Political conditions also differ from country to country. In our own country it is a patent fact that all the three services have not yet reached an equal stage of development. The Army is the oldest service— naturally, it has to he the oldest service— because traditionally it was the army that was considered to he the real armed force. Our Air Force is a recent service, but I must say that .it has made very rapid growth and it has justified its growth also in the last 16 years. The Navy, though it is an old service, is still lagging in its growth. I was very happy yesterday and today when I heard very able speeches from hon. Members who advocated the cause of the Navy. I was happy that there was somebody to look after the Navy in this House. I will come back to the question of the Navy again.

I am only mentioning that the development of the three services is rather in an unbalanced way and, therefore, this idea of a unified command is something which we cannot just think of now and, maybe, for a few years more. If from the development point of view and also political considerations we can reach this stage, possibly we can think of it.

At the present moment, are we handicapped because there is no unified command ‘? That is another aspect which has to be thought of. Is there any handicap in carrying out the defence policy only because there is no unified command ? The highest technical advisory body that the Government has, is the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which is presided over by the senior most member of the service. At present the Chief of the Army Staff is the senior most member who presides over the Chiefs of Staff Committee which advises both the Defence Minister and the Emergency Committee of the Cabinet. It is also serviced by other Sub-committees and expert committees. It is not just in an academic manner but we have seen the functioning of these bodies in the crisis of the last war and I must say that it has worked well. If the experience is some test, then I must say that I do not think that at the present moment, not only at the present moment but under the present circumstances any change in the present set-up is called for.

The other point that the hon. Member made was about the intelligence system and equipment etc. Intelligence is very often discussed in this honourable House and from time to time I have had occasion to give some of the explanations. As I said, certainly there is an improvement in the intelligence work and in the intelligence system; but I can say as we do in the case of other equipment and other services, the that intelligence system also is very delicate instrument and it takes a long time to develop. I cannot say that I am hundred per satisfied with what we have done. It will be a dishonest statement to make to this honourable House; but I can only say that we are trying to find out What better methods we can introduce and how we can better or improve our intelligence system. In the light of the experience that we had in the 1962 campaign and in the light of the experience that we had in the 1965 campaign, we are certainly taking some steps. I hope if we pursue this matter with the same energy and vitality that we have been showing during the last three years, probably we may reach a stage, not in the far distant future, when we can say with certainty that we have got a fool proof Intelligence organisation in our country. But I must say we have to be very watchful and careful in this particular aspect to develop this intelligence system.