India suddenly finds itself plagued with civil-military tensions, unprecedented and recklessly public, of a magnitude that seems to have shaken the nation. Never before has the Indian Army, largely a respected and revered institution, been at the centre of a blatant public spectacle and subject to such grave damage. Army chief General V K Singh’s renewed tussle with the government has exposed a deep disconnect between the civilian government and the defence establishment.
For the uninitiated, V K Singh publicly accused a former army official last week of attempting to bribe him to approve the purchase of a fleet of vehicles and blamed defence minister A K Antony for not taking any action against the accused. Antony, meanwhile, claims he had left it to Singh to take appropriate action. To make matters worse, a confidential letter that he wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, describing a truly dire state of affairs in the army, also found its way to the front pages of newspapers.
The very public scrimmage between the General and government has a longer history. The army chief had dragged the government to the Supreme Court earlier this year following an acrimonious dispute over his date of birth, which in turn would have determined his retirement year. The apex court had, however, ruled in the government’s favor.
This open and unparalleled spat between the army and government, meanwhile, is now threatening to spill out beyond the domestic contours with the General’s scheduled visit to Nepal this week ending up as an innocent casualty. Singh was to travel to Kathmandu for a regional seminar on disaster management and counter terrorism being hosted by the Nepal Army and while the seminar was for just two days, the army chief was expected to extend his visit to four days, presumably to discuss and further a formal agreement on military assistance. However, with the current domestic turbulence, the defence ministry has scaled down Singh’s visit, reducing it to just two days and cutting down his delegation to a bare minimum.
This is rather unfortunate because irrespective of domestic disputes and conflicts, bilateral interactions with other nations should not be allowed to suffer.
The latest allegations and disclosures by the army chief may well be a case of vindictiveness and vengeance of a hurt man who lost the battle over his retirement age and now wants to roll out skeletons in the cupboard, but the issue certainly cannot be brushed under the carpet.
The rather unseemly events clearly reflect a complete breakdown of trust between the army and political leadership and set a precedent that has the potential to shake harmonious ties between the two for a long time. It takes decades for a country to build effective institutions and establishments that can co-exist peacefully and without infringing upon each other’s territories. But it takes only one ugly event to rattle the delicate framework; this is not to say the current imbroglio is a mere result of ego clashes.
Indian Army Chief VK Singh’s issue highlights the government’s inability to deal with established institutions. Perhaps there is a lesson for Nepal.
The resentment in the armed forces against the political establishment has been simmering. The defence ministry has been over-powerful. Of course, a great point of success has been that the army has never had a political role but it is resentful that under the pretext of it not having a political role, it is deprived of any say in the decision making apparatus of the defence ministry that is ruled by bureaucratic babus.
Civil-military relations are typically difficult to handle and neighboring Pakistan is a case in point, being constantly dogged by strains between the two. The Indian experience has been relatively more stable but the current clash could well balloon into something much bigger if the political establishment fails to address the issues.
The V K Singh episode has opened up several pertinent issues for public debate. One, the armed forces are in need of complete re-organization and recent events are a manifestation of a system that has become anachronistic and is in need of desperate change.
The defence forces have not had a structural change since Independence and one of the main reasons why corruption is slowly seeping in is the manner in which officials are promoted—not on merit but on seniority. There has to be a rethink on how the forces are trained and equipped. Further, the Army Act 1950 needs to be revisited, which actually allows the centre to curtail certain fundamental rights of members of armed forces.
There has to be a restructuring and rebalancing of civil-military relations as well. For instance, why is the fact that the General chose to write to the Prime Minister instead of to the defence minister directly such a contentious issue? The chiefs of defence forces should have direct access to the PM, of course in a way that does not undermine the ministry.
Two, it has exposed serious lapses in the armed forces, which have always been revered and looked at in awe. Any attempt by the media or intelligentsia to point at corruption or other ills plaguing the forces has been considered ‘unpatriotic’ and inimical to ‘national interest’.
Of course, there has always been the shadow of scams and corruption allegations like the Bofors, Tehelka’s Operation West End and other defence deals. However, this time, coming from none other than the current army chief, the indication of prevalent and deep-rooted corruption in the Indian armed forces assumes not just more credibility but also greater seriousness. It is nobody’s case that India’s defence personnel have not fought bravely or that most of them don’t lead lives of extraordinary hardships but there is absolutely no justification for considering the armed forces sacrosanct. They should be under some degree of scrutiny like other institutions in the country, while of course, keeping in mind the sensitive nature of this institution and its need for a degree of secrecy.
But most significantly, what this issue brings to the fore is the Congress-led UPA government’s complete disrespect for all established institutions and its inability to deal tactfully with any of them. This government has had many confrontations with constitutional bodies and institutions including the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), even the Supreme Court and now the army. It has made a mockery of all these prestigious and vital agencies, challenging their authority and infringing upon their territories.
Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that the ugliest and most public civil-military spat in the history of the nation has happened during the UPA’s tenure? In General V K Singh’s case, he may have been wrong and driven by his interests, but there is no denying that the government has completely mishandled the whole affair—from the age controversy to the latest disclosures. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw used to famously call Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi “sweetie” but now things have come to such a pass that relations between the current government and army chief have soured in an immensely immature fashion. It is, of course, pertinent to reiterate here that there is no doubt the army chief has also acted in an immature manner and has set a dangerous precedent.
Besides the need to restructure Indian armed forces while also making them more accountable, the biggest lesson from this entire hullabaloo is the need for the civilian establishment to shun arrogance and learn to respect other institutions in the country. The political leadership cannot afford to disrespect such bodies and it must have the ability to deal with such fragile relations tactfully and in a mature manner. Perhaps, Nepal, at the cusp of redefining its own civil-army relations, would do well to keep this in mind.
Related story
Construction of three int’l power transmission lines underway a...
