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

ARM IN ARM : Institutions like the Army are far too important to be fiddled with.

 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

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/handle-with-care/339438.html

             HANDLE WITH CARE  

            Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (Retd)



Keep politics out of Army Chief’s appointment

                       ARM IN ARM :
  Institutions like the Army are far too                    important to be fiddled with.


FOR the uninitiated, langar gups are rumours in the Army that emanate from messes, where uniformed persons gather and discuss issues pertaining to the military in general and the Army in particular. Although langar refers to jawans’ messes, the term generally refers to discussions where officers and jawans congregate and ‘shoot the breeze’!

For over a month, when the appointment of the new Army Chief was not announced, speculations evolved into langar gups, with all kinds of permutations and combinations emerging. Many claimed inside knowledge about who will be the next Chief and the rank and file, besides being perturbed as to why the announcement was not forthcoming, rightly smelt that the powers that be were up to some hanky-panky! The startling news about the appointment of the next Chief confirmed it.

Generally, appointments of new incumbents at the higher levels of the armed forces are announced two-three months in advance. This is because unlike hierarchies of the police, bureaucracy and others, the armed forces, being the custodians of the nation’s security, are much more important appointments and need to be announced much before time. If this is not done, not only the contenders remain on tenterhooks, but also wrong signals are sent across the board that ‘all is not well’. In the last few months unfortunately, even the Headquarters Command remained headless over months and hence it was clear to the discerning that the politico-bureaucratic combine was up to something. The announcements of the new Army and Air Chiefs at such a late stage have confirmed such misgivings.

In countries like Pakistan, where elected representatives are mortally scared of the powerful army that can manoeuvre a military takeover in a jiffy, it is standard for the elected elite to weigh all consequences till nearly the last date, but in democracies such things do not, and must not, happen. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the leaders and their advisers are up to no good. 

Announcing that Lt Gen Bipin Rawat will be the next Chief, superceding two Generals senior to him, smacks of arrogance and stupidity on the part of the government. Lame excuses of operational experience or lack of it does not cut ice with veterans like me who are experienced and are au fait with the tricks of governments. Officers are posted to appointments in accordance with well laid out systems based on their profiles, and no one opts for so-called operational appointments or otherwise. It is all the luck of the draw and when officers become Army Commanders, they all are professionally the best, otherwise they would not have reached such exalted heights. 

In my view, it is more important to have a full tenure as an Army Commander and not a truncated one of a few months to command the third largest Army in the world. Commanding at various levels up the chain adds to one’s experience as a professional, but it will be naïve to place experience of commanding an Army lower than commanding units and formations at subordinate levels, whether in counterinsurgency operations, on the borders, or elsewhere.

It is, no doubt, the prerogative of the government of the day to appoint whoever they consider meets their criteria, but governments usually think many times before grossly interfering with what has generally been happening in the past. Trotting out excuses, justifying their actions and scotching perceptions with lame excuses, tend to reinforce that there was some skullduggery indeed. Yes, even in the past there have been a few instances where the seniority principle was sacrificed, but they were quite unconvincing. 

The easing out of General Thorat by the then combine of the Prime Minster and the Defence Minister and appointing General Thapar instead, was a case of sacrificing merit and professionalism at the altar of sycophancy that resulted in the biggest debacle for our country in 1962. The excuses now trotted out were uttered earlier too, when the highly professional and greatly admired the late Gen SK Sinha was passed over, ostensibly for lack of operational experience, when the actual reason was that he was opposed to military action against Punjab militants; what followed is well known. In keeping with the credo of an officer and a gentleman, he resigned. Later, the same General (with less operational experience, as the government had averred) was appointed Governor in two insurgency-infested states, which he managed with aplomb! Even earlier, the highly professional, highly decorated and a soldier’s General — PS Bhagat — was denied his rightful appointment based on whims and ulterior motives by another PM. In each of these cases, the political leadership succumbed to manipulators, mostly bureaucrats, sycophants and parochial advisers.

At this stage, I need to narrate a discussion held on the sidelines of a seminar at the College of Defence Management, Secunderabad, many years back. Military intellectuals Gen Raghavan and Air Vice Marshal Kak and I discussed the pros and cons of selecting a service chief on the basis of seniority, as was the norm, vis-à-vis an open-ended selection. We came to the conclusion that there were more negatives in the latter, as chances of selection based on political, sycophantic and non-professional reasons may become predominant in due course, with professional and character qualities being sacrificed on account of extraneous issues. With such precedence, even appointments of the Army and Corps Commanders may meet such a fate later. 

I have no quarrel with the Chief-designate, as I hardly know him, but it is the principle that is of utmost importance. Institutions like the Army are far too important to be fiddled with because of political or other considerations. We are fortunate that we have an apolitical and a competent Army, which will continue to conduct itself with élan and pride irrespective of who leads it. We have had a gamut of average leaders, along with a few highly superior ones, but the Army has weathered all storms.

If the present PM continues with his dictatorial ways, like the first PM of Independent India did, without consulting advisers who would give him unbiased advice, the nation is in big trouble. Rhetorics with modulated utterances may go down well with ignorant masses, but they are no substitute for good governance. It is only Modi bhagats, including the few still in the armed forces with their personal agendas, are quoted by the sarkari propaganda machine and the paid media, while the bulk of the citizenry is not at all convinced.   

The moot point remains, the nation and the Army need a Chief who delivers and not one who sways with the wind because he is grateful for small mercies. I hope that the new incumbent will take the Army to greater heights of professionalism and not succumb to blandishments and sweet words.

The writer is a former Vice-Chief of Army Staff

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


SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/the-army-chief-s-challenge/339012.html

          The Army Chief's challenge

                             By 




            Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain






An out-of-turn promotion always creates ripples in the organisation with extreme loyalties coming to the fore. It has happened in this case too. However, there is a serious side to what will just blow over as emotional rhetoric. The intensity of inter- Arm and Service rivalry has never been so intense.

THE unseemly controversy concerning the appointment of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat as the next Army Chief is hopefully past. Time is now upon us to examine what his main challenges are going to be. In all probability, he will have a three-year tenure which is a good duration to produce results. However, before that a final word on his selection. It is still hoped that Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi the very fine General Officer who was bypassed will be finally appointed the equivalent of the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) or whatever the final head of the joint system is going to be. General Rawat's elevation was done on the basis of seniority-cum-merit with the five senior-most eligible Generals being considered and the third in seniority among them being picked by the civilian authority. Most knowledgeable people have always believed that the seniority system alone is insufficient but in the same breath have also projected the need for a credible system of selection by merit so that there is broad consensus and not the kind of divide which has occurred this time. It is hoped the government will examine this and consider the feasibility of a collegiate or some such system in which there can be representation of civil society, veteran community, the opposition and the government. Future generations will sing paeans to the wisdom of today's political leaders if this is instituted. 

The Chief's challenges are in so many domains that to cover them all in an essay with any detail is a task well-nigh impossible. It will be done in parts but there has to be a start point and that should necessarily be from the very reason why Gen Rawat is being elevated over the head of others; the domain of asymmetric and hybrid threats to India's security, especially pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir. It is his hands-on experience of dealing with counter-terrorism/militancy, LoC and LAC that has got the General the apex post. 

What exactly are these threats? The year 2016 has indeed been worrisome, with three major terrorist strikes at Pathankot, Uri and Nagrota. While terrorist strength is still sub-optimal as far the terror groups’ intent is concerned, this has been a successful year for them in terms of infiltration, the best in the past few years. The counter-infiltration grid, successfully based on the LoC fence as its focus, is now leaking and needs innovations and perhaps induction of new surveillance equipment on a fast track. The LoC ceasefire is just about holding. There have been large scale violations and unlike in the past we seem to be suffering casualties due to questionable quality of operational works assets and even the absence of snipers. Response to ceasefire violations have been intense so far and caused much damage to the other side but the casualties on own side are also unacceptable. 

The domain which is begging to be addressed is the security of garrisons in depth areas. It is not the Valley which is being subjected to this but the Jammu region and the same can go further into Punjab. The terrorists and their masters are aware that targeting soft elements of the Indian armed forces or police draws more mileage. It is well understood that armed forces and police cannot be strong everywhere but need to have credible response mechanisms to limit damage. The quantum of casualties we have suffered is not acceptable to the public. In the period between 1999 and 2006 we suffered a similar phase and overcame it through a series of very strong measures, training and awareness. The Army having conducted successful credible surgical strikes once is now under increasing pressure to respond similarly for every Pak-sponsored terror strike. The surgical strikes were misread by many as a deterrent action; they were not and were just conveyors of message of intent. The credibility will have to be maintained. 

All the above will need Gen Rawat to act quickly through a set of proficient advisors who are well versed with Jammu and Kashmir affairs. It will have to be done even as he wrestles with issues such as OROP,  Seventh Pay Commission and earlier anomalies, jawan and veteran welfare, the North-East and the Line of Actual Control and various equipment-related issues all of which place demands on the time of a Chief. He cannot root himself to Jammu and Kashmir affairs or be considered just as a Chief oriented to General Staff. There will be much on his plate from the Adjutant General (AG) and the Military Secretary (MS). Till March 2017, he will have the services of a hands on AG, who is his senior and is his ex-Commanding officer, Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma. Fortunately General Rawat is no stranger to the MS Branch having handled the policy desk himself. 

An out-of-turn promotion always creates ripples in the organisation with extreme loyalties coming to the fore. It has happened in this case too. However, there is a serious side to what will just blow over as emotional rhetoric. The intensity of inter-Arm and Service rivalry has never been so intense. It is all based on a set of promotion policies which are highly skewed in favor of the Infantry. While everyone recognises the need to compensate the Infantry for the hardship it endures perhaps the personnel managers of the past may just have gone overboard bringing light-hearted banter to a state of bad blood. This can only take the Army in one direction, downhill. There will be protests from different lobbies of the veterans who are strong on social media which too cannot be ignored but the new Chief would be well advised to review the entire gamut of promotion policy and not fall to pray to pressure from lobbies. This will need intense courage and impartiality, two qualities any Chief would be proud to wear on his sleeve. 

Perhaps General Rawat can start with what has been under severe criticism, the undue concentration of too many senior officers of the Gurkha Rifles in positions of importance at the Army Headquarters and select a deputy (Vice Chief) from a different Arm than his. It will send a tremendous message to the rank and file and drown out some of the negativity which has taken place on his appointment. 

General Rawat has proven himself in various challenging appointments in his 38-year-long career and it is not for nothing that he has built for himself the reputation of being a doer. The nation and the Army should wish him the best and stand by him in his earnest mission ahead.

The writer is a former GOC of the Srinagar-based 15 Corps and Military Secretary. He is now associated with the Vivekanand International Foundation and the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.