Sanjha Morcha

ribunal puts promotions to rank of Lt General on hold Ministry of Defence told to consider case of 3 Maj Gens

Tribunal puts promotions to rank of  Lt General on hold

Photo for representational purpose only.

Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 21

Restraining the Army from promoting officers to the rank of Lieutenant General till further orders, the Armed Forces Tribunal has directed the Ministry of Defence to hold a fresh promotion board to consider three Major Generals for elevation.

Three officers of the 1983 batch of the general cadre —  Maj Gen SC Mohanty, Maj Gen Sudhakar Jee and Maj Gen ML Mohan Babu — had moved the tribunal after they were not empanelled for promotion by the Special Selection Board in October 2017.

According to earlier court orders, they were subsequently given redress related to their Annual Confidential Reports and they had sought directions from the tribunal that they be considered for promotion as per the old promotion policy that prevailed during their consideration by the Board held in October 2017.

A new promotion policy for Generals had been introduced in December 2017.

The tribunal’s Bench, comprising Justice Virender Singh and Lt Gen Philip Campose, while imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on the government for misconduct and interference in the administration of justice in each of the three cases, today said in open court that the MoD may convene the review promotion board before June 21 and not to carry out any promotions to the rank of Lieutenant General till July 3, the next date of hearing.

Reference was also made to a similar case of Maj Gen VK Singh, wherein the AFT ruled in 2018 that he be considered for promotion as a review case as the policy in place during his initial consideration. This order had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

 


Pay heed, keep off by Maj Gen Ashok Mehta (retd)

Pay heed, keep off

Not my master: When the PM publicly claims that ‘Modi ne ghar mein ghuskar mara hai’, it robs the services of their exceptional feats of courage.

Maj Gen Ashok Mehta (retd)
Defence commentator

Maj Gen Ashok Mehta (retd)

By dredging up the INS Viraat issue, PM Modi scored a hat trick in the politicisation of the armed forces. He accused a former PM and victim of terrorism Rajiv Gandhi of using the aircraft carrier as a personal taxi for his vacation with his family and in-laws. This counter-factual assertion has sucked in the Navy which had escaped the Modi web of politicisation — his first and second targets being the Army after the surgical strikes and the IAF after the Balakot airstrikes. He made a similar gaffe in 2017 while campaigning for the Assembly elections in Coorg (Karnataka), when he lashed out at the Congress for having hounded one of Coorg’s military icons, Field Marshal KM Cariappa, when he meant Gen KS Thimayya, also from the same place. This caused embarrassment to the Field Marshal’s son, Air Marshal Nanda Cariappa, and the local veteran community.

Modi’s latest faux pas in advising the IAF to press on with the strikes despite bad weather as it would escape radar detection due to cloud cover takes the cake. When I referred this wisecrack to a serving Air Marshal, he chuckled: ‘The PM needs a military adviser.’ Unfortunately, that General is attached to the National Security Adviser’s (NSA) office. Clearly, Modi’s sixth sense put the IAF under pressure to execute the operation on February 26 and not in better weather as it would have wished to, so that Crystal Maze AGM 142 missiles that video-record the strikes could have been used for  ‘proof on a platter’.

In its April issue, a military magazine, Force, carried a smiling Modi in dark glasses wearing a parachute camouflage jacket bearing his name and surrounded by soldiers titled ‘Modi’s Military’. The Modi that later occupied the cover of Time was described ‘Divider in Chief’. In its editorial, Force has reviewed the five-year record of Modi in national security, noting that never before has ‘national security been so integral to pre-election discourse and yet will get limited attention after elections’. It also noted ‘the progressive politicisation of Indian military institutions… which is likely to have far-reaching consequences and would further weaken national security’. By making national security coterminous with terrorism in its manifesto, the BJP has compromised both. In his book, How India Manages its National Security, former Deputy NSA and currently director of BJP think tank, Vivekananda International Foundation, Arvind Gupta says: ‘In recent years, tendencies to politicise actions of the armed forces like the politicisation of the Army’s surgical strikes in Pakistan in 2016 was witnessed and political parties (read BJP) freely used Army’s name in their election campaign ahead of Assembly elections in UP’. This was the progressive politicisation of the military in defiance of the Election Commission’s code of conduct: ‘Political parties/candidate/campaigners must desist from indulging in propaganda involving the activities of defence forces’, a reference to military operations.

In Lucknow, in the run-up to the Assembly elections, I saw on BJP posters, pictures of DGMO Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, the key architect of the strikes, currently Northern Army Commander and contender for the next Army Chief — flanked by Modi and Amit Shah. The strikes were milked all the way to the General Election when Balakot was added.  The politicisation of the military, both serving and ex-servicemen, was done brazenly. On April 27, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman inducted seven retired Generals and nearly 100 other personnel into the party’s fold. In his hugely publicised speech to veterans preceding the inauguration of the National War Memorial on the eve of the airstrikes, Modi broke all rules of military etiquette to attack the Congress for the neglect of national security.

The most worrying incident still to be investigated is the Leh poll officer’s letter to GOC 14 Corps Ladakh about complaints by candidates regarding commanding officers of units asking soldiers for their voting preferences rather than just giving them ballot paper. If the traditional apolitical ethos of military is infiltrated by religious and party propaganda, it could break the professional and non-political spine of the forces. Further, the decade-old involvement of two serving officers, Lt Col Purohit and Maj Upadhayay with a religious organisation, Abhinav Bharat, in terrorist cases and the latter reportedly a Lok Sabha candidate for the Hindu Mahasabha party in Ballia is frightening. Still more worrying is the appropriation by Modi of the Army and Air Force as his personal property. Reference to the Army as Modiji ki sena is unacceptable. The PM publicly claimed that ‘Modi ne ghar mein ghuskar mara hai’. It robs the services of their exceptional feats of courage. Former Army Chief and minister, Gen VK Singh (retd) angrily noted that anyone who calls the Army ‘Modiji ki sena’ is a traitor. But in its electoral enthusiasm, the Modi-led election sena has broken all red lines of the code of conduct.

Lt Gen DS Hooda (retd) and Praveen Bakshi of surgical strikes and Doklam fame have expressed concern over military operations being drawn into political discourse and used to win political arguments and elections. The father of Kargil hero Capt Vikram Batra has said: ‘Military operations in Pakistan were right, but politicians should not take credit for them.’ While the three service chiefs have strangely stayed aloof, 500 retired officers petitioned President Kovind over such politicisation.

Winning polls riding piggyback on the military, and at the cost of its politicisation, will have dangerous consequences. If Modi continues as PM, one hopes he will leave the military alone.


1 soldier killed, 7 others injured in blast during ‘training activity’ along LoC in J&K’s Poonch

1 soldier killed, 7 others injured in blast during ‘training activity’ along LoC in J&K's Poonch

he blast took place during handling of explosives. Tribune file

Jammu, May 22

An Army man was killed and seven others were injured in a blast during a “training activity” along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district on Wednesday, officials said.

“On Wednesday at 0915 hours, during a training activity on a military post in Mendhar sector, one soldier was critically injured and later succumbed to injuries”, a Defence public relation officer said.

Seven others suffered minor injuries and two of them were taken to the nearest military hospital. Their condition is stable, the officials said.

The incident took place at the Dhera Dabsi forward post of the 12 Madras Regiment, they said. PTI


INS Ranjit to be decommissioned on May 6

New Delhi, May 3

INS Ranjit, an Indian navy destroyer built by erstwhile USSR, will be decommissioned on May 6, officials said on Friday.

The third of the five Kashin-class destroyers, it was commissioned in 1983 and has rendered service to the Navy for over 36 years.

“On May 6, a glorious era of INS Ranjit, being the frontline missile destroyer of the Indian Navy, is going to end,” the Navy said in a statement.

The ship will be decommissioned at a solemn ceremony at the Naval dockyard in Visakhapatnam.

The ceremony will be attended by personnel who have served onboard the INS Ranjit in the past, and officers and sailors from the commissioning crew, it said.

The chief guest for the ceremony would be Lieutenant Governor Andaman and Nicobar Islands Admiral (retired) Devendra Kumar Joshi.

“INS Ranjit was constructed as Yard 2203 in the 61 Communards shipyard in the town of Nikolev in present day Ukraine. The keel of the ship was laid on June 29, 1977, and she was launched on June 16, 1979,” the statement said.

The ship was given its Russian name ‘Lovkly’, which means agile, and was commissioned as INS Ranjit on September 15, 1983, with Captain Vishnu Bhagwat at the helm, it said.

The officer went on to serve as the chief of naval staff during the period 1996 to 1998.

In her maiden sortie, the destroyer traversed through the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea and Arabian Sea, the statement said.

The ship has the distinction of serving in both the western and eastern seaboard and has been the Flag Ship of both the western and eastern fleets.

INS Ranjit took part in PASSEX with the US Navy in 1991-92 which was a precursor to the Malabar series of exercises with the US Navy.It also took part in the first INDRA (India-Russia) exercise with the Russian Navy in 2003, according to the statement.

The ship also participated in the first ever SAREX with the PLA Navy in November 2003.

The ship in 2007 took part in the first ever Malabar exercise in the Pacific Ocean as well as the first ever INDRA series of exercises in Russian waters, the statement said.

The ship was actively deployed as part of the Navy’s relief operations post the 2004 tsunami and cyclone Hud-Hud in 2014.

In recognition to her service to the nation, the ship was awarded the Unit citation in 2003-04 and 2009-10, the statement said.

“As the sun sets on May 6, the Naval Ensign and the commissioning pennant will be lowered for the last time onboard INS Ranjit, symbolising the end of the Ranjit era in the Indian Navy,” it said. PTI


IAF successfully test-fires BrahMos missile from Sukhoi 34 SHARES FacebookTwitterEmailPrint

IAF successfully test-fires BrahMos missile from Sukhoi

The launch from the aircraft was smooth and the missile followed the desired trajectory before directly hitting the land target, the IAF said. — @IAF_MCC/Twitter

Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, May 22

The Indian Air Force (IAF) successfully fired the BrahMos air version missile from its frontline Su-30 MKI fighter aircraft.

The launch from the aircraft was smooth and the missile followed the desired trajectory before directly hitting the land target, the IAF said.

The target was a remote island in the Bay of Bengal, sources said, adding that it adds a new capability. The BrahMos can be launched at land targets when launched from ground and also from sea. The launch from air is the third dimension.

The air launched BrahMos missile is a 2.5-ton supersonic air-to-surface cruise missile with ranges of close to 300 km, designed and developed by BrahMos. 

Earlier in November 2017, the IAF became the first air force in the world to have successfully fired an air-launched 2.8 Mach speed surface attack missile of this category on a sea target.

Today’s was the second such live launch of the weapon. The integration of the weapon on the aircraft was a very complex process involving mechanical, electrical and software modifications on aircraft. The IAF has been involved in the activity from its inception. The software development of the aircraft was undertaken by the IAF engineers while HAL carried out mechanical and electrical modifications on the aircraft.

The dedicated and synergetic efforts of the IAF, DRDO, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited have proven the capability of the nation to undertake such complex integrations, the IAF said.

The BrahMos missile provides Indian Air Force a much desired capability to strike from large stand-off ranges on any target at sea or on land with pinpoint accuracy by day or night and in all weather conditions.

The capability of the missile coupled with the superlative performance of the Su-30MKI aircraft gives the IAF the desired strategic reach, the IAF said.


Only court can help us: IAF Says 31 meetings have made little difference

Only court can help us: IAF

The international airport in Mohali. file

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, May 21

Successive governments in Punjab today virtually landed themselves in an embarrassing position during the hearing of a petition on smooth take-off of the Chandigarh international airport after a visibly concerned IAF told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that 31 meetings since 2013, including one with a CM, had made little difference.

Beseeching the Bench to come to the rescue of the airport from the security point of view, a senior functionary minced no words to say: “Only the court can help us! We will lose this airport.” Addressing the Bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Arun Palli on unauthorised constructions around the airport, the officer said the setting up of new buildings and vertical expansion of the existing ones within 100 metres of the periphery were pointed out by the Air Force.

Videos of daily progress in constructions were also handed over. However, the core issue of security, alive since 2004, remained unaddressed even after 31 meetings. The officer pointed out that fresh construction activity was not noticed at present.The reprimand

The Bench asserted that everyone was fighting out as if it was a personal litigation. “This is not the way to handle a PIL. The only effort was to put the buck on someone’s head… Thirty orders in six months. There used to be cooperation on issues such as encroachments… We are experts in shifting the ball in other’s court…. True colours are now coming out.”The admonition came on the issue of cooperation between different stakeholders. Appearing before the Bench, Punjab Advocate-General Atul Nanda said the state was concerned about being run down on the issue of clearing illegal constructions, while the obligation was that of the IAF under the Works of Defence Act. “The government wants to facilitate everything, but no one was entitled to malign it”.

Assistant Solicitor-General of India Chetan Mittal, on the other hand, insisted that the power to act against fresh illegal construction was not with the Air Force, but the Deputy Commissioner under the Defence Act.

CAT-III and southern taxi track

The amicus curiae, senior advocate Manmohan Lal Sarin, told the Bench that clearance at the local level had been granted for the CAT-III and southern taxi track, but the matter was pending before the Ministry of Defence. He also expressed apprehension that a further delay in the decision would hold up the project. Sarin’s suggestion for convening a meeting by the Defence Secretary of different heads within the ministry found favour with the Bench.

Illegal structures

The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told on behalf of the Zirakpur Municipal Corporation that no less than 300 unauthorised structures had been identified in the area and notices too had been issued. Further proceedings would be carried out in accordance with the provisions of law.

The Bench made it clear that the existing constructions would be dealt with in accordance with the law. Its immediate concern was fresh construction activity around the airport’s periphery. “If you don’t remove the encroachment immediately, people will come and sit and indulge in more encroachment. The right way is to remove it immediately,” the Bench asserted.

Referring to the previous orders, the Bench added it would initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act and issue necessary orders, including ones for removal of unauthorised structures, in case fresh illegal constructions were noticed. The Bench also called for a fresh report on illegal constructions within 100 metres of the airport’s periphery from the Air Force.

Initiatives

Punjab Aviation Secretary Tejveer Singh convinced the Bench of an all-out effort for finding a place of greater prominence for the airport on the world’s aviation map. Tejveer Singh submitted that unique incentives were being given in monetary terms. The Punjab Chief Minister had also shot off a communication to the quarters concerned for inclusion of Chandigarh in the South East Asia Open Sky Policy. Low VAT on aviation fuel was also an incentive. Tejveer Singh also told the court that a conference would be held in Delhi for popularising the airport among the airlines.

Verbal spat

The case witnessed a verbal spat between Nanda and Mittal. Nanda said Mittal was trying to shout him down. Mittal said he had even been taking adverse orders in the case for the achievement of the objective by the PIL. The case also saw an undertaking by the Zirakpur MC to complete the work of drainage till August and repair the approach road within 100 days.


AFSPA needs another hard look by Sankar Sen

It’s not possible to combat insurgency in the North-East or Kashmir without the armed forces. However, over-exposure and over-deployment of the Army in aid of civil power has to be avoided. It tends to brutalise the Army, making it vulnerable to temptations and allurements.

AFSPA needs another hard look

Draconian: There has been widespread opposition to the Act.

Sankar Sen
Former Director, National Police Academy

In its election manifesto, the Congress has promised review of the controversy-surcharged Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The BJP has said that any such move will take away the shield from the Army and weaken the architecture of national security. It bears recall that during the UPA rule, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised to consider amendments to the Act with a view to making it more humane. But this could not be effectuated because of reservations from the Army. The Act was passed in 1958 to counter the growing insurgency in the North-East, and later, extended to Jammu and Kashmir.

Indeed, some of the provisions of the Act are draconian. Section 4 authorises the arrest of any person who has committed a cognisable offence, or against whom there is a reasonable suspicion that he is about to commit such an offence. It also grants special powers to the armed forces to destroy structures used as hideouts, or training camps, or a place from where attacks are likely to be launched. It provides power to the armed forces to open fire, even to the extent of causing death, if prohibitory orders banning the assemblage of five or more persons, or carrying of arms and weapons are in force in the prohibited area. Section 6 gives immunity to the armed forces discharging duties under the Act from prosecution, or other legal proceedings, except with the permission of the Central government.

Many human rights activists and civil society groups have denounced the Act as regressive, and very often it has been abused and misused by the armed forces. And, it has shielded extra-judicial killings, rape and torture by the personnel of the armed forces and fuelled public anger and disaffection towards the Indian state. In March 2012, the UN pronounced AFSPA as violative of international law. Some other UN treaty bodies have expressed the same view.

The armed forces, on the other hand, are of the clear view that diluting the provisions of the Act will be counter-productive and adversely affect operations of the security forces in hostile areas. Without the protection of the Act, the security forces will not able to function effectively and proactively in the insurgency-prone areas.

The constitutionality of the Act had earlier been questioned before the apex court on the ground that it is repugnant to the rights to equality and federal structure of the Constitution. A five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights vs Union of India (1998) held that the legislation was constitutionally valid. “It was harsh in the face of it, but it was a necessity.” The court concluded that declaration under Section 3 of the Act has to be of a limited duration and subject to periodic reviews before expiry of six months, and a person arrested under Section 4(c) of the Act should immediately be handed over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, so that he can be produced within 24 hours before the Magistrate, after such an arrest.

There was widespread agitation against the Act following the custodial death of a woman in Manipur. Against its backdrop, the Government of India set up a committee under Justice Jeevan Reddy, a retired SC judge, to review the Act. It was a recognition by the government that the provisions of the impugned legislation needed a hard and careful look. The Justice Reddy Committee, after examining various stakeholders, came to the conclusion that the Act should be withdrawn. It recommended that it will be necessary to insert appropriate provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (1957) to provide the mechanism through which the security forces can be deployed in areas, as and when necessary. The committee also recommended the creation of a grievance cell in each district where armed forces are deployed. This can be an independent body that will be empowered to enquire into violation of rights by the citizens. The proposed Chapter 6(a) in AFSPA should contain dos and don’ts for the armed forces during operations, as embodied in the apex court  judgment.

The second Administrative Commission (5th Report, June 2007) endorsed the recommendations of the committee that AFSPA should be repealed and provisions of law needed for the effective operation of the security forces can be incorporated in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (1957).

Time has now come to take a clear decision on the continuance of the Act, without further dithering. The hard fact has to be acknowledged that it is not possible to combat insurgency in the North-East or Kashmir without the presence of the armed forces. The truth of the matter is that the state police forces with inadequate strength and insufficient weaponry will be unable to overcome the challenges posed by of the trained insurgents aided and abetted by foreign powers. At the same time, over-exposure and over-deployment of the Army in aid of civil power has to be avoided. It tends to brutalise the Army, making it vulnerable to temptations and allurements. The personnel of the armed forces require clear and specific provisions for their effective functioning and operations, even as aberrant officers, responsible for violation of human rights, have to be made accountable and brought to book with a view to keeping the Army’s morale and discipline up.

The Supreme Court has now ended the immunity of the armed forces from prosecution by laying down that they should be subjected to a thorough inquiry if they have committed any serious offence.

Numerous allegations of brazen misuse of AFSPA, and serious violations of human rights by the security forces, in many instances, have come before the NHRC. The NHRC cannot directly probe into the complaints because of the restrictions imposed by Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA). It calls for reports from the authorities of the armed forces, and makes recommendations for punishment of aberrant officers, and payment of compensation to the victims. This vicarious system of enforcing accountability does not function satisfactorily. Amendment to the PHRA to allow the NHRC to directly probe allegations against the armed forces is necessary.

Tripura, bounded on three sides by Bangladesh, withdrew AFSPA in 2015. The state police, without the umbrella of the Act, have been able to successfully combat insurgency. Protection accorded to the public servants under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has been found to be sufficient. Indeed, it has been found that wherever AFSPA is operational, the Army’s role becomes pivotal, and the police are relegated to the backstage.

A clear decision on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act brooks no delay. Experience bears out that replacement of AFSPA by Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act will not pose problems for dealing with insurgency except in a very problematic area like Jammu and Kashmir. In such states, it should be implemented only in problematic and insurgency-torn areas, instead of being extended to the whole state.

 


OROP: Seriously Consider Concerns Of Ex-Servicemen Who Have Served The Nation, SC Tells Centre

“It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement. The Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to seriously consider the concerns raised by retired army personnels about One Rank One Pension. It would be appropriate and in the interest of justice if these concerns, which have been expressed on behalf of personnel, who have served the nation as members of the Armed Forces of the Union before retirement, are duly considered by the Union government at an appropriate level, said a bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta. Also Read – Revision Petition Before NCDRC Not Maintainable Against An Order Passed In Execution Proceedings: SC [Read Judgment] Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement, the petitioners, had raised concerns about implementing OROP by adopting a modified definition of the expression under which the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners would be bridged at “periodic intervals” In the note, they submitted that the implementation of this new definition of OROP defeats the very principle of OROP by creating a class within a class of the same officers, which in practice tantamount to one rank different pension. They made following submissions: Also Read – Supreme Court Weekly Round Up Fixation of pension as per calendar year 2013 would result in past retirees (pre 2014) getting less pension of one increment than the soldier retiring after 2014 Fixation of pension as mean of Min and Max pension: Fixing pension as mean of Min and Max pension of 2013 would result different pensions for the same ranks and same length of service and the past retiree would get 1.5 increment lesser on account of such fixation. Pension equalization every five years would result in the grave disadvantage to the past retirees. Listing the petition in August, the bench observed: “We are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if the Union government scrutinizes the grievances which are placed before the Court in the above note…We would expect the government to seriously consider the grievances and to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, justice can be provided for the satisfaction of all concerned.”

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/orop-concerns-of-ex-servicemen-144784


Budgam chopper crash IAF should punish those responsible for ‘friendly fire’

Budgam chopper crash

A day after the February 26 Balakot airstrike, an Mi-17 helicopter of the IAF crashed at Budgam in Kashmir. All six IAF personnel on board and a civilian on the ground were killed, including a young Squadron Leader from Chandigarh, Siddharth Vashisht. The tragic incident was reduced to a footnote amid the euphoria over the retaliatory aerial action and the release of Wg Cdr Abhinandan Varthaman from Pakistan’s custody. With the ongoing inquiry indicating that lapses led to the crash, the IAF has set the ball rolling by removing the Air Officer Commanding of the Srinagar air base.

The helicopter was downed by a surface-to-air missile of the IAF itself, even as the air defence system was on the highest alert after the airstrike. The incident happened around the time Indian and Pakistani jets were engaged in a dogfight over Nowshera in J&K. It is shocking that the IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) system, which automatically transmits a unique identification signal, was switched off on the Mi-17. The probe should pinpoint who all were responsible for not following the mandatory procedures despite strict instructions from the Air Force Headquarters. It’s also imperative to ascertain whether it was just an accident that happened in the fog of war or someone misguided the pilot. Importantly, the Barnala-based node of the IAF’s Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), which was tracking the aerial skirmish and collating information from radars, unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance planes, had not marked this helicopter as an ‘intruder’.

The Budgam episode has remained shrouded in mystery for almost three months. It has been an agonising wait for the victims’ families, who want to know — as does the entire nation — what exactly went wrong that fateful day. As soon as the investigation is completed and accountability fixed at various levels, the truth — no matter how unpalatable — should be made public. Taking the disturbing matter to its logical conclusion is a litmus test for the IAF, whose credibility is at stake.


When military officers cosy up to politicians Rahul Bedi by Rahul Bedi

The perilous penchant for tailoring operational missions to meet the ruling administration’s political demands has degenerated into a symbiotic, and mostly accepted, relationship between military officers and politicians. The latter use service personnel for political profit, while the soldier pursues career betterment and re-employment after retirement.

When military officers cosy up to politicians

Law enforcement: The Army, in particular, has been turned into an instrument for permanent crisis management.

Rahul Bedi
Senior journalist

The politicisation of India’s 3.5 million-strong military is a fiercely debated subject today. But in this passionate and largely irresolvable argument, the uniforms’ culpability in pleasing the politician is rarely dwelt upon. This is because it has become an axiom that the military remains sacrosanct, commits no wrong and its behaviour is unchallengeable and beyond reproach. Inversely, the services also wallow in the portrayal of themselves as the politician’s hapless handmaidens. But in recent years, they have conveniently tailored many of their operational postures and missions to meet the ruling administration’s political demands, regardless of the situational requirement.

This perilous penchant has degenerated into a symbiotic, and mostly accepted, relationship between military officers and politicians: the latter use service personnel, especially from the Indian Army, for political profit, while the soldier pursues career betterment and re-employment after retirement. This cosy relationship is further cemented by the soldier and politician jointly ‘inventing’ triumph and manufacturing success through an increasingly pliable media. Doubtlessly, this furthers their respective interests, but ends up insulating public opinion from insider reality.

In the process, the Army, in particular, has been turned into an instrument for permanent crisis management, deployed to contain insurgencies in the North-East, Kashmir and earlier in Punjab. Its role has been reduced to that of a better-trained, 

-equipped, -disciplined and more feared constabulary in olive green.

It continually substitutes the vast state police forces and federally managed paramilitaries that collectively outnumber the Army twice over but have proven woefully inadequate in ensuring security. And though the Army considers its employment in counter-insurgency and related hybrid warfare operations to be an indicator of operational flexibility, many insiders concur that this law- enforcement role detracts majorly from its primary function as a military force.      

Over decades, the lament of senior officers also is that the military’s standards and value systems have irrevocably plummeted, in keeping with the overall societal deterioration in probity and ethics. Handily, this decline is explained away as a harsh fait accompli, an inescapable reflection of the national decline in norms and ideals.

But the Indian society in general, confronted with an apocalyptic and irreversible decay in political, official and public standards, still somehow expects better from its soldiery. It continues to desperately seek some form of uniformed noblesse oblige, which unfortunately is now a distant mirage.

Till the eighties, military officers were considered upright, respected in society and eagerly sought after by girls. Retired soldiers talk nostalgically of the days when a mere note from the commanding officer on behalf of any jawan to the local authorities back in his village, carried weight and ended up resolving niggling administrative complications. Those were times when the esprit d’ corps in the apolitical services was strong and invitations to riotous and swinging regimental officers’ messes, much sought after. Salaries were low, but the lifestyle lavish and large-hearted in what was largely a gentleman’s army, rive with regimental tradition and chutzpah.

Hoary colonial traditions, too, contributed to this environment, making military service even more attractive in a swiftly changing social milieu, particularly after Independence.

In reality, many officers were eager and enthusiastic lads trapped inside grown bodies, all of who were seeking to indulge passions like shikar, riding, polo and outdoor living and danger at state expense. And, much like Freemasons officers, rarely, if at all, discussed politics and religion and if passed over for promotion retired gracefully, confident of their assured status in society. Promotions were merit-based, with undeserving candidates adhering to the Peter Principle and rarely ever crossing their limits of incompetence. Service chiefs and senior commanders brooked no political interference in operational matters and were listened to with respect by the ruling establishment.

The flamboyance, bravery and tactical brilliance of all ranks in the first three wars with Pakistan is well recorded and the subject of study in combat institutions around the world. It is rarely acknowledged, even at home, that in 1971, India’s military single-handedly achieved what even the US, with all its weaponry and hi-tech wizardry, has not managed since World War II: it created a nation — Bangladesh.

The fabled Sam Manekshaw amply vindicated the military’s and the soldiers’ operational independence. After touring the teeming refugee camps in East Bengal in early 1971, crammed with Bengalis fleeing the Pakistan army’s pogrom in East Pakistan, General Manekshaw (later Field Marshal) was asked by an agitated PM Indira Gandhi what the Army would do to control the situation. ‘Nothing’, quipped Manekshaw, to the horror of Gandhi’s entourage of civil servants and ministers, as no one had ever dared to respond so brusquely to the despotic leader. The level-headed Manekshaw then unwearyingly informed her that it would take at least 10 months before his force would be ready for combat for an assortment of tactical and strategic reasons. To her credit, Gandhi listened and Bangladesh came into being.

The disastrous 1962 war with China, however, in which India came off worse and one that heaped ignominy on the country and scarred the Army, was widely acknowledged as a political and diplomatic catastrophe. Over half a century later, the reality behind this rout remains secreted in the inquiry report authored by Major Gen TB Henderson Brooks and Brigadier PS Bhagat, which even Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s brash and macho BJP government has shirked from disclosing.

But after the 1971 victory, India’s military enjoyed an exalted status. But it was one it would gradually lose due in large measure to its internal dynamics, which today are studiously ignored.

In its single-mindedness in seeking parity with their civilian counterparts, the services’ professionalism and apolitical stance began to gradually unravel under successive cadre reviews in 1979, 1984 and 2001-02 executed to enhance career prospects. One of the major casualties was that operational and command and control responsibilities for officers were reduced. It perpetuated a situation where one and two-star officers discharged duties and responsibilities previously performed by junior and mid-ranking personnel. Pressure on promotions, too, created a situation in which many senior ranks served 12-18 months on their posts, leaving them little time to effect any meaningful changes.

Alongside, internal shenanigans in the Army in the late 1990s spawned a ‘caste system’ that effectively ‘Mandalised’ the force, further fuelling resentment and diluting standards. This new complex policy of quotas for combat and support arms upset decades of established practice, whereby merit was the sole criterion for promotion. This enduring ‘Mandalisation’ further depreciated the flagging officer morale, creating unnecessary rifts and frustrations within the Army and prompting competent and independent-minded officers to quit service after becoming eligible for their pension. The Army is imminently undergoing another seismic restructuring but that, as they say, is a far longer and complex saga.