ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Crisis in the defence services

A chief's right to have his team has to be tempered with equity and justice

Admiral J G Nadkarni (retd)

The controversy regarding the appointment of a principal staff officer at naval headquarters has evoked a great deal of comment from defence analysts and servicemen. Some have seen it as the inevitable result of the perennial confrontation between service headquarters and the defence ministry. Others have gone off a tangent and called for the much-delayed reorganisation of the defence apparatus. Servicemen have seen this as one more example of the machinations of the civil service to put the nation's armed forces in their place.

There are, of course, many complex issues and principles involved here. However, reorganisation of defence headquarters is not one of them. God knows, overhaul of the ministry is long overdue but that is an entirely different matter. The principal issues involved relate to the service Chief's right to recommend appointments and the government's right to approve or reject them. An even more serious issue flows from Naval Headquarters to accept and implement a government order appointing an officer.

Any democracy worth the name incorporates a system of checks and balances, which is incorporated at every level. It is natural for democracies to be constantly on guard for a budding Cromwell or a Napoleon. Another cherished principle is the supremacy of the civilian rulers duly elected by the people.

In the United States, for example, it is the president's prerogative to select his secretaries (ministers), service chiefs, ambassadors and even the Supreme Court judges. Not each appointment is necessarily on merit. Campaign debts have to be returned. Judges may have to be sympathetic to the presidential agenda. There is certainly a great deal of arbitrariness and cronyism. Yet each of the president's appointments can only take place after they have been confirmed by the senate. The hearings for confirmation are public and that august body has thrown out many recommendations, sometimes even without assigning any reasons.

There are many cases of civilian authorities imposing their will on the services. These may even be arbitrary but all have been, albeit grudgingly, accepted by the military. During the Second World War Churchill removed Claude Auchinleck from the command of the British forces in Africa and replaced him with an obscure general called Montgomery. The Auk accepted the humiliation with a typical British stiff upper lip. Macarthur was removed from command by Truman for refusing an order. Although this was an unpopular decision, Macarthur did not go to court or quote chapter and verse from the military act.

In our case some analysts have waxed eloquently about a service chief's right to select his team as he is also the operational commander. In fact, within a service a Chief does exercise his prerogative to select his personal staff. Military assistants and secretaries serve the same senior officer for a number of years. Apparently, only a few can put up with an admiral's idiosyncrasies day in and day out.

There is much to be said for allowing a senior officer to "select his own team" The subordinate must not only have the confidence of his superior but also gauge his mind and intentions of his senior instinctively. In war, where the defeat of the enemy is the only consideration, and where the Chief will be held accountable, this is an absolute necessity.

Not so in peacetime. Many other factors come into play. Understandably, every officer has ambitions to reach the highest rung in the promotion ladder of his service. In that quest he expects justice and fairness from his seniors. A chief's right to have his own team has to be tempered with equity and justice.

Over the years India's armed forces have created an aura about themselves. It is generally believed that some of the ills, which pervade the civilian administration, have not penetrated the services, that everything is efficient, fair and square. This is a myth. Servicemen are human beings and are as susceptible to being persuaded by a bit of sycophancy as their civilian counterparts. It is perfectly possible for a "Chief's team" to consist of meritless sycophants.

One of the more distressing aspects of recent times is the large number of cases filed by officers of the armed forces in various courts. Most of these cases are over promotion or appointments. They are a manifestation of the increasing lack of faith in the fairness and justice of the system.

A fair and just system of promotion and appointments has to be built around well-publicised rules and guidelines. There is little cause for a subordinate to be aggrieved if these rules are strictly followed. The present system in service headquarters lacks both transparency and a rigid adherence to rules.

For many years now the government has tried to persuade service headquarters to frame a set of rules for promotions and appointments at the senior level. The services have always resisted this on the grounds that rigid rules will erode the flexibility, which is necessary for making suitable placements for the benefit of the service. Inevitably, flexibility has also resulted in arbitrariness and cronyism. Due to a failure of communication the subordinate officer perceives any such moves which affect him as injustice.

Personnel management in the armed forces is a complex and sensitive subject. It is very finely balanced with relations between various factors and ingredients in a state of fine equilibrium. No other matter occupies an officer's mind as his career and promotion though the service. By now the system should have been fine turned and the rules widely disseminated. Nothing of the sort has happened. On the other hand, the procedures, priorities and rules are frequently changed on the excuse of 'streamlining the system' and lead to widespread dissatisfaction among those who are affected.

The authorities seem oblivious to the fact that each change or amendment to the rule affects thousands down the line. The government's recent decision to increase the retirement age by two years may have benefited a few but it has brought widespread disappointment to a large number who would have been promoted due to the retirements. The Air Force's sudden decision to give a whopping increase of pay to fighter pilots caused dissatisfaction, leading to a near mutiny among the technical officers.

The present controversy between the Navy and the government is a good opportunity to correct the many anomalies which exist at present in the promotion and appointments systems in the armed forces. Every senior officer who is cleared for promotion to a higher rank should be considered fit for each and every appointment in that rank. If certain appointments in the same rank such as PSOs, corps commanders etc are considered superior to others, then well publicised rules and guidelines must be laid down for those. Once promulgated, any changes at the whim and fancy of a Chief should be forbidden.

Above all, the defence ministry must acknowledge the Chief's right to recommend appointments. The ministry or the government should have the right to approve or reject the service recommendations. In the past the defence ministry has got into the habit of asking for a panel of names for certain appointments. The service headquarters normally overcome this obstruction by forwarding the names of two or three obviously unsuitable candidates along with their main choice. The practice of asking for a panel of names should be avoided as it then makes the defence ministry the selector, a task which by law belongs to the service headquarters.

If the government, for any reason, decides not to approve the Chief's recommendation, it should ask for another name to be submitted until finally a recommendation by the Chief is approved. Neither the Cabinet appointments committee nor the defence ministry can take upon itself the task of making service appointments or promotions.

Above all, Service Headquarters have to set an example by instantly and honestly implementing any government order, however unpalatable it may be. God forbid a service where every order, promotion or appointment becomes a matter of argument and court case.

Admiral J G Nadkarni, (retired), former Chief of the Naval Staff, is a frequent contributor to Rediff On The NeT. This article was written before Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was sacked by the government.

Admiral J G Nadkarni

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature