There is no reason why a new service chief should be announced as early as three months before the incumbent’s term ends. Traditions of a peaceful era are simply unhelpful. It is best to shorten the time gap to probably a month
The Election Commission has reportedly sought the opinion of Attorney General GE Vahanvati on a petition of the BJP regarding the announcement of the next Chief of the Army Staff. The BJP wants that the new COAS should be announced after May 16 by the new Government, while this Government is keen to do it now. Incumbent COAS General Bikram Singh retires on July 31.
Proponents of the Army opine that the appointment of the COAS should not be politicised; the line of succession — implying the senior-most officer be appointed three months in advance for a smooth transition — should not be tampered with. While the senior-most officer is lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag, it was feared that the BJP, if it came to power, may side-step him for his politically favoured junior.
In the mostly one-sided heated debate, where few were willing to question the Army’s image of a holy cow, three issues have gone undiscussed: What is the line of successionIJ Why are three months needed for handing/taking overIJ How is the Army getting politicisedIJ To be fair to taxpayers who sustain the 13-lakh strong Army, they have a right to answers beyond the emotional and hollow rhetoric.
There is no Government order that the senior-most officer should be made the service chief. It’s a tradition, and is politically-convenient for three reasons: First, it does not generate controversy. Second, the Government is not required to explain its action, which in turn implies that both the Union Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister should know the officers in contention first hand. And, third, few officers go to court seeking redress.
How fair is this elevation system for an Army Commander who loses out to the top-most post just because he had passed out from the academy some 38 years ago with a wee-bit lesser seniorityIJ What about those better sparks who could not make it to Army Commander because of the dishonourable intent of a COASIJ
When we all desire better civil-military relations, shouldn’t the political leadership (Appointment Committee of Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister) be free to choose the COAS from the list of names given to it by the Defence Ministry, rather than rubber-stamp the name of the senior-most officer sent to itIJ
This will keep all Army Commanders guessing, with each giving his best. Or, the cynic may say that this would lead to political jostling by aspirants at the cost of work. Maybe, but nothing wrong with that either. After all, they all had been found professionally equal, so let the best officer who can work intimately with the political leadership win.
I would argue that rather than the selection to the top post, the entire selection procedures to reach the penultimate rung should be fair and transparent. But it is not. Is it not odd that an Army with 40,000 officers does not have a written promotion policyIJ All it has are innumerable amendments to the (non-existing) promotion policy, which have been inserted by successive COAS to retain control and subjectivity. This has resulted in more and more officers going to courts for redress. The next Government should correct this.
Moreover, as per the Supreme Court order of 2000 (Union of India versus lt Gen RS Kadyan), the Defence Ministry should give a choice of minimum two names to the ACC for selection to each post. For example, in a recent case, lt Gen Ravi Dastane has sought the intervention of the highest court alleging that the sole name of lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag was sent to the ACC for appointment of the next COAS. The Defence Ministry has reportedly responded by saying that it did sift through seven senior-most officers and forwarded the name of the most deserving candidate to the ACC.
This is the problem. The officers’ complaints about their promotion are sent to the grievance cell under the office of the COAS, which ironically has created the discontentment in the first place. The Armed Forces Tribunals, where appointments to senior retired officers are doled out by the Defence Ministry, cannot be expected to question the fairness of the Defence Ministry. Thus, the entire promotion and grievance system is politicised and compromised. This is what needs to be corrected.
The tradition of three months for handing/taking over of the COAS, unfortunately, demeans rather than helps the Army. There have been instances when a service chief has entered office under exceptional circumstances. Gen Shankar Roychoudhary became COAS upon the sudden death of Gen BC Joshi in harness. To my mind, he proved a better chief than most. He is credited with settling the Rashtriya Rifles units which were suddenly raised by his predecessor in large numbers. His book, Officially at Peace, gives an extraordinary insight into defence matters. And, he coined the ‘proxy war’ phrase for Pakistan’s machinations in Jammu & Kashmir. In military terms this meant that the Indian Army needed to secure its external and internal lines of communications simultaneously, transforming the paradigm of land war.
In reality, the three-month period is a ruse which allows a service chief time to curry favour with the powerful bureaucracy to seek employment after superannuation. And of course, he also utilises this period on farewell visits to formations. Meanwhile, the successor does not profit much. He is sought to be inducted into the senior-most position of the system he knows like the back of his hand. Worse, during this period, he does not visit formations as it may steal the thunder of the incumbent doing his rounds; which is why on assuming office he needs many months to settle down in his job as the top operational commander.
This is not all. During the interim period, all COAS-level decisions are left hanging in the air with files pilling up at his desk; the incumbent feels morally obliged not to take firm decisions, while the next COAS has still not sat in the chair. In short, the higher Army organisation comes to a virtual standstill with all senior officers busy seeking appropriate placements.
Is this acceptable when the country faces a no-war-no-peace situation with Pakistan and military uncertainty with ChinaIJ In the present situation, traditions of a peaceful era are simply unhelpful. It is best to shorten the time gap between the incumbent and the successor COAS. Probably, a month should suffice.
(The writer is a former Indian Army officer and now Editor, FORCE, a newsmagazine on national security)