Cariappa not an exception. Many Indian generals have talked about military coup

India's military generals must remember that the impact of what they speak lasts for a long time. Field Marshal Cariappa's 1970 remark is a case in point.

Representational Image | Commons

Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa, the first Indian Commander-in-Chief from 1949-1953, had more than his share of controversies. One of his controversial statements about the need for a military rule in India was recently discovered in Karnataka state archives through a clarification made in a signed note dated 7 April 1971, after Indira Gandhi’s landslide election victory.

The revelation about General Cariappa has shone a light on how India’s military generals have often commented on the politics of their time. In the seven decades since India’s Independence, both serving and retired generals have been mired in controversies for their indiscretions and public statements that transgressed into political domain, for their personal political convictions, for promoting self-interest by endorsing government policies, for their naivety, military humour, and at times due to their assumed sense of superiority of military values.

These indiscretions and controversies reflect that the generals live a cocooned life, divorced from the reality of India. This is why they rarely become successful politicians.

Cariappa’s activism

But if Field Marshal Cariappa stands out in the long list of military generals airing their views on political situations publicly, then it’s only due to the nature and content of his remarks as reflected in the signed note cited above – the invocation of a military rule, albeit as a temporary measure to restore law and order; a new constitution; reorganisation of states on zonal pattern; a three-party political system; and making education a criterion for voting rights. Cariappa categorically ruled out a military coup in India due to the Indian Army’s heterogeneous composition. His idea of military rule was based on politicians willingly handing over power to the Army, like it happened in Pakistan.

Field Marshal Cariappa, as the first Commander-in-Chief, was responsible for the transition of a colonial army – aloof from the reality of India and enmeshed with the executive – into a highly regarded apolitical institution that accepted civilian supremacy. He was a role model for the rank and file for his professionalism and character. But he was also a man of very strong convictions. He was very concerned about corruption, social discontent, economic development, poor governance, and the political culture that had replaced the idealism of the freedom struggle.

Towards the end of his tenure, Field Marshal Cariappa publicly aired his views on India’s preferred model of economic development. In October 1952, then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru advised him in writing to give fewer press conferences and stick to safer subjects, implying that he should not play the role of a “semi political” leader. Historians have speculated that one of the reasons Cariappa was appointed as the High Commissioner to Australia (1953-1955) was so that he could be kept away from national politics. Even in Australia, he went beyond diplomacy to repeatedly question the “White Australia” immigration policy in vogue since 1901. His campaign went a long way in shaping liberal thought in Australia and the policy was finally changed in 1973.

In 1958, on a visit to Pakistan, Cariappa praised the military coup by his former colleague Field Marshal Ayub Khan. He contested the 1971 Lok Sabha election from Southeast Bombay constituency but lost. His political activism continued until 1980, after which he led a quiet life.

Field Marshal Cariappa’s activism notwithstanding, it is pertinent to note that in his farewell speech, he had said, “The Army’s job was not to meddle in politics but to give unstinted loyalty to the elected government.” In the inaugural Cariappa Memorial Lecture on ‘Leadership in the 21st Century’, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw said, “He (Cariappa) taught the Indian Army to be completely apolitical. Ours is one country, where soldiers have kept out of politics. I think that was the biggest achievement of Field Marshal Cariappa, the greatest service to this country.”

Cariappa wasn’t alone

Apart from Cariappa, there have been a number of generals who courted controversy with their public statements and, at times, due to their conduct. In his book, A Chequered Brilliance: The Many Lives of V.K. Krishna Menon, Jairam Ramesh has written how General Kodandera Subayya Thimayya, who was the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) from 1957 to 1961, had indiscreet conversations with Malcolm MacDonald, the British High Commissioner to India. Besides several classified matters, Malcolm quotes a conversation with General Thimayya that took place on 6 October 1959. He alleges that Thimayya had spoken about Menon trying to make himself the master of the armed forces in hopes to gain their support to fulfill his political ambition of taking Nehru’s place either after or before Nehru’s withdrawal from public life.

In the book The British Papers: Secret and Confidential India-Pakistan-Bangladesh Documents 1958-1969, compiled by Pakistani civil servant Roedad Khan, it is alleged that General J.N. Chaudhry as COAS had a detailed conversation with British High Commissioner John Freeman about his confidential discussions with then-Defence Minister Y.B. Chavan, about the possibility of a military coup in India. The American Papers, by the same author, mentions a free-wheeling, indiscreet conversation that Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, as Eastern Army Commander, had with the US Consul General in Calcutta, William Hitchcock, on 12 October 1966.

Even humour lands generals in trouble

At times military humour also has landed generals in trouble. After the 1971 War, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, on a visit to Pakistan, was asked what would have been the outcome of the war if he had opted to go to Pakistan in 1947. Given his penchant for humour and repartee, Manekshaw quipped, “Maybe Pakistan would have won the 1971 War.” This quip earned the ire of Indira Gandhi who denied the General the perks and privileges of a Field Marshal.

In 1992, General Rodrigues, COAS 1990-1993, got into trouble for calling foreign countries and their diplomats as “bandicoots”. General Sundarji, COAS 1986-1988, landed himself in a fix while answering a question about Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale being alive in Pakistan. He said that Bhindranwale had been killed. On being asked as to what would happen if Bhindrawale was produced on Pakistan TV, General Sundarji replied, “Then we would produce Bhutto”. This was considered a diplomatic faux pas.

Steer clear

What I have highlighted about the past is certainly a damning indictment of the conduct and indiscretions of generals, which have even bordered on being seditious. Much has been written about the current hierarchy, with public statements being made in support of the Narendra Modi government to promote self-interest.

Generals must remember that when they speak, the echoes are heard for a long time and in faraway places. Personal convictions must manifest overtly while in service. They must steer clear of political policy and stick to cryptic military-style statements. They are not obliged to answer every question posed by the media or offer explanations. Diplomats must be handled with finesse without breaching national security. The rank and file of the Indian armed forces are apolitical to a fault. It is time, the generals began to act as role models.

Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal.