Army chief Bipin Rawat should speak more: The nation wants to know Daily O 14 Nov 17
The army had for decades been a ‘holy cow’, untouched by media. It had remained an enigma, ensconced in its cantonments, out of the public eye. It was visible, performed its tasks, was present when required and vanished quietly back into its cantonments. This slowly changed with time. Its exposure in the public domain, involvement in the insurgency in Kashmir and almost always the first responder in any crisis, it is presently the most sought-after institution for the media of the country.
Any news concerning the military is bound to garner space in the press. Even an extramarital affair involving an officer will find space in every newspaper, whereas similar actions of any other service would never be news. News flowing from the standoff in Doklam and presently from operations in Kashmir are always on the front pages.
In many cases, the nation is fed one-sided views until the army issues its version. Its success or losses in operations are informed by simple written statements or an interaction at the local level by those involved. In recent times, events have placed the army in the limelight for the wrong reasons. The Gogoi incident, the army chief’s comments on stone throwers, the buddy system, construction of FOBs in Mumbai and most recently his comments in Coorg, wherein he stated that Field Marshall Cariappa should be awarded the Bharat Ratna, are some examples.
Press conferences, generally conducted by service chiefs, project the military’s view and logic. A recent example was the decision to construct Foot Over Bridges (FOBs) in Mumbai, which post open criticism, was clarified by the army chief, when he stated that the same was being done to enhance the army’s image. Despite a million-strong force, the service chiefs remain their sole media face.
The army chief remains a commentator and politicians target. He has been called a ‘sadak ka goonda’ by a politician and recently advised by Ramachandra Guha, in his article in the Indian Express, to give lesser press interactions. Most commentators are influenced by earlier service chiefs who preferred avoiding the media for their personal reasons, whereas Bipin Rawat is the reverse, willing to break shackles and place the army’s view before the nation, seeking to clear doubts. He has been candid, frank and openly conveyed his decisions, which have irked many.
Being a soldier, he is unmoved by critics who view his comments negatively. Insulting or criticizing the military is easy, as neither the chief nor his service responds, since it remains bound by rules. It is only the veteran community, which may respond, however their words do not represent the official version, yet carry requisite weight.
There are many, columnists and politicians, who would desire that the army remains quiet and accepts criticism thrown its way, like it was in the past. This would open doors to them to hit at the only apolitical and the most revered force in the nation, solely to gain a few brownie points. The national press on the other hand seeks more information as army actions across the nation are always areas of interest to the common Indian.
The army has its own public information department, similar with other services, which largely release statements to members of the press or clarifies rumours or information which may be harmful to national security, before they are published. They rarely give press interviews. Even post the surgical strike, information was given to the nation by means of a statement read out by the Director General Military Operations, who then refused to answer questions, thus creating doubts in the minds of the opposition.
While the navy and air force chiefs have traditionally remained away from the limelight, because of the smaller size and scope of their service, the army chief has been the reverse. Since the army remains the most visible government agency, interviews by the chief are a means of giving an official ring to issues which hog the limelight. There are interviews by others senior functionaries, but these remain limited in scope and content, solely pertaining to their area of operations and are generally side lined by the national electronic media.
The nation becomes aware of larger issues pertaining to the military when the media interacts with service chiefs, who welcome discussion on topics which others avoid. It also provides the press and the nation a balanced view and a military answer, as compared to a one-sided view of the press.
Some statements made by Rawat may hurt a section of society, but are aimed to convey the army’s version. These have no bias to politics, elections or political parties as the armed forces remain apolitical. To give it a political veneer, as Guha has done presently and Thapar and Kanti Bajpai had done earlier, post the Gogoi incident, is exploiting the silence and non-committal approach of the armed forces.
There should be no embargo on service chiefs addressing the media, despite negative comments by some ill-informed commentators like Karan Thapar and Ramachandra Guha. The nation needs to know what the army does, why it does and what it plans to do, as after all the armed forces exist for the nation and have nationalists as its members. It remains the most respected force in the country, despite actions by a section of the government, bureaucracy and political commentators trying to run it down.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army