The Indian Army has reportedly adopted a new policy for performance-based appraisal and promotions of Lieutenant Generals to higher ranks and appointments. The new system, which comes into force on 31 March, will “facilitate merit-based selection” of serving Lt Gens for apex-level appointments in the Integrated Theatre Commands and tri-service establishments.
This was a work in progress for the last two years, based on the directions of the Ministry of Defence, and the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force have already implemented a similar policy.
As per the report, in the existing system, there was no quantified appraisal for Lt Gens. Promotion to the appointment of Army Commander was based on seniority and the requirement of at least 1.5 years of residual service before retirement in the Army, and one year each in the Air Force and Navy. The new system will have a quantified scale of 1-9 to assess personal qualities, demonstrated performance, and recommendations for suitability for appointment as Theatre Commanders and other tri-service appointments.
The intent of the proposal is crystal clear—to promote meritocracy in higher ranks and appointments of the armed forces and I am an ardent supporter of the same. Meritocracy is a universal principle for the pursuit of excellence, and in the nation’s instrument of last resort, it must prevail. The challenge is to design a system to find the meritorious ‘first’. The system of merit-cum-seniority already exists for promotion from the rank of Colonel to Lt Gen and reforms can make it better. Even at the highest levels, there is always a ‘first among equals’. Hence, the selection and promotion for the last three rungs—Army/Theatre Commanders, Chiefs of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)—must also be based on merit.
Shortcomings of the existing system
In the existing system, promotions from the rank of Colonel and equivalent up to Lt Gen are based on merit, derived from a three-tier appraisal process. Seniority comes into play only for the actual assumption of appointment. While sound in principle, this system has a few shortcomings.
First, seniority is derived from the merit assigned at the time of commissioning, which is illogical—particularly for higher ranks—since a decision made decades ago can determine the fate between promotion and retirement. The Indian Navy does have a system of revising merit and seniority in the first two years of service based on course performance, but it remains unchanged thereafter. There is a case for revising merit-based seniority at each level of selection.
In a pyramidical, vacancy-based system, tenures in higher ranks become too short. More so, since consideration is done year-wise— two batches plus short-service commissioned officers who are granted permanent commission. There is a case for expanding the zone of selection to three years, i.e. six batches, for deeper selection and to allow longer tenures in higher ranks for the meritorious. Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force already have a system for a three-year selection zone. The Army needs to follow suit.
Any appraisal system is as good as the people who run it, which is contingent upon the character of the officer corps, particularly of the senior officers. Over the years, the system of appraisal within the armed forces has become flawed due to a lack of objectivity, the prevalence of regimental and arm parochialism, and weaknesses in the character of the assessing officers. The fallout has been the inflation of reports, due to a lack of moral courage among assessors, leading to a deluge of so-called ‘meritorious officers’. The casualty is genuine merit.
The existing system of selecting and promoting officers to ranks above Lt Gen is certainly flawed. For the rank of Lt Gen, there is no quantified system; evaluation is based on a generic pen picture and a recommendation for the appointment of Army Commander. The system is too subjective, with no clear criteria or job specifications for higher positions such as Army Commander, Theatre Commander, Service Chief, or CDS.
To cater to short tenures in higher ranks, that impinge on organisational efficiency, the concept of residual service was introduced. This is linked to the date of birth, which determines the date of retirement. In the Army, officers require three years of residual service to become a Corps Commander and 1.5 years to become Army Commander. In the Air Force and Navy, one year of residual service is required to qualify for the rank of Vice Admiral or Air Marshal. However, this residual service requirement impinges upon merit and could be obviated by adopting a deeper selection process.
In all democracies, the selection of Theatre Commanders, Service Chiefs, and CDS is done by the government. In India, however, the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister rarely interact directly with senior commanders and have little knowledge about them. Unless an objective, merit-based system is established, any deviation from the principle of seniority will smack of political interference and make the military hierarchy beholden to the government.
Currently, the appointments of the Service Chiefs and CDS are made without a specific criterion or competency requirements. Thus, the judgement of the government becomes subjective. Moreover, no detailed appraisal is done for Army Commanders and above. The present government has further compounded the problem by expanding the eligibility for the appointment of CDS to include all serving and retired Lt Gens and above, provided they are under the age of 62.
New system falls short
The introduction of a formal appraisal system for Lt Gens is indeed a step in the right direction. Since all Lt Gens in the future will be eligible for higher tri-Service appointments, I hope the appraisal system is common for the three Services in letter and spirit.
Without clear job specifications, criteria and competency requirements for higher ranks, the appraisal system used to select the Lt Gens and their equivalent for such ranks will remain subjective. This needs to be done forthwith and the appraisal system for Lt Gens must be revised accordingly.
The issue of seniority based on merit at the time of commissioning has not been addressed. Merit must be revised at each rung of selection. Army Commanders, Theatre Commanders, Service Chiefs, and the CDS must have a minimum tenure of three years. This is possible only if a system of deep selection is introduced for the meritorious at least at the level of Brigadiers or Major General and their equivalents.
Additionally, the selection system of Service Chiefs and the CDS remains subjective and non-transparent, making it open to unethical interference both from within the armed forces hierarchy and from the government.
Also read: Army promotions must be based on capabilities, not lineage. Turf protection is main mischief
A de novo approach is required
With the ongoing tri-service integration, there is a need for a common appraisal system that applies from the rank of Brigadier and equivalents to higher ranks with an inbuilt service-specific part. To run a merit-based system, the armed forces must first bring reforms to arrest the drop in character and ethics of the officer corps, particularly among the hierarchy. The objectivity of the appraisal system is dependent on the character and ethics of the assessor.
There is a need to review and refine the criteria and competencies required for all command and staff appointments, particularly with respect to higher ranks—Lt Gen and above—right up to the CDS.
Seniority based on merit at the time of commissioning and the requirement for residual service in higher ranks need to be reviewed. A common tri-Service system must be adopted to reassess the merit at the time of selection for each rank. There is also a need to introduce a system of ‘deep selection’ to identify and groom officers for higher ranks. To achieve this, it would be prudent to have three-year zone of consideration for selection to each higher rank.
There is a need to set up a Senior Officers Management Committee consisting of the CDS and Service Chiefs assisted by the staff. The setting up of an independent permanent board headed by a retired Chief or CDS may also be considered. This committee must assess the potential of all Lt Gens and their equivalents for appointments as Army Commanders and equivalent, and Theatre Commanders based on specific competencies and qualifications formulated. Formal interactive interviews should also be held.
The government must independently do a similar exercise for the selection of the Service Chiefs and the CDS. It should review the eligibility criteria for the appointment of CDS which must be restricted to the Army Commanders and equivalent, Theatre Commanders, and the three Service Chiefs.
A committee under the Defense Minister, consisting of the National Security Advisor (NSA), retired CDS, Service Chiefs, and Cabinet Secretaries must be set up for the selection of Service Chiefs and CDS. It must scrutinise the dossiers, check on the spoken reputation and interview the officers to shortlist three names in order of priority. The final decision should be left to the Cabinet Committee on Security.
The introduction of a quantified appraisal system for Lt Gens and equivalent is only incremental change. An objective, transparent, and merit-driven appraisal and promotion system for all ranks requires more holistic reforms.
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 the Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)
This is an interesting article for a Lieutenant General to write. Does this mean promotions were not merit based to Lt Gen before? If so what about his own eleveation to the rank? Is he questioning that? How does he deserve it in his eyes and not others?