Of Matters Military: Chief Goes to Court

Of Matters Military: Chief Goes to Court

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM

TV shows, print media and the internet are flooded with assorted opinions and comments on the current controversy about the date of birth of the Chief. The debate has acquired diverse angles. Two aspects for which the Chief is being criticised deserve special mention. One, he is being accused of an act of impropriety – a serving Chief approaching the court for the redressal of his grievance. Two, he is being censured for questioning the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and thereby defying the well-established concept of civilian supremacy. Both are highly sensitive and critical issues. It is a unique case and may set a precedence for the future. Without going into the merits of the Chief’s claims regarding his date of birth, the above aspects are discussed hereunder in an objective, dispassionate and candid manner.

Coming to the first issue, it is alleged that the Chief’s act has lowered the standing of the august appointment that he holds and brought a bad name to the noble institution. It is suggested that he should have resigned before challenging the Government that he serves. It is an untenable argument for the following reasons:-

· The Constitution of India empowers every citizen to seek justice from courts when he feels wronged. It is a right without any riders and discrimination whatsoever. By being the Chief, he does not forfeit this right. He is not a lesser citizen of this country. If ministers, governors and CVC can seek relief from the courts, why not a Chief?

· The Chief followed the correct procedure and exhausted all other avenues before approaching the court.

· Appealing against a government decision is not an act of defiance or indiscipline. The government itself has provided for exhaustive arbitration mechanism for officials who feel aggrieved. Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunals and many other appellate authorities resolve disputes between the government and its employees. Senior functionaries regularly approach them and the government abides by their decisions. These are not construed to be anti-government steps.

· It is unfair to link a personal issue with the prestige of the appointment held or the institution. The Chief has repeatedly stated that it is a personal matter and does not affect the organisation in any way. When ministers and civilian leadership approach courts, their ministries or departments are never targeted. Why should there be a separate yardstick for the top brass of the services?

The second question is more sensitive and critical. Does going to the court on a personal issue amount to challenging civilian supremacy? It is a highly unjustified and perverted logic. The Chief has not questioned any operational directive or official instructions. On the contrary, he has reposed immense faith in the law of the land. He has simply asked the court to adjudicate in the matter and deliver a duly considered judicial decision. He has repeatedly reiterated that it is the prerogative of the government to appoint chiefs and he would abide by its decision. How does the question of threat to civilian supremacy arise?

Compared to the criticism of some veterans, the government deserves credit for highly mature and sagacious response. When questioned by media, Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni stated, "Every human being has a right to seek justice if he feels he has been denied justice and in that sense it is (the) right of every Indian." Similarly, Defence Minister AK Anthony and the Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju have been very composed while commenting on the issue, albeit they are ‘sad and sorry’.

Finally, it needs to be stated that most of us have double standards – one for ourselves and the second one for others. It is so very easy to pontificate that a Chief should resign before fighting for his honor and dignity. Most critics of the Chief’s act would never think twice before bending backwards to safeguard their own career prospects.

One is reminded of an address by an Adjutant General (AG) to a Higher Command Course a few years ago. The AG spent a considerable part of his speech exhorting officers not to question organisational decisions by submitting non-statutory/statutory complaints or approaching courts. He said it was ‘unofficerlike’ to do that. During the customary cocktails after the lecture, a student officer reminded him that the AG too had obtained promotion after representations. Needless to say, the AG felt embarrassed and replied sheepishly, “You know my case was different. The Board had been very unfair to me.”

Appeal to the Supreme Court should be seen as a simple case of an officer seeking justice for the perceived wrong done to him. Nothing more should be read into it. It is neither an act of indiscipline nor a challenge to the civilian authority. Seeking redressal of grievances through officially established procedures cannot be construed to be an act of impropriety or insubordination.

Chief's Date of Birth and the War of Succession

Chief's Date of Birth and the War of Succession

Major General Mrinal, AVSM, VSM

The recent debate about the date of birth of the Army Chief has been highly skewed, ill-informed and subjective in nature. It is being said that the order of ‘succession’ would get changed in case it is accepted that the present Chief was born in 1951 and not in 1950. An issue that critically affects the quality of top military leadership has been reduced to a war of ‘succession’. Merit has been rendered inconsequential. The term ‘succession’ sounds totally incongruent with respect to the appointment of a service chief. It smacks of the old feudal system where the eldest born, irrespective of his competence, claimed first right over the throne.

In the current controversy about the Chief’s age, no one has questioned the rationale of selecting a service chief purely on the basis of his date of birth. India is the only country in the world where top military leadership is chosen without any consideration of competence and suitability.

Unfortunately, one lesser known fact about the armed forces is total lack of meritocracy in higher appointments. Though equally applicable to all the three services, further discussion shall be restricted to the army for the ease of understanding the issue.

There are over 65 officers of the rank of Lieutenant General (Lt Gen) in the general cadre at any time. Once a Major General is approved to be a Lt Gen, he gets on the ‘auto-pilot’ mode. He does not need to prove his capability any more. He becomes a corps commander, an army commander and even the chief on the basis of his inter-se seniority and age-wise placement in the hierarchy. In other words, any one of these 65 officers can become a chief, provided he is favourably placed age-wise.

To assume that any officer who is found suitable to command a corps is equally capable of being the chief defies logic. A corps commander is a field commander of around 30,000 troops whereas a chief wears multiple hats while heading 1.13 million-strong army. To equate the two appointments is highly untenable as competencies required for a corps commander and a chief are totally different.

The current system has two major drawbacks. One, the services are deprived of quality leadership. Many brilliant officers fail to move up solely because of their unfavourable age-wise placement. In the absence of merit, mediocrity prevails. Indifferent quality of senior leadership can be attributed to seniority based promotions. Some of the Chiefs in the recent past did little credit to the exalted appointments they held.

Two, the system lends itself to manipulation by subjective chiefs and thus, perpetuates a regime of patronage. Every chief, on assumption of office obtains details of age-wise placements of senior officers and thereafter, identifies prospective officers from his regiment or ilk. Before his tenure ends, he ‘manages’ the system to ensure that the selected protégé are firmly planted in the line of ‘succession’ by nipping all likely challenges to their advancement in the bud. The present Chief is a victim of a similar stratagem. His repeated pleas for entering the correct date of birth were deliberately disregarded to pave the way for the chosen one.

The current system is highly inappropriate and inefficient. Instead of selecting the most competent officer amongst the eight eligible officers (vice chief and seven army commanders) to be the next chief, it lets sub-optimal quality of leadership prevail through seniority based promotions. It is inconceivable that the senior-most officer is invariably the most competent one. Undoubtedly, the Government has abdicated its responsibility. It shuns selection process under the plea that it does not want to be seen meddling in the internal functioning of the services. This is a highly specious excuse.

Some service personnel fear undue political interference if promotions to senior ranks are made through a selection process. They are comfortable with the parochialism being practiced within the services but resent likely civilian bias. It is a totally unfounded apprehension. In every democratic country, senior military appointments are decided by the government. If the government can select top civil functionaries like the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Chief Election Commissioner, selection of military brass should pose no major challenges. Special selection boards can be constituted to select officers for the posts of army commanders and the chiefs. Chief of Defence Staff (when appointed) and the other two service chiefs should be co-opted.

It is time the Government puts in place a well evolved selection system to ensure that merit becomes the main criteria for promotion to higher ranks and the armed forces get the best leadership. Quality of top military brass is too serious a matter to be left to the accident of the date of birth.

Of Matters Military: Debate and Dissent

Of Matters Military: Debate and Dissent

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM

Debate is a technique of interactive argument wherein an issue of common interest is discussed by various participants by taking a stand either in favour of or against a stated perspective. A healthy debate is built on logical consistency, factual accuracy and persuasive presentation of arguments and counter-arguments. It should avoid rhetoric and confine itself to the points under discussion. Introduction of infructuous issues blurs the focus and dilutes the quality of debate. A debate must remain confined to issues under discussion and never personalised for character assassination. Issues are important, not individuals.

It is not necessary to be in agreement with the opposing viewpoint in a debate. Agreeing to disagree is an old axiom. Every participant has a right to contest a proposition, if it is not in conformity with his thinking. But it should be done in a convivial and courteous manner. Resort to harsh and foul language shows impoverishment of cogent rationale and lack of basic intellect to argue intelligently. Dissent is a healthy and desirable reaction. Dissent improves the quality of debate and helps arrive at well-evolved conclusions. However, dissent should not degenerate into a slanging match or street-urchin type squabble.

Of late there has been an unsavoury exchange of emails amongst the veterans – a totally unnecessary and unfortunate development. Some of the emails degenerate into abusive and vituperative language. One wonders as to how gentlemen officers can stoop so low. They seem to have forgotten all courtesies and discard all the values imbibed during their military service.

When a veteran suggested that a particular political party should be shunned for not supporting OROP, a few respondents called him to be an agent of another political party. He was assigned motives of carrying some hidden agenda. Similarly, Chief’s date of birth, role of veterans, deposition of medals, addressing of letters to the civilian authorities and many other issues have generated unnecessary bad blood. It is a very sad and poor commentary of our ability to partake in a healthy debate.

It is not necessary to agree with a writer but opposition should be well-reasoned. Whenever a matter of common concern is raised (duly supported by cogent arguments and reasoning) respondents must present counter-arguments to oppose it. Mere use of semantics and adjectives shows hollowness of thoughts. When a well-articulated article stated that the institution of Colonel Commandants promotes parochialism, not one opponent disputed the assertions. However, a few critics dismissed the article as ‘lop-sided’ or ‘flawed’ but not a word was written in support of their observations.

Surprisingly, many veterans do not even read full articles to understand as to what is being suggested. Their mindset is so psyched that the very mention of an issue arouses their opinionated reaction. A recent article that cautioned the environment against increasing social stratification amongst the officer cadre and excessive flaunting of ranks evoked immense interest amongst serving and retired officers. Over 800 respondents agreed that corrective measures need to be taken. Two dissenting comments need to be recalled here.

A serving General wrote – “As an ex Cdr JC Wing I am completely empowered to say that 4000 of the greatest offrs of the world went through me… Even today as a Corps Cdr of the most happening Corps of the Indian Army I marvel at their intellect and readiness to sacrifice every comfort... This Army is a couple of notches higher in capability in every field than what it was in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or in 2010.”

The article in question does not contain a word about the quality of the officers, their intellect and readiness for sacrifice. Nor does it question the quality of today’s army. These unrelated issues have been raised by him without reference to the article. He has not said a single word about the issues discussed in the article – social inequities and flaunting of ranks. Apparently the officer has not read the article. One refuses to believe that such a senior commander is incapable of reading and comprehending a simple article.

A healthy debate should be issue-based and not made personal. Yet, the General chose to comment – “It has become a habit with people who never commanded on ground and never felt the sound or flurry of a whizzing bullet to comment upon the new generation Army.” He appears to be claiming that bravery is his exclusive preserve and he is the sole repository of all wisdom. It is a statement that shows total inability to counter an argument with logic but resorting to ungentlemanly innuendos.

Worse, his out of context statement, “Even today as a Corps Cdr of most happening Corps of the Indian Army”, is totally gratuitous and uncalled for.

Another respondent feels that the best way to counter a proposition is to attack the credentials of the writer rather than talk of issues. His response tends to become abusive and slanderous. Sample this – “The author talks … as if the forces are now the scum and vermin of the earth...These assumptions by the officer are not just off the mark but themselves hypocritical and hollow and suggest that the motivation may not be to educate the hoi polloi of India and the world how bad and unprofessional the Army is, but some unstated angst against the very Army.” The article in question never called the forces ‘scum and vermin of the earth’. First the respondent wrongfully attributes the statement to the author and thereafter goes on to condemn him for that. Interestingly, the respondent has not said a word about social stratification.

One is reminded of a story learnt in the school. A budding painter showed his painting to his teacher for opinion. The teacher asked the pupil to hang the painting at the busiest crossroad with a placard reading – “Put a cross where you detect a flaw in the painting”. The next day, the painting was found to be fully covered with crosses put by the viewing public. The pupil was highly upset with the ruination of his effort. The teacher asked him to make a similar painting and hang at the same place with a placard reading – “Rectify flaws that you notice”. The painting remained untouched. Moral of the story – “It is so very easy to find faults and condemn but difficult to improve upon other’s efforts”.

Regular introspection is the key to continued good health of an organisation. Every organisation has to be ready to face newer challenges. Brushing them under the carpet in the fear of offending some can prove very costly in the long run. Complacency breeds degeneration. When an issue that affects the well being of the forces is raised, it should not be construed to be condemnatory but considered as a reformative initiative and discussed accordingly. Veterans can help create an environment wherein issues of common interest are discussed in a frank, mature, logical and coherent manner. Even dissent should be dignified.