I have been reading a number of articles appearing in the press written by former officers and others regarding the appointment of General Bipin Rawat as COAS. The controversy that is exciting journalists and former military officers so much is that he is junior by six months to an year to the two other Army Commanders who were in line to become the chief, primarily due to seniority. None of these articles challenge the authority that the political leadership has in appointing the Chief of Army Staff.
As a former Army Officer, who quit after 20 years of service, at the rank of Major, I believe that the General officers who are writing these articles and blogs, attempting to raise a controversy in the supersession of two Army Commanders by General Bipin Rawat, are missing the point regarding how military Chiefs are appointed, and have not paid attention to the role of the elected leadership in the selection of Defense Services Chiefs.
Let us first be very clear that the authority to appoint the COAS in the Army by the elected leadership is unfettered and cannot be questioned. The government in power can appoint a service chief whoever they so desire. The next issue is of criteria. What criteria should a elected government use to appoint a service chief ? My answer to that question is None - zilch - nada. They can appoint a service chief based on their national strategic objectives and who they find is compatible with their government ideology and work with them to meet the objectives of their government's national security perspectives. Besides they are the ones who write the criteria and this could change from government to government.
Supersession in the Armed Forces in the prevalent conventional system, is viewed with disgrace, a belittlement, a slight, and a violation of the safe norm of seniority and and internal established criteria of selection. Some of these articles are also the result of parochial loyalties based on arm like Armored Corps, Artillery or Engineers etc. The establishment logic is that if an Army Commander has fulfilled all the criteria and is also senior therefore he should be appointed Chief. Unfortunately it does not hold simply because, as I mentioned earlier, the elected leadership's freedom to appoint a chief is unfettered and they may create a criterion at their discretion different from either the Defense Services or the bureaucracy. One aspect of such a criterion could be how compatible is the officer with the security ideology of the political leadership in power. That alone could sway a decision in favor of an officer who otherwise competent, as nearly all Army Commanders are, in favor of a relatively junior officer. Then again how junior is General Bipin Rawat to the other Army Commanders, 6 months to an year - that to my mind cannot make such a big difference to national security, it does nevertheless make a difference to established convention which is not something that can be mandatory on the elected leadership.
So what has the government done wrong. It has committed the sin of disgrace, slighting and belittled the officers not being considered for appointment as the chief. That is a problem that this government and other previous governments have not understood about the military and its ethos. The military exists for honor, duty, loyalty, respect and obedience and sees General Bakshi and General Hariz as honorable and competent men who have served the nation well for four decades. It does not want a sudden change in direction, and even if one has to be made it must be done with finesse and without impinging on the competence of these officers. It can make a decision to appoint a junior officer of its liking without disgracing and slighting the officers that are, in the view of the political dispensation, not compatible with it.
This government and others continue to dis-honor Military officers with impunity. Whether it be this supersession or rank parity with civilians, who have no rank, or in pay and allowances. The elected leadership's limited knowledge and vision and its advisor bureaucrats parochial, self serving ethos has resulted in a disgruntled, belittled and misunderstood Armed forces officers cadre.
The in-sensitivities of the elected leadership can be easily remedied, provided they look and think outside the box, and see how democratic governments around the world manage their large militaries and their officers and take a breath of fresh air from the stale internal environs of south and north blocks (which by the way need to have all their stuff thrown out, washed top to bottom and the furniture brought back again as part of the swatch bharat program)
Let us see the first major controversy when General VK Singh was the COAS. The so called seniority system was effectively gamed by the generals so that their own cohorts were placed in the line of succession by manipulation. Later a Chief in league with some bureaucrats, arbitrarily used the army list to verify his date of birth. They did this to curry favor with PM Manmohan Singh and keep their chosen line of succession intact. Even the Supreme Court demurred and told the General to "blow with the wind", a rather poor decision by the supreme judicial body of the land which showed the immaturity and hollowness of our premier branches of government. A democracy no doubt but an immature one. I am not making complaints here, here are my solutions to these issues which assumed a disproportionate importance and became controversies.
As the elected leadership has unfettered powers to appoint Chiefs of Services it also has unfettered powers to mitigate these petty controversies based on Date of Birth certificate, supersession etc. No other democratic power would use a date of birth certificate to castigate or malign or embarrass the Chief and the nation itself, as enemies look on. the DoB certificate was a clerical and social controversy which the political leadership, in its immaturity could not find a solution for. After all many Indians did not have birth certificates, or their parents willy nilly added or subtracted years which in their perception would some how benefits the child. The elected leadership had all the powers and authority to move General VK Singh to a position such as Special Security Advisor to the PM or RM or some such glorified titled position, keeping his rank and privileges intact and yet appoint a chief of its choice. It would have kept its unfettered powers to appoint anyone of its choice and yet not embarrass itself, the Chief and the nation around the world. A chief or any general can be appointed to any position existing or created anywhere in the government in any role it desires. American Generals have had a full service HQ without a command (Patton during WWII). These are inexpensive ideas which make use of the officer for the betterment of the government, treat him with respect and yet do what the government wants to do. So why does the government not exercise its unfettered powers in a positive way and only does so in a negative manner. Its because it is small minded, parochial and its bureaucracy is turf oriented. The political leadership does not exercise leadership, has no good ideas and seems to dependent on the inept and unqualified bureaucracy to take leadership decisions. The bureaucracy is not equipped to advise on leadership, that must come from the elected leaders who seem to be incompetent in exercising their own authority given to them by the people of India. The bureaucracy for reasons best known to the Indian Government ethos wants to and has done its best to denigrate the defense services in every manner they could. A phenomenon not found in any other democratic nation. Indian bureaucracy, even that in the Ministry of Defense and the so called Indian Defense Accounts Service actively works against the the very officers and men they are hired to serve. All litigations are taken to the Supreme Court by the Ministry against Defense Services Personnel despite being told by the Attorney General of India not to do so as it brings financial losses and loss of face to the Government.
In the present scenario of the so called supersession of two Army Commanders, what stopped the government to appoint the two other commanders to some positions in the government prior to appointing Bipin Rawat the COAS? American Generals hold many civilian positions and excel in them. The Trump Administration is appointing generals to cabinet berths in Home, Intelligence, National Security and other areas. The rationale given for appointing so many Generals, by the President Elect's staff is that when so many lawyers, bureaucrats, academicians and others can be appointed to these positions, why not generals? Americans elected a General as President during WWII. There is no rationale that generals who have commanded large organizations cannot work as Secretaries to the Government. It is very likely that these generals and even lower ranked officers will do much better to fulfil the desires of the elected leadership in power. The same government appoints governors and ambassadors from Defense Officers when it wants to, so it is not understood why it wastes talent by not making use of these officers in critical areas of our large democracy for the betterment of the nation? These generals have something to prove and will do better than their best to implement the directions of the government and they are more than qualified to do so.
Some of our retired officers have recommended formation of committees to select the COAS and have offered various compositions of such committees. Bureaucrats, retired generals, out of work politicians, judges - are some of these recommendations who would be part of these committees. This is bureaucratic nonsense. Are there any generals in the committees which select bureaucrats, judges and other people? The political parties in a democratic open society have the ability to get the views of rank and file of their constituents to find out reputations of various generals. They can then decide on the lists provided by the Defense HQ concerned to make a final decision based on who they want. They may have former chiefs, JCOs, retired officers and others to provide inputs to find out the reputation of an officer through a variety of means available to them in addition to the Intelligence bureau providing a detailed report on them. A democratic government has multiple sources of information besides the hackneyed bureaucratic channel to find the right person for the job. After all it is the political leadership that is entrusted with the security of the nation, neither the bureaucrat or the outgoing commander.
Today the elected leadership seems to go by what the IAS feeds it. This allows for bureaucratic and political manipulation. Subsequent governments have been hampered by poor, incompetent and inept advise on Defense matters The bogey of a coup and the element of suspicion of the Defense Services is an old turf preserving hack and the elected leadership must rid itself of this mindset. The Indian Army and other services have played a critical role in building our nation through its respect for civilian authority and no bureaucrat should be given the credit for that. The Defense Services believe in the institution of civilian rule and the idea of civilian supremacy is ingrained in them. All this despite the incompetent and self serving bureaucracy who have appropriated to itself power and influence which far invade the realm of elected leadership. It must be remembered that military subservience is only to the elected leadership, and NOT to its minions the bureaucracy. The current poor state of affairs in the military is due to bureaucratic and political influence in Defense matters be it promotions, transfers or purchase of equipment.
Some of articles suggest that the issue of selection is only prevalent in the senior ranks of the Services i.e. they suggest only some remedy for selection of the COAS. Unfortunately the problem is equally rampant in the lower officer ranks. The evaluation of officers in the lower ranks and promotion up to the rank of brigadier is out dated and heavily skewed towards staff rather than command and combat. It is also not free from bureaucratic and political influence. Unfortunately if we have a war with China or Pakistan, we need real combat and field experience in addition to staff experience as well as real competence rather than officers who are rising through the ranks through bureaucratic or political patronage.
The present consternation in the selection of General Bipin Rawat stems from the fact that he has had combat and field experience in the lower ranks where things are more physical and in direct face of the enemy. The others Army Commanders who are senior to him, would have spend their time in the lower ranks in peace and staff assignments. The military trouble spots in India all lie in the mountains and jungles where no tanks or mechanized infantry operate or even if they do, it would be in a very limited fashion. To defend Kashmir and the Chinese border we would need a General who has had physical combat experience in the junior ranks in these areas. The argument that an armored corps or mechanized infantry officer, who has commanded a higher formation in a combat areas is bogus from the combat experience perspective - as higher command or staff assignments cannot compensate for real combat experience gained as a junior officers leading troops at the platoon, company or battalion level. True colors of officers are revealed when faced with a real threat to life in a kill or be killed scenarios.
I am not denigrating able tank commanders, mechanized infantry and other combat arms. If we faced a conventional threat to our nation from the plains of Punjab or the deserts of Rajasthan - I would prefer a chief from the Armored Corps or Mechanized Infantry. Though somehow, Infantry officers who also operate a lot in the deserts and the plains can command mechanized formations with excellence perhaps due to their more down to earth upbringing. This may change when there is more integration of the officer cadre and more integration of the defense services. At the moment it is safer and better bet to appoint Infantry officers, as long as the threat is from China and from Pakistan in Kashmir. Tank and Mechanized forces do not play a part in asymmetrical warfare and the threat of a conventional is remote as compared to the threat of asymmetrical warfare which is real and present. Special forces too, which are extensively used in asymmetrical warfare, too are drawn from the infantry.
So there is much that ails the officer cadre in the Army and perhaps in the other services as well. Starting with corruption riddled selection boards where bribery and influence mongering is rampant, to the lowering of standards for officer cadets to fill existing vacancies at the behest of our bureaucracy, to a staff orientation during the middle ranks as opposed to combat and field experience. An outdated evaluation system, which during my twenty years went from, showing the evaluations to the officers to not showing them, then removing intermediate numberings on reporting forms for senior officers and then bringing them back. All cosmetic and clerical changes that affected one batch of officers or the other. No evaluation system works without a mutually accepted set of objectives agreed upon and understood by the officer reported upon and his commanding officer. The Defense Services do not set any annual objectives between the officer reported upon and the evaluator. The entire evaluation system is a game of chance, it is subjective and can be gamed if you are well connected. The Army will have to come up with a set of goals for each officer which could be monitored throughout the year by the evaluating officer and the entire chain of command. Its called management by objectives and there are computer programs which allow the entire chain to monitor the progress on the set objectives in real time. The Army should try these methods or seek a more modern system of evaluation of its officers' competence as it relates to the threats the nation faces.
I think the political leadership, especially the BJP, which has a huge mandate should relook the Defense Services Officer Cadre as a whole, so that it can throw up able commanders who can help formulate national security policy. All officers start as junior officers, and the government must first ensure that the intake process is kept under intelligence scrutiny for corruption and the standards need to be upped not reduced. The standards of education and training must be made more stringent and futuristic not lowered. Bureaucratic pressure to lower standards just to fill vacancies must be strongly resisted. If the forces are not an attractive vocation for the youth of the country, then the government has a lot to introspect, but to resort to fix it approaches such as the clerical idea of lowering standards will ultimately affect National Security. We cannot have generals in the future who don't have high ideals and ethical standards. It is an elitist service and the socialist governments of yore did great damage to it. The foundation of leadership in the Armed Forces rests on individual officer's character. Competent senior officers must be used elsewhere in the government at its discretion. Selection of Chiefs must be made based on reputation of the officers gleaned from a variety of sources besides the normal list coming up from the service HQ based on their criteria. Bureaucratic influence and interference must be kept scrupulously out. The most compatible officer who has the trust of the government must be selected as Chief so that there is mutual faith in taking far reaching Defense oriented decisions as well as combat strikes as and when required. These officers must have a direct rapport with the elected leadership so that there is mutual trust as decisions such as nuclear warfare, Islamic terrorism and clandestine threats are tackled through a close understanding of the problems and political imperatives. Second guessing by bureaucrats is likely to be detrimental to bold and decisive action. The Armed Forces cannot be used incrementally, they are a blunt and expensive weapon to be used for well thought out and decisive action through a strong political will. Bureaucrats are neither trained, nor have knowledge or have the ethical standards to deal with Defense Matters. In India the bureaucracy proactively works against the Defense Services, which is an anomaly which is serious and successive elected leaders will have to eliminate this problem in the interest of National Security.
India lies in a geopolitical hot spot and its military can make or break its future vis a vis her neighbors. On the west we have a rogue terrorist nation and to the north we have an expansionist power, each ruthless in their aim to stunt India. A fierce geopolitical game in Asia is likely to take place in this century. The elected leadership cannot afford to play bureaucratic games with National Security or the Armed Forces. Which in turn means not discouraging and belittling its officer cadre. Defense Services are neither para military forces not civil services. Attempts to equate them to lower level civil servants will be self defeating in the long run. Their importance cannot be undermined, or else the nations enemies will take advantage of the many fissures that are presently visible between the minions of the government and the Defense Services. No matter which political party is in power, they should all be nationalists and see the Armed Forces through that light or they may be in for a rude shock when the Army is defeated at the borders due to lack of wherewithal or what may not be very apparent now, the quality of its officer cadre.
