CAG Report on Defence Offsets - VISION

Material For Exam

Recent Update

Thursday, October 01, 2020

CAG Report on Defence Offsets

 Why in news?

The latest CAG report on the implementation of defence offsets has been released.

What does it reveal?

  • It has brought into sharp focus the broader subject of developing India’s domestic industrial base.
  • It also raises concerns of some bureaucratic incapacity.
  • This is in contrast with an unambiguous political vision of turning India into a strong and vibrant powerhouse via Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Is the report on defence offsets new?

  • The 2020 CAG report on defence offsets is not the first one.
  • Previously, an earlier CAG report in 2011 outlined a number of similar problems with defence offset management in India.
  • One should compare the two CAG reports, or with reported findings of the latest CBI charge sheets in the Agusta case.
  • This comparison is needed to assess the number and range of mistakes made during offset contract management.
  • This qualitative deterioration in defence offset guidelines around 2010-11 is probably more a case of bureaucracies changing the rules to hide their own inadequacies during defence offset contract lifecycles.
  • The 2011 guidelines are in contrast to the original guidelines that were issued in 2005-06.
  • The guidelines of 2005-06 were based on recommendations of Vijay Kelkar committee on defence procurement and manufacturing.

What are Kelkar Committee’s recommendations?

  • Kelkar Committee recommendations formed the very basis of India’s Defence Offset Guidelines.
  • Issued almost a decade-and-a-half ago, it contained some core guiding principles that seem to have been diluted in 2011.
  • The original offset guidelines of 2005-06 allowed direct offsets relating to manufacturing of defence products alone.
  • This is a principle that the defence bureaucracy could not stick to very long in the face of well-coordinated push by foreign vendors.
  • A second core principle was grant of offset credit only for value-addition in India.
  • This was neglected for almost a decade in offset management before it was able to make some re-entry into the Ministry of Defence’s procedures.
  • A third principle was to keep offset contract duration short enough so as to be able to see their visible impacts.
  • It also insisted on submitting properly crafted offset offers rather than signing of paper promises by foreign vendors.

What does the repetition mean?

  • The repetition of the same mistakes as highlighted by the CAG twice is,
    1. Reflective of a general apathy to oversight,
    2. Demonstrates to some extent bureaucrats’ inability to grasp core policy principles that stakeholders draw attention to inform proper policymaking in the first place.
  • The defence list is actually 24 items, but then 10 of these are rings of slightly different types.
  • Such a tiny list makes one wonder if it has been issued only for demonstrating an optical compliance with the DPIIT’s mandate.

What is needed?

  • A reorientation of bureaucracies’ attitudes should be undertaken.
  • Bureaucrats should upskill technical policymaking skills, and get out of their comfort levels in remaining conservative and risk-averse.
  • Navigating highly dynamic domestic and international developments requires a much more collaborative and strategic approaches, and even much more domain specialisation, than achieved so far.

 

Source: Financial Express