Strengthening Civil Military Relations

Civil control of the military is managed and maintained through the sharing of responsibility for control between civilian leaders and military officers. Specifically, civil authorities are responsible and accountable for some aspects of control and military leaders are responsible and accountable for others. Although some responsibilities for control may merge, they are not fused. The relationship and arrangement of responsibilities are conditioned by a nationally evolved regime of principles, norms, rules, and expectations concerning civil-military relations. Although a Government may be stable for long periods, it can change as basic causal factors such as values, issues, interests, personalities, and threats change. Alterations of rules and decision-making procedures account for the dynamic nature of civil-military relations, while alterations of norms and principles account for conflict in civil-military relations. Differences between states in the sub continent account for the particular national character of civil-military relations, much as like-minded Governments account for cross-cultural similarities in civil-military relations.

The first is that the military must reach out to the civilian world. Given the essentially universal agreement that civilians must control the military, the duty falls upon the military to find ways to talk to civilians, not the other way around. The second is that civilians must articulate a clear vision of what they expect in terms of the military mission. And the final suggestion is that the most practical and effective means of bringing about dialogue and understanding is to be bilateral education, in which both military and civilian elites would jointly attend specialized schools. Such schooling would emphasize military-strategic thinking, Indian history and political philosophy, military ethics, and the proper relationship between civil and military authority.

The increase in diversity among military personnel (all regions, multi lingual, all religions) has essentially strengthened ties between society and the military, especially those ties weakened by caste, language and religion in civil society. The results of wars China War of 1962, Indo Pak wars and JK & NE terrorism which had weakened our Civil Military Relationships now has further deteriorated with the advent of Naxal and Mao terror. This is obvious from news reports and analysis which led to massacre of CRPF Jawans.

Presently the advisers on military affairs to GoI are the IPS and IAS and randomly a few selected Military Strategists. The Military needs to do more to a healthy, sustainable and endurable CMR. The Military should be more Vocal especially now that we have an upgraded "Officer Cadre" after implementation of AVSC recommendations.

Weekly Pentagon Ceremony to honour the war wounded

Friends,
The ceremony described below held at the Pentagon every Friday is worth emulating in South Block, Sena Bhawan and Vayu Bhawan; may be once a month or once a quarter. It will have excellent effect on morale.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen (Retd) PVSM
Signal Officer-in-Chief 1988-91

Friday morning at the Pentagon By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY, McClatchy Newspapers
Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war. Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I’m turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who recently completed a year long tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon. Here’s Lt. Col. Bateman’s account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.
Kindly click link below for the full details of the weekly Pentagon Ceremony to honour the war wounded
Friday Morning at the Pentagon
Friday Morning at the Pentagon

Civil- Military Relationship: Does governance impact this ethical compact?

Are military professionals unaware of their own civic and strategic illiteracy?

One of the most significant issues facing any democracy today, is the current state of civil- military relations. Why should the relationship between the military and society be of such concern to us? There are two principal reasons.

First, the military relationship to civilian authorities and to society more generally lies at the very heart of what democracy is all about. Democracy, Harry Truman suggested, is "based on the conviction that man has the moral and intellectual capacity, as well as the inalienable right, to govern himself with reason and justice." By the same token, what defines the state, Max Weber observed, is government's monopoly of the legitimate possession and use of force. The military is the principal embodiment of state-centered and -controlled violence. Thus, in a form of government where the people are supposed to rule, civilian supremacy over the military is essential; it is an ethical imperative. Where this relationship fails or falters, the very end of government--"the common benefit, protection, and security of the people," rights of citizens violated, massive and wide scale corruption and injustice--the Government stands in jeopardy. Further, Terrorism, Naxalism, Maoism and right wing fundamentalists are pointers and indicators of the degree of of failing/ falling governance.

Second, the three parties to the civil- military relationship--the military, its civilian masters, and the people themselves--are bound to one another by social contract. "The first principle of a civilized state," said Walter Lippmann, "is that power is legitimate only when it is under contract." A social contract is a mutually binding, though a tacit, set of expectations, obligations, and rights. Because it depends on the ability--and, more importantly, the willingness--of the parties involved to live up to their end of the unwritten bargain, it is, in every sense, an ethical compact- a bond.

What do civilian authorities and the people more generally expect of the military as part of this compact?
Operational Competence.
What Military Expects from the Civilian authorities?
Genuine welfare measures for the Jawans and Ex- Servicemen.

Reforms in Governance: Can Corruption End?

Dear Mr Veerappa Moily,

I was very happy to hear on the TV news that the ARC has recommended that civil services will be be judged on their performance. The recommendation is against the ethos of government service which every Indian aspires to join for a life time of security. To my mind the ARC has a potential revolt on its hands. However, being an ex serviceman I think such a result should be risked in the interest of our country.

I am of the opinion that the civil services have been feather bedding themselves during the last 61 years of our independence. It was not so obvious in the earlier years but the greed has increased in direct proportion to immorality of the politicians who have gone about looting the country with both hands. Consequently the civil servants feel empowered to do the same. Now that an IAS officer becomes a joint secretary in 14 years and, due to the new rule he cannot be proceeded, against legally, even if he is caught with his hands in the till. So he can serve over 20 yrs without let or hindrance as the rest of his Cadre will be there to deny or delay permission to prosecute even if found fit to be charged, We have the case of Goswami of Bihar Cadre who was found to have been involved in scam of Rs 17 crores. Same thing has happened in the case of Neerja Yadav and AK Singh ex chief secretaries of UP, and many others. Why shouldn't the civil servants do the same, as the politicians are setting an example like Lalu Yadav, Mayawati, Mulayam Singh, Jayalalitaa et al.

I feel that the British modeled the administration in India on the lines obtaining in Great Britain. A small country with a number of counties being managed centrally, replicated by a similar organisation to manage India's provinces, each one of them equal to or greater,than the entire GB. With our administration in the states taking on new dimensions eg., looking after development, health, roads, electricity and an aggravated law and order situation, the present system is found wanting. As we found recently in our intelligence setup, accountability is defused. When an IAS/IPS does not perform or is not found suitable by the political bosses he pulls all sorts of strings to get out of the state to job at the centre or in a non cadre job. With the result that non performers never get pinned down and the AAM ADMI suffers. The present practise of political bosses picking up an officer from the bottom of the barrel because they like him, and all officers senior to him being promoted under the one below rule, must be stopped. Because in the bargain senior officers have to occupy posts which are tenable by those with lesser service.

The earlier India discards the UK model the better it would be. The country should adopt a model which is working in a country which is closer to our size and has a federal form of govt. I think India should adopt a model like the one in the USA, where the states have a federal form of relationship with the Centre. The states should have their own civil services which are tailored to their size, requirement and finances. Now, when a pay commission award is announced the states cry out that they cannot afford the additional burden. Let the states recruit their own citizens and fix salaries according to their means. Such civil servants will be more accountable and not look over their shoulders for help if they are found wanting in their own jobs. If they are not suitable, they should be turfed out and not become a liability on the state exchequer. Security of a job should be offered only to performers while non-performers should feel the heat.

My other suggestion is that time scale promotions should be avoided. It leaves no incentive to perform above mediocrity. As in business, when there is competition the quality improves and price of a product falls. However, as we saw in our socialist era, without competition the quality was abysmal and the prices high. I am sure some of the states will be able to get better people at lower salaries. It is irrational to have uniform dearness allowance for all the states when the cost of living is quite different in each.

As regards staffing at the centre, it should be based on fitting round pegs in round holes and not that all shapes and sizes should fit all holes. Please get specialists for each department to get the maximum benefit. Imagine an IAS officer in DGCA, an IFS officer in IDPL and an IAS/IPS officer as Tea Commissioner in Australia or the UK. The results can be predicted.

I know I am suggesting a drastic rethinking in the form of administration that we should design for our country, but drastic problems cannot be solved with minor tinkering. The country, which has all the potential of becoming a super power, will be grateful if the ARC does some thinking out of the box.

Lt Gen SK Bahri (Retd)
Additional Reading
Moily panel suggests end to political meddling, babudom
Speed up reforms in governance: General Rodrigues
Sack unfit bureaucrats: Moily panel
Humour: Moily will now ensure bureaucrats they assign for a task are about 50 so they might retire even before they are accountable. LOL! It should be 5 years not 20 YEARS.. thats what i said.. politicians are all the time pulling wool over our eyes... EYEWASH SOCIETY= INDIAN POLITICS.....BUREAUCRACY= BANKRUPTCY OF SOCIETY!

ARC: Civil Servants ploy of passing the buck

New Delhi: Civil servants who do not have a good track record or are found to be incompetent should be dismissed after 20 years in service, India’s Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) has suggested in a report released on Friday. The report entitled Refurbishing of Personnel Administration—released by commission chairman Veerappa Moily—recommends two comprehensive reviews of bureaucrats after they complete 14 and 20 years in service. ARC, set up by the central government, periodically recommends ways to improve public administration. “The first review of 14 years would primarily serve the purpose of intimating to the public servant about his/her strengths and shortcomings for his/her future advancement,” Moily told the media here. “The second review at 20 years would mainly serve to assess the fitness of the officer for his continuation in government service.” ARC’s latest and 10th report also recommends establishing a central civil services authority comprising five members.
More...Officers can get the boot after 20 years: reforms committee

Jaipur: Administrative Reforms Committee chairman Veerappa Moily talks to The Indian Express about the recent Mumbai Terror attack, about police reforms, intelligence failure and poor inter-agency communication.

•In the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks and the number of serial blasts all across the country in the past one year, what is your evaluation of the intelligence gathering in the country?

All intelligence agencies, whether it’s the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) or the Intelligence Bureau (IB) or the state intelligence bureaus, seem to be working in isolation. There is no convergence of intelligence or information at any level. After each terror attack, each agency passes the buck to other when questioned about intelligence failure.
more...RAW, IB pass the buck: Moily

Comment: Bureaucracy can be compared to a dog's curled tail which cannot be straightened unless surgically removed. Administrative Reforms Committee recommendations will remain on paper only as no surgical measures are contemplated to be carried out. There is no Political steam to carry out the reforms! Recommendations made at the behest of dubious Bureaucrats are to be implemented by the same fraternity. The IAS lobby is all too powerful to be reformed. The Nation needs a new form of Governance which will come from the Power of the Youthful Citizens of this Nation. Mumbai Mayhem is a wake up call to all our citizens.

Firing from the other man's shoulder?

Dear Fauji Friends,

Last week Maj Gen Joshi called on me. He was an esteemed instructor during our Degree Course days, and EME officers would remember him as one of our finest engineers. Indeed, he spent most of his time with the DRDO. He was commissioned in Jun 1960 and was in the Eastern sector during the 1962 debacle. He has analyzed the event very systematically, and his study reveals the following :

Pt Nehru, the architect of modern India suffered a severe stroke of depression from which he never quite recovered. He died in May 1964 at the comparatively young age of 73.

VK Krishna Menon was removed from the post of Raksha Mantri for his incorrect assessment of the situation.

Gen Thapar, the COAS was sacked. The careers of Lt Gen Kaul and scores of other military officers took a "U" turn.

A few thousand soldiers died; many more were wounded and some were taken prisoners.

The psyche of the country received a severe blow. It was considered a 'National Shame'

The question he asked me was, "Who was the Defence Secretary? And what was the punishment meted out to him?" I have asked several friends and also surfed the Internet but I am unable to find an answer. In all probability nothing was done to him, because he had no role in this!

Gen Joshi then took this discussion a step further. He observed that during the recent attack on Mumbai, dozens of soldiers and policemen have been killed. The whole nation is shaken. Mr Shivraj Patil has lost his prestigious job. The CM of Maharashtra has been axed and several heads in the government are likely to roll. Can some one tell us as to what action has been taken against the Union Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra? (Thomas tells me that they will all be "promoted" soon though he does not know why).

Having spent many years in and around the South Block, I marvel at the way our government has been structured. The Civil Servants rule the roost. In terms of promotions and status they are ahead of every one else by miles. They are central in the Pay Commission and the Cabinet Secretary is involved in every major decision making process. Yet, when things go wrong, they wash their hands off so clean that one wonders how!

A slightly closer examination reveals the secret. I have figured it out this way:

They never do anything themselves. They always find some one else to be the head, and they know how to reduce him to be a 'figure head'. (In the Pay Commissions, they have a retired Judge). However they place themselves in a spot which has the maximum opportunity to influence matters.

After the event, they never face the Press or the Media. Their role is amorphous.

The senior amongst them rarely sign a letter or order. Our pension letter is signed by a Director, who is not directly recruited IAS officer. Only rarely do you find a paper signed by a Joint Secretary. Officers above that level do not sign any document.

They have a strong association. It protects the interests of its members dutifully and diligently.

So we have our Defence headquarters in which the postings, promotions, rewards and punishments of all senior officers are controlled by the civil servants; and they also have the final say in the process of procurement of weapons and eqpt, but they are not "responsible" if things go wrong! It is authority without responsibility. (For those who may not know, a lowly officer in the MoD can have a Deputy Chief posted out, but a Service Chief can not get even a Desk Officer moved)

When Gen Joshi left, I found myself perplexed. What sort of system have we evolved? And how has it survived all these years? It is a bit like a unit in which the clerks are running the unit and the CO is so dependent on the Head Clerk that he can not move without their help!

Can someone give a cogent answer to the questions raised by Gen Joshi?

Regards,
Maj Gen Surjit Singh (Retd)

PS: Politicians wear the dress of the people they represent, to identify themselves with the masses. Soldiers and Policemen wear uniforms. Can some one tell what the Civil Servants wear? The answer came from the wag who said, "Civil servants wear thick skins".
IAS lobby Protects corrupt officials:
Bihar flood scam: Govt reinstates ailing IAS officer
The crumbling steel-frame of bureaucracy
Military, Bureaucracy and Political Leadership: Lessons
Public Accountability

Height of Prophesy
Winston Churchill had the following outburst on the eve of independence of India...
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles".

It has proven to be even worse than his prediction. May we, the people unite and start taking those rascals and rogues to task...
Jai Hind!
Col RP Chaturvedi (Retd)

Retired general chosen Veterans Affairs minister in Obama cabinet
US president-elect Barack Obama has chosen retired general Eric K Shinseki to be the next Veterans Affairs secretary, turning to a former Army chief of staff once vilified by the Bush administration for questioning its Iraq war strategy.

Shinseki is a recipient of two Purple Hearts for life-threatening injuries in Vietnam.

Upon leaving his post in June 2003, Shinseki in his farewell speech sternly warned against arrogance in leadership.

"You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader," he said. "You can certainly command without that sense of commitment, but you cannot lead without it. And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often filled with mistrust and arrogance."

Shinseki also left with the warning: "Beware a 12-division strategy for a 10-division army".
Rumsfeld nemesis named in Obama Cabinet

Question: Can we not have an Ex- Serviceman or Soldier to head the ESM Welfare Deptt in the MoD? Do civil servants have the competence to comprehend the burning issues beseeching the ESM fraternity?

Contradiction in Accountability: Armed Forces, Civil Servants and Politicians

Army act 1951 Section 34 (k) stipulates that any person subject to the act is punishable by death for sleeping on his post when detailed as a sentry during war. Similarly, under section 36 (c) of the same Act, on active service he is punishable upto 14 years of imprisonment.

The question arises what punishment does a politician or a civil servant get for neglecting to protect the people or property of the nation. Is simply resigning the ministry by a politician or transfer of a civil servant sufficient?

IT IS HIGH TIME FOR EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN TO ASK THE POLITICIANS AND THE CIVIL SERVANTS TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ACTION OR INACTION BEFORE THE NATION GOES FURTHER DOWN THE DRAIN!

Rajinder Modgil, citizen veteran

Comment: The need of the hour is to enforce the RTI Act. The civil servants wield power in the secrecy of their work they perform, which really is Power of Arrogance. They are not accountable to anyone. Citizens need to be proactive and ensure the tax payers money is well spent in employing a civil servant.

Why this bias against the Army?

Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw with his troops
Recently an inspired news- item appeared in the Press (obviously at the instance of the IAS bureaucracy) ridiculing the Service Chiefs’ claim not to deflate the parity of the Army officials vis-a-vis the civil servants. The Army’s request is more than genuine. One fails to understand the IAS lobby’s blatant partisanship. The late Cabinet Secretary Nirmal Mukerjee, one of the best of the lot, described the IAS as an anachronism in post- 1947 Independent India and recommended its abolition and substitution by expert technocrats as in the rest of the world.

I am surprised at the bureaucracy’s partisan, one- sided criticism of the Army. It ignores the harsh reality like the non- family period being half of their service period. This partiality may be due to what is called in journalist jargon “ debt to repay” for some special scoop having been passed on to the paper (nothing wrong of course in a free Press — the only objection is why make the Army the whipping boy).

It is still more surprising that the Army’s case is being deflated deliberately by ignoring the shocking facts disclosed, namely that all DGPs (which are state-related posts) are placed above the Lieutenant General. By what reasoning is the demand to put the Generals in the same grade as the civilian DGP described as spurious?

More serious, Lieutenant Colonel had earlier the same pay as IAS Director (an officer between Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary). But the revised scale now gives IAS Director Rs 14,000 more and even a non-IAS Director Rs 11,000 more than Lieutenant-Colonel.

Is the Army demand to keep the parity as earlier fanciful? Will the government have a second look at the claim of the Army which has genuineness written all over? Let us not forget that in our feudal setup, hierarchy sometimes carries more weight. That is why sometimes a Deputy Secretary would carry more clout than a university professor. Will the Centre ignore the babus and give the Army its well deserved pay and rank?

Justice RAJINDAR SACHAR (Retd), New Delhi
Why this bias against the Army?

Indeed, for a soldier, it’s not money alone but izzat that counts and which spurs him to face the enemy’s bullet! Amazingly, soldiery that was always held in high esteem in India has been downgraded. This despite an acute shortage of 13,000 defence officers in the past 10 years! Ironically, no politician or bureaucrat has ever thought about this and its consequences on national security.

For the armed forces to retain their traditional values of devotion and sacrifice, the Centre should restore their dignity and rank and look after their interests properly. When confronted with a similar situation, Second World War veteran Gen Omar Bradley of the US Army aptly said: “Inferior inducements bring second-rate men. Second-rate men bring second-best security. In war, there is no prize for the runner-up.”

Brig Govind Singh Khimta (Retd)