http://kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=98358
An Army Day
resolution for the new chief
On taking over as the chief of
defence staff, General Bipin Rawat was asked about his often figuring
controversially in headlines for some or other political intervention by him.
His latest was his decrying of the counter citizenship amendment act protests.
He had this to say in reply:
“We stay far away from politics, very far. We have to work according to
directions by the government in power.”
On the face of it, this is as
uncontroversial a statement as can be. The military keeps a distance from
politics and is obedient to the government, irrespective of the ruling party in
power. The new army chief, General MM Naravane, in his interaction with the
press on taking over, when asked about military politicization asserted as
much, saying,
“I totally disagree. We are totally apolitical. It is a misperception of a few
people which is totally incorrect.”
However, in light of precedence
of military’s parochialism prominently featuring Bipin Rawat all through his
army chief days, interrogating whether the military retains its pristine
apolitical status is necessary. The plethora of political interventions by General
Rawat, and his counter-part air force chief, BS Dhanoa, does not need
reiteration here. These cannot be summarily dismissed.
General Bipin Rawat’s statement
has clues as to whether the suspicion that there is more to politicization of
the military than mere difference of perception holds water. The statement can
well be interpreted to mean that though the military maintains a distance from
politics, any action that smacks of intervention in politics is in obedience to
directions of the government in power.
Such an expansive interpretation
of the military’s idea of duty of obedience to the civilian political
leadership calls for interrogation. While it does have to answer to the
civilian political leadership, it can reasonably be understood that the duty of
obedience does not extend to illegal or illegitimate directions.
On this, General John Hyten,
head of the United States’ nuclear weapons related Strategic Command, clearly
set the gold standard in a modern, democratic civil-military relationship,
stating in the context of President Trump’s inconsistent decision making:
I provide advice
to the president, he will tell me what to do,”… “And if it’s illegal, guess
what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And
guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And
we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the
situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.
This means a military needs to
have (and does have) an internalised yardstick against which it measures the
legitimacy or otherwise of its marching orders. In case the departure from the
constitutional letter and norm and past practice is inexplicable and
unwarranted, the military instead has the obligation to revert to the civilian
master with its reservations and the two together are to arrive at a via media,
whereby the civilian will prevails and the military does not overstep any
constitutional line.
In effect, the constitutional
straight and narrow is the yardstick. The military brass has acquired its
stature in the national scheme so far by its adherence to this. Even Bipin
Rawat’s public gaffes through his tenure so far has not shifted the normative
goal posts. On the contrary, he has been upbraided for transgressing
the constraints on political speech and behavior by a senior of the veteran
community, Admiral
Ramdas.
The military is not obligated where
directions fail the appropriateness test. Whereas the duty of obedience is
primary, it is not sacrosanct or unconstrained. The military leader has to
apply his mind to received instructions and act as per the mandate in relation
to the Constitution and - normatively - in relation to the nation.
In other words, in case a
military receives instructions to make political statements, it really ought to
politely fob these off. With time, deterrence against illicit action and mutual
respect would set the relationship on even keel. The military needs to stand up
for its constitutional obligation and tradition of apolitical and secular
ethic, reminding political masters when necessary not to ask of it anything it
cannot deliver on.
This is predicted on a dialogue
between the two tiers – civilian and military – wherein the political tier
respects the military’s space and the military does not attempt transcend it
and resists attempts to prevail over it to act otherwise. Needless to add, such
a ‘pull and push’ would require to be done discreetly within the corridors of
power, so that the relatively delicate democratic edifice is not buffeted
unduly.
Admittedly, this is a tall order,
since, as Anit Mukherjee suggests in his new, eponymous book – The Absent Dialogue – dialogue is absent
within the ministry. His finding reinforces Bharat Karnad’s colourful portrayal
of the prime minister’s disdain for the anglicized military leadership, of the
brass unavailable for discussion after sunset since they are presumably at the
bar.
The last resort is of course for
a military commander to resign. Civil-military theory has it that the civilian
has the ‘right to be wrong’ and, in the agent-principal linkage, the civilian
leadership is answerable to the electorate. It is for the electorate to punish
the civilian leadership for wrong decision making. All a military professional
can do under the circumstance is to resign.
This responsibility is not
unknown to the military brass. Both socialisation and a professional military
education underscore the importance of democratic civilian control, with its
limits also forming part of the military acculturation. Exposure to
civil-military relations (CMR) theory is part of military curriculum for higher
ranks. The military is also cognisant of the place of tradition in military
culture. Learning from peer militaries is also constantly ongoing. There is a
hiatus of a year at Delhi’s Tees January Marg where those destined for apex
ranks are exposed at the defence ministry controlled National Defence College
to India’s democratic mores and practices.
In his rumination on his
responsibility of the US’ nuclear arsenal, John Hyten, went on to say,
“I think some people think we’re stupid. We’re not stupid people. We think
about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not
think about it?” Basically, he underlines the extensive training and military
professional education that prepares the brass for their jobs. In India’s case,
an officer while getting to general rank spends a minimum five years in class
rooms. This enables political sensitivity and knowledge of civil-military
relations red lines.
The good sense in a professional
distance from politics is as brought out by a former vice chief, Vijay Oberoi:
that in a system of democratic
alternation in government, the military can seamlessly transfer its loyalty
between dispensations irrespective of who is elected to power. If and since
political parochialism is not within the remit of the military, any insistence
by the temporal political masters on this must be determinedly sidestepped by
the military.
There are bureaucratic ways to ‘shirk’
– a Peter Feaver phrase - dodgy tasking. General Panag in an advisory piece for
the new army chief recommends resort to cryptic military phrasing when
interacting with the media, so as not to stray into political turf. This
indicates that situations can be tactfully handled. The brass has over three
decades of human relations management experience before getting to flag rank.
The unfortunate tendency today is
in personalisation of power, an example is in the manner Narendra Modi
supervised the annual conclave of director generals of police with a regimen
that included yoga with Modi in the lead. The effect on policing in the
national capital and India’s largest state is self-evident in the handling of
the counter citizenship amendment act protests there.
Reminding the military of this
verity at this juncture is timely in that there is a change of guard at 5
Rajaji Marg, the residence of the army chief. It is heartening to note the spoken
reputation of General MM Naravane, the new incumbent. Any indoctrination
residue from his schooling
at a prominent right
wing run school in Pune cannot but have been washed off in his close to
four decades of imbibing and practice of military mores.
Going forward, the onus is on the
military to stockade itself within its professional space. Adoption of a
prickly posture – reminiscent of a porcupine – may send the message and deter
the regime from abusing its authority over the military. Naravane has begun
well by drawing attention at his first Army Day press conference to the preamble
of the Constitution, which is echoing across the land today in student
protests. It remains to be seen if he is prepared for a personal cost for
better serving national security.
