Kanwar Sandhu
Adhering to the seniority principle ensures a smooth change-over. However, in the wake of numerous controversies involving the Service Chiefs, either when in service or after retirement, many security analysts suggest that an element of merit should be considered along with the principle of seniority. Many countries, including the USA, follow a system of deep selection.
THE appointment of the new Chief of Army Staff, a process that draws a lot of interest, is still some months away. However, the resignation of Admiral DK Joshi as Chief of Naval Staff at least 18 months before his term was to end has put the government in a quandary: should it follow the seniority principle or dig deeper to select the next Navy Chief? Either way, there is bound to be a debate yet again on the manner of selecting Service Chiefs.
For the appointment of the Army Chief (and likewise for the equivalent in the Navy and Air Force), all seven Army commanders, besides the Vice Chief are considered
The immediate Naval appointment apart, the present system of appointment is based broadly on the principle of seniority among the top-ranking officers, though there is no written ruling to that effect. However, governments have deviated from this practice a few times and, in some cases, supersession and sidestepping of officers invited criticism. This includes the sidestepping of Lt Gen PS Bhagat by giving Gen GG Bewoor one year’s extension. Later, in 1983 when Lt Gen SK Sinha was overlooked to make Gen AS Vaidya the Chief, the move drew wide criticism. However, there have been times when the government invited criticism for ignoring certain officers who clearly stood out professionally. In 1961, for example, many thought that Lt Gen SPP Thorat – and not his senior, Gen PN Thapar – should have been appointed to the coveted post. One wonders, though, if this would have changed the course of the 1962 war with China.
In the Navy and Air Force too, seniority has generally been upheld. However, there have been some supersessions, including that of Air Vice Marshal Shiv Dev Singh by Air Marshal OP Mehra in 1972, of Air Vice Marshal MM Singh by Air Marshal SK Mehra in 1988 and of Vice Admiral Tony Jain by Admiral L Ramdas in 1990. The government of course had an explanation in each case.
In India, while making top-level appointments, two major bodies come into play in India – the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) of which the Prime Minister is the chairman, and the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). In the case of the appointment of Service Chiefs, the file is moved by the Defence Secretary to the Government wherein the service dossiers of the officers being considered are enclosed. The Home Minister and Defence Minister must necessarily be members of the ACC. In the CCS, besides the PM, who is obviously the chairman, its members are ministers of Defence, Finance, Home and External Affairs. Thus for appointment of Service Chiefs, between the two bodies, the Minister of External Affairs is the only addition in the CCS.
Unlike other senior posts, the appointments of the Service Chiefs are the only ones which require prior approval of the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief, before they are announced.
Adhering to the seniority principle ensures a smooth change-over. However, in the wake of numerous controversies involving the Service Chiefs, either when in service or after retirement, many security analysts suggest that an element of merit should be considered along with the principle of seniority. Many countries, including the USA, follow a system of deep selection.