Of Patronage and the Army Leadership
Major General
Mrinal Suman
An
email doing rounds on the internet reads – “Strange
is the judicial system which rejects an Army Chief's school certificate but
accepts a rapist-cum-murderer's school certificate!” The unknown author
unfairly pins the entire blame on the judicial system for the injustice done to
General VK Singh. The whole sordid drama was scripted and played out by the erstwhile
army leadership.
The
entire episode stinks of patronage and favouritism. It will go down in the
history as the blackest mark against the army leadership for its sheer audacity
and venality. It marks the lowest depths to which devious commanders can stoop
to.
The
stratagem was simple in plan and execution. The current system of promoting top
leadership on the basis of their inter-se date of birth lends itself to
manipulation by unscrupulous chiefs and thus perpetuates a regime of patronage.
One such biased chief decided to
‘manage’ the system to plant his protégé firmly in the line of succession by
nipping all likely challenges to his advancement in the bud. He found out that
along with stalling promotion of other competent contenders, he needed to
curtail the tenure of General VK Singh by a year to make way for his protégé.
His
obliging staff officers dug out an outdated, irrelevant and inapplicable
document to give shape to the biased
chief’s immoral plan. It was conveniently forgotten that the said document
had already been superseded by the Army Headquarters. Even the school leaving certificate
(the clinching evidence as per the Supreme Court) and the army hospital’s
records were dumped. By this ignoble manipulation, General VK Singh’s tenure
was cunningly reduced and the way cleared for the protégé.
Three
questions get raised. One, how could an officer who lacked the basic
officer-like qualities of impartiality rise to be the chief? Was his prejudiced
deportment not noticed at the time of his SSB interview and later on throughout
his career? How could he hoodwink the whole system for decades?
Partiality is an anathema to
military leadership. Fair and non-discriminatory conduct is an essential component
of an officer’s morality. Any commander who acts in a
discriminatory manner to grant favours to his protégé is guilty of breach of
trust. Trust is the expectancy that the followers can rely on a
leader’s impartial and just approach.
The
biased chief forgot that he commanded
the whole army and every soldier expected just and fair dispensation from him. They
reposed faith in his impartiality. Unfortunately, he proved himself to be
unworthy of their trust by his partisan conduct. He was not only unfair to General VK Singh; he
tweaked the whole line of succession, thereby depriving many more deserving
commanders of their promotions.
The second question is equally
serious. A chief has a number of staff officers to advise him. It is their duty
to caution the chief when he goes astray. In this case, all his staff officers abetted
the transgression. Their spineless and cowardly conduct deserves severe
condemnation. By ganging up with a felonious chief to manipulate the system, they
revealed their true character and brought disgrace to the high ranks that they
occupied. They have been hiding behind the façade of anonymity. They deserve to
be named and shamed for being a part of the dirty-tricks department.
Thirdly and most gravely, the Indian
army is saddled with a chief who knows that he does not deserve to be there. He
is fully aware of the unholy conspiracy that facilitated his elevation. Allegations
of deceit and unholy connivance to force Gen VK Singh to retire early would
haunt him throughout his tenure. One wonders as to how he faces senior commanders whom he has
cheated of their rightful ascension. Similarly, he must be finding it
most inhibiting to exhort his subordinates to be upright and have faith in the fairness
of the system.
Lieutenant
General Nathu Singh declined to be the first chief of the Indian army stating
that Lieutenant General Cariappa was senior to him. Compare the selflessness of
General Nathu Singh with the conduct of the current chief who had no
inhibitions in being the beneficiary of utter favouritism and Machiavellian
scheming. He has earned the dubious distinction of being the first chief of
the Indian army to occupy the top slot through devious means.
The
biased chief can draw consolation
from the fact that his shenanigans were successful and his protégé is well
entrenched. However, the history will always recall him for his transgression
and not any contribution to the nation. He will be long remembered as a chief
who proved unworthy of the trust reposed by his subordinates’ and who let them
down through his prejudiced conduct.
History
is most unforgiving. It never forgets dark chapters and iniquitous characters.
It comes back to haunt them for generations. Impact of indictment by history is
always painful and no human can ever escape its impact, howsoever impervious he
may pretend to be.
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. In a country riven by caste, regional and religious
dissentions, the Indian army is the solitary bastion of national unity and, most
worrisomely, India’s only hope. *****
An excellent article!
ReplyDeleteIt is utopian to have an organization free from parochialism, favoritism group ism based on regional, religious and caste lines. But sir, these tendencies plague almost all organizations in our country, and as a veteran, I can only happily say that it is much less in the Indian Armed Forces. But such tendencies should be minimized, by having the real picture debated and your article throws light on the facts of life.
The British Empire in India was built, by and large, from a sense of "fair play" learnt from the playing fields of Eton and Harrow. All this "elitism" such as law and justice was brought to an end in 1947. With Article 31B and the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, India was turned into an "Animal Farm" where all are equal but some are more equal than others under law. Today, politics and money have firmly trumped law and facts in Indian Courts.
ReplyDeleteThe British Empire in India was built, by and large, from a sense of "fair play" learnt from the playing fields of Eton and Harrow. All this "elitism" such as law and justice was brought to an end in 1947. With Article 31B and the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, India was turned into an "Animal Farm" where all are equal but some are more equal than others under law. Today, politics and money have firmly trumped law and facts in Indian Courts. No Army can be a cultural exception to the rulers that raise them or the country from which it is raised.
ReplyDeleteExcellently said. The question however is, how many of those who ought to read this will? And more to the point, how many of these would have the moral courage to speak out and bring these facts - no, SCREAM these facts - to the all-powerful, all-deaf, all-corrupt political dispensation?
ReplyDeleteThe Indian Army was the finest legacy of the Raj. And people have sold it for a mess of pottage.
While Gen VK Singh, arguably, is a victim of manipulation of date of birth, would it be wrong to say that he was also a beneficiary of the same system of promotions based on dates of birth, which he tried to further utilize when he was the Chief, to stay in the chair longer and also thereby to set his own line of succession by eliminating those already entrenched in the line? How many senior officers can truthfully claim that they were not part of the regime of patronage, either as a benefactor or as a beneficiary, or as both, when they were in service? Who is responsible for the present state where, in an Army of forty thousand officers, the selection of its corps and army commanders and its chief is narrowed down to a handful of officers from one or two batches of NDA who were commissioned into the fighting arms? How is that officers are perceived to be 'chief materials' even at junior and middle levels and their professional growth stimulated
ReplyDeleteby placing them in positions solely for the purpose of earning needed reports to go higher, while their contemporaries are made to slog in unremarkable posts? Is it in the overall good of the Army to pursue 'high flier' policy to earmark certain officers at junior and middle levels itself, to segregate them from the riffraffs? What is the punishment meted out to those senior officers, who sought assistance from sectarian and religious pressure groups for promotions, placements and extensions? There are many, many such unsavory practices and developments that are now eating into the core value of the Army. However, then, the affliction in the system is not caused in a day or two or by a lonely man; those who have reached positions of authority and influence, presently and in the past, have all contributed to the failings, by their acts of commission or omission.
With regards
Brig(retd)C Prabhakaran
Mrinal Sir,the incident of the party where the ref offr was talking to a Brig coursemate....was it not the moral responsibility of that Brig to make immdt amend by either refusing the offered drink or asking his "coursemate" to be given the same drink. People forget that in Fauj everyone will get supercede at some stage and will be then treated equally shabbilly if such dirty practices are not stopped.
ReplyDeleteThe cadres who are running this country don't get superced ed upto a very high level and a huge chunk of them get khushi post retirement appointments tailormade for them by their own system. That's how comfortable they have made their life and we are still behaving like fools.
In MOD itself the APARs (ACRs) for civilian employees of the lowest possible rank are supposed to be Open. They have to be shown each entry and a part of it is filled by them. Why this discrepancy within the same house? What are we achieving by this secrecy. Are the COs not confident of their managerial skills and want to run their "Command" by deceit.