Misfired BrahMos Which Landed in Pakistan Could Have Led to Warlike Situation: Union Govt to HC

The government is opposing a plea filed by Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma against his dismissal from the Indian Air Force.

New Delhi: The Union government told the Delhi high court on Tuesday (March 14) that the misfired BrahMos combat missile, which landed in Pakistan in March last year, could have led to a warlike situation between the two countries.

The government is opposing a plea filed by Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma against his dismissal from the Indian Air Force after the mistake. Sharma was one of three IAF officers dismissed.

“Admittedly, this is the matter where we stood embarrassed before the international community. The missile didn’t land in India, it landed in Pakistan. It could have led to a situation of war and that country made a representation to the United Nations,” additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma told a bench of Justices Suresh Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, according to Hindustan Times.

The accidental firing took place on March 9, 2022 and Pakistan had lodged its protest with India the next day. On March 11, the defence ministry said the missile was fired accidentally and it landed in Pakistan. The ministry had said then that it was caused by a technical malfunction in the course of the routine maintenance of the missile, adding the government has taken a serious view of the incident.

On August 23, 2022, the IAF sacked three officers including Sharma after a Court of Inquiry found that they deviated from the Standard Operating Procedures. Sharma moved the court against his dismissal on March 1 this year. Sharma has said in his petition that he was only trained in maintenance, and not operational, matters. The incident was operational, he added, and he had followed all his duties according to the SOP.

The ASG contended that the petitioner is now gainfully employed with a multinational company, and was coming to the court more than six months after his dismissal.

India Test-Fires Agni-V Ballistic Missile Having Range of 5,000 Km

The Agni-V project is aimed at boosting India’s nuclear deterrence against China which is known to have missiles like Dongfeng-41 having ranges between 12,000-15,000 km.

New Delhi: India on Thursday, December 15, successfully test-fired nuclear-capable ballistic missile Agni-V that can strike targets at ranges up to 5,000 kilometre, marking a significant boost to the country’s strategic deterrence, people familiar with the development said.

The test-firing of the missile from the APJ Abdul Kalam Island off Odisha coast came amid India’s lingering border row with China.

The Agni-V project is aimed at boosting India’s nuclear deterrence against China which is known to have missiles like Dongfeng-41 having ranges between 12,000-15,000 km.

Agni-V can bring almost the entire Asia including the northernmost part of China as well as some regions in Europe under its striking range.

The Agni 1 to 4 missiles have ranges from 700 km to 3,500 km and they have already been deployed.

The Agni-V missile has been successfully test-fired, two people familiar with the matter said.

There is no official word on the night trials of the missile.

The people cited above said the test validated a number of critical aspects of the weapon.

India carried out a similar test of the missile in October last year as well.

The successful test firing of the missile paves way for its induction into the Strategic Forces Command that takes care of India’s strategic assets, the people cited above said.

The missile has a very high degree of accuracy to hit targets. It has a height of 17 metres and it is capable of carrying a 1.5-tonne warhead.

In June, India successfully carried out a night launch of the nuclear-capable Agni-4 ballistic missile, in a boost to India’s military capabilities.

Following the test, the defence ministry had said that it reaffirmed India’s policy of having a ‘credible minimum deterrence capability.”

India has been steadily enhancing its overall military might in the last couple of years.

It has carried out successful tests of a number of missiles during the period.

In May, the extended range version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile was test-fired from a Sukhoi fighter jet.

It was the first launch of the extended range version of the BrahMos missile from a Su-30MKI aircraft.

An anti-ship version of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile was successfully test-fired jointly by the Indian Navy and the Andaman and Nicobar Command in April.

(PTI)

Pakistan Calls India’s Action Over Accidental Missile Firing ‘Inadequate’

‘If indeed India has nothing to hide, it must accept Pakistan’s demand for a joint probe in the spirit of transparency,’ Pakistan’s Foreign Office has said.

New Delhi: Pakistan has rejected India’s action over the March 9 accidental firing of a supersonic missile that landed in its territory and demanded a joint probe.

Pakistan had lodged its protest with India the day after the firing, March 10. On March 11, the defence ministry said the missile was fired accidentally and it landed in Pakistan.

The services of three officers of the Indian Air Force were terminated two days ago, on August 23, after a Court of Inquiry (CoI) found that deviation from the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by them led to the accidental firing of the missile.

The Foreign Office in a late Wednesday night statement said Pakistan has seen India’s announcement of the findings of an internal CoI regarding the “incident of firing of a rogue supersonic missile” into its territory and the decision to terminate the services of three IAF officers reportedly found responsible for the reckless incident.

“Pakistan categorically rejects India’s purported closure of the highly irresponsible incident and reiterates its demand for a joint probe,” it said.

“As expected, the measures taken by India in the aftermath of the incident and the subsequent findings and punishments handed by the so-called internal Court of Inquiry are totally unsatisfactory, deficient and inadequate.”

It alleged that India has not only failed to respond to Pakistan’s demand for a joint inquiry but has also evaded the questions raised by Pakistan regarding the command and control system in place in India, the safety and security protocols and the “reason for India’s delayed admission of the missile launch”.

It said systemic loopholes and technical lapses of serious nature in handling of strategic weapons “cannot be covered up beneath the veneer of individual human error”.

“If indeed India has nothing to hide, it must accept Pakistan’s demand for a joint probe in the spirit of transparency,” it demanded.

It further said the “imprudent Indian action” of March 9 had “jeopardized” the peace and security environment of the entire region while “Pakistan showed exemplary restraint” which was a testament of its systemic maturity and abiding commitment to peace as a responsible nuclear state.

Pakistan reiterated its demand that the Indian government must immediately provide specific responses to the queries raised by Islamabad after the incident and accedes to its call for a joint probe.

(With PTI inputs)

Three IAF Officers Sacked for ‘Accidental Firing’ of BrahMos Missile That Landed in Pak

A statement by the Indian Air Force said that deviation from the Standard Operating Procedures by three officers led to the accidental firing of the missile.

New Delhi: Three officers of the Indian Air Force (IAF) were sacked on Tuesday for the accidental firing of a missile that landed in Pakistan in March this year after a Court of Inquiry (CoI) found that they deviated from the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). The IAF also confirmed that the missile was a BrahMos make, as defence experts had speculated.

An official statement said the services of the officers were terminated because their actions were responsible for the accidental firing of the missile.

“A BrahMos missile was accidentally fired on March 9. A Court of Inquiry (Col), set up to establish the facts of the case, including fixing responsibility for the incident, found that deviation from the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) by three officers led to the accidental firing of the missile,” the statement said.

“These three officers have primarily been held responsible for the incident. Their services have been terminated by the central government with immediate effect. Termination orders have been served upon the officers on August 23,” it said.

Though the IAF did not mention the ranks and names of the officials whose services have been terminated, it is learnt that a Group Captain is among them, according to the news agency PTI.

The accidental firing took place on March 9 and Pakistan had lodged its protest with India the next day.

On March 11, the defence ministry said the missile was fired accidentally and it landed in Pakistan.

The ministry had said then that it was caused by a technical malfunction in the course of the routine maintenance of the missile, adding the government has taken a serious view of the incident.

Separately, defence minister Rajnath Singh told parliament on March 15 that the SOPs for operations, maintenance, and inspection of such systems were being reviewed.

Following the incident, Pakistan summoned India’s Charge d’Affaires in Islamabad and conveyed its strong protest over the “unprovoked” violation of its airspace by the supersonic “projectile” of Indian origin.

Major General Babar Iftikhar, the Director-General of the Inter-Service Public Relations (ISPR) of Pakistan, said the unarmed projectile entered the Pakistani airspace travelling 124 km.

The Pakistan foreign office said the “super-sonic flying object” entered Pakistan from India’s Suratgarh and fell to the ground near Mian Channu city, causing damage to civilian property.

The Pakistan foreign office also called for a thorough and transparent investigation into the incident and demanded that its outcome be shared with Islamabad.

The accidental firing was also taken stock overseas because it was the first-ever such episode involving two nuclear-weapon states who are hostile towards each other.

(With PTI inputs)

Decoding the Defence Ministry’s Cryptic Claims About Arms Exports

The ministry claimed that India’s defence exports had rocketed to Rs 13,000 crore in FY 2021-22, constituting a 55% increase over the preceding year. But a closer look raises several questions.

There is an element of ‘whodunnit’ to recent Ministry of Defence (MoD) claims that India’s defence exports had rocketed to Rs 13,000 crore in financial year (FY) 2021-22, constituting a 55% increase over the preceding year.

Announcing this feat, a defence ministry official also revealed that 70% of these exports were from the private sector, but did not give any details of the items sold overseas. The cryptic information provided by him was too sketchy for any definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the actual growth in India’s defence exports and the prospects in the coming years. 

In fact, a closer analysis of the available data further deepens the plot.

In late March 2022, junior defence minister Ajay Bhatt informed parliament that the overall value of Indian defence exports till March 21, 2022 was Rs 11,607 crore. It is astonishing, to say the least, that exports jumped in the remaining 10 days of March by Rs 1,397 crore. This amount exceeded the monthly average value of defence exports during FY 2021-22 and, for that matter, any of the previous seven years, FY 2014-15 onwards.

This, however, was not the first time that the MoD had made such seemingly exaggerated claims, which remained unsubstantiated.  

A similar phenomenon was witnessed between FY 2016-17 and FY 2018-19 when the value of exports abruptly jumped from Rs 1,521.91 crore to Rs 4,682.73 crore, and then further to Rs 10,745.77 crore. At the time, no explanations were forthcoming, except for an anodyne one-line statement in the MoD’s Annual Report that over a dozen reforms had been executed during FY 2018-19 which, in turn, had provided a fillip to exports. 

Also read: Instead of Celebrating Trivialities, India Needs Sober Pragmatism to Plan its Defence Exports

The tabulation of this export data, too, remains enigmatic. Reports indicate that the overall value of exported materiel projected by the MoD is the aggregate of the value of ‘authorisations’ issued, and the contracts signed. Evidently, the calculations are not based on the invoice value of the products or items exported during the year. In the normal course, the actual value of defence exports can only be determined by money either received or owed by overseas importers. 

Jumbling together the value of export authorisations, which may or may not result in an eventual sale, contracts against which payments are spread over extended periods, and money actually received by the exporters in a year, maybe deft accounting – but it only obfuscates the real picture. 

To further complicate matters, the MoD also included the value of equipment and platforms gifted to ‘friendly countries’ under grants-in-aid, in the overall value of exports.

Media reports have indicated that the Rs 13,000 crore earnings from defence exports included the Rs 2,770 crore sale to the Philippines of two BrahMos cruise missile batteries, or six mobile autonomous launchers, which many defence analysts believe may be in jeopardy, following the accidental firing in March of a BrahMos missile by the Indian Air Force from one of its bases in northwest India that infiltrated deep inside Pakistani territory, before harmlessly impacting a wall in a small township in Punjab province.

A court of inquiry was ordered into the incident, the outcome of which remains unknown, as does the progress of the missile sale.

Also read: Did Rajnath Singh Subtly Suggest ‘Human Error’ Led to Accidental Missile Firing?

There is also considerable vagueness about military goods exported by the Indian companies. Bhatt told Parliament in August 2021 that the exported items included simulators, tear gas launchers, torpedoes, loading mechanisms for aircraft and night vision binoculars. Also included in the list were fire control systems for armoured vehicles, weapon locating radars, high-frequency radios and coastal radar systems.

And though this list sounded formidable, Bhatt tellingly added a damper; he admitted that the ‘majority’ of these exports included merely ‘parts and components’.

There are multiple factors, other than numerous putative reforms, that influence military equipment exports. In FY 2019-20, for example, exports declined from the previous year’s tally of Rs 10,746 crore to Rs 9,116 crore, falling further to Rs 8,435 crore in FY 2020-21 due, in all probability, to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conversely, the jump in exports during FY 2020-21 was possibly due to the MoD ‘prevailing upon’ private vendors to make up the shortfall in achieving their annual offset targets for previously imported equipment and ordnance. Offsets of 30% are levied on all materiel purchases over Rs 2,000 crore, requiring the vendor to invest in India’s defence and security sector. That the foreign vendors are struggling to meet the offset targets is quite well known.

Considering that many of the companies under pressure to make up for the shortfall in discharging their offset obligation are US-based, it is not surprising that the main exports during the FY 2021-22 were to the US, followed by the Philippines, with which India signed the BrahMos deal in January this year.

The other importers of Indian defence products include unnamed countries in South-East Asia, West Asia and Africa.

There is a further complication in the offing that could see offsets not only decline in value, but fade out altogether. This is because all ab initio single vendor procurements, including those from the US via its Foreign Military Sales programme and other countries under inter-governmental agreements, are exempt from offsets since 2020. Seen in this perspective, defence exports could plummet, or plateau, once offset obligations under process were completed.

India aims to export aerospace and military equipment worth Rs 35,000 crores by 2025, for which exports will need to grow two-and-a-half times in the current fiscal and over the two subsequent years.

An honest assessment of where India stands – in 2017-21 it accounted for 0.2% of the global arms export – and a well-coordinated strategy to make deep inroads into big defence markets are essential. This target cannot be achieved by exporting components and sub-systems, banking on offset contracts to boost export, the occasional big-ticket sale, or by deluding ourselves through clever accounting.

Amit Cowshish is a former financial advisor (acquisitions), Ministry of Defence.

Philippines Sought Clarification from India After ‘Accidental’ Missile Firing

‘There was obviously a query and we responded with the fact that there was no technical issue as far as we could understand it,’ the Indian ambassador has said.

New Delhi: The Philippines had asked New Delhi for a clarification on the BrahMos missile it is buying from India days after the defence ministry admitted to a missile having been accidentally fired into Pakistan.

Indian ambassador to the Philippines Shambhu S. Kumaran said this in the course of a virtual talk on the partnership between the two countries organised by the Ananta Centre on April 5.

Asked if there had been concern in Manila over the accidental firing, Kumaran said that he had to address the issue with the country’s defence secretary.

“Yes, I did have an opportunity to interact with defence secretary [Delfin Negrillo] Lorenzana and I clarified and our Ministry of Defence clarified…there was…I wouldn’t describe it as concern…there was obviously a query and we responded with the fact that there was no technical issue as far as we could understand it. And there is a technical enquiry underway and we could have that cleared up once the information is available,” Kumaran said.

Lorenzana was the official who signed the $375-million deal for the Philippine Marines, with India’s BrahMos Aerospace, for the former to acquire three batteries of the BrahMos cruise missile. India had called the deal – signed earlier this year – its first for a major weapon system. The Philippines is the first country to buy the BrahMos missile.

On March 11, Ministry of Defence announced that the “high speed flying object” that Pakistan had earlier claimed entered its airspace on March 9, was in fact a missile that had been “accidentally fired” due to a “technical malfunction.”

This missile is believed to be a BrahMos, even though the defence ministry has not specified what variety of missile had been misfired.

In the talk, Kumaran was also asked if there was concern in Manila over the fact that the BrahMos missiles are made jointly by Russia – facing heightened global censure in the light of its attack on Ukraine.

“I think it’s very important for us to maintain the fact that this is an India-Philippines transaction… I don’t want to downplay the fact that the weapons system is jointly developed and manufactured by Russia and India. And there is a strong element of Russia’s support in the system, but definitely, this is an India-Philippines transaction. I do believe and am quite confident that we’ll be able to move ahead on that basis, on a bilateral basis,” Kumaran said in reply.

The ambassador, however, sought to impress that the Philippines’ faith in the missile system would stem from India’s use of it.

“There’s definitely a degree of confidence in the system because of the fact that India uses it extensively. I did not get any sense that these two issues you highlighted [Russia and the accidental firing] could potentially be a factor in taking this relationship forward,” Kumaran ultimately said.

Did Rajnath Singh Subtly Suggest ‘Human Error’ Led to Accidental Missile Firing?

The defence minister dropped an earlier reference the MoD made to a ‘technical malfunction’ of the missile, perhaps because the government does not wish to suggest the BrahMos system is in any way inadequate.

New Delhi: Even though defence minister Rajnath Singh’s recent statement in parliament on the accidental firing of an Indian unarmed missile into Pakistan’s territory last week was short on detail, service officers say it subtly indicated the government’s reckonings on the alarming incident.

They said that while Singh’s account essentially duplicated what his ministry said  two days after the March 9 incident, it ‘revealingly’ differed in one respect which could provide a clue to what led to the projectile’s chance launch into Pakistan. In his statement, the defence minister omitted any reference to the ‘technical malfunction’ of the missile in the course of ‘routine maintenance’, which his ministry claimed had led to the missile’s inadvertent liftoff.

Instead, Singh specifically told the Lok Sabha on March 15 that the Indian military’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) with regard to missile handling, though unmatched and of high calibre, would be revised – if needed – following the ensuing Court of Inquiry (CoI) into the incident.

Senior service officers and defence analysts interpreted this to indicate that the government is suggesting ‘human error’ – and not some technical inefficiency or shortcoming in the missile system – may well have precipitated the mishap, the first ever of its kind between two nuclear weapon states (NWS).

However, due undoubtedly to security considerations, Singh had refrained from either identifying the concerned missile, its launch site or even which of India’s three armed forces were involved. In all likelihood, such obfuscations are likely to endure, considering the sensitivity of the issue.

Union defence minister Rajnath Singh speaks in the Lok Sabha during the second part of the Budget Session of Parliament, in New Delhi, March 15, 2022. Photo: SANSAD TV screengrab via PTI

But military and security sources have definitively identified these ‘unknowns’ as the BrahMos cruise missile with a 292-400 km strike range which was fired on the evening of March 9 from Sirsa in Haryana, or a contiguous location, by the Indian Air Force (IAF). Furthermore, The Tribune newspaper reported on March 16 that a “clutch of IAF officers from in and around Ambala” would be queried by the COI on the force’s missile storage and inspection protocols. It added that all data and procedures followed by the IAF on the day of the accident too would be scrutinised.

“By stressing on SOPs rather than on routine maintenance and technical malfunction in the errant BrahMos, Singh seems to be pointing a finger at lapses in missile handling,” said a retired two-star IAF officer. But all such details would ultimately be determined by the CoI, but almost definitely not publicised given its sensitivity, he added declining to be identified for commenting on such a delicate matter.

Other service officers concurred.

They stated that the BrahMos, designed jointly by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Russian technicians 2000 onwards, and built locally thereafter at a facility in Hyderabad, had ably demonstrated its infallibility over two decades of developmental and user trials. Operationalised by all three Indian services, the BrahMos is the world’s fastest cruise missile and had recorded multiple faultless launches and logged an impressively high circular error of probability, or pinpoint accuracy, in engaging its targets.

Additional understated indicators in Singh’s statement further support the emerging ‘human error’ narrative.

Singh acknowledged that the accidental launch occurred at around 7 pm, some 21 minutes after sunset in northern India and almost certainly in darkness when standard maintenance of equipment, especially missiles, is rarely undertaken unless an exercise or urgent deployment was afoot. Singh’s time frame for the unintended missile launch is corroborated by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) which claims to have closely monitored its take-off and flight path.

A day after the intruding missile landed harmlessly in the small Pakistani town of Mian Channu in Punjab’s Khanewal district, some 124 km from the Indian border, the PAF stated that it had taken off from Sirsa at 6:43pm local time. This would have made it 7:13 pm in India, mostly definitely after nightfall. The PAF also asserted that the duration of the missile’s flight path was 406 seconds, for half of which – 224 seconds – it had traversed two of Pakistan’s four provinces, before hitting a wall in Punjab.

Industry officials also pointed out that the authorities were ‘commercially conscious’ of the fact that any hint of a ‘technical malfunction’ in the BrahMos triggering its chance flight could adversely impact the $375 million deal which Delhi signed with the Philippines in January for three of its land-attack batteries. They reasoned that such fears could also result in other potential BrahMos customers like Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and Vietnam, amongst others, querying the missile’s operational credentials. It was also unclear, like all other aspects of this incident, whether the COI would include an independent technical audit of the BrahMos missile system itself, or not.

Meanwhile, in the absence of all details surrounding this misadventure, some military analysts even speculated about the possibility of the delinquent missile having been a BrahMos-A (Air) variant, fired perhaps from an IAF Sukhoi Su-30MKI multi-role fighter. In mid-2020, the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification in Bangalore had approved provisional fleet release clearance to Su-30MKIs with reinforced airframes, to operate the 2.5 tonne anti-shipping BrahMos-A air-launched cruise missile fitted to their underbelly.

A Su-30MKI fighter armed with BrahMos. Photo: Ministry of Defence (GODL-India)

Pakistan’s capability under question

In the meantime, a fierce debate has erupted on social media in Pakistan with netizens questioning its military’s inability to neutralise the incoming rogue Indian missile, which they justifiably claimed the PAF had no way of knowing whether it was armed or not.

The PAF’s Air Defence (AD), responsible for dealing with such threats, is an integrated independent tri-service command headquartered at Chaklala in Rawalpindi. Exclusively India-centric in nature, it had evolved in the 1980s to overcome its military’s enduring operational dilemma of inadequate strategic depth compared with its bigger and more resourceful eastern neighbour with whom it had till then fought three wars.

According to Puneet Bhalla of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) in Delhi, Pakistan’s AD network was predicated on dealing with aerial threats at altitudes varying from 100 ft to 40,000ft and corresponding ‘effective interception’ distances of between 90-110 km via a dense and inter-meshed radar network. In a 2012 analysis for CLAWS, Bhalla stated that Pakistan was initially assisted in its AD endeavours by the US’s Hughes Aircraft – later Raytheon – and Germany’s Siemens.

Its resultant AD grid integrated the Siemens Low Level Air Command System with Hughes C3I Air Defence Ground Environment System, alongside a string of mobile radars to provide the PAF multi-layered cover along the Indian border. But these were limited primarily to identifying enemy aircraft, and not geared to tracking intruding missiles which, at the time, were at a nascent stage of development in both countries.

Bhalla says that Pakistan’s AD weaponry too was confined principally to its fighter fleet, supplemented by shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and French-origin short-range Crotale anti-air missiles that were geared to intercept low-flight anti-ship missiles and aircraft. Alongside, the PAF AD also fielded France’s MBDA Spada air defence system, comprising radar with a 60 km detection range and missiles capable of neutralising inbound missiles and aircraft at ranges of 20 km, which at the time were deemed adequate.

But over decades, bilateral threat levels escalated with difficult-to-detect ballistic and cruise missiles – like the BrahMos travelling at 2-3.5 times the speed of sound – emerging, necessitating Pakistan’s deployment of advanced air-defence systems. Consequently, in late 2021, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of its military, announced the induction of an undeclared number of Chinese-origin HQ-9/P High-to-Medium Air Defence Systems to replace its legacy AD network.

The ISPR claimed the HQ-9/P was capable of engaging cruise missiles and aircraft in excess of 100 km with a high ‘single shot probability’, but experts maintained that this extended range was actually against aircraft; to neutralise cruise missiles, it’s range was just around 25 km. The HQ-9/P constitutes the outer ring of the PAF’s AD grid, with medium range cover being provided by nine HQ-16AE SAM systems, also procured from China, with an aerial target engagement range of 40 km.

Hence, it’s difficult to ascertain whether Pakistan’s AD could have, even it had wanted, counteracted the inbound BrahMos. It is equally unlikely, considering its military’s inherent belligerence towards India, that it would have passed up the chance to do so, but that is altogether another debate.

However, in the interim, Indian military planners fear that a forensic examination of the BrahMos missile remains in Mian Channu by Pakistani technicians and defence experts, could to some extent undermine their efforts at fielding a daunting and unique cruise missile which till now was a closely-held secret. Moreover, considering Islamabad’s military, political and financial ties with Beijing, it’s a foregone conclusion that China too will be provided the data Pakistan can glean and deduce from the rogue BrahMos’s remains.

In short, the prospective ‘human error’ that might perhaps have led to the unplanned missile launch could, ultimately, prove expensive.

After Missile Fiasco, Indian Officials Hope Spin Will Deflect Awkward Questions

Over the past six days, the missile firing has not only fuelled speculation and bizarre counternarratives in defence and strategic circles in New Delhi but has also been noted overseas.

New Delhi: Defence minister Rajnath Singh’s statement in parliament on Tuesday on the missile that India ‘accidentally’ fired inside nuclear-rival Pakistan’s territory last week adds little to the press release India issued after Islamabad publicised the alarming incident.

Singh merely reiterated the Ministry of Defence (MoD)’s 75-word statement on March 11 – two days after the rogue unarmed Indian missile penetrated over 100 km into Pakistan – that an inquiry had been ordered into the incident. But much like the MoD’s statement, he too declined to either name the concerned missile, declare where it had originated or identify which of the three services were involved. However, he did confirm Pakistan’s claim that it was fired around 7 pm Indian time on March 9.

In his brief statement, the minister asserted that this unidentified missile was “reliable and safe”. He also maintained that the Indian military’s ‘safety procedures and protocols were of the highest order and that they were “well trained, disciplined and experienced” in handling such missiles. The minister’s only other deviation from the earlier statement was in affirming that a review of the military’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) for operating, maintaining and inspecting such systems too were underway, and any lacunae unearthed in the inquiry would be duly remedied.

In short, the mystery over the incident – that could have taken a truly dangerous turn had Pakistan decided to retaliate by shooting down the incoming rogue missile from India or taking some other measure – continues apace.

Over the past six days, the inadvertent missile firing has not only fuelled speculation and bizarre counternarratives in defence and strategic circles in New Delhi but has also been noted overseas, as this was the first-ever such episode involving two nuclear-weapon states (NWS) who are relentlessly hostile towards each other.

Meanwhile, in military and security circles, the errant projectile has unanimously been identified as the BrahMos cruise missile with a 292-400km range that India has jointly developed with Russia. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is believed to be the service that launched it, reportedly from Sirsa in Haryana. According to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of its military, the missile was tracked by its country’s Air Defence Operations Centre for its entire 406-second flight, of which some 100-odd kilometres were initially in Indian territory. Thereafter, the ISPR said that it had changed direction and crossed over into Pakistan and after travelling some 124 km over two of its provinces and hit a wall in the small town of Mia Chunnu in Punjab’s Khanewal district.

Expectedly, Pakistan is exploiting India’s grave error to the hilt.

It has repeatedly accused India of not informing Islamabad of the incident, despite the existence of the ‘hotline’ between the respective Directors General of Military Operations, emphasising that the limited response time to a missile launch by either side was subject to ‘misinterpretation’; it could trigger self-defensive countermeasures with grave consequences between the two NWS’, said ISPR Director General Major General Babar Iftikhar.

Director-General of the Inter-Service Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Babar Iftikhar. Photo: Video screengrab

Islamabad has also questioned India’s fail-safe procedures in preventing such a missile launch during ‘routine maintenance’ and not aborting it thereafter when it headed into Pakistan, and called upon the international community to take ‘serious note’ of such a critical lapse in a ‘nuclearised environment’. It also demanded to join the court of inquiry (CoI) into the accident.

Faced with an embarrassing narrative that the MoD’s own conduct and statements have contributed to, ministry officials have recently launched ‘damage control’ manoeuvres with the help of  ‘obliging’ journalists. However, their efforts have only ended up muddying matters even more.

Quoting unnamed defence and security sources, some recent reports sought to contradict Pakistan’s claims of the accidentally fired BrahMos missile having changed direction after flying south to enter Pakistan. Some of these correspondents, seemingly at the behest of senior government officials, claimed that the ‘practice’ missile had, in actual fact, followed its ‘correct trajectory’ that had been charted had it been in a conflict situation. These reports dismissed speculation that the missile had been headed for the Mahajan Field Firing Range in Rajasthan, before inexplicably changing course and entering Pakistan.

These bewildering, and at times contradictory, accounts from ‘sources in the know’ also claimed that the missile – exactly similar to the armed version minus its warhead – was the one that ended up being ‘accidentally’ launched from a ‘secret IAF satellite station, one report stated. Why an Indian missile primed for combat would be programmed to hit a random wall in Pakistan is not explained. These accounts also claimed, apparently under official tutelage, that the ‘relevant Pakistani authorities’ had been informed of the accidental launch, but declined to state who this was or, for that matter, the date and time this had ensued. Nor have they offered any explanations for why, if this were indeed so, the Indian side has not denied official Pakistani assertions that they only heard from India after Islamabad went public.

Also Read: With India’s Image at Stake, New Delhi Must Answer Tough Questions on ‘Rogue’ Missile

‘Clumsy’ and ‘provocative’ attempts

Senior industry officials dismissed these reports as ‘clumsy’ and ‘provocative’ attempts by the authorities to mitigate India’s monumental error and to debunk claims that the missile had changed direction, as that would call into question the missile’s operational capabilities and adversely impact BrahMos’ exports to ‘friendly’ countries.

In January, the Philippines had agreed to a $375 million deal for three BrahMos land-attack batteries, while the militaries of Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, South Africa, South Korea and Vietnam too had expressed a willingness to acquire this cruise missile, which was the world’s fastest, and available economically from Delhi.

But defence officials anticipate that the ongoing tumult over the BrahMos’ accidental firing into Pakistan and reports of its reported malfunction in the media, would not only be queried by the Philippines, but also render wary other potential customers. “All materiel buyers are hugely picky and any media negativity concerning their prospective procurements spooks likely customers,” said an industry official. It’s in the Indian government’s commercial interest to try and scotch all speculation regarding BrahMos’ efficiency, he added, declining to be identified.

In the meantime, Rajeshwari Rajagopalan, who heads the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation in Delhi said that last Wednesday’s missile accident had raised ‘disturbing questions’ that such a disaster can take place in the course of routine maintenance, greatly denting India’s image as a responsible nuclear power. In an extended interview to The Wire on March 15, she said that whether or not India redeemed its image after this event would depend entirely on how it handled the inquiry. So far, India has not done ‘well’ she cautioned, as its communication in security matters was its weakness.

And though few details of the accident were available, Rajagopalan said it was difficult to believe that the delinquent missile did not have a self-destruct mechanism. Moreover, it was imperative to know whether it had been activated but consequently failed. The strategic affairs expert also queried whether the protocols to trigger these abort procedures required ‘high-level clearance for activation’, and whether these had not been forthcoming, or were simply not obtained in the limited time available.

Rajagopalan said such critical issues raised questions regarding poor training and incompetence of the personnel involved in managing missile systems, but India needed to convince the world that such an accident would never ever recur.

With India’s Image at Stake, New Delhi Must Answer Tough Questions on ‘Rogue’ Missile

If the delinquent missile does turn out to be BrahMos, as is being speculated, questions arise on India’s systems operational capability and its image of being responsible nuclear power built over decades.

New Delhi: The accidental firing of an Indian missile deep into Pakistan last week was the first time such an event between two hostile nuclear-armed states has occurred throughout the terrifying evolution of nuclear weaponry and their delivery systems over 77 years.

Although the two South Asian neighbours have fought four wars since independence, and for decades afterward exchanged artillery, mortar and small arms fire daily across their disputed line of control in Kashmir, the ‘rogue’ missile episode is a reminder of starker and more frightening possibilities.

“There has never been an incident like this (of a missile being fired) between two nuclear-weapon states (NWS) like India and Pakistan, especially as the missile flying time between them was under three minutes, leaving neither side any time to react,” said Professor Happymon Jacob, who teaches disarmament and diplomacy at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.

And though there had been multiple scary occurrences during the Cold War era involving NWS like the US and the Soviet Union, none had even “come close” to the March 9 accidental missile firing by India inside Pakistan, he added.

Jacob said that such a scenario had “immense potential” to escalate if Islamabad had opted to retaliate, which it fortuitously did not, even though it was unaware that the incoming missile was unarmed. “Bilateral fail-safe protocols to manage and neutralise such emergencies between India and Pakistan remain inadequate and need bolstering,” observed Jacob.

Eventually, however, the errant missile harmlessly struck the boundary wall of a house in Mia Chunnu in Pakistan’s Punjab province, some 270km southwest of Lahore and some 124 km from the Indian border, partially demolishing it.

Also read: India Needs to Come Clean on ‘Accidental Firing of Missile’ to Avert Conflict with Pakistan

Indian military experts believe that what the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) called a ‘supersonic flying object’ which infiltrated their territory on March 9 to be the 8.4m-long two-stage BrahMos cruise missile with a 292 km strike range that was developed by India in colloboraion with Russia.

They also deduced that it was fired by the Indian Air Force (IAF) from a mobile platform, as part of a training exercise from its base at Sirsa in Haryana, as claimed earlier by the PAF. The PAF also stated that it had tracked the missile’s trajectory from its launch from Sirsa at 6:43 pm local time – or, 7:13 pm in India – to a height of some 40,000 feet, before it struck Mia Chunnu 6.46 minutes later.

Two days afterwards, on March 11, after Pakistan had publicised the event, India’s ministry of defence (MoD) reacted by admitting that its military had “accidentally fired” a missile into Pakistan following a “technical malfunction” during “routine maintenance” activity.

Ever since, the ministry has declined to provide any further details of either the missile type involved, its place of origin or even which of the three services was involved in its firing. It also blandly stated that a Court of Inquiry (CoI) had been ordered into the incident, but once again declined to elaborate even though it is believed to be conducting “select briefings” for a handful of correspondents in an attempt to publicise its seemingly “disjointed and confused” viewpoint, as one reporter said.

Furthermore, military officials and newspaper editorials called for a swift investigation into the mishap in order to re-establish what The Hindu stated on March 14 to be Delhi’s global image as a “responsible nuclear power built over decades of restrained words and thoughtful action”. The same day The Times of India was more forthright; its editorial demanded that responsibility needed to be fixed and that heads needed to roll for an accident that nobody ever wanted to happen, especially in the context of nuclear neighbours.

But, defence industry officials told The Wire that the proposed CoI posed “serious problems” for the federal government, as it would, doubtlessly, include a detailed technical audit of the missile system itself, alongside probing the possibility of human error which precipitated its take-off.

Military sources reckoned that without warning, the delinquent missile’s flight path is believed to have altered abruptly, from its north-westerly direction towards its intended Mahajan Test Range target in Rajasthan, towards the south-west into Pakistan.

“Such a deviation is inexplicable, to say the least,” said a retired three-star IAF officer. It appears that the missile’s onboard guidance system was compromised, resulting in its severely altered trajectory, he added, declining to be identified for speaking on a sensitive matter.

Tough questions for India

And, if the delinquent missile did, in reality, turn out to be the BrahMos – as it appears increasingly likely – then Delhi could face grim questions over the systems operational capability from the Philippine military, which had signed a $375 million deal for three of its land-attack batteries in January. The Philippines had contracted to acquire four mobile autonomous BrahMos launchers with three missiles each that enable the systems command post to fire 12 missiles at an equal number of targets, within 30 seconds.

But industry officials told The Wire that there was also little doubt, that not only would the Philippines query the BrahMos’s pinpoint accuracy in hitting targets – which earlier was its unique selling point –but so would other potential customers like Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, South Korea and Vietnam.

Representative image. India’s Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles, mounted on a truck, pass by during a full dress rehearsal for the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, India, January 23, 2006. Photo: Reuters/Kamal Kishore/File Photo

In 2001, India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyenia had successfully test-fired the BrahMos, the world’s fastest cruise missile, configured on the Russian anti-ship 3M55 Oniks/Yakhont (NATO designation SS-NZX-26). Thereafter, the two had jointly developed four variants, which were employed by all three Indian services.

Also read: India Expresses ‘Deep Regret’ Over ‘Accidental Firing’ of Missile that Landed in Pakistan

Recently, the DRODO claimed to have extended BrahMos’s strike range from 292km to around 400km, a capability that was enabled by India joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in mid-2016. MTCR restrictions had earlier prohibited Russia from transferring critical systems to the DRDO to enhance BrahMos’ range beyond 300km and 500kg payload. But analysts indicated that India’s recent missile debacle could also call its MTCR credentials into question.

Close mishaps 

Meanwhile, numerous past near-catastrophes between NWS’ and associated emergencies they spawned during the Cold War years, broadly centred on misunderstandings, misinterpretations and miscalculations. But these, as Professor Jacob reiterated, had never resulted in any NWS ever firing even an unarmed long-range missile, albeit inadvertently, into similarly armed rivals’ territory.

Well-known US journalist Eric Schlosser details some of these close mishaps in his book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident and the Illusion of safety, some of which in hindsight now seem droll but were, no doubt, tension-filled and frightening at the time.

Schlosser recounts an incident in mid-1995 when a US scientific missile was test-fired from an island near Norway, which Russian radar tracked and misinterpreted as a nuclear missile launched from a US Navy submarine, capable of hitting Moscow with hundreds of warheads within 15 minutes. President Boris Yeltsin’s advisors opened up the nuclear briefcase, placed the lethal button on his desk and told him that Russia was under nuclear attack by the US.

Yeltsin had 10 minutes to decide whether or not to launch Russian missiles in response. But, two minutes before this deadline expired, the nuclear warning centre’s duty officer told the Russian President that the missile’s flight path posed no threat and thankfully the lethal briefcase was fastened once again. Days after the crisis, the Russians discovered that a US notification of their upcoming non-military satellite launch had never made it up to Moscow’s chain of command.

Earlier, in June 1980, at the height of US-Soviet tension, when the latter had invaded Afghanistan and the former had boycotted the Moscow Olympics, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser Zbiginiew Brezinski was awakened before dawn with the news that Soviet submarines had launched 220 missiles at the US. Within seconds, this number increased tenfold to 2,200 and US Air Force crews revved their nuclear bombers and missile squads, opened up their respective safes to recover the secret launch codes stashed inside.

However, as Brzezinski was calling the President to recommend a retaliatory strike, fresh data came in indicating that it had all been a false alarm. Upon investigation, a computer chip costing 46 cents ended up as the culprit that could have launched Armageddon.

In retrospect, it’s a miracle, as Noam Chomsky once declared, that the world had so far avoided nuclear war despite the existence of over 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. Clumsiness by India in firing a missile into an inimical state only exacerbated a possible unimaginative calamity.

An objective assessment of India and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons is sobering.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, India and Pakistan both held around 160-odd nuclear weapons each, deliverable by air and mobile land-based missile systems. Correspondingly, India’s three-tiered retaliatory strategic deterrence posture also included nuclear weapons deliverable by sea-based assets like submarines.  And of the world’s nine nuclear-armed states, Britain, China, France, Israel, North Korea, Russia and the US, India and Pakistan were amongst those thought to be increasing their stockpiles, the Federation recently declared.

Possibly, Pakistani poet Anwar Masood’s prophetic and amusing Punjabi ditty symbolises the enigmatic strategic predicament India and Pakistan face with their cache of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems:

Kase Kase Asle baan gaye

Vade vade masle ban gaye

Sara chain gawan badhe han

Soichi paye hun ki kariye. 

(We have invented lethal weapons, but only ended up increasing our problems by losing all peace of mind and now end up wondering what to do next. )

Instead of Celebrating Trivialities, India Needs Sober Pragmatism to Plan its Defence Exports

In its quest to reach an ambitious export target by 2025, the defence ministry is ignoring domestic technological inadequacies, questionable quality control and fierce overseas competition.

India’s aspirations to become a major exporter of indigenous military platforms and assorted defence equipment continue to be circumscribed by numerous challenges and hurdles, concerning which the Ministry of Defence appears to be in denial. 

In its quest to reach the export target of Rs 35,000 crores by 2025, the MoD is simply ignoring the formidable mix of domestic technological inadequacies, questionable quality control over finished products, fierce overseas competition from established materiel manufacturers and, above all, virtually impregnable defence markets. 

These factors make the export goal chimerical, but that deters neither the MoD nor others in the government from boasting about the steps taken to boost export and tom-tomming optimistic export projections that are belied by the official statistics.     

In August 2021, for instance, junior defence minister Ajay Bhatt informed the parliament that the authorised value of defence equipment exports had increased from Rs 1,940.64 crore in the Financial Year 2014-15 to Rs 8,434.84 crore in 2020-21, after hitting a record high of Rs 10,745.77 crore in FY 18-19. 

The fact that during this entire six-year period the overall value of export authorisations had slumped three times in FYs 16-17, 19-20 and 20-21 is underplayed in the discourse on defence exports. Furthermore, actual export earnings that accrued to the national exchequer during this period are not necessarily equal to the value of the estimated export authorisations issued by the Department of Defence Production or DDP. 

Going by the erratic trend of defence exports FY 14-15 onwards, it will entail major effort on the part of India’s private and public sector defence companies, as well as the MoD, to achieve the Rs 35,000 target over the next three years.

Defence minister Rajnath Singh in the indigenous light combat aircraft Tejas. Photo: rajnathsingh/Twitter

Bhatt also revealed that India’s principal defence exports included varied weapon simulators, tear gas launchers, torpedo loading mechanism gear, alarm monitoring and control systems, night vision binoculars, light weight torpedo and fire control systems, armoured protection vehicles, weapons locating radars, Hi-Fi radios, and coastal radar systems.

Undoubtedly, this is an impressive list, but the bulk of this equipment is of comparatively low value, and demand for it is by no means large enough to ensure regular and substantial revenue. In fact, the minister inadvertently conceded that the majority of these defence exports included ‘parts and components’ but did not elaborate further.  

It is commercial truism, especially in the realm of arms trade, that India cannot become a major arms and defence equipment exporter merely by selling ancillary items, even though this does provide an opportunity for Indian manufacturers to integrate themselves with global supply chains. 

Also read: New Sanctions on Russia Spell Trouble for India’s Defence Procurement

Hence, India’s biggest challenge is to establish a niche for itself in the global defence market as a provider of dependable goods at competitive prices, followed up by effectual after-sales back-up, both of which pose a challenge. India is further handicapped in not being able to sell its wares to several potential customers like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, China, Algeria, South Korea, Qatar, and UAE, which are at present the largest importers. They are unlikely to abandon their long-established European and US suppliers. 

Countries like China, Egypt and Pakistan, which is the 1oth largest importer and met 74% of its requirement by imports from China during FYs 2016-20 are, in any case, ruled out as potential importers of India-built military equipment because of obvious reasons. China, incidentally, has the unique distinction of being among the largest importers as well as exporters of arms.

According to the 2021 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute annual report, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the US accounted for 75.9% of the global arms trade during 2016-20. India’s nuclear rival China emerged as the world’s fifth largest arms exporter in 2013, but ironically this was largely due to the weapons market it had created in neighbouring Pakistan. Between 2016-20 Pakistan was China’s largest customer, accounting for 38% of the latter’s weapon exports.

Military vehicles carrying shore-to-ship missiles drive past the Tiananmen Gate during a military parade to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two, in Beijing, China, September 3, 2015. Photo: Reuters/Jason Lee

Technologically, these five countries are, without doubt far ahead of India in offering a swathe of advanced weaponry, ammunition and associated equipment, a large proportion of which is in service with numerous militaries around the globe. Even the next lot of five largest materiel exporters – Israel, Italy, South Korea, Spain, and the United Kingdom – offer a variety of operationally proven equipment to sell in the world market that, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, accounted for 14.4% of global military trade.

Together these 10 countries totalled some 90.3% of the world’s arms trade, leaving limited scope for states like India to break into this cutthroat market that requires not only competent and affordable goods but also skilled marketing and back up support to establish product viability and acceptability. After all, repeat orders for the equipment and lifetime maintenance support contracts are what most manufacturers endeavour to secure to sustain themselves in the defence market.

Matters were not overly dismal for India which does offer a range of indigenously designed and licence built military merchandise, but complications abound. In January the MoD, after protracted negotiations, clinched a $375 million deal with the Philippines to sell it three batteries of the BrahMos medium-range cruise missiles developed jointly by India and Russia, registering possibly the country’s largest ever such export order. But jubilation over the BrahMos sale has been short lived, following the punitive sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies for invading Ukraine. 

Also read: What India Needs To Do To Deal With the Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War

These embargoes on all Russian military entities, apart from other industries, also apply to Russia’s NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM) that has jointly developed BrahMos with India’s government-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO and provides the missile system’s engine and seeker. 

Consequently, the future of the BrahMos export order is, for now, uncertain but it could well be scrapped as the US-led alliance is furious with Moscow over its military misadventure in Ukraine, and eager to punish it. The situation could become more complex if the US decides to impose sanctions on under its Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (Public Law 115-44), or CAATSA. 

Though unhappy with India’s decision to acquire S-400 Triumf Air defence Missile System from Russia, the US has refrained from imposing any sanction. India’s stand on the war in Ukraine could change that.

Additionally, India also has to contend with the issue of credibility. In 2005, Nepal had alleged that the INSAS (Indian Small Arms Systems) rifles, designed by DRDO in the 1990s, and supplied to the Nepalese Army by India, were responsible for the casualties its army suffered in clashes with the Maoist rebels in western Kalikot district in which 43 soldiers lost their lives. 

An INSAS rifle. Photo: Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Rubbing it in, the Nepalese army spokesman had said that the counter-insurgency operations would have been more efficient had it acquired better weapons. India rejected the charge but frequent complaint by the Indian troops in the subsequent years about the tendency of these rifles to jam and its magazine cracking in freezing temperatures, did not help.

A decade later in 2015, Ecuador had terminated its $142.5 million contract with India’s public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for seven locally designed Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopters (ALHs), after four of them crashed with a short space of time. HAL blamed the Ecuador Air Force for the accidents, but irreparable damage regarding the unreliability of Indian military platforms in a hugely quality conscious domain, was done. 

This negativity is bolstered by India’s military often expressing concern over the reliability of locally supplied platforms and equipment in a milieu where reputations are difficult to build, but more difficult to reclaim once lost.

To conclude, MoD needs professional capability to anticipate future trends in global arms trade and to focus on that segment of the Indian industry which has the potential to compete in, and capture a bigger slice of, the global market. This calls for sober pragmatism. Celebrating trivialities, such as the indigenisation of miscellaneous nuts and bolts, which made headlines in the local media last December, is certainly not the way forward.