A Training Branch- Need of the hour for the Indian Navy

A few months ago, I had written an article advocating reform of the  organisational structure responsible for training in the Indian Navy titled “Reconstituting the Education Branch” . Quite predictably, the Education Branch has seen this as the declaration of a turf war and has tried to justify the reasons for it’s existence thereby completely missing the point that training in the Indian Navy is actually conducted by the different professional branches (Executive, Engineering, Electrical, Logistics, Submarine, Aviation, etc.) and not by the Education Branch.

             This is achieved through instructors from respective professional branches being appointed to various institutes, establishments, colleges and training schools like the Naval Institute of Aeronautical Technology, INS Valsura, INS Shivaji, INS Dronacharya, Signal School, ND School, ASW School, etc., for durations usually ranging from two to three years, conducting training as per syllabi prepared by the professional branches.

            So, then one might well ask, what does the Education Branch do? I have been informed by the Navy that they carry out duties in accordance with Chapter 9 of Regulations for the Navy, Part I. These duties and responsibilities are as follows-

         (a)       Scientific and mathematical instruction including instruction in theoretical aspect of technical/ professional subjects to the officers and the sailors of all branches of the Navy.
            (b)       General education work.
            (c)        Meteorological duties.
            (d)       Oceanological duties.
            (e)       Establishment and maintenance of reference libraries.
            (f)        Electronic data processing
            (g)       Provision of schooling facilities.
           (h)      Setting question papers for educational and recruitment examinations and their contract in naval ship/ establishments.
        (j)      Conduct of Command/ Professional management and staff college            entrance examination.
            (k)        Implementation of the official language policy of the government.
            (l)        Training, technology and methodology.  

            As I had contended in my article titled “Reconstituting the Education Branch”, all of the duties listed above can be carried out equally well per se by officers of the other professional branches except for Meteorological & Oceanological duties for which a separate Meteorological branch can be created.

            One may ask, if it is the Education branch which is responsible for training in the Navy then how is it that 90 % of officers and 100 % of sailors involved in the training of different professional branches (Executive, Engineering, Electrical, Logistics, Submarine, Aviation, etc.) are not from the Education branch? Does it not therefore make sense for a “Training Branch” to be created staffed by officers & sailors from all professional branches (Executive, Engineering, Electrical, Logistics, Submarine, Aviation, etc.)? To reiterate, the officers and sailors of the Training branch thus created could very well carry out all the duties being carried out by officers of the existing Education branch except for Meteorological & Oceanological duties for which a separate Meteorological branch can be created. How is that not supportive of the overall growth of the Navy?    

            Training is a specialised activity which first of all demands focussed attention from our planners. The present system of pulling out officers and sailors from professional billets on an ad hoc basis and then returning them to the “mainstream” does nothing for the overall training effort as well as the professional growth of the individual concerned. We need training to be conducted by professionals and not part-time players. These professionals need to feel as being a part of the training process with an unquestionable stake in the end product and not like the bench strength of a soccer team just marking time till it is time for them to play. In other words, training needs to be raised to the level of any other professional branch and accorded due importance to ensure that in times of peace, when training is the most important activity, they are not over-shadowed by “operations”.  

            So, how does one go about creating the Training branch? One of the ways could be to select officers from the other professional branches (Executive, Engineering, Electrical, Logistics, Submarine, Aviation, etc.) after their first staff tenure of at least two years onboard any ship, submarine, squadron, yard, establishment, etc. based upon their aptitude, willingness and vacancy to join the Training branch. These officers would constitute the staff at various institutes, establishments, Naval Academy, colleges and training schools with representation at area and command headquarters. A similar selection system could be instituted for the sailors too. To remain current with the tactics and technologies adopted in the operational arena, the officers of the Training branch could be deputed or sent on attachments in the rank of Lieutenant Commander and Commander to ships, submarines or air squadrons depending upon their core expertise.    

            The Commanding Officers, Officers-in-Charge and Directors of the ‘training’ establishments, schools, colleges and institutes as well as the Principal of the Naval Academy would then be from the Training branch and not supplanted from outside. This would encourage all participants, from the juniormost sailor to the head of the organisation, to be completely focussed on the training process rather than treating their tenures in training billets at respective ranks as temporary appointments.

            At present, a lot of time, money and effort is spent in getting an officer/ sailor out of an “operations” oriented mindset and up to speed for the training field. This is followed by various initiatives like “Training the trainer” to introduce him to the finer nuances of carrying out instructional duties quite apart from the massive investment of time and intellectual shift on the part of the new instructor to learn and educate himself first on all the theoretical aspects before actually starting to instruct. All this investment of time, effort and money is then negated by transferring him back to an “operations” billet and repeating the whole activity with a fresh candidate while all the time keeping in mind that the new candidate thrust into the training field might not have the aptitude for it in the first place!    

            It isn’t everyone’s cup of tea to become an instructor. By the same token, we owe it to the trainees and the country to impart the best training by firstly having instructors who are totally committed to the task available for the job. Professional training imparted and audited by those with no roots in the professional branches themselves cannot but be a travesty of the whole process. It is time to put an end to it.