The news that Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria, former Chief of the Air Staff, has joined the Bharatiya Janata Party has re-ignited the debate over the so-called politicisation of the country’s Armed Forces. Judging from the reactions, it is evident that opinion is divided over the issue, not only within the uniformed community but also within the larger polity. This matter has to be viewed against several factors – societal, organisational, and individual.
The people that comprise the Armed Forces are drawn from the very community that they serve and are sworn to protect. After completing their stint in uniform, with its attendant restrictions, all members eventually return to the same society. This in no way implies that they are not part of the community while in uniform but only that they are governed by a different set of rules and regulations and measured by different yardsticks.
Can Armed Forces personnel join politics?
Society puts the soldier on a higher pedestal and expects nothing but the best from its Armed Forces. This is a difficult cross to bear – to be always under scrutiny even if not on duty or leave. Given that personnel of the Armed Forces are held in high esteem, it should be a matter meriting admiration that post-retirement, people of this calibre are joining the hurly-burly of politics. Moreover, it is important to note that there is no constitutional or statutory ban on service chiefs or other military personnel joining a political party after retirement.
While in service, though, the organisation places certain restrictions on all personnel, especially with respect to their fundamental rights, to ensure discipline and proper discharge of duties. Although the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, Article 33 gives Parliament the authority to restrict or abrogate these rights for Armed Forces personnel, among others. Service members have limited freedom of speech and expression, particularly concerning military matters and national security. They are restricted from forming associations or unions. Last but not least, All ranks are prohibited from participating in any political activity and are expected to remain apolitical. These restrictions are in place to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the Armed Forces and to ensure that they function without any disruptions or conflicts of interest.
This point about political activity is often misunderstood. As a service person, taking part in a political rally or joining a particular party is disallowed, but that in no way implies that service personnel cannot exercise their franchise as part of their fundamental rights. It is the organisation that is apolitical, not the members. Individuals are free to cast their votes for Party A, B or C. Moreover, there isn’t any whip from within the organisation to vote or not vote.
On account of service conditions, this right is exercised mainly through a postal ballot, a process that itself is tedious. Due to frequent transfers, the postal ballot papers often arrive late or not at all. Moreover, these ballots are taken into consideration only if the difference between the winning candidates is less than the total number of postal ballots received for that constituency. In practice, therefore, it is of little consequence. Certain changes have been made to allow service personnel to vote at their place of posting but the overall impact remains negligible.
Distinguishing individual rights from duties
If all these factors are kept in mind, it is apparent that despite the various provisions to enable service personnel to vote, it is mostly a no-go. Therefore, by default, the organisation becomes apolitical, as it should be. All personnel on enlistment swear allegiance to the Constitution as by law established and are answerable to Parliament – the Legislature through the Executive, i.e., the government of the day, via the defence minister’s office. Being answerable to the government of the day can in no way be construed as politicisation of the forces. It is a fact of life.
That brings us to the question of individual rights, on and off parade while in service as well as post-retirement. While the organisation does pose some restrictions on the individual, it is only while in uniform or while representing the organisation. Off duty, service personnel enjoy the same freedoms as fellow citizens, including justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution. They are free to follow the customs and traditions practised by their communities. Exceptions are also made to accommodate these beliefs. For example, personnel are allowed to grow beards if undertaking a pilgrimage to any place of worship that prescribes such conditions, or if deemed operationally expedient. In a democratic country, it is a matter of personal liberties.
Similarly, once retired, to join or not join politics is purely a matter of individual choice. Many retired military officers have successfully transitioned to politics, bringing their leadership skills and experience to the public arena. No doubt retired Armed Forces personnel have contributed significantly to national security and policy-making due to their extensive experience and discipline.
It should, therefore, be a matter of pride, both for society and the uniformed fraternity if such personnel enter the electoral fray, and the need is to encourage even more members to do so. Ultimately, the decision for retired military persons to enter politics depends on their personal aspirations and the democratic principles of the country. Whatever the case, all candidates, irrespective of their background or the party they represent, will have to face the multitude, and secure the popular majority vote. That is what democracy is all about and what distinguishes India from its neighbours.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Sir it’s one way of thinking but if you see it from other way . To join a party people can start to incline towards one party which is not good for the institution as a whole.
Let’s say if the institution is dragged into politics it looses its value in the eye of public.
I hope people and govt both can understand this