APPOINTMENT TO TOP POSTS OF THE INDIAN MILITARY
From time to time the media provokes a discussion on the subject of this article. When the “Principle of seniority versus merit” takes centre stage, it is inevitably linked to the selection of the Chiefs of the three services. Do democracies select the best suited for the job and not merely based on seniority? The short answer is yes. Has the Indian Govt violated the “Principle” of seniority in the past? Yes, on a number of occasions. Not only has the senior-most been superseded but on occasions, an extension of service has been granted to ensure that certain individuals made it to the chair. So, why this hellacious hullabaloo when a TOI report suggests that merit may play a greater role in the selection of the topmost appointments in the Military.
Quite clearly
this subject of politicisation is full of myths and contradictions. It would be
instructive to examine some of the related factors.
The first
pertains to Seniority. Given the unique structure which is pyramidical in the military
as opposed to the largely cylindrical format of the civil services, merit plays
a significant role throughout the career of an officer. Every step of the ladder
considers merit as the basis for selection boards. Since confidential reports
are periodically rendered based on a wide spectrum of duties performed in
operational and other critical assignments of an officer, his profile as a
professionally competent leader is established over time. Notably, none of his appointments are based on the individual’s choice. He goes where he is told to
go. Hence, it is well known that in
every batch under consideration, the merit list and selection board results change
the seniority list originally compiled on entry and performance in training
courses. Needless to say, after the attrition caused by promotion board results, there is no resemblance at all with the past seniority list. Is the merit list
flawless to ensure that only the most deserving make it to higher ranks? There
are exceptions to the rule. As in every walk of life, some errant individuals
slip through.
If that is the norm throughout one’s career, why should seniority become the most vital factor for selection to the top? Neither in the Military nor in the private sector has seniority been a fundamental consideration and certainly cannot be called a principle. Neither the UK nor the USA—to name just two-- follow the factor of seniority for top level selection nor have Russia or China. In India, it becomes the safest and non-controversial method to follow when convenient. The Cabinet Committee has to be strong enough to take a decision as is the practice in every democratic or autocratic Government in the world. After all many Governments in India have done it in the past. Have we seen signs of captivation of military leaders to the Govt.? Yes, in a few cases but it has had no effect on the fighting force as they have no time or the opportunity to follow activities well beyond their reach. They care that their immediate senior leadership is competent and fair.
We have also
had Chiefs who displayed questionable leadership qualities due to their
personal ambitions, even when they happened to be senior most when selected. The
rank and file, however, have continued to perform their duties. That is true of
most democracies.
Yet another
factor that remains sotto voce is, the tacit system of informally preparing an
inhouse line of succession due to the power of the “red- ink” vested in the
Chief. Traditionally or customarily, the chief uses the red ink to endorse his
remarks on the ACR related to future leadership material. That remains the
final word. Although, the Chief has no say in who his successor should be, the
“Principle” of seniority and the ability of successive Chiefs to alter the line
of succession as they deem fit , have had implications for the future. Furthermore, from the list of seniority that exists in
every service, it is not uncommon for those with the predilection to spot
future top “leaders” so as not to run afoul of them. On the flip side those
that see themselves as clearly heading the race, based only on seniority, tend
to be risk- averse and avoid hard decisions-both of which are anathema to fighting
forces. Partly, this lacuna may be overcome when board results are vetted by the newly created Department of Military Affairs under the CDS.
In every
democracy, it is the role of the Govt to assess and select the most competent
among contenders to lead the service. The modus-operandi to create a system to
assess such potential would evolve over time as it has in older democracies
too. There will be the risk of making the occasional sub-optimal choices
whatever be the system followed; but seniority can be a coincidence, but not
the rule.
