Of Matters Military: Favouritism at its Worst

Of Matters Military: Favouritism at its Worst

Major General Mrinal Suman

“The system of promotions by date of birth lends itself to manipulation by smart functionaries and thus, perpetuates a regime of patronage. Every Chief, on assumption of office obtains details of the dates of birth (and thus retirement dates) 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 protégés are suitably placed and all likely challenges to their advancement are nipped in the bud. In other words, he firmly plants them in the line of succession. Earlier such manipulation was done in a discreet manner. Over a period of time, the practice has become so well entrenched that Chiefs have no qualms in openly flaunting their preferences. Worse, the environment has got so used to this partisanship that it has come to accept it as a normal practice.”

The above paragraph is from an article of mine, titled “Selecting Military Top Brass” that appeared in October 2008 issue of the journal Gfiles.

It is with a feeling of despondency that one notes that the above quoted paragraph aptly explains the genesis of the current controversy about the date of birth (dob) of Gen VK Singh. In the year 2006, the then Chief asked his staff to examine the possibility of positioning an officer of his choice in the so called ‘line of succession’. He was told that his protégé would retire by the time the tenure of Gen VK Singh got over in 2013. However, the obliging staff worked overtime and dug out some obscure document showing Gen Singh’s dob to be 1950. The fact that Gen Singh had been promoted up to the rank of Major General with 1951 dob was conveniently overlooked. Thereafter, a plan was hatched to recognise 1950 to be his official dob to make him retire in 2012 and thereby, pave the way for the protégé. Gen Singh was threatened and coerced into accepting 1950 dob. Thus the complete ‘line of succession’ was ingeniously tweaked.

Gen Singh rightly felt cheated. It is not the length of tenure but the hurt of being treated unfairly that became the main issue. Without going into the intricacies of his case, a simple question would have exposed the complete conspiracy – “Whereas all his earlier promotions were based on 1951 dob, why was his dob changed to 1950 only when he was due for promotion to Lieutenant General and be in line to be the Chief?”

The above controversy has had two terribly damaging fallouts. One, sectarianism has got injected into the military. When different pressure groups enter the fray to canvass for their members, the secular character of the military takes a hit, thereby threatening the social cohesion that has been its eternal strength. In a country riven by caste, regional and religious dissentions, the Indian military is the sole bastion of national unity.

Secondly and most unfortunately, the institution of the Chief has suffered. Enough has been written about the justification or otherwise of the steps taken by Gen Singh to seek redressal of his grievance. What is more worrisome is the likely loss in the standing of the institution in case the chosen protégé is lodged as the next Chief. He may command the troops through his authority but will never earn their respect. Allegations of deceit and unholy connivance to force Gen Singh to retire early to facilitate his elevation would haunt him throughout his tenure. He would never have the moral authority to be able to ask his men to be upright and truthful. On the contrary, he would be seen as a beneficiary of unfair manoeuvres, thereby telling the environment that manipulation pays – certainly a most detrimental scenario.

The Way Forward

The situation can still be redeemed by two immediate steps. One, the concept of dob-based ‘line of succession’ should be discarded and replaced by merit-based selection by impartial boards for higher ranks in the services. Two, the protégé should voluntarily opt out of the race to the top. It will prove to the environment that he was never a party to the unholy transgression and earn him the respect of troops.

Further, to prevent recurrence of such malafide actions, an impartial enquiry should be conducted of the whole episode. Guilty top brass and the conniving staff officers should be exposed for their unbecoming conduct.

Finally, parochial predisposition is the worst and the most destructive type of virus. It has the potential to split the services on sectarian lines – a dreadful prospect indeed. Serious thought should be given by all stake holders to explore ways and means to arrest the growing malaise of parochialism before it afflicts the secular fabric of the services.

(Please see “Let Parochialism not Afflict the Services” at http://mrinalsuman.blogspot.in/2010_08_01_archive.html)