THE AGE ROW-AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW BEGINNING
Both the Army and the Government have cut a sorry figure, having brought in the media and the Court to solve what was essentially an in-house problem. The Army failed to remedy a mundane institutional weakness which caused two separate departments i.e. the Military Secretary who is responsible for career planning, promotions and postings of all officers and the Adjutant General who is the custodian of all records including personal data of officers at the time of induction, to clash and embarrass the whole nation. Incidentally, such a division does not exist in the Navy and Air force as the Personnel department is wholly accountable for all aspects including record keeping of their personnel.
The Media, both print and electronic participated with much enthusiasm and held kangaroo courts to condemn those involved in precipitating the age row concerning no less a person than the Chief of the Army Staff of India. .. While this saga has created much confusion within the Armed forces, the civilians are amused with the hullabaloo, over what they perceive to be a mole hill with no consequence whatsoever. All they want is to see the right general officer placed in the exalted chair of COAS.
For those of us who have spent decades on the subject of Civil-Military relations and the absence of a healthy and productive interface between the Govt and the Armed forces, it came as no surprise. The two imperatives that shape the military institution are, ‘functional’, stemming from the threat to society and ‘societal’ consisting of social forces, ideologies and institutions. In a democracy, these are evolving processes based on the experience gained during wars and the care and attention paid to the soldier to make soldiery a special and exalted profession. India has had very little of both. India has not been involved in long drawn out and debilitating wars which perforce involve the entire nation and demand the participation of all able bodied citizens in direct battle or support functions. In countries which faced hardships of great wars, a generation or more of people with knowledge of affairs Military, have made significant contributions towards preparedness for war. While those governments have utilized their expertise to plan the shape and size of the Armed forces, the Private sector has used their competence to equip the Military with appropriate weapons, sensors and ordnance.
In the Indian context, very little has been discussed on the vital need to nurture healthy civil-military relations. Most politicians do not educate themselves on the nuances of handling a highly professional and motivated Military. Some have equated the Military and the Police without realizing the professional and cultural differences between them. Politicising the Police force has been quite routine but the damaging consequences of politicising the Armed forces have not even been adequately addressed. Consequently most political leaders are uncomfortable dealing with the military and issues of National security. The natural buffer between the two is the civil servant who interprets the Military message to the politician and the political message to the Military. It was therefore most convenient for all to discourage direct contact between the Prime Minister and the Chiefs. The latter ought to be interacting with senior political leadership on all matters pertaining to management of the Armed forces without the need to interface with a layer of bureaucracy. Hence the proposal to create a Chief of defence staff, providing financial and administrative powers to the Chiefs etc have been opposed on specious grounds whenever specially constituted committees recommended this course of action.
Since the end of the Great Wars and the Cold war, many Western democracies have created better functional structures such as, more integration to fight modern wars and delegated powers with checks and balances, all to get the best bang for the buck.
In India, many eminent committees have been tasked by governments in power to find solutions to improving efficiency of the system...Among the many recommendations made by the Subrahmaniam Committee after the Kargil action (which cannot be termed as a war) some crucial ones which would have significantly enhanced the fighting potential of our Armed forces through synergy and integration were ignored by successive Governments. Integrating the Ministry of defence with the service headquarters was one, which, if it had been carefully executed, would have acted as a multiplier in terms of efficiently administering the Armed forces. Professionals from the services would have occupied desks which need to have knowledgeable personnel to service the complex matrix of demand versus limited resources. Suitably qualified civilian experts would have supported personnel related issues and those of logistics..
The age row, as the one on show today, would not have happened simply because the ministry would have been one entity and the “us versus them” syndrome would have been a thing of the past. This is how democracies in the west function today
Finally,, why has age assumed such importance in selecting a Chief? Many modern and forward looking administrations have opted for a combination of merit and age. In the Indian context anything to do with discretionary powers to select the best officer for the assignment is fraught with danger as none would trust a political set up to be objective and impartial.. Yet, if we are to find the right man for the exalted chair, just the seniority or date of birth cannot possibly be the right methodology. We then have to create institutional mechanisms with transparent processes to recommend the right man. This will ultimately remove the less capable from the race. Bangladesh has opted for a system of contract for the Chief which provides a relatively long tenure and the powers to the Govt to terminate the contract if necessary. It is worth learning from countries that are willing to think out of the box.
India cannot afford to blunder along without correcting processes and mechanisms that are critical to its stature in the comity of nations. We have enough committee reports on almost any subject. What is required is the will to professionalise our decision making process. Here is an opportunity begging to be grabbed. Will we?
.
