Spineless staff officers are a letdown
Major
General Mrinal Suman
Spineless servility of
the staff officers has been the bane of the Indian military. The case of Adarsh
Housing Society proves it amply. The land in question was under army’s
possession. It was apparent to even laymen that the whole project was
ill-conceived and murky. Yet, flats were obtained by three Chiefs and numerous
senior commanders by all means, fair and unfair. Instead of cautioning them,
compliant staff officers actively abetted the wrong-doing. True to their
character, their sole aim was to keep their bosses happy.
Most worrisome has been
the cowardice displayed by the Principal Staff Officers (PSOs) at the Army
Headquarters. The Military Secretary and the Adjutant General are top ranking
staff officers with immense powers. Yet, when a parochial Chief wanted to tweak
the process to favour his protégé, neither had the courage to oppose his
decadent and wily machinisations. Their gutless conduct showed them to be
unworthy of the high appointments they held.
Similarly, no PSO
cautioned the current Chief against disbanding the Technical Services Division.
Everyone knew that it was an act of vendetta.
Yet, senior officers willingly joined the errant Chief in depriving the
military of a functional intelligence gathering outfit. Can there be a more
serious anti-national act? As was expected, all abettors have been duly
rewarded.
Equally surprising was
the haste with which discipline and vigilance ban on a senior commander was
lifted by the current Chief within days of assuming charge. It made a mockery
of the complete disciplinary review process. The same staff officers, who had
advised the previous Chief to impose the ban, quickly did an about turn and
recommended its removal. They lacked courage to give honest opinion to the
Chiefs and did what the Chiefs desired blindly. As is commonly said –‘servility
has no spine and no limits’.
Staff Officers and
Personal Staff Officers
Unfortunately, over a
period of time difference between a staff officer and a personal staff officer
has got blurred. Whereas an Aide-de-Camp (ADC) to a Corps Commander is a
personal staff officer, a Col GS of a division or a BGS of a corps is a staff
officer of the formation headquarters.
A formation commander
can pick any officer of his choosing to be his ADC, who is often referred to as
a ‘confidential assistant’. His only responsibility is to ensure that the
commander is not encumbered by mundane administrative needs and is kept free to
discharge his command functions. As he needs to render no advice, he needs no
qualifications for the job. Earlier, sons and prospective sons-in-law were
appointed ADC.
On the other hand, a
staff officer is selected for an appointment based on certain specified qualifications
and criteria to oversee staff work related to his responsibilities. He performs
three functions. First, he renders professional advice to the commander. Through
meticulous staff-work, based on accurate and timely inputs, he suggests various
options to the commander for well-informed decision making.
Secondly, he manages
flow of information between the commander and the environment (subordinate
formations, neighbouring formations and higher headquarters).
Thirdly and more
importantly, he ensures that all administrative, operational and logistical
needs of the subordinate units and formations are duly met. Thus a staff
officer owes as much to the troops of the formation as to the commander, if not
more. For that matter, if the interests clash, his loyalty should be to the
troops and not to a transgressing commander.
Finally
When a Divisional
Commander (Div Cdr) and his Colonel GS (Col GS) expressed diametrically
opposite viewpoints at a Corps training seminar, everyone felt that the Col GS had
senselessly risked his career by disagreeing with his Div Cdr publically. When
quizzed during the lunch break, the Div Cdr’s retort took everyone by surprise,
“The Col GS has a mind of his own. A staff officer is an adviser and not a
parrot. I will feel very insecure if the staff officers do not give me the
benefit of their knowledge and experience by expressing their opinion frankly.”
The most distressing
aspect of the above episode was the fact that the environment expected a staff
officer to toe the line of his commander blindly without application of his
mind. Worse, such dogmatic following is construed to be a sign of unflinching
loyalty expected of a staff officer.
Compare the above with the
institution of the much-admired German General Staff. Helmuth von Moltke is
generally considered to be its main architect. He considered an acquiescent and
compliant staff officer to be a greater risk than an enemy. He mandated that professional
competence without strength of character to render honest advice was of little
use. He expected a German General Staff officer to report the matter to the
higher headquarters when convinced that his field commander was acting in a
detrimental manner.
Unfortunately, courage
of conviction is a rare trait in the military staff in India. It is rare to see
a staff officer having nerve to speak the truth and risk his commander’s
disapproval. As realisation of aspirations for advancement in career depends on
a favourable report from the commander, most staff officers prefer to play safe
and be yes-men. Instead of cautioning a commander against wrong-doings and
skewed decision-making, most staff officers prefer to act as obedient and
unquestioning followers.
Staff officers must resist
the temptation of acting as personal staff officers. They should never forget
that they are staff officers of the organisation and owe their primary loyalty
to it. Staff officers who behave like spineless adjuncts to a commander are an
anathema and a disgrace.*****
