Of
Matters Military - Probity and Formation Commanders
Major
General Mrinal Suman
The manner
in which a nation perceives its soldiers has a profound influence on their morale
and psyche. Soldiers are very sensitive to adverse publicity as it threatens the
very edifice of their sense of military honour from which they draw their
sustenance.
Citizens have put Indian soldiers on a pedestal and feel let
down whenever cases of their unbecoming conduct are reported. Even minor acts
of misconduct carry considerable shock effect. These are the challenges the
army has to face due to the high expectancy quotient that it enjoys.
Hardly a day passes without the army being in the news for all
the wrong reasons. Resultantly, there is a serious threat to the exalted status of the
army. People have started questioning OG’s claims of uprightness, honour and
ethical conduct. They wonder if the soldiers are still ‘different’ or have they
also got sucked into the national quagmire of corruption.
It is unfair to fault the media for the negative coverage. It is
for the army to carry out an honest introspection and undertake necessary
corrective measures before the situation drifts beyond redemption.
Numerous
arguments are being offered to explicate reasons for falling standards of
probity in the army – influence of materialistic environment, soldiers coming
from the same stock of the society, inadequate remunerations, rising
aspirations and prevalent corruption in the country. Undeniably, these reasons
do act as contributory factors. However, the primary cause of the ills
afflicting the army as an organisation is the gross pomposity, ineptitude and self-indulgence
of the formation commanders. They and they alone are to blame for the current
state of affairs.
Take the case of Adarsh society. Can anyone believe that three
chiefs and other senior commanders were unaware of the complicatedness of the
case or else a well-connected sub-area commander would never have been posted back
as the area commander to negotiate the case through its tortuous path? Sukhna
and all other land cases also point to the involvement of the formation
commanders.
In their typical haughtiness, it is fashionable for most
formation commanders to condemn services like MES, ASC, ordnance and EME for the
prevalent corruption in the army. Undoubtedly,
these services are not above board. But the question that needs to be answered
is – who is responsible for their transgressions.
An incident that took place during an army commanders’
conference some years ago needs to be recalled here. While discussing some
issues concerning MES, most army commanders slammed it for unbridled corruption.
E-in-C heard them all in silence. Thereafter, he sought permission of the chief
to respond.
He looked at the army commanders and stated – “I agree that MES lacks
required integrity. But, it is the formation commanders who sanction projects
and take them over after completion. They have powers to initiate disciplinary proceedings
in case of unsatisfactory performance. I wonder why tens of MES officers are
not being court-martialled by them. On
the contrary, allegedly corrupt MES officers get far better ACR from the formation
commanders as compared to officers serving in engineer regiments. Finally, I
have details of the commanders who are misusing MES for their personal purposes
including private houses. If unconvinced, I can circulate the list right now.” Needless
to say, there was a pin-drop silence thereafter.
The point being made is simple. MES, ASC, ordnance and EME are under
command their respective formation commanders and accountable to them for their
performance. Therefore, the formation commanders are duty-bound to proceed
against all corrupt officers. Their failure to do so points to the presence of skeletons
in their own cupboards. Asking the services for dishonest favours renders
formation commanders spineless and it is this spinelessness that prevents them
from exercising their immense powers to punish the guilty. On the contrary,
they befriend such officers for extracting undue gains.
If a formation commander wants to curtail his electricity bill by
loading all air conditioners in the appointment house on the circuit for
security lights or demands repainting of the house every year to match new
curtains, he forfeits the right to question MES officers for their misdeeds. Of
late some formation commanders are known to demand ‘cut’ from MES before
sanctioning works.
The same reasoning applies to EME, ordnance and ASC. Things have
worsened after the grant of rations. A formation commander who demands
unauthorised or excessive rations can never muster courage to question his ASC
officers for their alleged wrongdoings.
Many smart formation commanders choose to feign ignorance as
regards authorisation and receipt of rations, intelligently preferring to leave
the whole matter to their personal staff, thereby freeing themselves of any
guilt complex. However, their culpability does not get reduced as abettors of
corrupt practices.
Many formation commanders possess two-faced personality. They
pretend to be no-nonsense, incorruptible, hard task masters in public but demand
undue favours from the services in private. Most corrupt demands are justified
as ‘command privileges’. This unethical arrogance is the crux of the whole problem.
Indian army is a command oriented organisation wherein the formation commanders
wield all the powers. Therefore, every case of corruption should be considered
a command failure and the concerned formation commander dealt with as an accomplice.
No officer from the
services will ever have the guts to cheat if his formation commander is above
board. Fear of assured exemplary punishment will be the biggest deterrent.
A few years back, a middle-aged lady was often
seen driving a Fiat car in Pune, displaying a sticker – “MY SON SERVES IN THE
ARMY”. Evidently, she was very proud of that fact. One wonders if she still feels
the same way now. Or, has she removed the said sticker?
