The scale of the First World War underscored the command and control dilemmas of concurrent conflicts playing out simultaneously in multiple theatres of conflict.

War and the West

During the locust years of Great Britain, an issue that received consideration was the British higher command and control structures. With the declaration of the Second World War, the onus for the higher direction of war fell to the remit of the War Cabinet serviced by the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The British legislative system functioned through the Second World War. Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, was given supreme powers but stayed accountable to Parliament through the War Cabinet. He assumed the portfolio of Minister for Defence, with the resultant duty of overseeing the British War effort. This allowed him, as Chairperson of Chiefs of Staff Committee, to exercise both tactical and strategic options.

After the United States entered the war, following the Pearl Harbor attack, an integrated command became the norm during the Second World War as diverse allies including the Soviet Union had to work in unison. A unified command required a single commander liable to the joint chiefs of staff supported by a joint staff and exerting command over all constituents of his allocated force irrespective of their service.

After the war ended and the world split into two ideological blocs, General Dwight D. Eisenhower became the First North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supreme commander while political power was vested in the NATO Council. The First Supreme Commander of the Warsaw Pact Forces was Marshal Ivan Konev, while de-facto political authority resided with the General Secretary of the Soviet Union in Moscow. The United States, vide the National Security Act 1947, established the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were jointly tasked to be Military Advisers to the President and the Secretary of Defence. Despite the experience of the Second World War, they chose not to appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). The U.S. amended this structure vide the Goldwater–Nichols Act in 1986 by having a chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs in unison are again the principal military advisers to the government. There is no CDS. The military chain of command runs directly from the theatre commanders through a civilian Defence Secretary to the President. However, Britain, conversely in 1959, created a Chief of the Defence Staff. Air Chief Marshal Sir William Dickson became the first CDS after serving as the rotational chairperson of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Was it required or was it the hubris of a declining power — the jury is still out on that.

The outline for India

In India, ‘in 1947, Lord Ismay, the Chief of Staff to Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, recommended a three-tier higher defence management structure to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Three committees were constituted: the defence committee of cabinet presided over by the Prime Minister; the Defence Minister’s Committee chaired by the Defence Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff Committee integrated into the military wing of the Cabinet Secretariat. The chair of the committee was rotational, with the Service Chief longest in the committee becoming the chairperson’.

This procedure operated into ‘the middle of the 1950s despite the Commander-in-Chief only being an invitee to the Defence Committee of Cabinet. The designation of the Commander in-Chief of the three services was consciously altered to Chiefs of Staff in 1955. After the 1962 Sino-Indian war, the Defence Committee of the Cabinet first morphed into the Emergency Committee of Cabinet and then later into the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs’. It is now the Cabinet Committee on Security, or CCS. This system has served India well over the years.

On December 24, 2019, a Press Information Bureau release on the Cabinet clearing the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)said: “The following areas will be dealt by the Department of Military Affairs headed by CDS: The Armed Forces of the Union, namely, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence comprising Army Headquarters, Naval Headquarters, Air Headquarters and Defence Staff Headquarters. The Territorial Army. Works relating to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Procurement exclusive to the Services except capital acquisitions, as per prevalent rules and procedures.”

It added, “The Chief of Defence Staff, apart from being the head of the Department of Military Affairs, will also be the Permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. He will act as the Principal Military Adviser to the Raksha Mantri [RM] on all tri-Services matters. The three Chiefs will continue to advise RM on matters exclusively concerning their respective Services. CDS will not exercise any military command, including over the three Service Chiefs, so as to be able to provide impartial advice to the political leadership.”

A subordination

Herein lies the contradiction and the design flaw. As Secretary in charge of the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) and having superintendence over the Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force, there would be an implied subordination of the three service chiefs to the CDS notwithstanding any declaration to the contrary. As Secretary of the DMA, the CDS is tasked with facilitating the restructuring of military commands, bringing about jointness in operations including through the establishment of joint/theatre commands.

This will invariably encroach upon the domain of the service chiefs.

The CDS, as Permanent Chairperson of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, would outrank the three service chiefs even though theoretically all are four star. Moreover the advice of the CDS could override the advice of the respective Service Chiefs on critical tactical and perhaps even strategic issues.

With the creation of the DMA on most issues, the reporting structure of the three services to the Defence Minister would now be through the CDS; if not immediately it would become the norm over time. Even today while in theory the service chiefs report directly to the Defence Minister, in practice all files and decisions are routed through the Defence Secretary.

However most problematic is the erosion of civilian supremacy over the defence establishment in the Ministry of Defence itself. This impacts on the first principles of constitutionalism and has implications for our democratic polity also. Sophistry is being employed to suggest that the Secretary DMA would be in charge of military affairs and the Defence Secretary would look after the ‘defence of the realm’. The fact is that the defence of India is managed by the three services who would now report to the DMA.

Since the DMA would exercise control over the three services, it virtually makes the CDS the ‘Supreme Commander

While General Malik lives in Panchkula, General Bikram Singh, who retired as the Army Chief in 2014, resides in Mohali.

General Bikram Singh (Files)

“Soldiers of the Sikh Light Infantry regiment possess a fighting spirit and unconditional loyalty for their officers and fellow soldiers, which is why the regiment has always brought glory to the country and produced fine officers,” says General V P Malik, former Indian Army Chief from the regiment, who now resides in Panchkula.

The Sikh Light Infantry made history when General M M Naravane was appointed the Chief of Army Staff, making it the only regiment with three chiefs to its credit. Few people know that the two former Army Chiefs from the regiment live in the Tricity. While General Malik lives in Panchkula, General Bikram Singh, who retired as the Army Chief in 2014, resides in Mohali.

“The Tricity has always been a magnet for many retired military officers, even a former Navy Chief and an Air Force Chief live here,” says Malik. Panchkula, he said, is a hub of retired officers because of its proximity to Chandimandir Cantt. “There are at least 90 retired Lt Generals living in Panchkula alone, and many more in the rest of the Tricity,” Gen Malik says.

On the appointment of the new Army Chief from his regiment, Malik says he is proud of his accomplishment and is sure that Naravane is well- suited for the mammoth task ahead of him. “I have known him personally. He is an honest and straightforward man, replete with soldier-like qualities. Now I only wish him great success for the future and good luck, for it is not an easy task to be Chief,” Malik adds.

Gen Bikram Singh, the second officer from this regiment to have become the Army Chief, claims all regiments of the Indian Army share the same dutiful ethos, but the Sikh Light Infantry units are especially sought-after by senior commanders in both peace and war. “The regiment’s culture accords topmost priority to developing leaders and men who are creative, innovative, adaptive and also those who uphold values of loyalty, integrity, courage and honour,” Singh says. “Further, these leaders owe unflinching loyalty to the well-being of their soldiers and work diligently to create well-knit teams for whom failure is not an option.”

 General V P Malik

Gen Malik believes this unflinching loyalty to the soldiers is rewarded doubly by the soldiers themselves, who are unconditionally loyal and supportive of their officers. In an anecdote, Malik highlights how when he was a young officer, he was shocked by the dedication of his soldiers to the welfare of their officers. “We were on an exercise and we were to cross a river. Everyone began taking off their shoes to cross the river, but as soon as I followed suit, a soldier asked me to keep my shoes on, stating in Punjabi that they don’t let their officers’ feet get wet, and that they will carry me across,” Ma

lik says. “Of course, I didn’t allow them to do that, but their readiness to do so left a mark on me.”
It is this generosity of spirit and commitment of its troops that has made the regiment quite popular amongst cadets in the Indian Military Academy as well. “Most of these aspiring officers wish to join Sikh Light Infantry because they have heard of the regiment and its glorious ethos as well as its achievements in many significant military operations,” Malik says. “We have a long and proud history of having achieved success in so many wars. Beyond that, we are committed to taking care of each other.”

India on Monday summoned Pakistan’s Chargé d’affaires Syed Haider Shah “to lodge strong protest at the recent acts of vandalism and desecration of the holy Gurdwara Sri Janam Asthan at Nankana Sahib, Pakistan, and the targeted killing of a minority Sikh community member in Peshawar, Pakistan”.

The MEA said India shared with Shah “strong concerns raised by members of civil society, parliamentarians and others at the continued persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Pakistan, including the recent despicable and heinous acts”.

The war of words between India and Pakistan over the treatment of minorities in the two countries continued on Monday, with India summoning a senior diplomat over the “targeted killing” of a member of the Sikh community and the attack on the Nankana Sahib Gurudwara and Pakistan issuing a statement that accused India of not protecting minorities from “saffron terror”.

India on Monday summoned Pakistan’s Chargé d’affaires Syed Haider Shah “to lodge strong protest at the recent acts of vandalism and desecration of the holy Gurdwara Sri Janam Asthan at Nankana Sahib, Pakistan, and the targeted killing of a minority Sikh community member in Peshawar, Pakistan”.

The MEA said India shared with Shah “strong concerns raised by members of civil society, parliamentarians and others at the continued persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Pakistan, including the recent despicable and heinous acts”. It said Pakistan’s government was “called upon to ensure safety, security, and welfare of the members of the minority communities in Pakistan, including their places of worship, and take immediate measures to expeditiously bring the perpetrators of such despicable and heinous acts to justice”.

 The deceased has been identified as Ravinder Singh (pic), who is the brother of first Sikh news anchor in Pakistan, Harmeet Singh. (Source: ANI)

This is the third such statement issued by India within a week. Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on Monday to reject the “Indian propaganda”. The statement said the “BJP government’s mischievous portrayal of isolated incidents in Peshawar and Nankana Sahib as alleged ‘persecution’ of minorities is part of its smear campaign” and that it is a “desperate attempt to divert attention from ongoing state terrorism” in Jammu and Kashmir and “systematic discrimination against minorities in India”.

It said it “completely rejects these fabrications, which will in no way shield the BJP government from opprobrium by the international community on “the adverse fallout of the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens”.