In defence of the military

Tuesday, October,7 2008 (New Delhi).

Let me begin this piece by stating emphatically that it is written in defence of the Indian military. I believe that it is an institution worth defending, warts and follies notwithstanding. And that is why this piece.

Of late, the Indian military leadership has come under a lot of motivated and ill-informed criticism for doing what any self-respecting commander-in-chief would do.

In taking up the issue of pay and parity between the armed forces and their civilian counterparts, all that the three chiefs have done is to bring to the notice of the highest political authority in the country the four core issues that affect the services. And they did it in the most dignified manner possible.

But their action has kicked up a furious debate in the media and depending on who you speak with, there are two views on the issue. Most non-military viewpoints are alarmists, to say the least. A few inspired leaks by the stung bureaucracy has led to a spate of articles and opinion pieces alluding to a breach of discipline and a show of "defiance" by the service chiefs. Some commentators have even gone to the extent of saying that the three chiefs have set a dangerous precedent that does not augur well for Indian democracy! Others have said the chiefs were left with no choice. And unlike any other time, I will be a subjective observer in this.

As someone who has been in the thick of reporting on the pay panel recommendations and the subsequent developments, I must point out without reservation: The three chiefs have never ever defied the government. A quarter century interaction with the armed forces has convinced me that the Indian military is not capable of indulging in politics, leave alone usurping anyone's authority as perceived by some. And even in this case, the three chiefs have simply taken recourse to the best possible method that was available to them. And by appointing a three-member ministerial committee to look into what clearly are genuine grievances of the armed forces, the political executive has shown the sagacity of recognising the seriousness of the issue. Unfortunately, the top bureaucracy has not shown the same level of maturity in dealing with the situation.

Allow me to go back in time a little to understand the context in which the three service chiefs have been forced to do what they have done. After the 6th Pay panel submitted its report, a committee of secretaries was set up to look into various anomalies that were brought to the notice of the government. The service headquarters had reasoned with the ministry that since the armed forces make up for 30 per cent of the government employees, they should have a representative on the committee. But their request was not heeded. Instead, the service chiefs were told their concerns would be addressed without prejudice and with sympathy.

This assurance was taken at face value but when no communication was received from the committee of secretaries, Adm. Sureesh Mehta, in his capacity as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, asked for the details of the decisions taken in the committee. He wanted to see that the armed forces' concerns were adequately taken care of. But the Committee of Secretaries did not deem it fit to respond to the admiral's plea. So when the cabinet approved the amended sixth pay panel report, it was assumed all the pending issues were taken care of. But to the great consternation of the service headquarters, not only were their major grievances not addressed, three more anomalies, indeed, glaring discrepancies, were introduced by the committee of secretaries in the final cabinet notification.

For the armed forces, this was the last straw. This was worse than the aftermath of the 5th pay commission a decade ago when 48 anomalies were pointed out by the armed forces but only eight were resolved over a 10 year period till the 6th Pay Commission was notified!

It took some time for the reality to sink in but when the anomalies were noticed, all the three chiefs decided to take up their case with defence minister AK Antony. After the meeting, Antony was convinced of the logic presented by the three chiefs. So he apparently asked his ministry officials to prepare a detailed note in support of the services' demand to resolve the core issues and send that communication to the Finance Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office for necessary action.

The core issues, the three service chiefs felt, would affect command and control functions in the field especially between the Army and para-military forces and the navy and the coast guard, to cite just two examples. Having taken their case to the defence minister, the three chiefs felt they would at last get justice. Shockingly however, the finance ministry and the PMO were presented a completely diluted case. Left with no other alternative, the chiefs then took up their case with the Prime Minister himself who too agreed that their concerns were genuine and should be resolved favourably. The only catch was: the MoD had not sent the requisite supporting documents!!

In the meantime, neither the Prime Minister nor the Defence minister could meet because of their pre-scheduled foreign visit. That's when the three service chiefs decided that they would delay the implementation of the flawed 6th Pay panel report. And decided to communicate this decision to their men down the chain of command. The internal communication by all three chiefs in fact spoke about the need for not falling prey to rumours and speculation. For instance, the Naval chief's communication dated September 24, said:

"In recent times there have been several speculative media reports and disinformation on the final outcome of the sixth pay commission recommendations. The service headquarters have maintained continuous interaction with all authorities concerned and our concerns have been highlighted at the highest levels time and again.

Whilst some of our concerns have been addressed we have been constrained to delay payment of arrears and new pay scales to officers and men in view of some serious disparities that have been introduced which disturb the extant parities between defence officers and those from other central services as also adversely affect pensionary benefits of pbor. We are in the process of resolving all pending issues and this may take a little longer than we had earlier expected.

Let me assure each one of you that I will spare no effort to bring our genuine concerns to the notice of our country's leadership with the final aim of giving our personnel their rightful due. In the meanwhile I am certain that one and all will display maturity and patience and not be swayed by hearsay or speculative reports from any quarter. Shano Varuna and Jai Hind."

If the above signal, as the communication is called in military parlance, is defiance then no military chief will ever be able to give assurances to and take his men in confidence. Anyone who has dealt with the armed forces will tell you that there is not an iota of truth in the canard that is being spread about the three chiefs "defying" the civil authorities. Yes, they questioned the bureaucracy's attempts to wittingly or unwittingly introduce pay and status disparities between the armed forces and their civilian counterparts. Yes, they took the matter to the Prime Minister but in no way did they defy the government.

The question here is: Does civilian control of the military mean control by civil bureaucrats? Or should it in reality mean that military be subservient to the elected government and by extension to the Parliament and in the larger sense the people of India? This is the question that needs to be debated thoroughly for correct civil-military interaction and cohesiveness in decision-making in spheres of national security in the future.

What the three current chiefs have done is unprecedented in India's short history as an independent nation and therefore a surprise to many. But they have done their uniform proud by standing up for their men, a trait most essential in any leader but an absolute must for a military leader.

Nitin Gokhale
Senior Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, NDTV
In defence of the military

Related Reading:
This is not defiance
Armed Forces gun for the Babus: The Big Chief: Navy Chief lashes out at Indian Express: Why the outcry against Shekar Gupta's column