The military is a unique profession that bears particular responsibility for the security of the nation. It also poses special threats, not necessarily the threat of a coup, when it embraces partisanship and politicisation creeps into the military. Such an aberration takes place when the military begins to view itself as an interest group, voices disdain for politicians and bureaucrats and finally with its own political identification and participation in politics, and when the civilian authority is not sensitive to these changes.
The current impasse reflects certain related but distinct trends. The military is increasingly becoming ‘exclusive' and removed from society. It is not only that a fairly large percentage of the officer cadre comes from military families but also that military academies provide a fair percentage of officers. Rather than see itself as a reflection of society, the military sees itself as superior to society in terms of values that it inculcates and espouses. In reality, like other interest groups the military is no longer detached from politics, including manipulating processes.
On the civilian side, there are equally disconcerting trends, including a lack of appreciation of the needs of the military, viewing the military in terms of stereotypes of inflexibility and avoiding subjecting the military to critical but informed scrutiny.
The controversy over fixing the age of General V.K. Singh reflects these trends. Military academies do not lay stress on a liberal education. The importance given to seniority in the selection of the Chief of Army Staff allows the army establishment to manipulate the process. As the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet does not as a rule disagree with the recommendations sent to it by the military, the line of succession is largely determined by the military itself, with its attendant politics.
This explains why General Singh agreed to a particular date of birth, even though it would have reduced his years in service, as it secured his promotion. It may explain why he did not appeal against any order of, or assurance given by, the Military Secretary. He also probably felt that the civilian authority would not disagree with his assertion, and that an appeal to the courts against the civilian authority is very different to not obeying a military superior.
Interestingly enough the appeal to the Supreme Court is not only about honor and dignity but also includes a plea for consequential benefits, because raising the issue of correcting a record at the time of retirement is really about tenure.
Most of the comments on this unfortunate incident are indications that there is a breakdown of professional silence on the part of both the military and civil authorities. They look upon it in isolation rather than as an illustration of historical developments in civil-military relations. That is why the next steps, in order to have legitimacy, must be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is to be hoped that the right lessons will be drawn, because a line has been crossed.
The way out
The solution suggested by military opinion, particularly retirees who can speak more openly than those in uniform, is to reduce civilian control by the introduction of a Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would be the de-facto commander-in-chief of the military with an impact on the role of the Ministry of Defence in civil-military relations. The experience of other countries with such an institution is that it reduces the sources of military advice for civilian authority, focuses on operational issues rather than future problems especially where allocation of resources is required for competing roles and missions of the different arms, and it diminishes civilian control.
Clearly, the civilian leadership will have to show greater imagination. For example, once the discrepancy in the service records of General Singh had come to the attention of the Ministry it should have done what any Ministry would do in a similar situation — ask the head of department to reconcile the facts, providing the officer with the opportunity to appeal to the established channel, in this case the Armed Forces Tribunal. Such a course of action would have been very different to reliance on an exchange of letters. This lapse by the bureaucrats, which has now been corrected can be justified by the trend of deference to the military, but has allowed a purely service matter to become an issue of civil-military relationship. We cannot afford such errors and a breakdown of dialogue in a crisis involving the use of force. As certain adverse trends need to be corrected, a good starting point will be to carefully review the material that deals with civil-military relations in the staff colleges, and use case studies, including the present ‘age row' and from abroad, to shape principles and processes of civil-military relations appropriate for us.
( Mukul Sanwal is an ex-civil servant .)
