Amidst his customary, often needless bellicosity, the defence minister has done well to strike a welcome note of reality in observing that there was a “sort of lethargy” at play in the ease with which fidayeen squads were able to breach the perimeters of major military installations and perpetrate their dastardly acts of terror. For someone who has “earned” a reputation for regaling in gung-ho rhetoric, it must have been a trifle embarrassing for Manohar Parrikar to identify lethargy as a shortcoming because it cannot be “blamed” on anyone, or anything, except the leadership of the armed forces. In having the guts to see lapses in the “holy cow”, Parrikar has possibly made his most significant contribution to the national security effort during his stint in South Block ~ even if he does not quite realise that at present. For it is the man behind the gun that ultimately matters most, and all moves towards modernisation and re-equipment remain critically dependent on the “user”. The military leadership would now do well to appreciate the valid criticism, attempt to rectify palpable deficiencies rather than “moan” and unleash its trumpet-blowing veterans on television to contend that the fault lies elsewhere. The minister has not made any sweeping comment, but conducted a “surgical strike” on a ticklish matter: a deficiency that has been evident for several years, but glossed over on the specious alibi that “morale” would be impacted. Specious because the colleagues, maybe the families too, of those who have been martyred in terror-forays are aware that the myth of military frequency has sometimes been punctured by an indifference to basics, and the tag of a “parade-ground army” comes home to haunt.

Military monitors would await the outcome of the minister’s directing the Defence Research & Development Organisation to work on hi-tech “smart” fencing, using a range of electronic sensors, thermal imaging devices, etc., to replace the discarded cans containing a few pebbles strung up along the standard barbed-wire to “sound” an alert.

Admittedly any fencing upgrade will be a massive and expensive exercise, yet inevitable given the prevailing realities along the extensive land borders. That exercise must be undertaken in conjunction with the home ministry for the paramilitary manning “peaceful” frontiers also merits adequate protection.

Detecting drug-smugglers, gun-runners, etc., is only marginally less important than preventing terrorist-infiltration. All of which only re-emphasises the need for an integrated system of border management in which the involvement of the local populace is utilised to detect the movement of “outsiders” and thwart their possibly evil intentions. Until such a system is in place, there is no alternative to regular and efficient patrolling of perimeters, and efforts to maintain a “safe” distance between fences and buildings. And, obviously, no “space” for lethargy.