2016 has been a
year of controversies for the Indian military. From the fracas over OROP to the
putative responsibility of ACM Tyagi in the Agusta Westland case to the latest
one of appointment of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat as the next Chief of Army Staff – it has been a
rolling saga. A new generation of media (and social media) savvy ex-servicemen
have kept the noise levels up on each of the issues at hand.
For a distant,
amateur, but interested observer, the ex-servicemen betray a strange sense of
entitlement and naivete in their outrage. The over-riding narrative in the COAS
appointment saga, for example, is the following:
- 1. Govt choosing its own person (instead of going by seniority) increases political meddling in the Army.
- 2. Such meddling would result in senior officers currying favours with politicians.
- 3. The government is too disconnected from the military to understand merits of individual officers, hence should not get involved.
- 4. Rationale like “greater experience in Counter Insurgency operations” (the reported grapevine justifying Gen Rawat’s supersession of the two senior, armoured corps officers) are dubious – each army commander is as good as the other. Selecting an officer on account of greater operational Counter Insurgency experience is unfair, stupid and short-sighted.
5 As a (usual Indian) cul de sac,
the example of Pakistan is quoted, where political appointments of the COAS has
resulted in horrific consequences, generally.
The narrative is problematic on nearly all
grounds.
First, political interference. The issue
with the Indian military and politicians is not one of too much interference,
but one of too little. For a democracy, the Indian military has an astonishing,
somewhat appalling amount of autonomy over policy decisions. On AFSPA for
example, successive governments have simply given a veto to the Army on
decision-making. The same sense of entitlement and superiority (over "slimy politicians") is sought to be extended to appointments too. In terms of first principles though, it is entirely justified that the
political leadership should choose a Chief of its own liking. The buck, finally
stops there. The infamy of 1962 in popular narratives doesn’t touch the Indian
Army’s massive failings but entirely revolves around the foibles and faux pas
of Nehru and Krishna Menon. The responsibility for the nasty surprise in Kargil was laid at the door of Vajpayee’s Lahore diplomacy and civilian intelligence,
not the Army (or its initial clumsy response to the threat). If the political leadership is to carry the can, it should darn well have the flexibility to choose any person it deems to be most fit for the Chief's role.
Second, global practice. In this,
invocation of the Pakistan example is a red herring (as it is for most things).
In both US and UK, the political leadership chooses its own Chief (Chairman,
Joint Chiefs and Chief of Defence Staff respectively). There are no precedence,
seniority and “arms” limitations binding the government. Taking a look at the
latest appointments in both cases in a nutshell.
In January this year in UK, ACM Sir Staurt
Peace was appointed the Chief of Defence Staff. It created no great ripples,
but this BBC report has some interesting snippets.
This appointment is a big surprise.Within the MoD two candidates were being discussed - army general, Sir Richard Barrons, and first sea lord, Admiral George Zambellas.There has been an expectation that the three services would take turns in the job.Given the last two men to hold the job have been army generals, that might have counted against Sir Richard.But the Royal Navy has not had a chief of the defence staff since 2003, and would have felt it was their turn.Admiral Zambellas is certainly seen as charismatic, but that might not be how the prime minister likes his military commanders.Remember David Cameron's quote: "You do the fighting and I'll do the talking."Sir Stuart is his own man - a plain speaker and, like his service, far from stuffy. But he is also a known quantity.He may also be seen as less "partisan" than the other candidates.
In a nutshell, Prime Minister David Cameron
selected a candidate who he considered to be “less partisan, less talking”. No one in UK upbraided the PM for using such subjective, behavioral rationale to make a choice, rather than using seniority to decide a first among equals.
In May 2015, President Obama selected
Marine General Joseph Dunford as the next Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There was more news about this, given the Congressional confirmations for such
positions in the US. But again, the rationale given for the selection are quite illustrative.
“What makes him attractive is that he’s a ground leader, and we’ve still got ground wars going on,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the selection process.Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Dunford would be well served by his time in Afghanistan, where he commanded foreign troops, guided a complex U.S. operation and contended with the challenges of local politics. “There are few people that have had the experience he’s had,” Reed said in an interview.
So, extensive counter insurgency and
expeditionary experience counted high in the selection. Not dissimilar to the reasons ostensibly given for the selection for Lt Gen Rawat, where his greater operational experience in CI/CT has said to have tilted the scales in his favour. Again, no one raised hackles on why the US President used such rationale while arriving at his choice.
The Indian polity, since 1962 has treated operational military matters with kid gloves, leaving the space completely monopolised by the services. It has had a deleterious impact on India's strategic posture, with a conventional bureaucratic military making shortsighted, regressive calls on facets of national security - induction of indigenous equipment (MBT Arjun being a prime example), force structures (45 sqd air force built around the most expensive aircraft available) and more.
Its time that the political leadership took matters in their own hands. If it starts with the appointment of the new Army Chief, portends good signals!
