Army restructuring

Restructuring of the Nepal Army is a very sensitive issue and it should have been addressed with the sensitivity that it deserves. Unfortunately, it has become subject to partisan politics and narrow, factional interests within the army. Given how Nepali politics is still recovering from the fallout of the 2009 episode in which then prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal tried unsuccessfully and unconstitutionally to sack the then army chief Rookmangud Katwal, the current controversy is unfortunate and uncalled for. Make no mistake, army restructuring is a genuine issue, and army chief Chhatraman Singh Gurung is right in saying that the Nepal Army structure, worked out 45 years ago, is outdated and in need of overhaul. But what the army chief did not mention is an even more important issue: downsizing the army. The army chief was wrong to bring up the issue of army restructuring without also talking about its downsizing, since it is the latter that should guide the former. It’s only after we have decided on the right size for the army that we can also decide about its structure in the new context.



The current size of the army — at 92,000-strong — is unnecessarily large and too costly for this poor country to maintain. (It increased twofold during the decade of conflict.) The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which is part of the interim constitution, acknowledges this and talks about downsizing the national army in unambiguous terms. Article 4.7 of the CPA says: ... The interim cabinet would prepare and implement the detailed action plan for democratisation of the Nepali Army by taking suggestions from the concerned committee of the interim parliament. This includes work like determining the right numbers for the Nepali Army, preparing a democratic structure reflecting national and inclusive character, and training in democratic principles and human rights values.



What makes the army chief’s restructuring proposal, which is backed by Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, even more controversial is the possibility of ulterior motive behind it. There are strong allegations that the army chief is pressing for army restructuring and is turning it into something of an urgent issue because his brother-in-law, who is a major general, is retiring in less than two weeks. By restructuring the army— the main aim of which is to add at least one more lieutenant general to the army brass— the army chief wants to promote his brother-in-law so that the latter can remain in service and possibly become army chief himself in future. That the army chief didn’t push for restructuring until it became clear that his brother-in-law would possibly get the promotion because of seniority and the political connections he has carefully nurtured, lends much credence to these allegations. In unanimously directing the government to put army restructuring on hold the State Affairs Committee of parliament has effectively put a brake on the army chief’s plans. The government should now start afresh on this issue and bring in a comprehensive policy for both downsizing and restructuring the national army.

Related story

Aircraft acquisition and organizational restructuring progress...