The Army seems to feature in each and every debate in the media, whether it is about patriotism, nationalism, student politics, or the national anthem.
On 21 February, speaking at a seminar on the “North East Region of India – Bridging Gaps and Securing Borders”, General Bipin Rawat spoke about migration from Bangladesh and rise of the All India United Democratic Front. The comments kicked up an immediate storm with accusations that remarks like this indicate a growing politicisation of the Indian Army.
Such allegations have also been made in the past, particularly after the ‘surgical strikes’ of 2016. General Rawat himself stated in November last year, “Of late, we have been seeing that politicisation of the military has been taking place…We have a very vibrant democracy where the military should stay away from politics.”
How real is the danger of politicisation, and is the Indian military ethic strong enough to resist it? The answer to this question lies in the nature of civil-military relations and how the military views its role.
There are two classic models of civilian control. In his seminal work, The Soldier and the State, Samuel Huntington recommends a system of ‘‘objective control’’ that ensures civilian control while maximising the professionalism of the military. He argues that, “In practice, officership is strongest and most effective when it most closely approaches the professional ideal; it is weakest and most defective when it falls short of that ideal’’. An officer corps is professional to the extent it exhibits the qualities of expertise, responsibility, and corporateness. “In addition to enhancing effectiveness, these traits also enhance civilian control because a professional military seeks to distance itself from politics.”
American sociologist Morris Janowitz also discussed civilian control in his book, The Professional Soldier, published three years after Huntington. He argued that an apolitical military is unrealistic, and that the military will invariably come to resemble a political pressure group. He stated that this is not necessarily a problem as long as it remains ‘‘responsible, circumscribed, and responsive to civilian authority’’. He recommended the military’s ‘‘meaningful integration with civilian values’’.
There has been extensive international debate on which system is preferable. However, there has never been any confusion in the Indian military, which has always followed the “objective control” model and distanced itself from politics while concentrating on developing its professionalism. In his book, The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation, Stephen P. Cohen says: “Probably no other group in South Asian society is so critical of politicians… and yet is so strong in its support of the political system.”
It is not only in politics, but the military has generally kept itself away from civil society, living in cantonments and practicing its own values. It is for this reason that I feel that the military is not about to start dabbling in politics. However, it would also be true to state that our military values are under pressure.
Today, the Army seems to be getting dragged into each and every debate in the media, whether it is about patriotism, nationalism, student politics or the national anthem. This repeated exposure could break down traditional values. As Shashi Tharoor wrote in India: From Midnight to the Millennium, “the best of India can only be preserved by insulating the Army from the pressures of the worst of India”.
There is also a feeling in the military that while the political leadership vocally supports the soldier, they are hesitant to give him his due. The angst over One Rank One Pension, the Seventh Pay Commission and status equation is real. The pace of weapons procurement and infrastructure development is slow. Communications by service chiefs, like the letter written by the Navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba to the Defence Ministry requesting the government to review the decision to impose a cap on educational reimbursements for martyrs’ children, seem to evoke no positive response.
Therefore, there is talk among the officers about how the military is losing some of its importance and the need to project the military’s role in a different light, e.g. its importance in nation building. There are clear problems with this thought process. The trouble with clearing garbage in Ladakh and building bridges in Mumbai is not that the Army cannot execute it, but that it could come at the cost of its professionalism and its main responsibility of protecting the nation from threats to its security.
The real danger of politicising the military does not come from some statements of senior officers, often taken out of context, but from a breakdown of professionalism. This is what must be understood by political leaders of all parties. By letting the military concentrate on its primary task, keeping it out of political debates, and protecting the vital interests of its soldiers, they will only strengthen the quality of civilian control over the military. As Huntington wrote, “The professional military officer obeys the state not because he shares the outlook and values of its leadership, but simply because it is his professional responsibility to obey.”
The author retired as General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Indian Army’s Northern Command.
The trajectory began in 1947. The Neta-Babu Eloi suspicious of the Military turning into Morlocks as they pursued their personal pelf, pomp, pleasure and perversions through corruption and “dividing to rule” (reservations etc). The Civil side collapsed faster than the Military
Gen Hooda(sic), you were a glorified servant of the then government, doing a nanny’s job of caretaking the NC. You DEGRADED the Indian Army by licking the arsses of the politicians. Polishing their shoes would have sufficed. You did the worst to degrade n downgrade the Army. You %#%€¥©¥, now have the audacity to write, what you could have done, whilst in Service.
To be Blunt you ought to be publicly kicked by the Soldier’s boot, the very same one who were in Service while you were pussy cuddling on the coveted chair meant for Generals & not Govt Orderlies.
And Don’t write. The Army men do not wish to see your shitty sermons, the same way as they cursed you when you were the Army Cdr.
With total Disregards,
Kanwar
Hv No fears. Both the Indian society & the mil/ESM are on a steep learning curve. Close societies like military are comfortable with precedents & known references. Evolving Indian society & its polity are short on both & therein lies the dilemma for mil Cdrs to visualise things clearly. Nonetheless vibrant debate on such issues is welcome. Technology enables vigorous interaction, hope the quality of interaction improves.
Whatever you do or say is going to be used by highly surcharged political elements across both the sides. Does it matter – not really ? ?
I generally agree with the author. Comments by Harry are his views to which I do not contribute. While in service he was the govt and was candid.
Services have been downgraded because of alienating themselves from the important security issues facing the nation. I dare say that it was for Army to have undertaken anti Maoist operations and not taken refuge saying that it was law and order problem. I am aware of two chiefs have declined to undertake these operations which are very much affecting the integrity of our country. Why CRPF and why not Rashtriya Rifles ? They have raised 100 odd battalions and have somewhat controlled the situation. I distinctly remember the MHA was keen for Army to undertake these operations. AFSPA affected CRPF as much as us, the five state gives would have been dependent on RR and would have created environment for operability and we let go this opportunity.
Also we refused to provide leadership to additional Assam Rifle battalions and BSF has stepped in along the eastern borders. There are many more examples wherein we as defense forces have , Willy nilly abdicated our responsibility towards security of the nation. Why would the people in power then not undermine our importance! Conventional wars would be far and in between for which enough forces are available but it is the trust of the govt to deal with emergency situations coming up internally that will raise the bar now. May be the issue needs more discussion and deliberations but trust of people in power needs to be won over if we want our state back.
Gen Hooda , why this double and ambiguous speak? It’s because you people when you were in a position to make a difference you did not speak. When you retired and don’t matter you started writing.Did you not know when you were army car that army car is highest cdr and you were not going to become chief, even then you didn’t speak. Rather you were the first army car who apologised for killing kashmiris who did not follow the order and forced the troops to open fire. Your chief at that time toed the GOVT line shamelessly and did maximum damage to army by dividing the army on inf, arty, armd and even categorised services as non combatants.. You have guts to write intellectual articles now?
Mark my words, till army is divided on the lines of rank , arms, services and groups army can never have it’s place in society and country. It can never get it’s due. Change has to come from top in armed forces as you don’t have democracy. Till you keep sacrificing chetwode oath for promotion and post retirement benefits nothing will change.
Statement of your gorkha chief about north east demography change has given indication to civil society that army is being politicised.
I think it is enough for today. I don’t mind meeting and discussing with you if you want.