Gagging the Army Chief

It was unusual for the Army Chief to hold a press conference, particularly when the defence forces were fully deployed, during Op Parakaram, consequent to the terrorist attack on Indian Parliament, and a near war like situation prevailed on the border.  Undoubtedly, he must have held the  briefing on persistent demand by the media. At this briefing he was asked some very searching questions, including the one related to the possible use of nuclear weapons by an opponent, in the event of a war. His reply to this question was unambiguous, forthright and pointed, and entirely in line with the, ‘Indian Nuclear Doctrine’ as spelled out in the document on the subject, prepared by the National Security Advisory Board ( NSAB.) The document is unclassified and in public domain. More over, the then Defence Minister, George Fernandes, himself had aired similar views a few days earlier. Yet he ‘chided’ the Army Chief and went on to term his handling of the subject at the press conference as, ‘cavalier in manner.’ This was most unfortunate, grossly inappropriate and against all military propriety.

               On the subject of use of nuclear weapons in the Indo-Pak setting, it was imperative that no doubt, what-so-ever, remained in the minds of Pakistani leadership that India would unhesitatingly follow to the letter and spirit, the ‘Nuclear Doctrine’ as enunciated by the NSAB. George Fernandes as Defenece minister may not have read the ‘Doctrine Paper’ and may not be aware that, on three previous occasions, Pakistan is known to have threatened to use nuclear weapons to thwart Indian conventional force deterrence. Therefore, it was all the more necessary for the COAS to make the Indian position abundantly clear to Pakistan.

              Military ethos do not permit even, ‘ticking off ’ of any appointment holder in the presence of his command, no matter how high ranking an officer or dignitary attempting to do so may be. This public rebuke to the Chief of the Army Staff had gravely undermined his position, especially at that critical juncture.  In reply to another question, Gen Padmanabhan quite rightly brought out the fact that keeping the morale of the army high was his business and that he would sustain it as high. But with his own position discredited by his minister, he would have found it difficult to sustain that morale.

               Fernandes ‘chided’ the COAS as one would, a school boy. Perhaps he lacked the essential dignity, military propriety and courtesy which must go into dealing with the Chiefs of Defence Forces. His fraternising with the troops at Siachen and elsewhere was resented and adversely commented upon by the officer corps and those who are aware of the sanctity of the channel of military command and the apolitical character of Indian defence forces. One cannot help but recall the earlier sordid and disgraceful act of sacking of the Naval Chief by the government, consequent to the gross mishandling of the case by George Fernandes.    

More recently the present Chief of Army Staff, Gen Kapoor, in a close door seminar talked about national security policy where Indian army has to be prepared to defend all its borders. Therefore, India’s defence doctrine has to cater to a possible, no matter how remote, war on more than one front i.e. on the Western as well as the Northern fronts and God forbid even on the Eastern flank. This obviously refers to Pakistan and China. There was nothing wrong, offensive or undiplomatic in this simple exposition of national defence policy. China is allegedly nibbling at India’s territory and laying claim to vast parts of India, while Pakistan is actively involved in insurgency and terrorism in J and K and terrorist attacks against India. It is Army Chief’s primary job to constantly assess possible future threats to the country and evolve strategy and demand wherewithal to meet all such possible contingencies.

Developments in Nepal have far reaching and grave implications for India’s security and no one need gloss over these or make light of emerging scene and spread of influence inimical to India’s security interests: least of all the Indian Army Chief. Maoist movement in Nepal has had its spill over effect in boosting the developments in the Red Corridor within India. The merging of Maoist cadres into the Nepalese army bodes ill for India and is something to worry about. It can no more be an internal matter for Nepal. The gravity and the far reaching implications of this have not fully dawned on the political and diplomatic cadres of India. India’s security concerns are closely linked to these developments in Nepal. The fact is that India’s Nepal policy has been a complete failure and the fall out of these failures impinge on India’s security and become the chief concern of the Indian Army Chief, because the ball will finally come to rest in his court. He was forth right and expressed Indian concerns in airing his misgiving on the merger of Maoist cadres into the Nepal Army.

There can be no greater proof of utter failure of India’s foreign policy than the reality of our  unfriendly relations with all our immediate neighbours. From Pakistan in the West to Nepal in the North, Burma and Bangla Desh in the East and Sri Lanka in the South, China’s influence in these countries has been on the increase. Then china has this ‘string of pearls!’  It is a nightmarish situation for the chiefs of India’s defence forces. German General Staff struggled for more that half a century to find a way out of a war on two fronts and yet could not come up with a workable strategy, while India’s difficulties are  far more grave and complex. It is very much the Army Chief’s domain to air his views at an internal seminar.  On the other hand he ought to let the nation know what dangers to national security lie ahead and how best to cope with these and these cannot be his personal and private views.   

Ill informed and malicious criticism, propaganda against the army chief and the army does incalculable harm to this great institution, which has always risen to the occasion and delivered unhesitatingly and with aplomb, taking casualties and pain without whining. On the other hand home secretary made the most irresponsible statement that, Haydrabad would go to Telengana and yet there was not a whimper from the media or the Home Minister! On another occasion the home secretary’s utterances led to collapse of ministrial l level talks between the Indian and Pakistan. The same home secretary later pre-emted the chief minister of J and K and the lateer took exception to it. No one had any comments to offer for the secretary speaking out of turn and yet the services chiefs.comments when related to their areas of concern draw sever criticism.

The position of the Chief of the Army Staff ( and the other two ) is unique in the military scheme of things and he must be seen, by his officers and men, as infallible and beyond reproach. Any attempt to openly gag and denigrate him is bound to seriously compromise his position and bound to degrade the implicit faith and confidence the army must have in him. There is nothing un-usual, in a mature democracy for the service chief to air his views on issues which directly impinge on national security and are in his domain. Admittedly the Indian political and bureaucratic class as well as the media,  unlike in most other democracies, has no military background, lack understanding of military ethos and culture, but self education on matters military is possible, atleast by the, media, the defence analysts and the defence minister. Possibly they could take a lesson or two from Azis Amir, a Pakistani journalist. 

                

(Published in the Tribune Sept 2010)