India, Pakistan and a tale of two army chiefs The Wire 06 Jan 17
General Bajwa assumed the mantle of army chief of Pakistan in end November, while General Bipin Rawat took command of the Indian army last weekend. General Rawat was commissioned in 1978, while General Bajwa in 80. Both had served almost simultaneously in the same mission in Congo, the difference being that General Rawat commanded the North Kivu Brigade and General Bajwa the South Kivu Brigade. The force commander was an ex- Indian army chief, General Bikram Singh. Both are from the infantry. While General Bajwa superseded four generals to assume his chair, General Rawat superseded two. This is possibly where the similarity ends. Both have very different roles and challenges ahead.
The Indian army is the world’s largest volunteer army and in strength, the third largest, while Pakistan’s is the sixth. In Pakistan, the army chief is the most powerful individual in the nation. Though appointed by the prime minister, he soon assumes more power than the prime minister himself and has at times overthrown the same individual who appointed him. He was chosen basically because of his views on supporting civilian governments. His professionalism and capability came secondary. General Rawat was chosen solely for his professionalism, capability and experience of having served in every sector, rather than his approach to democracy. He would remain away from politics and have no role in national decision making.
The Indian army controls the Assam Rifles, the sole para-military force in the nation. All other central forces are directly under the home ministry, some of whom, may be under the army for operational control only, when deployed along the borders. Other than the Assam Rifles (officered by the army), each has its own cadre. The Pak army on the other hand controls every para-military force in the country. Therefore, it wields complete power, as every armed force is under its command. Hence, directly or indirectly it is responsible for restoring order during civil unrest. This control gives the Pak army chief his power and the capability to launch coups.
The Pak army chief is the sole authority to decide the nation’s foreign policy towards India and Afghanistan, as also national security. It is his ISI which controls terror groups, who would up or lower the ante, against India and Afghanistan, based on his directions. He would take the final call on the ongoing policy of ‘bleeding India by a thousand cuts.’ His counterpart in India has no such authority. He has no link with national intelligence agencies including the RAW, as they report directly to the NSA. He can only strategically plan for defeating Pak’s designs in J and K and ensuring the LoC remains secure and inviolable.
In case of any war like scenario, the power to control the nuclear button in India is with the prime minister and the cabinet. The Strategic Forces Command (SFC), which controls all nuclear assets, functions directly under the PMO. General Rawat has no role to play in this regard. In Pakistan, it is General Bajwa, who would take a call on whether the nuclear card is to be employed and at what level. The civil government has no role or responsibility.
General Rawat inherits a secular army where religion and caste has no place. The basic document of the soldier has no mention of caste and all members of a unit celebrate every religious event together. The Indian army does not preach hatred towards Pakistan and a soldier is only drilled into doing his duty for the mother-land. Bajwa on the other hand inherits an army, whose sole purpose for survival is re-obtaining Kashmir. The army is taught to hate India. Further religious minorities have no place in their army. It is an army based on religious fundamentalism, which is difficult to change. This impacts any civil government decision to commence peace talks.
In India, any decision taken by the government involving the army is termed as politicizing the army, as has happened in the case of appointing Bipin Rawat as the new chief or seeking credit for surgical strikes. In Pak, it is the army, which at times, is called to broker peace between warring political parties. The army can alter politics in Pakistan, whereas the government can politicize the army in India.
While the Indian army backed by a sound economy has after a considerable time commenced modernization, its demand for a reasonable share of the budget for upgradation has never been met. The Pakistan army on the other hand can demand and get. However, a poor economy places severe restrictions on its modernization, compelling it to back on largesse from China and the US.
The Indian army is presently battling insurgency in J and K and the North East. It has two active borders to defend, both neighbours being hostile. Pak on the other hand, is responsible for activating the Indian border and the J and K insurgency, while employing a major part of its force to battle freedom struggles in different parts of the country. Further, with a militarily weak nation like Afghanistan on one border, it has only one active border to protect.
The Indian army has suffered in status, pay and allowances at the hands of the polity and bureaucracy. It has yet to gain the benefits of the pay commission. Even its allowances and status has been lowered to the level of central police forces, way below the bureaucracy and IPS. The Pak army demands and gets its increments. Every other government service is below the army in standing and stature. It reigns supreme in Pakistan. In retaliation to the killing of an army major, the Pak army demolished a business centre in Wana, South Waziristan.
General Rawat would continue to follow his predecessor in handling problems faced by veterans including OROP and their rehabilitation. The Pak army welfare foundations, on the other hand, control thousands of business ventures in the country, ranging from petrol pumps to industrial plants with a turnover of over twenty billion dollars. It re-employs its soldiers and officers into plum posts in its internal ventures. Their army chief heads their army welfare foundation.
In summary, both chiefs face entirely opposite scenarios. While one controls the polity, the other is controlled by it, while one has complete freedom to function, the other is hemmed in by politicians and bureaucracy and while one is the most powerful individual in the country and essential for approving foreign policy and security issues, the other is kept away from decision making. This is the difference between a near military state Pakistan, as compared to a democratic one, India.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army