“The questions being raised are: were these remarks called for? And there are larger and more important issues. Why do India’s political leaders belittle Army Chiefs in Parliament? Do they realise its adverse impact? Is it desirable to muzzle the armed forces and their Chiefs? What course should be adopted if an MP has reservations about a serving officers’ act or public utterances?”__________________________________
by Gen V. P. Malik (retd)
(March 24, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Recently a major topic of discussion in Army messes and ex-servicemen gatherings was former Cabinet minister Jaswant Singh’s remarks about the serving Indian Army Chief on the floor of Parliament. During the motion of thanks debate, Mr Jaswant Singh said, “Very recently, and repeatedly, some most unwanted, unwise and also, if I might say so, irresponsible and, therefore, unacceptable statements were made by the Chief of the Army Staff on television …. The Chief of the Army Staff is certainly not the authority to comment or rule on the importance of encroachments on the border and what the response ought to....... It is unbecoming, unwanted, and irresponsible and it is harmful for the dignity not just of the high office that he holds but also for the total responsibility that he carries and for the security of the country.”
No one can ever forget the immense contribution that Mr Jaswant Singh has made for the armed forces and the nation during his service in the Army and later as a political leader and Cabinet minister. No one also expected a person of Mr Jaswant Singh’s stature and experience to comment on the responsibility, professionalism and character of the Army Chief and chastise him on the floor of Parliament in this manner. As per Indian military tradition, a Chief reflects the image and reputation of his service. Any derogatory remarks on him in Parliament are bound to affect his morale and that of the people he commands. The fact that these remarks were passed by a former minister without even watching the impugned TV interview — as per his admission — makes it worse and sound casual.
The questions being raised are: were these remarks called for? And there are larger and more important issues. Why do India’s political leaders belittle Army Chiefs in Parliament? Do they realise its adverse impact? Is it desirable to muzzle the armed forces and their Chiefs? What course should be adopted if an MP has reservations about a serving officers’ act or public utterances?
It would be ridiculous to question an Army Chief’s qualification to speak on the disputed border issue. Most of the politico-military discussions, particularly where settled or unsettled borders are an issue, are held in the military operations room of Army Headquarters. Not only that, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and the Ministry of External Affairs, as Mr Jaswant Singh knows better than most people in India, depend upon the Army to provide geographical, tactical, operational and strategic details. Moreover, the present Chief in his earlier appointment as Vice Chief was a member of the China Study Group, the senior-most group of executives who either lay down or recommend policies on the Sino-Indian boundary to the political leadership in the CCS.
In our system of governance, no committee of Parliament can call a service officer to address or give opinion without concurrence of the government. In Parliament, the members discuss policies of the government, including acts of omission and commission. As a professional apolitical person, the Chief must follow the policies of the government of the day. If he violates government policies or says something different to a stated policy, it is for the government to take action against him. It is unfair to discuss his professionalism and character in Parliament.
Everyone is aware that MPs enjoy parliamentary privileges. A serving officer does not. He cannot defend and save his honor in Parliament. Also, he cannot lobby in public in the manner our politicians do. In my opinion, therefore, MPs, particularly those belonging to the Opposition, who most of the time oppose government policies and its acts of omission and commission, are not justified in passing remarks in Parliament that would affect the reputation and effectiveness of the officer. It is not only unethical and unfair but also, more seriously, would lead to erosion of the apolitical ethos of the armed forces which can never be in our national interest.
During my tenure as Army Chief, the then Prime Minister often called the three Chiefs to brief political leaders from all parties on the Kargil war and other operational incidents. He would invariably ask us to leave the chamber during political discussions or when there was any likelihood of political allegations and counter-allegations to avoid any embarrassment to us.
As far as I know, no service Chief in India has ever spoken against a government policy to the media. But when policies are not clear, kept deliberately vague and ‘perceptional’ differences affect its implementation on the ground, as in this case, it becomes necessary for the Chief or his representative to clarify the situation. Sometimes, it has also become necessary to state the adverse consequences of poor implementation of a policy that affects the armed forces. Such clarifications/statements, obviously, are in the national interest. Pandit Nehru acknowledged this in Parliament after the 1962 war. My own remarks, “we shall fight with whatever we have”, though not palatable to many in the government, had led to reviewing of policies on arming and equipping the forces during and after the Kargil war.
In a robust democracy, particularly in this information age, professional muzzling would be unthinkable. The media seeks professional views and comments because professionals have “on hand” experience, they are accountable for the implementation of the policies, and carry greater credibility than most political leaders. On the flip side, they do create “differences” sometimes. But the advantages of public awareness, clarity and accountability far-outweigh the “narrow vision” disadvantages.
What if a political leader does pass such remarks in Parliament, as it happened in this instance? I believe it is then the responsibility of the Defence Minister or his colleagues to defend the serving officer, as has often been done in the past. In April 1999, former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, during his speech on the confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, had passed such remarks and named a serving Deputy Chief of the Army. I brought this to the notice of the President (Supreme Commander) and the Defense Minister; not merely for defending the honour of the officer involved but also to reiterate the apolitical stature of the Army. The Defense Minister wrote a letter to the Speaker. In the letter, he mentioned the impeccable credentials of the officer concerned, conveyed strong resentment within the Army and urged the Speaker to expunge the adverse references.
India’s democratic values and systems have ensured that its armed forces remain apolitical. While many central and state services in India are getting more and more politically influenced, the armed forces are among the last bastions to have escaped this trend. The credit goes not only to the military and its traditions but also to the political leadership, our egalitarian society and other well-established democratic institutions. If we wish to see the men and women in uniform remain professional and apolitical, the nation will need to be vigilant and help them to maintain such a tradition. Our political class, our defense establishment, and our media, all have to realiSe this responsibility.
(The writer, a former Chief of Army Staff, is currently associated with the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. )
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment