Don’t politicize Army Chiefs appointment, or run down the record of those superseded The Wire 19 Dec 16
The government announced the nomination of Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat as the new army chief on Saturday. He will assume his appointment on the evening of 31st December, when the present chief, General Dalbir Singh retires. Discussions have since dominated every form of media on the impact of this announcement. While there has been no word on the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), however with this announcement two officers, senior to the new army chief would now resign, as has been the norm, if a CDS is not announced. They are not compelled to, but service customs dictate they retire prior to General Rawat assuming his appointment. As a courtesy, he would have spoken to them and requested them to continue. The opposition has been critical of the announcement, claiming the government must give its reasons for superseding two seniors.
There could be multiple reasons for the government to select Rawat ahead of his superiors, some of which have been raised in the media. His operational service profile and experience of serving and commanding in all operational sectors of the country has been stated as one of the major reasons. Another claim is his present appointment of Vice Chief and proximity to those in power. These reasons are only partially correct. Much more would have been at stake before the government took the decision.
The seniority principle is not followed in most countries around the globe for varying reasons. It is ignored in the US, France, Germany, China, Pakistan and many more. It remains the norm in Britain, where due to a small army, there are very few contenders for the top post. In India, officially the government is at liberty to choose an army chief from the collegium comprising of three senior most serving Lieutenant Generals. Rawat was third in seniority in the list. Bypassing seniors for the post of the chief already has a precedence. However, in earlier cases only one was bypassed, not two, as at present.
The government need not broadcast its reasons for its selection. The committee which finalizes the appointment does so, based on inputs and would have sound reasons for its decision. In the past, government’s played safe as also wanted to avoid unnecessary controversies. Further, there was minimum interaction between the political leaders and military brass, as against the present, when the PM himself meets all chief’s at least once a month. In previous supersession cases, especially where it concerned the army, there was a strong prime minister in the chair. Both earlier cases were under Indira Gandhi. The government was correctly expecting the opposition to jump onto the bandwagon, post its announcement, hence delayed it till the conclusion of the parliament session. Parliament was adjourned Sine Die on 16th, the announcement was made on the 17th.
Arm, service and operational experience matter little, in such selections. Post commanding a corps, the only aspect which enables an officer to become a member of the collegium to be considered for chief, is command of an army, for which date of birth or age is the only governing factor. There have been chiefs with even lesser operational experience than those superseded. In addition, all in contention are capable, qualified and equally competent. That is the reason they have risen to this level. Any weaknesses or flaws in their functioning would have seen them being superseded in earlier ranks. The statement that the other officers possessed lesser operational experience, as a major reason, is too far- fetched. The chief is responsible for coordination and allocation of resources. He directly does not direct operations. Operations are conducted and controlled at the level of army commanders and below. Hence service in every operational area is not essential. Inputs of each area would soon be available to him by his visits and briefing.
Service chiefs basically operate at the national strategic level of management of security. The overall responsibility is of the apex political body, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), with whom the chiefs closely interact. This body is directly involved with the selection of service chiefs. At this level selection based solely on seniority, which at the top level is impacted by ‘date of birth’ may not be completely justified. Decision is more likely to be based on ‘relative ease of working’ rather than just seniority. Relative ease implies certain qualities which are essential at that level, especially when the government is following a pro-active and a strong foreign policy, mainly against our immediate neighbours. The qualities include risk taking profile, decisiveness, tolerance of complexity, tolerance of ambiguity and synergy with other stake holders at that level. In simple terms, it is mutual understanding and commonality on thoughts and operational issues.
Solely following the seniority principle has at times caused damage to the system. From the time, General Dalbir assumed the mantle, his next to next successor was already being announced in the media. Such predictability leads to officers, solely on age criteria, assessing their chances and working towards the top post. It brings in a culture of playing safe and avoiding rocking the boat. This negatively impacts the army. Occasionally there should be a break from the standard.
While I do sympathise with those superseded, even knowing both well, however, the decision of the government must be accepted in a democracy. Arm chair strategists and politicians should avoid criticizing the government solely differentiating based on arm or service or even religious lines. There is no reason to politicize the appointment, as those who selected the present chief, would work closely with him, especially when the nation battles threats on both borders. It makes sense to strengthen the chief’s hands now that he is appointed, rather than criticizing a decision which is within the purview of the government.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army