Why doesn't the Indian army reduce its manpower ?

[Vergennes]

I was looking trough different threads and came across that image.

We can see that between 2007 and 2012,India's defence budget share on expenditure on personnels increased from 28% to 41% !
Operation & Maintenance decreased by 10% !
And procurement by 4%.
-
The share on personnels continue to rise when some soldiers are equipped with obsolete equipments,and sometimes do not have proper body armors. I read and read that new regiments are being raised,but what's the point if the best equipment isn't provided ?
-
India should cut massively in the manpower,disband units that are equipped with the most obsolete equipments,this will spare more money to be spent on modernisation (Focus on equiping the current units with better equipments) and also on maintenance which would increase the disponibility rates. With less doesn't mean less effective. A small well equipped force,well trained could easily take on a bigger force.
-
China decided in the current years to cut 300.000 soldiers that are equiped with the most obsolete equipments,to accelerate the modernisation and the effectiveness/readiness of its army.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/w...-town-as-it-gears-up-for-military-parade.html
-
In 2009,if i remember,they had announced cuts on personnels by 700.000 !
-
The Russian army also decreased its manpower.
-
Less soldiers with best equipments and training is way more effective.
-

.
.
.
.
.

That is just what i think,feel free to add your opinions.

 

[Skull and Bones]

I believe we can sustain the manpower, and the equipment will be modernized gradually. It will take time to equip such large army with proper gears.

 

[SrNair]

I was looking trough different threads and came across that image.

We can see that between 2007 and 2012,India's defence budget share on expenditure on personnels increased from 28% to 41% !
-
The share on personnels continue to rise when some soldiers are equipped with obsolete equipments,and sometimes do not have proper body armors. I read and read that new regiments are being raised,but what's the point if the best equipment isn't provided ?
-
India should cut massively in the manpower,disband units that are equipped with the most obsolete equipments,this will spare more money to be spent on modernisation (Focus on equiping the current units with better equipments) and also on maintenance which would increase the disponibility rates. With less doesn't mean less effective. A small well equipped force,well trained could easily take on a bigger force.
-
China decided in the current years to cut 300.000 soldiers that are equiped with the most obsolete equipments,to accelerate the modernisation and the effectiveness/readiness of its army.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/w...-town-as-it-gears-up-for-military-parade.html
-
In 2009,if i remember,they had announced cuts on personnels by 700.000 !
-
The Russian army also decreased its manpower.
-
Less soldiers with best equipments and training is way more effective.
-

.
.
.
.
.

That is just what i think,feel free to add your opinions.

Institutional Mentality of Indian Army .
They are always one step behind in modernization of their forces .
And still they have around 10000 officer shortage .
But look at the Indian Navy and for some extent AF .
They are modernizing rapidly particularly Indian Navy with our own weapons.

Another problem is that Army lack of weapon purchase within India ( we also dont have a big industry ).
It will take some time ,at least one decade to change their way like that of Navy.

 

[Vergennes]

I believe we can sustain the manpower, and the equipment will be modernized gradually. It will take time to equip such large army with proper gears.

Even the Chinese who have a budget that is higher than the Indians understood that.
-
And "modernizing gradually" the current units at this rate would take so much time,but also ressources.
-
I don't know what the others think.

@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Abingdonboy

 

[Nilgiri]

Even the Chinese who have a budget that is higher than the Indians understood that.
-
And "modernizing gradually" the current units at this rate would take so much time,but also ressources.
-
I don't know what the others think.

@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Abingdonboy

I will refer you to my earlier post in a similar thread (the whole thread may be worth reading):

Why India needs to reduce the size of its Army | Page 3

It will take time and needs to be planned well.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

Reducing numbers is not the solution.

Better management of funds is.

Imagine how we lack even in numbers, Pakistan can send in near about all of its army to the border in case of a conflict given its population centers are near, in the first 48 hours .

We cannot match them 1 for 1 in the first the first 48 hours.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Even the Chinese who have a budget that is higher than the Indians understood that.
-
And "modernizing gradually" the current units at this rate would take so much time,but also ressources.
-
I don't know what the others think.

@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Abingdonboy

I will touch base an important ratios in corporate world
Salaries as a Percentage of Operating Expense

The metric of salaries as a percentage of operating expense is calculated as follows:

• Historically, the three industries with the highest median percentage of salaries as a percentage of operating expense were health care services (52%), for-profit services (50%)
• educational services (50%).
• Durable goods manufacturing (22%),
• construction/mining and oil/gas (22%),
• and retail/wholesale trade (18%) had the lowest median percentages of salaries as a percentage of operating expense.

Consider your own data you have given

Based on the data above, if i consider just On personnel+O&M+Procurement as operating expenses (for simplification) then in 2007 we were spending On Personnel much lower than average (28% vs 33%) whereas in 2012 its marginally above the average (41 vs 39)

The O&M implies that 2007 (25% vs avg 31%), versus 2012 (15% vs avg 28%) shows Indian defense forces (IAF/IN/IA) equipment's were having less issues as compared to wider belief that Indian defense equipment due to being legacy system are nearly defunct and maintenance heavy. The numbers clearly proves that timely retirement and our main vendors as well as main country of purchase (Russia) has still supplied us with less maintenance equipment. Yes we do have teething issues but you can see how media and lobbyists gunning Indian legacy equipment issues dont show in figures which is reality,

Procurement part showed a slowdown (47% vs 43%) yet above average. As i have pointed before in a different thread, UPA 2 last 2-3 years postponed all capex to get all ratios in order and to ensure that new incoming government suffers in all fronts especially in front of rating agencies like moody or standard & poor which will class as junk rating for failing to control spiraling expenses. It was a classic ploy by P Chidambaram on the instruction of Madam Maino for discrediting the new incoming government the moment they knew due to incumbency and corruption they wont get to make UPA 3. This would have helped them label BJP government as ill equipped and would have enabled them back to power in 2019 elections.

IF i go by banking logic for large manpower intensive organisations, we can maintain the max limit of Personnel expense at 40% and thus it tantamount to healthily maintain 40-45% procurement with O%M at 20-15% respectively, the Indian defence sector should look good in the long term.

IF its still at 40% then over time i see O%M rising to 20-25% (ageing and issues will crop up as now we have diversified to new markets so next decade will see first high cost maintenance before localisation kicking in and a stabilization phase therafter) and then falling back again to 15%-20% During this phase procurement % will fall accordingly.

@Abingdonboy

 

[Echo_419]

I was looking trough different threads and came across that image.

We can see that between 2007 and 2012,India's defence budget share on expenditure on personnels increased from 28% to 41% !
Operation & Maintenance decreased by 10% !
And procurement by 4%.
-
The share on personnels continue to rise when some soldiers are equipped with obsolete equipments,and sometimes do not have proper body armors. I read and read that new regiments are being raised,but what's the point if the best equipment isn't provided ?
-
India should cut massively in the manpower,disband units that are equipped with the most obsolete equipments,this will spare more money to be spent on modernisation (Focus on equiping the current units with better equipments) and also on maintenance which would increase the disponibility rates. With less doesn't mean less effective. A small well equipped force,well trained could easily take on a bigger force.
-
China decided in the current years to cut 300.000 soldiers that are equiped with the most obsolete equipments,to accelerate the modernisation and the effectiveness/readiness of its army.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/w...-town-as-it-gears-up-for-military-parade.html
-
In 2009,if i remember,they had announced cuts on personnels by 700.000 !
-
The Russian army also decreased its manpower.
-
Less soldiers with best equipments and training is way more effective.
-

.
.
.
.
.

That is just what i think,feel free to add your opinions.

The process I underway,though some oldies in the army are opposing this

 

[rockstar08]

I believe 1 Million Troops are enough for India ..
Reserve can vary ..
but a modernized 1 Million troops , with Huge Navy and Air Power is something to recon with ..

off topic .. Pakistan also need to decrease the amount of its troop, well equipped and trained army is better than large but poorly equipped .. 0.5 million for Pakistan is Good number ..

 

[Ragnar]

It is a political decision also. You cannot disregard the fact that Army provides employment and supports families in key rural areas. For that matter, most state enterprises like Railways in India are also bloated with excess and unproductive employees. It not that we cannot reduce the size, but it would be unpopular politically.

 

[nang2]

I believe 1 Million Troops are enough for India ..
Reserve can vary ..
but a modernized 1 Million troops , with Huge Navy and Air Power is something to recon with ..

off topic .. Pakistan also need to decrease the amount of its troop, well equipped and trained army is better than large but poorly equipped .. 0.5 million for Pakistan is Good number ..

Considering India's population, its 2.7M armed forces isn't too big. China has similar population size and has 2.5M in armed forces.

 

[Grevion]

A developing country cannot have the leverage of one of the most modern yet less manpower in the armed forces. Given the fact that we are a developing nation most of our job creating sectors still have to reach there full potential. Army and Internal forces are one of those forces who are employing large amount of people in the country. As Indian economy grows the job creating sectors will also grow more.
Along with that India needs a strong Armed Forces to defend itself in a two front war in the North East and West. As the economy grows India will modernize its forces very quickly.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Even the Chinese who have a budget that is higher than the Indians understood that.
-
And "modernizing gradually" the current units at this rate would take so much time,but also ressources.
-
I don't know what the others think.

@PARIKRAMA @Nilgiri @Abingdonboy

I've said it numerous times, the IA needs to be cut by 30% so as to free up vast sums for capital acqusitions.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I completely agree,the force is bloated and underequipped.Increase firepower of the formations and reduce manpower.
Too many salaries and pension eating away at the budget.This mass man approach is 19th century concept and also obsolete under nuclear umbrella where wars will be short and swift and be conducted by fast moving well trained and equipped forces.not huge lumbering strike corps.In an all out war such big formations would be targets for tactical nukes.

 

[SQ8]

The reduction sounds all good in terms of benefits, but does it provide for the role it plays in employing the population?