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

Experts blame Fernandes for Bhagwat fiasco

Amberish K Diwanji in New Delhi

History is replete with civilian-military conflicts. American President Harry Truman sacked the flamboyant General Douglas MacArthur, who had been supreme commander of the Allied forces in the Pacific theatre in World War II, during the Korean crisis in 1951. Earlier, Soviet war hero Marshal Georgi Zhukov was retired by Stalin who was fearful of his popularity after the war.

But yesterday's dismissal of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was the first time something like this had happened in independent India.

Bhagwat's predecessor, Admiral (retired) V S Shekhavat, regretted that the entire episode was allowed to go out of hand. "It could have been handled better by all concerned: the government and Naval Headquarters. The problem could and should have been sorted out much earlier," he said.

"If there is one person who must be blamed for allowing the crisis to escalate, it is Defence Minister George Fernandes," said a defence analyst. "Fernandes is morally responsible for the fiasco and should resign. After all, years ago Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as railway minister following an accident. But I doubt Fernandes will do that."

A former army officer too felt there should have been a discussion between South Block and Naval Headquarters. "Sacking [an admiral] is too drastic a step; surely a via media could have been found in what was basically a procedural matter. We all agree that civilian power is supreme, but in this case Bhagwat was not posing a threat to the country or the Constitution," he said.

The defence analyst pointed out that in the past too there have been major differences between the armed forces and the civilian leadership. "General K S Thimayya resigned when his advice was not followed [then prime minister Nehru refused to accept the resignation]; there were also problems between [General, later Field Marshal, K M] Cariappa and the political leadership. But this is the first time matters have come to such a pass."

Bhagwat had been demanding a restructuring of the defence ministry. He had openly said that while the defence forces accept their political masters, they are unhappy with the interference of the bureaucracy.

Shekhavat agreed about the need to recast the defence-civilian set-up. "In all democracies, defence is under the politicians, not the bureaucrats. Why should India be any different?" he asked. It is relevant to note that Secretary Ajit Kumar was also shunted out of the defence ministry yesterday.

The former army officer pointed out that the Arun Singh Committee had looked into the question of civilian-military relations and suggested an integration of the two. "That the defence ministry needs to be restructured is well-known. The tragedy is that we have the answers to the questions, but nothing is being done to implement them," he said.

The defence analyst said the focus now must be on evolving a system for better co-ordination between defence, political, and bureaucratic personnel so that such events are not repeated. "The current crisis clearly shows that we can no longer ignore the growing differences between the military and the civilian classes. There must be some modifications sooner than later."

He was sure the new dispensation in the three services would look into the matter. While Admiral Sushil Kumar succeeded Bhagwat yesterday, Air Chief Marshal A Y Tipnis took over as chief of air staff from ACM S K Sareen. Both men have their work cut out in terms of cleaning up the mess within their respective organisations and working out a new equation with South Block.

Admiral Shekhavat dismissed news reports that spoke of the defence chiefs feeling neglected or taken for granted. "As chief of naval staff, I had no difficulty with my political bosses," he said. "Similarly, though we all have our differences and varying perceptions, I don't think defence is particularly peeved with the civilian side."

He insisted there were no problems with the civilian officers, just an occasional case here and there. Admiral Shekhavat said such reports come out of misinformation and from reporters who are not sufficiently close to the armed forces. "Certainly some people may have more differences and some will have less, but overall I don't think it is something that sitting down and talking cannot resolve. Let us always remember that men in such high positions are all very capable and intelligent individuals, with their own views."

The defence analyst felt that after the current crisis, all sides would be cautious and work toward greater co-ordination. "Perhaps the dismissal will be the catalyst to restructure the civilian-defence set-up," he said.

He also insisted that the events of the last few days would have no bearing on the preparedness of the defence forces: "Today we have in place a stable system that can absorb such shocks and upheavals. The sacking concerns only an individual, and his successor is already in place. So on that count, let there be no worry about anyone taking advantage of our problems."

He said the average sailor or officer on the high seas or in the coastal bases would not be affected deeply by the dismissal. "This is big news, but it has an impact only in Delhi; the men on the ships remain busy with their work."

Admiral Shekhavat agreed. "An individual replacement like this, even at the highest level, will have no effect on our defence preparedness."

Tell us what you think of this report