Month: May 2024

Posted on

Land Back ASAP

 

It was a clear and sunny morning. I was flying at  a low level over the sea, deep inside on the eastern seaboard. Suddenly, the R/T silence was broken (a rare phenomenon) by the Navy ships in the area. The message was, “Dragon Leader, land back ASAP (as soon as possible).”

 

This was my third tenure in the squadron, and I had just taken over the command of the squadron. I had barely completed my revalidation and had taken the squadron to participate in a maritime exercise.

 

The exercise was aborted, and I led my formation back to the operating Navy base, wondering about possible reasons. On contacting the base on R/T, I was told that the Station Commander would like to see you in his office immediately. Thousand of thoughts crossed the mind as to what could be the reason of such an unusual and urgent recall.

 

Station Commander was straight to the point and very cryptic “Orders have been received to for you to take the squadron back to the parent base”.  I could not get any more information out of him. The exercise was called off and the fighters ferried back to base that evening. Technical manpower and the ground equipment was left behind awaiting airlift back.

 

On reaching the base, we came to know that something was cooking on the northern front. The Air Officer Commanding (AOC) told us to ferry out the very next day to our Op Location (location earmarked for operations during hostilities. Next day we moved to the op location and were deployed there for the next  60 days.

 

This was for the Kargil war – Operation Safed Sagar.

 

Memories of those 60 days is still vividly clear even after 25 years. They came flooding back on being asked to provide inputs about the events.

 

Queries and brief Inputs

 

  1. What was the thought process in deploying Airpower in the Kargil War?

 

    • Initially, the Army wanted attack/armed helicopters from IAF to be used against the infiltrators. However, the IAF, recognising the gravity of the situation, insisted on a more strategic approach.

 

    • The IAF, fully committed to the cause, went on operational alert and initiated reconnaissance missions and support to the army for mobility and sustenance.

 

    • The then Air Chief (Air Chief Marshal AY Tipnis) insisted on political authorisation for combat airpower employment. Some wrongly perceived this as the IAF’s reluctance to support the Army.

 

    • Reasons/Thought Process:- Attack helicopters (Mi-35) could not operate at those heights, and armed helicopters (Mi-17) with unguided rockets would be highly vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft weapons (a Lesson again reiterated by the Russia-Ukraine war). The IAF would need to be much more holistically involved. A political authorisation is necessary to apply combat airpower due to potential consequences arising from employment on our territory, chances of collateral damage, and escalation potential.

 

    • The Cabinet Committee on Security substantiated the IAF’s rightness of thought process. It initially (18 May 99) denied the use of offensive airpower.

 

    • The final clearance came later, on 24-25 May 99, as the magnitude of intrusion became clearer. The clearance for combat airpower application was granted with the restriction of not crossing the LoC.

 

  1. Was the Air Force able to achieve its laid-down objectives?

 

    • The IAF, showcasing its adaptability and readiness, rapidly adapted to the air campaign’s unique operational challenges and flew day and night during Operation “Safed Sagar.”

 

    • The use of air power made an enormous difference in ground operations. The effective application of air power saved our casualties and compressed the time frame needed to achieve our objective of regaining control of our territory.

 

    • The Indian Air Force achieved its primary objective of degrading the enemy’s offensive capabilities, softening its defence and denying essential supplies.

 

    • In the words of Gen VP Malik, the then Army Chief:-

“The success in the war could not have been achieved but for the IAF having jointly performed with valour and commitment in complete coordination. Use of the IAF altered the dynamics of the war in our favour.”

 

  1. Which all aircraft took part in the deployment?

 

    • The entire Indian Air Force was activated and placed on operational alert within a few hours, and offensive air operations were offered to commence within six hours of authorisation.

 

    • Canberra and Mig-25 aircraft were used for aerial reconnaissance. Mig-23, Mig-27, Jaguars, and Mirage-2000 aircraft undertook offensive strike operations. Mig-21 and Mig-29 aircraft undertook air defence and dominance missions.

 

    • Fixed-wing transport and helicopters were used for large-scale troop movement, sustenance, supply missions, casualty evacuations, etc.

 

  1. The Mig series aircraft, especially Mig-29s, have received praise for keeping PAF’s F-16s at bay. Could you talk about it?

 

    • Mig-29 and Mig-21 aircraft played an important role in local area air dominance by preventing enemy aircraft from interfering with our air and ground operations.

 

    • The effort these aircraft put into air defence escorts and Combat Air Patrolling by day and night proved an effective deterrent, ensuring local air superiority. At times, PAF F-16s, orbiting on their side of the LOC, were kept at bay by our air defence fighters flying a protective pattern above the strike.

 

  1. What were the important lessons for the IAF from the Kargil War?

 

    • Using air power quickens the process of achieving objectives while reducing costs due to a reduction in men and material casualties.

 

    • Restrictions (Not to cross LoC) on airpower application reduce its effectiveness.

 

    • Airpower needs to be applied innovatively with ingenuity. The challenges included high-altitude terrain (10,000 to 18,000 ft), low air density, strong winds, small camouflaged targets, self-imposed restrictions, etc.

 

    • IAF needs to improve its high-altitude area fighting capability (It has come a long way since then).

 

    • Stand-off and precision capabilities are essential.

 

    • Interdiction proved effective (Attack on NLI’s (Northern Light Infantry of Pakistan) command headquarters at Tiger Hill and supply dumps at Muntho Dhalo).

 

    • Helicopters and fixed-wing combat support aircraft are vulnerable in contested air space.

 

Lessons learnt from the operation Safed Sagar were valuable and helped in charting the future trajectory of the IAF capability building. IAF has come a long way, but still has a long way to go, considering the prevailing threat situation

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

618
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Posted on

Trust and Integrity:  The Cornerstones of Authentic Leadership

 

 

 

“Integrity is the soul of leadership! Trust is the engine of leadership!”

— Amine A. Ayad

A leader’s position is one of immense influence and responsibility. Their influence extends far beyond the immediate environment. Their actions, rooted in core values, can have wide-reaching effects, contributing to the betterment of society and making a positive difference in the world.

 

Authentic Leadership.

 

 

“Authenticity is your most precious commodity as a leader.”

— Marcus Buckingham

 

Leadership is not just a role to be played but a transformative journey; it goes beyond titles and positions. It is a way of life, a true reflection of one’s authentic self and deeply held values. It is about the consistency of one’s actions and the authenticity of their character, even when no one is watching. Authentic leadership is about being authentically oneself and setting an example through one’s life, not just portraying a positive image for others to see. Authentic leadership is not about wielding power but earning trust through unwavering integrity and genuine actions. It is built on strong character, and a leader’s behaviour and consistency of action are most critical. By leading with authenticity and integrity, a leader sets a powerful example for others to follow, creating a ripple effect of positive influence that extends far beyond their immediate reach. This authenticity becomes the foundation of leadership, paving the way for personal growth and development.

 

A leader’s actions are constantly scrutinised. Their reputation is delicate, and the consequences of compromising their values can be swift and severe. Genuineness and transparency in action build trust and respect among their peers and followers. A good leader’s integrity and unwavering principles bring credibility, setting a positive example for others and effectively inspiring and motivating them. When a leader stays true to his values and leads with integrity, he builds trust and respect that resonates with everyone he encounters. By embodying strong character and unwavering values, a leader can inspire those around him to strive for excellence and positively impact their lives. A leader’s actions should consistently align with their core values at all times and places. It is not enough to appear virtuous; one must live their values consistently. By living their values daily, a leader becomes a beacon of authenticity and strength, guiding others to do the same.

 

Trust

 

 

“Leadership is an achievement of trust”

-Peter Drucker

 

Trust is a cornerstone of effective leadership. It forms the basis of a leader’s ability to influence and motivate others. Key aspects of how trust interconnects with leadership are as follows:-

 

    • Consistency. Leaders build trust by being consistent in their actions and decisions. When team members know what to expect from their leader, they feel more secure and confident.

 

    • Transparency. Open communication fosters trust. Leaders who are transparent about their intentions, challenges, and decisions create an environment where team members feel valued and informed.

 

    • Empathy. Showing genuine care and concern for team members’ well-being helps in building a strong, trust-based relationship. Empathetic leaders are better able to connect with their team on a personal level.

 

    • Reliability. Leaders must follow through on their commitments. Reliability reinforces trust, as team members know they can depend on their leader.

 

    • Competence. Demonstrating the necessary skills and knowledge to lead effectively reassures team members that they are in capable hands.

 

    • Fairness. Treating all team members with fairness and without favouritism ensures that trust is maintained across the board. Fairness in decision-making and conflict resolution is particularly important.

 

    • Support. Providing support and resources needed for team members to succeed builds trust. Leaders who invest in their team’s development and success earn their loyalty and trust.

 

    • Acknowledgment, & Apology. When trust is broken, acknowledging the issue openly is the first step toward rebuilding it. A sincere apology can go a long way in mending broken trust. It shows humility and a willingness to make amends.

 

  •  
    • Responsibility & Commitment. Leaders should take responsibility for their actions. Taking concrete steps to rectify the situation and prevent future issues demonstrates a commitment to rebuilding trust. This might include changes in behaviour, policies, or processes.

 

    • Enhanced Collaboration & Higher Engagement. Trust fosters a collaborative environment where team members feel safe to share ideas and take risks, leading to increased innovation and productivity. When employees trust their leaders, they are more likely to be engaged and motivated. This leads to higher job satisfaction and retention.

 

    • Better Communication. Trusting relationships improve communication. Team members are more likely to share information, provide feedback, and seek guidance when trust is present.

 

    • Resilience. Teams led by trusted leaders are more resilient in the face of challenges. Trust provides a foundation of stability and support that helps teams navigate difficulties more effectively.

 

Trust is essential for effective leadership. It is built through consistent, transparent, and ethical behavior and maintained by demonstrating reliability, competence, and fairness. When broken, it requires acknowledgment, apology, action, and patience to rebuild. The impact of trust on a team’s collaboration, engagement, communication, and resilience is profound, making it a critical component of successful leadership.

 

Integrity

 

“A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the quality of his actions and the integrity of his intent.”

― Douglas McArthur

 

Integrity is fundamental to effective leadership. It involves adherence to moral and ethical principles, ensuring honesty, fairness, and transparency in all actions and decisions. Leaders with integrity build trust, inspire loyalty, and set a strong example for their teams. Key aspects of how integrity is intertwined with leadership are as follows:-

 

    • Honesty. Leaders with integrity are truthful in their communications. They do not manipulate facts or hide information to serve their interests. This honesty fosters trust and respect among team members.

 

    • Consistency. Integrity involves being consistent in actions and decisions, aligning them with stated values and principles. Consistency helps establish a reliable and predictable leadership style.

 

    • Ethical Behaviour. Ethical leaders adhere to moral standards and professional codes of conduct. They make decisions that are not only legally compliant but also morally sound.

 

    • Accountability. Leaders with integrity take responsibility for their actions and decisions. They do not shift blame or avoid accountability, demonstrating a strong sense of ownership and duty.

 

    • Positive Culture. Leaders with integrity foster a culture of openness, respect, and ethical behaviour. This positive culture encourages team members to act with integrity themselves, creating a cohesive and principled organisation.

 

    • Inspiring Loyalty. Integrity inspires loyalty and dedication. Team members are more likely to remain committed and motivated when they believe in their leader’s integrity and vision.

 

    • Effective Decision-Making. Leaders with integrity make decisions based on sound moral principles, leading to fair and just outcomes. This ethical decision-making process builds credibility and trust within the organisation.

 

    • Leading by Example. Leaders must model the behaviour they expect from their team. Demonstrating integrity in their actions sets a standard for others to follow.

 

    • Transparent Communication. Open and honest communication is crucial. Leaders should share information transparently, even when it involves admitting mistakes or delivering difficult news.

 

    • Fairness and Equity. Treating all team members fairly and equitably is a hallmark of integrity. Leaders should ensure that opportunities, resources, and recognition are distributed without bias or favouritism.

 

    • Ethical Decision-Making. Leaders should consistently apply ethical principles in their decision-making processes. This involves considering the broader impact of decisions on all stakeholders and choosing actions that align with the organisation’s values.

 

    • Courage to Do the Right Thing. Integrity sometimes requires making tough decisions or standing up for what is right, even in the face of opposition or personal risk. Courage and conviction are necessary to maintain integrity.

 

    • Resisting Pressure to Compromise. Leaders may face pressure to compromise their integrity for short-term gains or to meet targets. Maintaining integrity requires resisting such pressures and prioritizing long-term ethical standards.

 

    • Managing Conflicts of Interest. Situations where personal interests conflict with professional responsibilities can challenge a leader’s integrity. Transparent disclosure and adherence to ethical guidelines are essential in managing  these conflicts.

 

    • Long-Term Growth. Organisations led by individuals with integrity are more likely to achieve sustainable success. Integrity fosters trust, loyalty, and a positive reputation, which are critical for long-term growth.

 

    • Morale & Confidence. Integrity boosts employee morale. When team members see their leaders acting with integrity, they feel more valued and motivated to contribute their best efforts. Integrity enhances the confidence of external stakeholders, including customers, investors, and partners. A reputation for ethical leadership attracts and retains support from these crucial groups.

 

    • Cultural and Organisational Factors. Organisational culture and external factors can influence a leader’s ability to act with integrity. Leaders must navigate these influences carefully, advocating for ethical practices and setting a positive example.

 

Integrity is a cornerstone of effective leadership. It involves honesty, consistency, ethical behaviour, and accountability. Leaders who demonstrate integrity build trust, create a positive organisational culture, inspire loyalty, and make fair and just decisions. Despite challenges, maintaining integrity is essential for long-term success, employee morale, and stakeholder confidence.

 

“Leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge.”

 

— Simon Sinek

 

Leadership extends beyond professional settings; it is a role model in all aspects of life. A leader’s actions, rooted in core values, have the power to inspire positive change not only within the organisation but also in the broader society. The responsibility of leadership should be embraced with pride and dedication.

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

618
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pictures: Courtesy Internet

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

Posted on

TRANSPARENCY IN DEFENCE AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

 

Transparency in Defence and Intelligence Agencies

 

This article written by Air Marshal PK Dey (Retd) was published in ‘The Hindu’, on 31st October 2000.

 

 

Excerpts.

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY and the right to information have become prominent buzzwords and phrases in the lexicon of those involved in the struggle to achieve these targets in the functioning of government in all areas of the globe – but most of all in developing countries like India, which have a democratic structure on paper but are still far from providing their peoples with the tools to ensure that the government functions primarily in the interests of those that it represents. Secrecy in government functioning is one of the most significant and potent weapons available to those in power, not merely to cover up corruption and inefficiency but to virtually perpetuate deliberate misdeeds that suit the convenience of all those who profit from them.

 

Recent years have seen the emergence of several movements both at the Centre and in the States that have sought to introduce legislation enabling the commoner to demand and receive an accounting from the government for its actions. This accounting would satisfy him that scarce resources are being gainfully utilised and that elected representatives and government officials function with the people’s interests at heart. Notably, there has been significant and heartening progress in demanding transparency in national defence and associated fields of intelligence and security. However, there is still a long way to go. The myth that anything related to the “defence of the nation” must be kept under wraps to ensure that the `enemy’ is kept in the dark has taken such deep roots in the mind of the public that the rising clamour for transparency and accountability in government functioning appears to have excluded this vital sector from its purview. Even the press, which plays such a crucial role in educating the public about the deeds and misdeeds of the government, continues to treat `defence’ as a `holy cow’ that it would be unpatriotic to question no matter what it does!

 

The people seem to have lost sight that their security and defence are at stake. It goes without any question, therefore, that they must not merely be assured but know enough to be sure and confident that all that can reasonably be done for the safety and security of the nation is being done. They must understand that when a war is fought, it has genuinely been necessary and unavoidable. That lives have not been lost, families destroyed, and the economy put at risk without justification. They must know, and not just be told, that the big chunk of the budget that goes into defence expenditure at the cost of desperately needed resources for education, healthcare, housing, nutrition for children and all other elements of social security that this country lacks, is essential and well spent. This can only be possible if the people become more knowledgeable and involved in issues relating to defence, and there is a constant process of “informed debate” involving not just the uniformed services and government officials but also interested members of the public, academics, and the corporate sector.

 

Blanket Exemptions.  

 

In the recently tabled Freedom of Information Bill in Parliament, under Section 8, there are provisions for constitutionally accepted national security and international relations exemptions. The proposed Bill also makes blanket exemptions for specific security and intelligence agencies. No provision of the Act will apply to those Central and State security and intelligence agencies notified in the schedule under Section 16 of the Act. There is a danger to our security if we treat certain agencies as completely taboo and don’t separate those areas and activities that can and should be made transparent from those that require the protection of secrecy.

 

In discussing transparency in defence, we must first understand which aspects of defence functioning must be secret and for how long. The only critical areas relate to operational plans, strategy and tactics. Numerical strengths, peacetime locations of military formations, peacetime costs of training, attrition and replacement are all typical examples of what is currently treated as secret or confidential or, at the very least, restricted – and God alone can help an erring individual from the clutches of the nearly 70-year-old Official Secrets Act if he or she can take a quick snapshot of an airfield or even, believe it or not, a culvert on a public road! Naturally, in times of conflict or situations of great tension immediately preceding a potential conflict, any information or activity that might affect the outcome would have to be treated as sensitive, so a different set of rules would have to apply. However, in normal peace conditions, there is no requirement for the laws of secrecy and confidentiality to vary from those that would apply in other government departments, barring anything related to operational plans, strategies and tactics.

 

Brutally Honest Appraisal

 

The second issue of vital importance is that, even when secrets are justified and necessary at a particular point, secrecy cannot apply forever. Every experience teaches us something, and there is no doubt that those who do not learn from past mistakes are bound to repeat them. War is one of the most traumatic experiences, and all those involved in the defence of a nation must study all conflicts, particularly those that one’s own country has been involved in. This appraisal needs to be brutally honest, and if, in the process, failures and shortcomings become apparent at any level, urgent steps have to be taken to ensure they are never repeated. And if it shows the government or any individual in a poor light, so be it – for the likely penalty for a cover-up may prove unacceptably heavy in the future. Unfortunately, so far in modern India, while there has been no shortage of enquiry committees after every war/conflict with the avowed aim of learning lessons, the governments of the day have been more concerned with protecting the `tails’ of those in authority than pinpointing the real reasons for not just the setbacks encountered but, more important, why the conflict was allowed to develop at all. It, therefore, follows that unless making a `secret’ report public after a reasonable period continues to be a genuine threat to national as different from personal interest, it must be declassified – the sooner, the better, and in any case, not later than 20 years after the event.

 

Informed Debate

 

 What is to be done? The answer is simple – ask questions and start a nationwide informed debate on critical defence-related issues. Make the government participate and respond in a manner that satisfies the public. Many issues fit an informed, constructive discussion to ensure that the money, resources, and lives expended in our nation’s defence are worth the sacrifice.

 

A few questions need adequate answers, and a critical appraisal and debate by a range of military science experts and students who are not limited to a few select members of the `establishment’ are needed. We talk openly and extensively about our strategic need to have a significant say in controlling and exploiting the Indian Ocean. Do we know the extent of effort and expenditure involved in achieving even a fraction of that dream? Can we do it with two, three, or four carriers? Is this an achievable objective that should be pursued? What progress has been made towards reorganising the Ministry of Defence to create a more cohesive joint service structure with a more excellent and effective representation of serving military officers in the decision-making processes than currently exists?

 

Defence Deals

 

Controversies about kickbacks and the pursuit of shady defence deals involving large sums of money have, if anything, increased since the government introduced its policy of `no middlemen or agents’ in such contracts. Sales of defence equipment invariably mean massive gains to the suppliers since profit margins in such sales are very high. Manufacturers and suppliers are, therefore, ever ready to offer sweeteners or kickbacks to the buyer (with the bidding on the amounts by competing suppliers rising in direct proportion to the deal’s value). While there is no doubt that the negotiations for any contract, defence or otherwise, have to be confidential, there is an urgent need for ensuring (and satisfying the public) that laid-down procedures for evaluation and selection are strictly adhered to, and records maintained and available for later scrutiny when the need for confidentiality no longer exists. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India devotes an independent volume in his Annual Audit report to critically analyse and discuss the financial transactions in the defence establishments, pointing to various instances of mismanagement of finances, mainly in defence purchases worth many crores of rupees. Though the amounts shown as ill-spent or wasted are massive, a single example of responsibility has not been fixed for these severe financial aberrations. There is an urgent need for an informed debate on restoring accountability regarding the mismanagement of finances in defence establishments, especially when funds are scarce and budget allotments are meagre regarding modernisation.

 

Section 16 of the draft Freedom of Information Bill, 2000, which excludes several intelligence and security organisations at Central and State levels from the ambit of the Act, also needs to be re-examined and revised. There can be no doubt that these organisations cannot operate effectively without the protection of secrecy. Yet total secrecy in perpetuity is extremely dangerous and will eventually prove counterproductive or harmful to the national interest. The public needs to be satisfied that the government (for whom these agencies work) can monitor their activities in a manner that makes certain that they can never work in a non-accountable manner.  The procedures to be adopted to ensure this need not be secret. This, again, is a subject fit for a mature, informed debate.

 

Comments

 

    • The suggestions listed in the paper, such as independent debates, no blanket exemptions, review of secrecy laws, honest appraisal, informed debate and transparency in defence deals, etc., are still valid.
    • Over the years, several measures have been instituted to bring transparency and accountability.
    • The Defence Procurement Procedure document (DPP) has been revised several times.
    • Online grievance redressal mechanisms have been set up.
    • CAG audits are being carried out, and reports are being published.
    • Parliamentary oversights are being exercised through the Parliamentary Committee on Defence.
    • The whistle-blower protection act has been introduced.
    • All these measures have brought in some amount of transparency and accountability, but still, there is scope for further improvement.

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

618
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for broader dissemination.