https://aliahd66.substack.com/p/the-cultural-integration-problem?r=i1fws
The cultural integration problem in civil-military fusion
The last chief of defence staff, General Anil Chauhan, speaking in retirement rued the ‘white labelling’ resorted to by vendors, wherein goods for the military that are procured abroad are merely repackaged and relabeled to pass for indigenous products (‘screwdriver-giri’ in the jargon). Satisfying some or other atmanirbharta parameter requires such subterfuge. For the second time in two years, he laments, “Is nationalism etc. only for the services? Is it not for ordinary citizens of our country?... Have they no responsibility?”
This reference to ‘nationalism’ gives a clue as to the general’s cryptic statement in his book in which he while lauding the concept of civil-military fusion (CMF), required that the resulting fused entity be infused with ‘political ideology’ (p. 44). Since he has not specified what ideology he has in mind, it could well be nationalism as currently understood. He must know that lately ‘nationalism’ has been appropriated by majoritarian forces: as in ‘cultural nationalism’ (in their own view) and ‘Hindu nationalism’ (as critics have it).
Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh recently borrowed the concept from the general, an indicator that India is proceeding to operationalize the concept. In his speech on the Civilian Services Day, he held that, ‘both the uniformed and civil services share the same commitment of ‘Nation First’, and when the objective is singular, every element of the system transforms into national strength.’ To recall, ‘Nation First’ is the slogan recently coined by Prime Minister Modi at the Republic Summit, to join his entries to the nationalist lexicon such as amrit kaal and viksit bharat. Interestingly, Singh reverses the usual sequencing of CMF in his call for ‘military-civil integration (MCF).’ Doing so, he inadvertently apes the Chinese.
A retired general, Raj Shukla, in his lucid book on CMF, gives us this nugget of information on the Chinese reading CMF in reverse. He explains the Chinese sequencing – MCF - is ‘perhaps to signify that the fusion is military lead (sic).’ To Shukla, the Chinese are one of two ‘global models’ – the other being America – with their versions of CMF being ‘best practice.’
The elevation of the Chinese as emulation-worthy is despite MCF being ‘embedded in the ideological moorings of the Chinese Communist Party.’ No wonder then that there is advocacy for political ideology (in our case, nationalism) to pervade the incipient Indian version of CMF.
It is widely accepted that the nationalism that inspired the freedom movement today stands superseded; so, when nationalism is invoked now it is a reference to a philosophy with majoritarian finger-prints all over it. Un-caveated reference to nationalism makes it a trojan horse, obfuscating as it does the cultural (Hindu) content and substance. If nationalism (read cultural nationalism) is to infuse CMF, it bears red-flagging at this relatively nascent stage.
What’s CMF about
In his advocacy of CMF in his slim volume, Shukla highlights how Indian civil-military relations (CMR) were dysfunctional once: ‘siloed, fractured, wasteful and stagnant.’ Now, ‘through a bold and ambitious National Security Makeover,’ ‘the silos have thankfully begun to dissolve.’ He wishes ‘the silos dissolve with ever greater speed,’ thus heralding structural integration.
As if on cue, Rajnath Singh, who released Shukla’s book, spells out the direction on this. Alongside the military’s busying with jointness and integration, he says there is also ‘a need to deepen integration between the military and civil components of the Ministry of Defence to foster greater synergy within the defence ecosystem.’ He calls for ‘further enhancing structured cross-exposure between civilian and military officers,’ and suggests ‘joint training programmes and developmental assignments.’ This is unexceptionable and – for now - of a piece with the long-standing recommendations on inculcating defence expertise in civilian officials of the ministry.
Shukla proceeds further, calling for ‘cultural integration’ - without going into any detail. He avers that CMF spells ‘a robust intermingling of the tenets of Saraswati, Laxmi and Durga’ – respectively symbolizing learning, wealth creation and instruments of power. Elsewhere he elaborated on his trinity for ‘synergy among soldiers, scientists, and entrepreneurs.’ Fusion – to him - is at the heart of India’s civilizational wisdom. We know any mention of civilization is music to nationalist ears.
All that can go wrong
The advantage of keeping a book short is that nuances and implications need not be fleshed out. In any case a pitch cannot be expected to counter-productively dwell on drawbacks and problems. It’s for a reviewer or critic to bring these to fore; to begin with the two models.
The Chinese one is patently not one to emulate. Its by and for an authoritarian and ideological system and importing it into Indian democratic milieu would be incongruous and anti-Constitution. But then, India appears to be headed that way. CMF therefore amounts to an avoidable step in that direction.
Besides, the Chinese MCF might yet turn out China’s Achilles heel, given the turbulence in Chinese politics set off by corruption in the defence sector. Here, it is striking that a happening defence sector and one awash with monies, has not triggered the wheeling-dealing that can normally be expected. Discussion on the one known instance, regarding the initial Rafale purchase deal, was nipped in the bud. The last time when India’s defence sector was so visible, in the mid-eighties, it brought down a government. Now, it takes a protest at the center of the national capital to exact accountability. Investigative journalism isn’t what it was, and with good reason.
As for the fellow democracy, the United States (US) as model, the defence sector there is under considerable strain from impact of the ideology – Make America Great Again. Likeminded generals serve an amateurish war secretary, and the effect is visible in the ongoing wars not sticking to script. In India too, generals who signaled a nationalist propensity have been elevated, stirring alarm over politicization of the military. The US case shows a politicised military finds it difficult to deliver on conflict aims.
India’s own military-industrial complex, assiduously being created, must reckon with India’s social fragility. It must not aggravate the inequality that characterizes India. It has potential to exacerbate the dichotomy in Indian economy: growth without distribution. Atmanirbharta - that has the military’s persuasive weight behind it - is part of the bid to power the laggard Indian manufacturing, with questionable results.
Studies on the lines of the effect of the nuclear weapons’ project on space and nuclear power sectors are yet unavailable. Consequently, it cannot be said if investments could do better for the economy were these to be placed in the languishing, smaller scale sector. With the sarkari space agency hemorrhaging technologists it is not readily apparent that the CMF enterprise can work as intended by votaries either. The din around defence exports also cannot obscure that gains when ploughed back do not substantively reduce the defence burden.
Ideology foregrounds threats as part of its manufacture of the ‘imagined community,’ the nation. The threat Shukla takes as a given is China. His call is for a CMF-led ‘win’ (his italics) in the strategic-military competition with China. This makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the threat where none need necessarily exist and making it real, with the operation of the security dilemma, and, interminable by downgrading alternative strategic choices.
More importantly, Shukla ignores the parochial self and class interests of stakeholders. General Chauhan’s assumption that ‘a bit of patriotism and nationalism’ will dilute avarice is naïve. It could well end up a rationale for defence stakeholders – which include the usual corporates, venture capitalists and start-up entrepreneurs – to feast on the budget trough. It’s too early to expect amrit kaal to have made a dent on some universal verities or to have modified the profit motive.
The fusing of institutions in CMF limits bureaucratic politics and checks and balances from within. For instance, even without CMF kicking into high gear, the environmental costs of the buildup against the Chinese in the Himalayas and the Nicobar tend to be overlooked. Earlier attempts to get soldiers off the third pole, Siachen, have come a cropper, even without CMF cross-pollination. The bureaucracy and the military have been estranged neighbours for most part. CMF could be an organizational innovation to tame the bureaucracy. Worse would be if the concept is used to bring the bureaucracy to heel by forces resetting society at large.
If internally unified, a fused entity could upset the institutional balance externally between democratic pillars and other executive institutions. It could end up a cat’s paw of an authoritarian regime, reducing democratic India to a garrison state. A pervasive adherence to nationalist ideology would transform civilian political control from objective control to subjective control of the military. Thus, reducing the military – as in the Chinese case – to being a handmaiden in an anti-democratic enterprise.
A road best left untaken
The military seems to be at the vanguard of operationalizing CMF. The military’s social media feeds are full of military leaders calling on all manner of counterparts and dignitaries, often in a departure from past protocol and propriety, gauging from the mementos unnecessarily given. An underside of vanishing silos is in such civilianising of the military itself. To be sure, the passing of the heroic age demanding of a warrior ethic may now be passé. Even so, the military would do well to not venture too far, too fast or too furiously. Even if the character of war has changed, its nature hasn’t.
