Politicization of the Indian army The Excelsior 22 Jun 17
Newspapers and online news portals are packed with articles condemning the army and its chief for its recent actions in Kashmir. The common Indian may disagree with the criticism, as an unofficial online poll on the Gogoi incident proved, yet there seems to be no end to army bashing. The chief’s unstinted support of the officer resulted in him being compared to General Dyer, criticized by opposition politicians including Prakash Karat who termed the army as being politicized and toeing the government line. The limit was when Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit called the army chief, ‘sadak ka goonda’.
To bring an end to the Gogoi controversy, the army permitted the officer being maligned to explain his side of the story. This was the first time in India’s history that such an action was resorted to. Politicians, critics and media claimed this was unwarranted and undertaken at the behest of a government seeking political mileage increasing politicization of the army.
Recent counter strikes undertaken by the army, including the surgical strike and destruction of Pak posts, were projected in public domain. This was the first time that the army openly announced its offensive actions to the nation, including sharing videos. it was resorted to, because the government was being criticized for inaction post the terror attack on Uri and the beheading of two soldiers. The army released details in the public domain basically because it was responsible and the government felt that an army statement would carry more authenticity and be better accepted by the public. It led to a hue and cry by the opposition, wherein some politicians and doubting Thomas’s went to the extent of claiming proof of the strike. Most termed it as increasing politicization of the army by the present government.
Before discussing politicization of the army, its role and task at the national level must be clear. The President is the supreme commander of the armed forces, not the head of any political party or alliance in power, including the Prime Minister. The forces serve the nation, in other words its constitution, implying it is subservient to the government in power, irrespective of the government’s ideology or leaning. It has no role in government decision making nor interferes with its functioning. It only advices on military matters, for which it is the sole authority. Hence, it functions under the governments directions and guidelines, its strategy being derived from the government’s. The service chiefs are appointed by the government and continue serving even with a change in government, since they are not political appointees, as is the case with governors of state or heads of other regulatory bodies. This aspect gives it an apolitical stature.
On the other hand, politicization of the army would imply its hierarchy making political statements supporting or questioning the governments political decisions. Pakistan is a clear case of a politicized army. Its head of Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) openly tweets the army’s objections to a direction issued by their PMO. In India, it is the government which tasks the military, at times in political tasks, which the military performs, examples being the Yoga day or laying structures for the art of living mega show in Delhi. Some would term it as politicization, the army would term it as a task given, carried out and forgotten. Rejecting or commenting on the same by military hierarchy could be termed as politicization, an action it clearly avoids. Serving individuals can and do project their views on politics and political parties on social media, however these are individual views and not of the service or its hierarchy.
Articles are galore as are statements in television discussions, that the army is increasingly being brought into media glare, which would be detrimental to democracy. The fact remains that the army stems from the same Indian society. Its officers and men are from across the nation and every walk of life. They and their families read the same newspapers, watch the same channels and hence morale is affected by false criticism and accusations, especially when their leadership is questioned. They are neither gods nor angels descended from heaven. They are humans, who love and care for their families, have come to do a task and not become cannon fodder, like the militants they battle.
The present Chief is more straight forward than his predecessors, hence would be open and direct. He has stated and rightly so, that the army operates in conjunction with and is responsible to the government and majority Indians, who are not air conditioned and armchair based critics.
The army is changing its methodology of conveying its actions and reactions to the nation which some may term as being at the behest of the government. Further, such actions also have a strategic aim. Successful operations against Pak announced in public domain impact the morale and internal standing of their army.
In the present context, especially facing trying times in Kashmir, the army is compelled to react to accusations. It cannot sit quietly and lump all that is thrown in its direction by arm chair critics and self-serving political non-entities, who resort to army bashing, solely to seek a few minutes of limelight, in the terminal phase of their fading career. Their negative comments are exploited in militancy affected areas to induce innocents to take up arms. It must support its personnel who risk life and limb daily, while seeking to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities of working in conjunction with the governments strategic objectives.
In fact, politicization flows from criticism and adverse comments by politicians and media houses, compelling the army to lear the air, ultimately leading to unnecessary debates. Politicians, ignorant of army functioning, question its actions, condemn its sincerity, doubt its integrity and insult its leadership forcing the government to react, bringing the army into focus, an avoidable action. Veterans, who support the service, openly clash in debates and comments with critics and opposing politicians, only increasing media glare on the forces. This is politicization.
Despite all criticism, the army continues its task of restoring order in troubled areas, ensuring national security, creating conducive environment for peace, without any political intention or aim. It is an organ of the government, hence functions under the government. It neither seeks publicity nor political mileage as it has no role in national decision making or governance. However, continued criticism would bring forth reactions.
If the army is left alone, it stays away from the media, except when it has an announcement to make. When insulted, questioned or criticized, it comes into limelight and response flows from the government, veterans and the chief. Hence those claiming politicization and increased media glare need to look inwards and analyse their own actions. They would then realize that they who speak of politicization are the ones who are politicizing.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army