Making A Public Issue Of Demands

Ashok Kapur

India’s Chief of Naval Staff has recently fired a missile in the form of an unsolicited missive in the direction of the adversary. The timing is exquisite. The adversary is particularly vulnerable at this point in time. The Chief has nothing to lose, even if the missile were to backfire. For him, it is a win-win situation, to use management jargon.

Before one rushes to compliment the Chief for his brilliant and well-planned tactics, one must reflect. The ‘missile’, dressed up as a missive to the government, revives certain long-standing demands such as ‘one rank, one pension’. The adversary is none other than the Government of India, democratically elected. The wise Chief has taken full cover for himself ~ he is retiring shortly. The exact details of the letter are not in the public domain but are broadly known. He has sent his note in his capacity as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.

As if on cue, the two other Service chiefs,  have sent similar communication to the government. The contents are not known, but reports in the national media do suggest that the Chiefs appear to be acting in concert. And the government appears to have retreated in the face of such ‘friendly fire’. It has set up a committee to examine the ‘demands’, which have been repeated ad nauseam and rejected. Rather than face the issue fair and square and nip the mischief in the bud, the government appears to be diving for cover.

The development raises certain fundamental questions of democratic governance. Viewed in the context of other developments involving a few armed forces officers in their face-off with successive governments, it does not auger well for the rule of law and the future of democracy. A pattern seems to be emerging ~ a serving Chief admonishes the government publicly. And the government takes it lying down. Such appeasement only fuels further defiance, covert and not so covert.

The trend was first noticed during the Kargil operations. The then Army Chief, in his response to the hostilities, fired the first salvo at his own government: “We will fight with whatever weapons we have.” Such a damaging public statement on the eve of the battle was hardly calculated to bolster the morale of his troops who, admittedly, fought bravely. The nation now has it from the horse’s mouth that he was later admonished by the then Prime Minister privately. It is a sad commentary on a democratic polity that a serving Chief publicly raps his government on the knuckles, and the government raps him privately.

The Chief retired without as much as an expression of ‘displeasure’ from the government. A dangerous precedent had been set. The statement was made before the national media. Conduct rules governing public servants debar them from any association with the media. Officers of the armed  forces are also governed by the same rules. Of late, however, some serving officers deem themselves above these ‘bureaucratic pinpricks’. The case of the just-retired Army Chief was arguably the most blatant defiance of civilian authority.

It has now been revealed that the former Chief had without authorisation set up a unit directly under him to virtually spy on his own government. Several crores of tax- payer’s money were squandered on the clandestine operation. Evidently, it is a case of misuse of public funds ~ no government will authorize the use of public funds to spy on itself! It is obvious that the Chief was functioning as a parallel authority. His doublespeak is not to be missed; he was openly complaining during his tenure about the lack of resources for arms and equipment.

As regards the latest salvo fired by the outgoing Naval Chief, it is most inappropriate to do so on the eve of one’s retirement. Crucial policy issues such as service conditions and salaries are never decided on an ad hoc basis in any democracy. Armed forces are but one segment of the public services of the State. Inter-service parity is most crucial in a democracy, as the armed forces are in uniform while on duty and wear their ranks on their shoulders, along with their civilian counterparts in the Central paramilitary and state police forces and often working together.

Second, such policy matters are decided on a decennial basis by Pay Commissions specifically set up for the purpose. These commissions are invariably headed by a judge of the Supreme Court so that competing demands from various services and groups are decided in a fair and impartial manner.

Once the Cabinet finally decides the policy, it is supposed to be settled for a decade and no service or group is permitted to unscramble the omelette. To indulge any service to do so midway would be to open a Pandora’s Box which the government would not be able to close.

Third, the outgoing Naval Chief is doubling up as the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, ostensibly to tender ‘single-point’ advice to the government on strategic matters. Let alone the propriety of using such a platform to highlight service matters out of turn, the strategic utility of such an arrangement is in serious doubt. The days of three-dimensional warfare when all the three wings of the military were deployed at the first sign of hostilities, are, mercifully, long over.

The advent of nuclear weapons has rendered a three-dimensional conflict unthinkable. The last such conflict was the Second World War. All conflicts since then, including our own experience with China and Pakistan, have been short and largely one-dimensional operations. Governments around the world have realised the catastrophic implications of a three-dimensional conflict.

Even from a purely strategic point of view, the government does not need ‘single-point’ advice. To consciously fashion an arrangement to place a single authority as head of the three Services, even by rotation, presupposes that in any future conflict, all the three Services will be deployed. This is both strategically unwise and potentially disastrous. Deployment of the various wings of the military depends on the objective reality on the ground. The political aim is paramount in war which must always be decided by the political, not military leadership.

No democratic government can afford to surrender its political authority to a ‘defence supremo’, whatever the official label of the officer. To vest such excessive authority on an individual is a recipe for disaster. In a polity like ours,  the days of a strong and stable single-party government with a united leadership, appear to be over. The only other agency available with the modern State and capable of resisting such pressures ~ a strong civil service ~ hardly exists.

(To be concluded)

The writer is a retired IAS officer.

By the kind courtesy of the Statesman 

http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=423960&catid=38

A brief profile of Ashok Kapur, IAS (Retd):

A former bureaucrat, he served as Director, Central Vigilance & Jt Secretary, Govt of India, Chairman, Drafting Committee of UN Disarmament Conference on Biological Weapons, Geneva, among other postings. Following retirement as Principal Secretary, Govt of West Bengal, he did MICA and FICA. Currently he is Secretary General, Institute of Directors (an NGO) and Arbitrator, Member, Board of Governors, International Academy of Law, headed by former CJI, Justice Bhagwati. A post-graduate from Delhi University, he joined the IPS and stood first in all-India, 1966 and joined the IAS in 1967. He is an LLB from Delhi University and has a PhD in Urban Planning from NIUA, Delhi & appointed as Associate Prof (Urban & Environmental Planning).

Any student of psychology will tell you that a very thin line divides a genius from a lunatic and many geniuses cross this line sometimes but certainly at later age. 

Veteran Ram Gulrajani