http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151008/jsp/opinion/story_46659.jsp#.VhXwZvmUdO0
Brijesh D. Jayal
It is rarely that the ministry of defence in South Block hosts a press briefing by the defence minister. So when one such briefing was announced, one anticipated that the mandarins were all set to put their best foot forward and close one deeply unfortunate chapter in a frayed civil-military relationship. A chapter that opened in 1973, when the armed forces' pay and pensions were lowered and those of their civil counterparts increased, thus setting the trend for a progressive decline in their relative status. The origins of this chapter go back to the early years of independence itself, when the prime minister even wondered whether the armed forces would be needed.
The present low in the history of civil-military relations has its origins in the unfulfilled promises made by successive administrations to deliver on the principle of 'one rank one pension'. Why patience snapped this time is difficult to say, but the unfortunate outcome was that a significant section of veterans decided to follow the example of unions and activists and set up camp at Jantar Mantar, Delhi. It goes without saying that this decision was driven by an uncaring political executive that had for four decades systematically downgraded the armed forces both in pay and status and then ignored more recent signals of appeal and the returning of medals to the president. When successive supreme commanders chose not to meet veterans' delegations surrendering medals, the die was truly cast.
The entire world now watches the spectacle of veteran soldiers of the largest democracy on the streets. Just when one thought that civil-military relations had hit rock bottom, we beheld the unholy sight of the police attempting to forcibly evict veterans. To a society used to taking its armed forces for granted, to a Parliament that takes little interest and to a polity that has outsourced the task of handling the armed forces to the bureaucracy, this minor episode may be just an irritant. But to those for whom izzat or honour is more precious than life, this one image has left a deep scar.
During the nearly three months that this unholy spectacle has been allowed to fester, the veteran leadership has begun to appear louder, shriller and, regrettably, more inflexible. Viewers have been told that it is not about money but izzat, about wars fought and sacrifices made. To see distinguished veterans pleading to be treated with honour is deeply saddening, since honour is in our hearts and not displayed on the sleeves and, more importantly, can never be asked for. The reality is that not many people really care and by sounding like budding netas, the veteran leadership is hurting its own cause and, by extension, of the armymen still serving. They need to pause and reflect.
With this backdrop, it is not surprising that the entire nation looked forward to the defence minister's press meet. The likely outcome of what the minister would have to say had already been dissected threadbare in television studios the previous day. With the leaders of veterans who had met the minister in an upbeat mood, one had hoped that curtains would be drawn on the most unfortunate period of civil-military relations in independent India's history. When the minister, accompanied by the three service chiefs, the minister of state for defence and the defence secretary entered the room, there were huge expectations. Lakhs of concerned veterans and widows were no doubt glued to their television screens. It was understandable that the defence minister chose to read from a prepared text and not field questions as the subject is complex and can lead to unnecessary misinterpretations.
Personally, this writer wishes that the defence minister had avoided mention of the previous government as this would have kept politics out of a subject that is of vital significance not just to the civil-military relationship but also to the security of the nation. Politics would have then been kept away from the hallowed precincts of South Block. But that was not to be. His statement that personnel who voluntarily retire will not be covered under the Orop scheme came as a bolt from the blue. It sent shock waves through a large community of pensioners who stand to lose much. In fairness, it has to be noted that the defence minister did mention that the injured and the disabled would be exempt and the details of the arrangement will follow. But this was no consolation to the veterans and widows adversely affected. One was taken aback at the cavalier manner in which this vital issue was touched upon, leading to the impression that either the MoD was being too clever by half or simply did not care.
Within minutes of this statement, this writer received calls from two widows who expressed their deep anxiety. Not surprisingly, the same disapproval echoed from the Jantar Mantar. By evening, representatives of the veterans had met the defence minister. They were assured that the voluntary retirement scheme was indeed not applicable to the defence personnel and it was left to the prime minister to issue a clarification at a rally in Faridabad the next day to calm the frayed nerves at Jantar Mantar. One unguarded and casual moment had robbed the occasion from being a historic gesture to the veterans, leading one to wonder if the nation's survival in a nuclear neighbourhood was in safe hands.
That politics took over was evident when the principal Opposition party lost no time in responding with a press conference led by none other than a former defence minister, whose long tenure will be remembered for indecisiveness. There was another erstwhile minister, famous for his "zero loss" claim in the Spectrum scam. This merely shows that even issues affecting national security and the morale of the armed forces are fair game in political one-upmanship.
If there is one silver lining in the entire Orop saga, it is that for the first time there is greater awareness about the armed forces in civil society and many want to learn more. In a study on suicides in the army of the United States of America (a phenomenon seriously plaguing our own), the authors George Mastroianni and Wilbur Scott make the point that civilian control over the military means that each member of society is ultimately responsible for what happens to its military members. They conclude that not asking questions that may yield uncomfortable answers would amount to breaking faith with those who have sacrificed immeasurably more in our name. So today if many Indian citizens are asking questions and seeking answers, this is a welcome change and we owe it to them to provide some uncomfortable answers. A historical background is hence in order to put the present context within the larger perspective of civil-military relations in the country.
It was the towering personality of India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, that set the stage for civil-military relations in India as they have evolved. Srinath Raghavan in a paper titled,"Soldiers, Statesmen and Strategy", states that this relationship was shaped by Nehru's understanding of the pernicious effects of militarism in Europe and Japan. The humiliation that the Indian armed forces suffered in the 1962 conflict with China was the result of political interference in military matters, the high-handedness of the bureaucracy with no domain knowledge and the co-opting of ambitious senior commanders into a political game plan. Yet we learn from Neville Maxwell's book, India's China War that after this, Nehru, in his letter to Bertrand Russell, still refers to "the danger of the military mentality spreading in India and the power of the Army increasing." Even a national military humiliation did not move a statesman of Nehru's stature enough to appreciate the damage being caused to national security by the trust deficit in civil-military relations that was being promoted by a political executive fearful of an imaginary overbearing military. This speaks of the deep-rooted schism that we see in civil-military relations today.
In the weeks preceding these unfortunate happenings, nations inimical to our security were not just watching, but also drawing their own conclusions. China celebrated the 70th anniversary of its victory over Japan by holding an unprecedented military parade where their latest and most sophisticated weapons systems and arsenal of nuclear ballistic missile capability were on display. This was aimed to convey a message to neighbours, the US and other world powers.
Pakistan's defence minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, perhaps enjoying the spectacle playing out at Jantar Mantar, could not resist the temptation of warning that the option of using nuclear weapons was always open to Pakistan and then following this some weeks later by saying that Pakistan was ready for a short or long conflict and will inflict heavy losses on India. The Pakistan army chief followed this up by stating that Kashmir was Pakistan's unfinished agenda.
What we see today is the pent-up frustration of the armed forces that has built up over the decades. What could pass unnoticed in the past is no longer possible in today's information age, and the warts are beginning to show. The above-mentioned instances also show that India's adversaries are drawing their own conclusions. So where do we go from here?
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, member of the Rajya Sabha, through his sustained work over nine years in Parliament and with different governments, has majorly contributed to the historic success that the veterans have today achieved. His suggestion that the veteran leadership now choose a path of discussion, and not confrontation, needs to be heard with great respect. But the civil society and the government of India have to question why a vibrant democracy with a thoroughly professional and apolitical military has ended up with a completely shattered civil-military relationship. To them, one can only repeat an appeal that has been made many a time in these columns - that of setting up a blue ribbon commission to look at the entire spectrum of this challenging subject so that the largest democracy can set an example for others to follow.
The author is a retired air marshal of the Indian Air Forc
No comments:
Post a Comment