New Generation Parties and Veterans of India-A Force
Multiplier?
Thanks to a visionary Commanding Officer, who performed his duties
of grooming young officers with an eye on the future, I was introduced to
Samuel Huntington's book on Civil Military Relations at a very early stage of
my Naval career. India then ,was too young a democracy to predict the trends in
civil-military relations or to be able to steer a debate on essentials of this
critical relationship in matters of good governance. Generations of Military
officers grew up with a sub optimal understanding of remaining apolitical in a
democracy. As I was to learn later, most senior leaders had not grappled with
issues pertaining to the duties of a soldier in a democracy, more importantly
when the political leadership in India, barring those who lived through World
war 2, were completely at sea when it came to matters military. Isolating the
Military from decision making processes of the Government was based on a mis-
perceived threat of coup after independence and the reluctance of the elected
representatives to learn about duties of a soldier vis-a-vis the
responsibilities of the society to the soldier. After 66 years there is now a
window of opportunity to correct the anomalies and injustice meted out to the
Soldier of India. (The term Soldier is generic to Sailors and Airmen too and
has been used to describe the military in Civil-Military relations in general)
Since new generation parties(NGPs) such as AAP, Nav Bharat
Democratic Party and Lok Satta have declared their intentions to
professionalize governance through induction of capable, clean and committed
candidates into Parliament and State Assemblies,it is time to address issues
that have remained clothed in secrecy for most part of our post independence
history.
Recorded history and analysis carried out on the subject of
civil-Military relations has established that the Armed forces in a democracy
must remain apolitical and serve the Government elected by the people. It means
that while individuals in the Forces may choose to vote for a party of his/her
choice, once the results are declared and a Government is formed with the
assent of the President(the supreme commander of the Armed forces) it is the
Government of the day which enjoys the full loyalty of the soldier. In practice however, a vast majority of Indian Soldiers were never given the
opportunity to exercise their franchise, neither in the station they were
posted nor through postal ballots. The Government of the day did not consider
it necessary to treat a Soldier as a citizen first, whose right to vote cannot
be denied under any circumstances. Hence, ,lacs of soldiers were deprived of
their right to vote. Most politicians who were busy wooing specific vote banks
were not interested in this disciplined community which was known for its
obedience and integrity.The irony is that most soldiers and very senior
officers were of the view that not voting was part of being apolitical.
Thus a combination of apathy from politicians and sheer ignorance of
democratic rights vested in a soldier as a citizen, resulted in complete
absence of discussions on the subject.
While the serving community was constrained by mis- interpretation
of rights of a soldier to exercise his franchise, the retired community kept itself
away from what was seen to be a dirty vocation.
Post 1970's the quality of those who increasingly got elected
through money and muscle power, continued to deteriorate rapidly, which
in turn affected the image of the politician. It further dissuaded veterans
from entering Politics. Compare this with the second largest democracy, which
has, over the years, continued to elect Presidents and senior political leaders
from the retired Military community. George Washington, Eisenhower, Grant and
John F Kennedy are but a few examples. In
a democratic electoral process every retired soldier is free to enter politics
and pursue his political duties with the same dedication and vigour, with
which he pursued his military duties..
. We now have over a crore retired
soldiers and families and a similar number of serving soldiers and families.,
Some of them have rendered yeomen service to society after they shed their
uniforms. They have all the requisite administrative, organisational and
professional competence to oversee good governance. Currently, they are angry,
hurt and repeatedly ignored. Supreme Court decisions on legitimate pay arrears
ruled in their favour, have been contested by the same Ministry which is
responsible for the welfare of its veterans.
What can NGPs do for them?
Firstly, understand and participate in debates on
National security. Ensure that the budgetary allocations are commensurate with
the needs of our fighting forces.
Second, ensure that the Army is not committed on a permanent basis
to solve problems related to poor governance within India.
Third, hold the Government accountable for timely modernization of
weapons, equipment and platforms.
Fourth, Implement
recommendations of the Kargil Review Committee on integration of Armed forces,
creation of CDS and integration of
service personnel in MOD.
Fifth, restore the izzat of
the Armed forces by upholding the status of the soldier in society.
Finally and more importantly, care for the retired
soldier by ensuring his financial and economic well being, as also his health. Recognize the role of the society in taking care of war casualties, wounded and
disabled soldiers and their widows.
To be able to do this a National Security manifesto should form
the guaranteed deliverable of a NGP. Currently only Nav Bharat Democratic
Party has addressed these issues. Quite
clearly, Veterans of great repute for their contribution to society need to be
located and encouraged to fight elections. It is they who will compensate for
the lack of knowledge in Parliament on
affairs Military, the ignorance on service conditions and genuine needs of the
armed forces.
What good is development without security?
