Service think tanks must not be conduits for political ideology
In the fitness of things, a think tank under the circumstance of political dominance of particular party and ideology may require to lean a particular way. Practical people deem this reasonable: sway with the wind, rather than break for being unbending. There may be issues as release of funds that require a certain amount of virtue signalling to unlock; there may be pressures, tacit and upfront; and there may be a lilt to strategic culture to pay obeisance to.
However, such liberties cannot be taken in think tanks of the armed forces. This is a corollary to the popular adage: the military is apolitical. Think tanks affiliated to respective service and one jointly accredited, act as gatekeepers of institutional ethos. If they dilute their vigil on what gets on to their agenda - such as partisan positions or politically-polluted stances - then they end up as a conduit for propaganda. An assembly line of contaminated input can potentially change the military’s organizational culture, making it susceptible to politicisation.
A service-affiliated think tank has autonomy. Autonomy is to enable creativity and innovation, so that the service stands intellectually stimulated. The think tank is an institution in itself, but answerable to its clients; incidentally also paymasters. Presence of an ideological slant in a think tank’s products must raise eyebrows. Should a centre appear to be providing an opening to the military’s intellectual space for propaganda, it has to be examined for motives. If it is absentminded and lethargic, it must stand cautioned. If a wilful participant, it has to be outed. If complicit from being like-minded, a spring-cleaning is warranted.
It suits interested parties targeting the think tank and the military to undercut the apolitical character of the military as a preliminary step to politicization: setting up of the armed forces as yet another instrument of partisan political purpose. Therefore, instances of such deviance from the standards of political propriety and intellectual probity must be pointed out in good faith, lest service think tanks betray public trust and that of their clients, the armed forces.
Examples of departures
Here the army-affiliated think tank, the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), is taken up to see if the centre is manifestly cognizant of its role in respect of keeping the army apolitical. Two of its issue briefs and two programs it conducted are considered. The intent is that timely cautioning would strengthen editorial watchdogs and vetting procedures of organisations it collaborates with, making the think tank less of an ‘easy meat.’ It is important to do so when institutional strength is dissipating rapidly across the board.
In an issue brief, the author, a long-retired major general uses the Delhi terror blasts to launch into an ideology-tinged overview of Muslim separatism historically, which in his mind’s eye continues up to the current day. Academic concerns over complexity and historical accuracy do not hold up this whatsapp uncle. Wholly mindful that assuming Muslim professionals exhibit potential for terrorist acts, he deliberately seeks to undo the progressive and professional success of the Muslim middle class. He recommends a stringent internal security regime, including covert, deniable ‘unobtrusive’ actions on his menu. Though knowing the outcome of such a regime will only further marginalise Muslims and undercut democratic freedoms, he remains undeterred. The paper’s title ‘India’s real enemy’ points to India’s Muslims. He wishes for a ‘War ‘that has no rules of morality or concern for human rights’.’ Taken along with the din and exaggerations over individual criminal behavior marginalizing Muslims, such legitimizing tracts are mischievous and dangerous.
The second ‘issue brief’ is by a retired lieutenant general. The paper is on regional political parties in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), tracing their alleged ambivalence towards the Indian state from independence till after the bifurcation of the state. Targeting political parties, the author is in the footsteps of a former chief - who as candidate chief of defence staff - opined on a political party in the North East. The author, though once a commander in Badami Bagh, appears blind to the salience of identity in the makeup of human beings and communities. There, not only did he run multiple shows in an army auditorium for days on end of The Kashmir Files, but - tone deaf - also had Kashmiris over for a view. As a former head of the army’s publicity wing, he is surely well aware of limits and guardrails. Even if these are not fully applicable to him in his retired capacity, he must know that these apply to the CLAWS. That the paper was published with a CLAWS imprimatur shows the clout of such high-profile social media stars.
A potential tendency for leaning towards the right on CLAWS’ part is reinforced by its recent engagements. At one CLAWS-organized seminar, it had Member of Parliament Mr. Tejasvi Surya over as key speaker, presumably because the seminar was to interest youth into national security affairs. He took care to note, ‘we lost our temples and our libraries were burnt (27:19).’ He condescendingly concludes by subtly peddling caste (26:30): that India’s national building principle has civilisationally always been to entrust security to the ‘wise’ (read brahmins) and the ‘strong’ (read kshatriyas). There is no call for a service think tank to be raising the profile of politicians. It needs being mindful that the credibility of the uniform can be (ab)used for white-washing of political resumes short on commitment to constitutional currently upstanding principles of secularism and fraternity.
Another questionable seminar had CLAWS as co-host, where the veteran speakers it whistled up had an opportunity to rub shoulders with civilian speakers such as a general secretary of the ruling party, among other majoritarian ideology-endorsing notables and ruling party apparatchiks: ‘distinguished scholars and policy visionaries’ in a CLAWS endorsement.
Treading with due caution
For ‘nationalist’ politics to seek to influence the military is not a new phenomenon. In the last BJP dispensation at the turn of the century, there were a surfeit of such contributions by veterans in military publications. This author had taken up cudgels on several occasions with editors of professional journals. In a salutary instance, a self-correction on part of an institution led to the withholding of the second part of an article by a veteran (p. 3).
The second outbreak was in the Modi era, with one writer going overboard: “One of the best Facebook posts from abroad by a known staunch critique of Prime Minister Modi says, “Indians are lucky to have Narendra Modi as their Prime Minister in this time of need!!”. Innocuously timed with the Tablighi Jamaat episode during Covid days, an article on its website egregiously noted, “the terrorist with fidyan (sic) mind set on getting infected will try spreading it to the target groups by intermingling with them…. He however, may take care not to infect the group/community whose support or sympathy he continues to seek in achieving his larger aim.” My observations were met with the director pulling rank!
The facilitation of a majoritarian ideology into the military’s cognitive space by its think tank is problematic. A complicit think tank lending its services for ideological ends calls for overhaul. The exercise of self-regulation and self-correction is compounded if a director is appointed based on his political posturing. A service think tank was once headed by a bhakt, placed by a chief who went on join the ruling party just ahead of last elections.
A feigned slip of tongue is all it takes to identify a majoritarian streak. Substituting the term ‘anti-nationalists’ with ‘poly-nationalists’ (9:20-10:20), the head of CLAWS at a ‘nationalist collective’ of a rabid media group explicates the right wing stereotype of those with a liberal and leftist world view. They, to him, ‘break the fabric of our country and lead us to our detriment and also pose problems for us in the future and our lofty goals of viksit bharat 2047 and in the process our own development of people of India.’ The think tank head believes in ‘one nation, one people’ (9:13); negating the ‘unity in diversity’ principle that has held good for decades. The notion neglects the nature of the proposed oneness; which - to this think tank head - is decidedly nationalist: read majoritarian.
Normalizing of majoritarianism makes it institutional ‘common sense;’ thereby preventing picking up the cues of politicization. Ideological blinkers tend to blind. When in listing only J&K, North East and Left Wing Extremism as internal security challenges, CENJOWS was blind to Hindutva extremism as a significant threat. Indeed, subscription to an ideology misrepresents challenges to the ideology as national security threats when the distinction between a political formation and the nation is lost sight of, a phenomenon liable to occur in a majoritarian setting.
The political cultural shift towards majoritarianism is demanding of a makeover of strategic culture in a particular direction. A think tank’s legitimate domain is the latter. Change if any must be organic and not by arbitrary diktat or – worse - by stealth. A service think tank is not an instrument of information operations targeting the internal, domestic space either of the polity or the military. Its uniformed minders must find the moral courage – albeit in difficult times – to rein political propensities of those in safari suits running it. National security demands speaking truth to power, requiring that think tanks nurture the moral capital to do so, at the very least, in-house.
