NOT FOR MOLLYCODDLING - The army chief has embarrassed the nation Cutting Corners - Ashok Mitra

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120210/jsp/opinion/story_15091763.jsp

NOT FOR MOLLYCODDLING - The army chief has embarrassed the nation

Cutting Corners - Ashok Mitra

Their country, Indians take pride in believing, is no Pakistan: it is the world's largest democracy, and is built on the solidest foundations. The president, as ordained by the Constitution, is in overall command of the country's armed services, he functions on the advice of the Union council of ministers. The forces follow the directives of the government as conveyed to them by the ministry of defence; the problems they face are issues that are also dealt with by the ministry. Such has been the format from which no occasion has arisen to deviate. The will of the people is sovereign in a democracy. This will is expressed through decisions reached and acted upon by the government chosen by the people. The armed forces know their place within the democratic framework; they know they have to obey orders and never speak out of turn. The neighbouring countries, right and left, might have meandered afar from what were democratic moorings and succumbed to military takeovers but, notwithstanding other weaknesses afflicting it, India's democratic functioning has not wavered in the 60-odd years since Independence; the defence forces have known where they belong, they are there to carry out the will of the people as expressed through instructions issued by the government. This stable, disciplined arrangement has, however, tended to wobble a wee bit in the past few years. A perceptible decline in the quality of governance may be one underlying factor. A generally ineffective administration loses respect in different quarters. Significant sections of civil and defence personnel, too, presumably develop contempt for thieving politicians who occupy the seats of power in the manner ordinary householders do. The rules of democracy demand that the armed forces must nonetheless continue to toe the line laid down by the political masters elected by the people. One or two bureaucrats or army officers, however, fall victim to the frenzy in the air, go off the track and breach discipline. The government feigns not to take notice which may further embolden the wrong-doers in uniform. Another kind of development is equally conceivable. A situation can emerge where ruling politicians are tempted to use sections of the civil service or this or that army group to further a partisan political purpose. An instance coming to mind is the tacit encouragement accorded to army officers to express their views in public forums on the virtues of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the advisability of the continuance of the ambit of the act over a particular state. On quite a few occasions, the act has been availed of to advance the political objective of the party ruling at the Centre; this has happened in Manipur, Tripura and, more glaringly, Jammu and Kashmir. Where a judgment needs to be reached on a complex matter of national interest by responsible politicians through consultation among themselves, the views of army officers have been given greater weight than what a chief minister of a state has been saying. There have also been stray instances of a serving army general or air marshal talking of threat perceptions from a neighbouring country totally out of alignment with the country's foreign policy. A benign view has been taken of such breaches of manners. It was, therefore, coming. If the administration begins to show the same deference to an army officer as it does to a chief minister or a respected senior politician, the illusion of grandeur is sooner or later bound to grip the army establishment. About the worst has now happened. The present army chief of staff himself has thought it fit and proper to challenge his master and employer, the government of India, in the court of law. This has naturally emerged as big international news and the source of salacious entertainment for inveterate Indiaphobes across the globe. The general in the limelight had entered the army way back in 1970, that is, more than four decades ago. He cannot, therefore, complain of lack of time to sort out with the authorities the reported confusion over his date of birth. He had plenty of opportunities too. Either he did not try enough, or his endeavours did not bear fruit. He did not, however, consider appealing to the judiciary to redress the supposed wrong done to him during all these years. It is only now, when his tenure as army chief is nearly ending, that he has chosen to rush to the nation's highest judiciary to salvage, as he claims, his "honour" and "pride". He did not pause to consider whether upholding his personal dignity should not in all circumstances take a subsidiary place to safeguarding the nation's dignity. Even if he is one hundred per cent sanguine about the rightness of his cause, he has failed to swallow his personal pride and has done something which makes the nation look ridiculous. Can there be a greater honour for a serving officer than appointment as chief of staff of his country's army? Occupying this august post is not a birthright. It is the result of selection. This selection is done by the government on the basis of a set of considerations. Of course the officer's service record comes under scrutiny. What assumes, or ought to assume, far greater weight, though, is the personality of the individual; the breadth of his imagination, his quality of judgment, his awareness of global issues, his understanding of national interests, his sense of discipline and the existence of a moral fibre which will enable him to cope with difficult situations with firmness, but equally with both sobriety and sophistication. Those who chose the incumbent chief of army staff apparently made a misjudgment. The government — and the nation — had bestowed upon the officer the highest position and honour he could aspire to in the service where he belonged. He was accorded the honour of leading the army of the world's largest democracy. This army, one of the most formidable assemblage of fighting men and women, has a reputation for valour and dignity. From time to time it is called upon to lend its personnel to the United Nations for restoring and maintaining peace in countries ravaged by war or any other turbulence. Every moment he fills the position, the general heading the Indian army must be aware of the load of responsibility he carries; he has to uphold not just the highest tradition of the forces he leads, but has also to protect the honour and prestige of the great nation he and his troops belong to. No question, this particular general has let down the nation. By embarking on a legal battle with the government on the relatively trivial issue of his date of birth, he has demonstrated an amazing lack of proportion. He has thereby diminished the dignity of his position and diminished the nation itself. It is the oddest of events in an orderly, disciplined democratic republic for its army chief to be in combat with the country's government. When the head of the armed services does something which detracts from the nation's stature, it can hardly contribute either to his own "honour" or to his own "pride". Since his views are to the contrary, his continuance in the position he holds is untenable. Is it not time a message goes down from the nation to the puffed-up handful in the services who have begun to think too much of themselves? The army chief of staff deserves to be brought down not by a peg or two, but by several. He has disgraced his position and does not deserve to continue in it for one extra day. It is irrelevant whether in the final round he wins or does not win the judicial battle over his date of birth. Even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the nation's highest judiciary decides in his favour, that would merely mean he could stay in the service for an extra period. What position he would hold during this period of extension is for the authorities to decide. The government in New Delhi is currently in a floundering state, it could be inclined to prevent further ruckus over the issue by agreeing to an out-of-court settlement with the general. That would be a grave mistake. What the army chief has done is intensely embarrassing; it could, however, lead to even greater embarrassment if, particularly in the context of the Supreme Court's interim advisory, pressure develops to mollify the general in some manner or other. Giving in to such pressure would do immense harm to the disciplinary framework and have awful implications. The wages of sin may or may not surcease. But surely the wages of gross indiscretion of the kind he has committed should be removal of the general from the post of chief of army staff with immediate effect. The government could name him for a sinecure position where he could spend his residual days in the service enjoying privileges his seniority commands. It is also well within the government's purview to ponder whether, as a further disciplinary measure, one or two stars should not be taken away from the general's epaulette.