Spare the Service Chiefs

Spare the Service Chiefs

Major General Mrinal Suman

Internet and social media have become the most popular means of communication; both for acquiring knowledge and disseminating information. We, the veterans, have been using this facility quite extensively. Most of us are members of more than one yahoo groups. A single click of a key connects us to a vast circle of friends for informed discussion and exchange of viewpoints. Of late, the most striking feature of veterans’ emails is that the Service Chiefs are pronounced guilty for every act of omission and commission (whether real or perceived).

For every grievance with the environment, the blame is squarely laid at their door. They are accused of failing to safeguard the interests of soldiers and veterans. They have become the eternal fall guys, mostly for unwarranted reasons. Let me quote two recent examples. One, a photograph of the Naval Chief was circulated with an obnoxious caption, “This is demeaning. The CNS escorts Bharkha D while his ADC following carries her hand bag....occasion not known........” It went viral, forcing the Naval Attaché to CNS to clarify that he was carrying a pad and the Flag Lt (ADC) was carrying a notepad with an envelope. What a shame! Two, construction of a Kruppman bridge over Yamuna for a cultural event has been inviting critical comments – ‘the army is being misused’, ‘scarce military equipment is being used for a non-official function’, and so on. It is forgotten that the military does not exist in a vacuum.

It is an instrument of the state and owes its creation to it. It is for the state to employ its resources, as deemed fit. Is military equipment not an asset of the country? It is for the government to decide whether such support should be provided to a cultural event or not. It is not military’s prerogative to determine its justification. Incidentally, Kruppman equipment is not scarce. It is being manufactured in India – floats at Ordnance Parachute Factory Kanpur and superstructure at Ordnance Factory Ambernath. Moreover, launching and de-launching of equipment bridges is regularly practised by the Engineers. As a matter of fact, they have to struggle to get water obstacles for bridging training and go as far as the Rajasthan canal for the facilities. The government can certainly be criticised in case it forces the soldiers to do un-soldier-like or degrading duties. Launching of a bridge can certainly not be deemed demeaning. Every Kumbh Mala sees such bridges. Aid to the civil authority to prevent stampede is as vital, perhaps more, as the after-tragedy rescue assistance. Earlier, the criticism of the Chiefs was muted, discreet and implied. Now, it has become harsher, caustic and unseemly. In some cases, the comments have crossed all limits of propriety. Some veterans have resorted to calling them names. Here are some detestable extracts from the recent spate of emails:- · Chiefs are impotent. They can get us nothing. · Chiefs are a big letdown. · Chiefs toe the government line for ambassadorship and gubernatorial assignments. · Chiefs have reached so far in the ‘Yes Sir, Three Bags Full Sir’ syndrome that they feel they have no choice but to conform. · Chiefs have become ‘Ji Hazoors’ and forgotten even their comrades in arms. ·

Why cannot the Chiefs protest jointly and threaten to submit resignation rather than let the government neglect the services? It appears that some veterans want the Chiefs to routinely thump the table of the Defence Minister to make him accept the demands; and in case he does not agree, they ought to tender their resignations. In other words, the Chiefs should carry their resignation letters in their pockets at all times. Some expectations! Before belittling them for their perceived failure to get the soldiers their due, we must keep five points in mind. One, the Chiefs are not inept charlatans. They ought to possess some exceptional traits of character and demonstrated professional competence to rise to such high positions. A shallow person (or a fraud as we call in the services) can hoodwink the system for one or two promotions at the most. To be the head of a service means detailed scrutiny at numerous levels and it is not possible to fool the system for so long. Equally importantly, it must be accepted that they are human beings and hence not infallible. Two, the Chiefs head their services and shoulder the onerous responsibility of ensuring security of the nation. That is their primary duty. It is an enormous challenge for them to get necessary resources and equipment for the services. As the national budget is finite, they have to wage a continuous battle with the environment for a bigger allocation for the defence. Other issues (like pay scales and pensions) are important but not as critical as ensuring operational preparedness of the armed forces. Hence, their performance ought to be viewed in totality. It is unfair to judge them on the basis of a few issues of pay and allowances that are of concern to us. Three, the Chiefs are bound by the norms of service. They cannot share with the environment the enormity of their struggle to get the soldiers their due and the success achieved by them. One does not know how much we owe to the Chiefs for the grant of OROP, notwithstanding our dissatisfaction with its provisions. Four, will resignation by any Chief have any impact? Not at all. When one resigns, ten get ready to wait in the wings to pounce at the chair. When Admiral Shekhawat was unfairly removed, Vice Admiral Sushil Kumar Isaac reached New Delhi post haste in a BSF/RAW aircraft. When Admiral DK Joshi resigned, owning moral responsibility for the naval accidents, every eligible naval commander started assessing his chances. Similarly, when rumours were afloat of Gen VK Singh resigning prematurely, every army commander got his suitcases dusted for move to Delhi. One army commander went to the extent of getting himself medically upgraded to remain in the race. To aspire is human. Five, India is a democracy where the real power rests with the political leadership and, rightly or wrongly, it is exercised through the bureaucracy. The Chiefs are not as absolute in their powers as many of us presume. For every important decision, the ministry has to be approached. Rapport has to be established with the political leadership and the bureaucracy; personal equations with give-and-take approach always prove more beneficial in such an environment. An adversarial and threatening deportment achieves nothing. Many of us tend to cite the example of Pakistan. In Pakistan, the army Chief not only decides his own tenure but also that of the Prime Minister. Fortunately, that is not the case with India. Finally, a bit of heart-searching is always desirable before condemning others. Undoubtedly, all of us came across challenging situations in our professional lives which we considered to be grossly unfair and unwarranted. How many of us resigned in protest when still rising in career? Many of us become ‘tigers’ after supersession/superannuation, in the full knowledge that no harm can come our way. It was sad to see a senior veteran warning the Chiefs that the troops would obey their orders only if ‘the orders are legitimate and legal and not to please your bosses or others’. Ominous words indeed: it implies that it will be for the troops to decide whether the orders given by the Chiefs are legitimate and legal before obeying them. This piece is not in defence of the current incumbents; it is the institution of the Service Chiefs that needs to be protected. It is suffering incalculable damage. By calling them names, we the veterans, most unwittingly, are lowering their status; not only in the eyes of the serving soldiers but also the general public. How can the country hold the services in high esteem if we keep deriding our own Chiefs? *****