort.
The western armament firms which have very
sophisticated information warfare capabilities on arms sales have a basic
interest in targeting Russia and Israel since they have emerged as the two
leading arms suppliers to India. Their campaigns may not be restricted to
any one system but could cover a broad front. The British aerospace has an
interest in ensuring that India does not consider alternative trainer
aircraft. Similarly, western firms are bound to plant stores that the
Russian ammunition was substandard. The conduits are some serving officers
who will share any information for a price. Major system procurement
decisions are not taken at levels below that of a Lt-General or
equivalent. However, armament firms cultivate officers at the medium level
in the expectation that they would go up to influential levels or at least
have access to files. These are all part of the general campaign of
armament firms and the middlemen are their field commanders. One arms
agent rose to be within the closest circle of advisers of prime minister
Morarji desai and another was a family friend of the prime minister. The
armament firms are also
likely to make contributions to the political parties as part of their
market stimulation tactics. Their investments in out politicians may not
always be linked to a particular purchase. Often, these are in the nature
of a future market promotional venture. Clearly, the time has come for
some rational action here, including perhaps a move to legalize middlemen,
so they act through proper channels. |
