About intelligence, I may say it is not merely getting information. Intelligence, really, speaking, is quite different from information. In the army jargon intelligence is defined as information which is properly evaluated from the military point of view. Information becomes intelligence only when it is properly assessed and gets certain military value. From that point of view, the military intelligence organisation will take a long time to be reorganised. It requires the right type of personnel, the right type of training and the right type of equipment too.
And we have also started late also. So it will take some time. I can only assure the hon. Members that in this particular line, we have certainly learnt a lesson, rather a costly lesson, but we have learnt it very well now, and I do not think we can afford to make any further mistake in this particular line. Shri Indrajeet Gupta made one point : We are making semi-automatic rifles and using them in the Himalayas while the Chinese made use of automatic rifles. I do not know whether he had more information than I have, possibly he has, but my information is that the Chinese did not have automatic rifles; they had semi-automatic rifles. The Chinese had a very peculiar military technic; sending waves of man-power. That is where they arc more strong. Superiority in numbers - that was one of their points. Yesterday, I mentioned their three military advantages which they exploited completely superiority in numbers; the terrain from which they operated was rather advantageous to them; and thirdly, the aggressor has naturally certain initiatives; he can choose the place and time and everything.
Where did I say ‘ adequate ? ‘ I am giving the view of the military people. That rifle is less rapid but it is good for aiming; it consumes less ammunition. It is more useful. We certainly have got adequate numbers of that, but the mistake was that we could not take them to the right place in the right time. That was our main difficulty because of the suddenness of the whole situation. I was telling about the other point the Chinese were not using automatic rifles. From the experience in this type of warfare, semi-automatic rifles are more useful because they have the necessary rapidity and fire power and at the same time they do not waste ammunition.
These are some specific points made by some hon. Members. If the whole report is looked at from the objective point of view... It mean the statement, wherever I have mentioned the word `report’ I was saying that the attitude and approach to defence cannot be a divisible approach. There cannot be a Government approach to defence and an Opposition approach to Defence there cannot be a Congress approach and any other party’s approach.
I can only be a national approach to defence. Therefore, I request the hon. Members to take this report in that objectivity so that instead of trying to divide or demoralise us it will give the necessary strength which is what we need at the moment. Really speaking, the report is aimed at creating that confidence and awareness in the Army and in the circles where policy decisions are taken so that the deficiencies may not be repeated again. That is my whole approach and I would request the hon. Members to look at this report from that point of view.
I can say that if he looks to the terms of reference which I had given, he will see that the enquiry was not for fixing any responsibility as such. So, that was not the question. It is not the report has arrived at any conclusions as such which I have not given to the House.