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.