Selection of Army Chief a Sensitive Issue

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/selection-of-army-chief-a-sensitive-issue/341704.html

RELATED 

MUST READ

   PART -I  :-
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/the-army-chiefs-challenge.html
         
 PART - II:-
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/arm-in-arm-institutions-like-army-are.html

 PART - III:- 
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/selection-of-army-chief-sensitive-issue.html

PART - IV:-
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/men-in-shadows-derailed-bakshis-chances.html

PART - V:-
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2016/12/india-coas-brewing-storm-in-teacup.html

             Selection of Army Chief

                                    a

                        Sensitive Issue

                                     By

                     Dinesh Kumar


A civilian government’s prerogative to make appointments must be respected without a doubt. However, it is mandatory that it exercises judgement based solely on merit — without prejudice, lobbying or parochial considerations.

                           Lt Gen Bipin Rawat                                                     IT is a convention rather than a statutory requirement for the senior-most lieutenant general to be appointed as a Service Chief. Thus, the government has not committed any illegal act by appointing Lt General Bipin Rawat as the country's 27th Army Chief after superseding two lieutenant generals. On the contrary, it has exercised its prerogative in a democracy where civilian supremacy over the armed forces is paramount. 

Yet, the decision has evoked much criticism among sections of retired Army officers who have attributed it to “political interference”, described it as a “bad precedent” and even predicted “the beginning of the end of an apolitical Army”. The government has defended the decision to appoint Lt General Rawat as the Army Chief by explaining the rationale in a generalised and generic expressions of he being “best suited” to deal with “emerging challenges, including a reorganised and restructured military force in the north (China), continuing terrorism and proxy war from the west (Pakistan) and the situation in the North- East.” The government has also highlighted Lt General Rawat's operational experience as an Infantry officer in counter-insurgency (CI) operations in Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states and also along both the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and Line of Actual Control (LAC) with Chinese-occupied Aksai Chin.

This explanation sounds reasonable when viewed in isolation but not necessarily when seen in a larger framework. The senior-most superseded officer, Lt General Praveen Bakshi, is currently heading the critical Eastern Command which is entrusted with defending India's borders with three countries - China, Myanmar and Bangladesh and also the territorial integrity of Bhutan. It is also entrusted with counter-insurgency operations in the north-eastern states. If he is considered “less experienced”, then how did Lt General Bakshi, an armoured corps officer, be assigned to head the Eastern Command which in 1971 spearheaded the liberation of East Pakistan in a landmark war with Pakistan? 

In any case, considering the security environment in the country, most officers from the Army's three principal combat Arms — Infantry, Artillery and Armoured Corps — have had exposure to either or both the CI and LoC / LAC environment in some form or the other. For example, officers from the armoured corps and the artillery are known to serve in Rashtriya Rifles units that are tasked specifically with CI operations.Will all future Army Chiefs from now on be required to be from the infantry with operational experience in Jammu and Kashmir, is one of the many questions that the announcement raises. 

This is not about discussing the merits or demerits of Lt Generals Rawat and Bakshi. Their names are incidental. Rather, the limited point here is that both these officers rose to become Army Commanders after obtaining equivalent experience during their career. There is little to suggest that one is more outstanding than the other. With both officers at par, should not the seniority convention have prevailed so as to keep the armed forces away from needless controversy? 

As it is civil-military relations have of late come under considerable stress with the government mishandling the One Rank One Pension issue; doing little to address the anomalies of the Seventh Pay Commission,; downgrading mid-ranking military officers vis-a-vis their civilians counterparts in the Ministry of Defence;milking the retaliatory strikes across the Line of Controlfor political capital and, more recently, announcing the next Army and Air Force chief barely a fortnight prior. 

There is nothing wrong in making a “deep selection” to appoint a highly capable officer as the Service Chief or a regional commander. Currently, all professional parameters being satisfactory, an officer's seniority (date of birth and date of commission) determines his appointment to top positions. Aware of their standing in the service list many, if not most, Service officers are known to take the careerist route and play safe. This does not always result in the best officer getting promotions and being assigned pivotal posts. As such there is need for the armed forces, particularly the Army, to seriously review its deteriorated internal health which includes the quality of leadership, politics and vendetta among the higher ranks, the subjective system of annual confidential reports that has led to considerable litigation and financial, moral and professional corruption. 

A larger challenge is from the political executive of the day. Considering the nature of petty, partisan and corrupt politics prevalent in the country and how politicians are used to blatantly interfering with appointments of civilian bureaucrats and policemen, the credibility of the Indian politician is at a constant low. While many politicians in India may otherwise treat the armed forces with awe, barring some individuals they take little interest in understanding the armed forces in particular and national security in general. National security is not the exclusive preserve of the armed forces; it is multi-faceted and complex requiring serious study and understanding by the political executive which takes all final decision. 

Hence, if 'deep selection' is to henceforth become a norm in selecting Service chiefs, the government will have to devise a criteria. While a civilian government's prerogative to make appointments must be respected, it is mandatory that it exercises judgement based solely on merit without prejudice, lobbying or parochial considerations. Political meddling with a potent and monolithic organisation like the army has the potential for inducing political ambition in its leadership. 

The country can do without politicians trying to use an Army headed by “deep selected” pliable generals to exert influence. Surely that will mark the end to India's professional and apolitical instrument of last resort in a country where governance continues to be marked by political and administrative mismanagement even as security threats abound.

dkumar@tribunemail.com