
Special
Forces for Indian Conditions
Brig. Amrit Kapur VSM
The debate on Special Forces
(SF) surfaces off and on and it dies down without taking it to
its logical conclusion. Ironically, the concept has rarely been
addressed in its entirety. The concept loses its sheen when
discussed in isolation. It remains a theoretical exercise. It
has been seen that more often than not, the western model is
aped or replicated whether it suits Indian conditions or not.
The debate, therefore, remains inconclusive and cosmetic in
nature, being far removed from ground realities and needs.
The basic issue of the
requirement of SF in our context needs to be understood in the
correct perspective. Taking SF for Commando Forces needs to be
guarded against. The traits / characteristics of SF to act as a
Force Multiplier need to be better understood.
SF are and have always been
synonymous with strategic interests. Strategic interests are at
national and global levels. SF if employed in isolation and not
in concert with national aims and objectives result in wasting a
very potent and scarce resource.
If national level objectives or strategic objectives were
concise and clear, then SF would not end up as Commando Troops.
For carrying out commando type of tasks, we already have highly
trained commando troops at formation levels as well as at
Infantry Battalion levels (now called ‘Ghataks’).
Thus, some of the issues
that need to be debated upon are, firstly, to establish the
‘Need’, ‘Necessity’ and ‘Imperative’; secondly,
it’s ‘Quantum’ and thirdly who should ‘control’ them.
To understand about these
issues in correct perspective, the roles generally assigned to
SF are as follows:
·
Prepare
the ground for conventional operations. The US SF were employed
in northeastern Iraq prior to the US offensive in Iraq.
·
Act
as a catalyst. Allied
SF were extensively used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
·
Operate
behind enemy lines – covert warfare.
·
Act
as a Force Multiplier in conjunction with conventional
operations.
To achieve the role, SF
soldiers have to be physically very fit and mentally robust.
They specialise in unconventional and unorthodox warfare,
counter insurgency warfare, counter terrorism operations,
commando assaults, deep reconnaissance or intelligence
collection forays. SF forte: specialist in water borne
operation, scuba diving, underwater demolition, riverine combat,
raids along the coastal lines, parachuting, helicopter assaults,
psy operations, and raids on land and counter terrorism
operations. To
achieve the specialty of SF, the soldier has got to be as calm
and motionless as a surgeon, as picky about details as an
accountant, as brainy as a scientist, and also be earthly and
profane, with controlled violence, a maverick as well as a team
player.
The concept of employment
precludes application in large numbers. SF are generally
employed in small teams. Small teams act as fourth generation
warfare and are dovetailed into conventional plans at the
strategic levels. These teams are usefully used as human
tripwire as also part of deception plans at the highest level.
Therefore, SF soldiers should be thought of and planned as a
weapon system to act as a Force Multiplier. This resource and
asset should not be frittered away at tactical levels. The SF
have a very comprehensive training curriculum. Detailed planning
is required for infiltration plans including aerial insertion.
They need to be masters in micro terrain analysis and mission
analysis, proficient in metrological survey, well versed with
rules of engagement, able to understand demographics and local
population, and proficient in dealing with area specific
terrorism threats. They need to adjust quickly to the friction
and fog of war. For operating deep inside enemy territory, they
need to be free fall parachutist, underwater diver, and
outstanding sniper. SF
personnel should be expert in escape and invasion.
For strategic employment in an alien land SF soldiers
ought to be linguists and experts in memorising maps.
The purpose of highlighting
the above aspect of SF is to explain in most simple words about
what goes into the making of this elite force. When we talk
about creating a Division sized force as also creating an SF
command on the lines of the US Army, we forget that the US has a
global army and has global interests. So far, our strategic
thinking is restricted to nations in the immediate vicinity.
Therefore, do we really require large numbers of SF?
The quantum has got to be in conformity with our
strategic needs. Unless we want to end up employing them as mere
commando troops, which is a criminal waste of SF effort and
inputs that have gone into training such a force? Apparently, a
clear-cut policy on employment of SF at the national level is
conspicuously absent and most of the time this very important
resource is used to enhance the interest of local commanders. It
amounts to augmenting and supplementing efforts at tactical
levels and not at strategic levels.
Based on threat perceptions
and to protect our national interests, including sea-lanes and
economic zones, there is certainly a need to increase the number
of SF units from the existing
five. The recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean has brought to the
fore new Indian Initiatives. Our reach has clearly been
demonstrated. Our future requirements need to be assessed
keeping in view the role India will have to discharge as an
Asian power This will also cater to the needs of future wars or
types of warfare, which envisage increased reliance on SF.
Since it is a strategic
force, control should be exercised at strategic levels. However,
for peacetime on the job training, the control could be
exercised by theatre commands as hitherto done. This force
should be employed under the aegis of CDS as and when it comes
into effect. For the time being, the SF should be placed under
the CIDS for judicious and timely employment. The ‘Garud’
Force created by the Air Force for installation protection is
merely carrying out the function of firefighting i.e. immediate
response. Similarly,
the Marcos of the Indian Navy are meant for immediate response
in the naval domain. Whether they are the Garuds of the Air
Force or the Marcos of the Indian Navy, they are in a true
sense, service specific forces to deal with local contingencies.
Therefore, we should not blindly follow the US or UK
model of SF. Their needs and interests are much too different.
They are known to fight battles and wars not on their own
territory. SF are always employed with a definite plan, whether
it is ground preparation or gaining intelligence or
psychological operations to achieve strategic objectives. The
need of the hour is to equip them with state-of-the-art weapon
systems and equipment to improve their mobility and lethality
.We need to equip and train our SF to meet our immediate needs,
as also long-term needs. Stability and consistency in the
strategic thinking is a must .It should not be changed with the
change of people at the helm of affairs. Continuity is a must to
work on such a concept as the gestation period is long and cost
inputs are very high. Therefore, a progressive and consolidative
approach is a must. Thus,
there is a need to equip and train the existing assets to the
highest standards before embarking on new additions. We have an
outstanding existing infrastructure to train SF and we should
optimise its utilisation. There is also a need to continuously
review our needs and have additions to the existing
infrastructure, as training is a time consuming and costly
proposition.
Prudence, therefore, demands that instead of creating a
SF for the sake of having an elite and exclusive force, it
better be evaluated based on our strategic interests. The
strategic interests will encompass geo-political ambitions,
national ideology, and the terrain and demographics of the
projected area of operations. Amongst the tasks mentioned
earlier, another important task could well emerge if the weapons
of mass destruction in our neighborhood fall into the hands of
Jihadis. If the need doesn’t warrant a high degree of
sophistication it could well be the model being followed by ISI
in the state of Jammu & Kashmir and more recently in the
Northeast after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They may
call them ‘Jihadis’ but in fact they have done much beyond
their mandate in the state of Jammu & Kashmir and are likely
to do so in the Northeast. These so called jihadis have changed
the Sufiana culture in the Valley and in parts of Doda and
Udhampur districts of Jammu & Kashmir. Before 1989, there
were no beef or pork shops in the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
Both Hindus and Muslims were explicitly following aan unwritten
convention. After 1990 the proliferation of beef shops has
surpassed all imagination. Obviously, this was done under
coercion. This is just one example of Talibanisation carried out
by the so-called jihadis. These jihadis have addressed a lot of
other areas, which have radically changed the psyche of the
peace-loving Kashmiris into a militant mindset. This process has
been carried out in a very systematic and deliberate manner.
Ethnic cleansing is still being carried out with a calibrated
response.
The SF model could well be a regular model or irregular
model. Even the most disorganised guerrillas in Iraq, though
irregulars, are some sort of Special Forces and are playing
havoc. A word of caution here, the type of SF should not be
mixed up with the type of warfare / tactics being adopted. We
must, therefore, decide what type and quantum of SF we need and
in what context.
The writer is former Commandant, Counter Insurgency
Jungle Warfare School, Mizoram. Courtesy: Indian Defence Review,
vol 19.4
|