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

The Rediff Interview/ Rear Admiral (retired) K R Menon

'It is the bureaucrats who are really a millstone around the national security apparatus'

Bhagwat was among the earlier ones to go to court in 1990 to get his promotion. Is it not a case of the chickens coming home to roost?

It could well be. But the point is that Bhagwat felt gravely punished for not having been given the fleet [command] in 1990. And as it happens, Bhagwat has got a brilliant lawyer for a wife. So he took the route of going to the courts.

But having said that, let me also add another point. Just as Bhagwat stood firm today in not having as deputy someone he does not wish to have, so could the then naval chief have stood firm and insisted that he would not give command to Bhagwat. The options were always there.

Is there a way out of this unseemly controversy over the post of deputy naval chief and the habit of going to court?

First, the country must upgrade the perceived importance of posts other than that of the chief. For instance, take the post of commander of the Pacific Fleet [of the US Navy]. If you ask an American armed forces officer whether he'd like to be the Pacific Fleet commander or the naval commander-in-chief, the chances are there will be some who might prefer the former. The Pacific Fleet commander is an operational post, whereas the chief of the navy is not an operations command, it is a housekeeping, administrative job. The C-in-C Pacific is an integrated job with some foreign service officials also working in the command. After retiring, they are posted to other high posts.

Also, the fact that people go to courts and then get the ministry to have a look is because that avenue is open. But in the British system, which we inherited, there is no way that someone from the rank of colonel [the naval equivalent is captain; in the air force, it's group captain] upward would ever go to court. So why does this system exist in India? It exists in no other country.

In other democracies, the promotion up to the rank of two-star [major general, rear admiral, air vice-marshal in India] is done in-house. The promotion to three-star [lieutenant general, vice-admiral, air marshal] is done with the approval of the minister. There is nothing about the government, this vague bureaucratic term that we have. Here, it often means an under-secretary.

In Bhagwat's case, the ACC [appointments committee of the Cabinet] had cleared Harinder Singh for the post of deputy naval chief. So how right was it for Bhagwat to continuously stall the move?

It is not right for the ACC to simply select a man who has not been recommended by the chief. The ACC can turn down a recommendation, but they can't simply select a new person. However, I don't think that is the real issue. The real issue is that Bhagwat stood up to the government.

For instance, [Prime Minister A B] Vajpayee came up with a statement that is so ridiculous. Vajpayee said that Bhagwat has done things that might have endangered national security. I think he is out of his mind! Whatever Bhagwat's other faults, to say that he endangered national security is daft. Then a newspaper reported that Bhagwat leaked out secrets. These are wild and baseless allegations. If he has actually leaked secrets, they are no longer secrets. So let the government say what they are.

But was it necessary for Bhagwat to go in for a head-on clash?

I don't think he went in for a head-on clash. He has just done things that showed the bureaucracy that he was an extremely independent thinker.

What would you say about Bhagwat's reign in Naval Headquarters?

To his credit, Bhagwat has raised the level of national security much higher than it was in the past. For instance, he had so many papers commissioned, such as the oil security of the country, the national strategic defence review, the scholar-warrior concept, etc. These are studies that exist in other countries and in going into such areas, he has shown a certain level of vision. But this kind of vision cannot come about without some level of independent thinking. It seems to me that that's what frightening the bureaucracy.

What you are saying is that the bureaucracy does not want the armed forces to become independent.

Exactly! Even if the chiefs did not conduct any work within their respective armed force, it would run perfectly well, because the system is well built with enough responsibility spread out. So why have chiefs? The chiefs really represent the transactions that exist outside the armed forces, between the armed forces and the government. And that is exactly what Bhagwat has been trying to do. And the bureaucracy does not want that.

Take the navy. The navy operates outside India on the seas. So when we say that any two nations share a sea, we say that they are neighbours, and therefore the navy's canvas is the same as [that of] the ministry of external affairs. So there should be a linkage between the navy and the ministry of external affairs. But the defence ministry bureaucrats will not allow that.

It is the bureaucrats who are really a millstone around the national security apparatus. What Bhagwat has been doing is to ignore the presence of this millstone and get on with his work, and he has been brought down.

Was there anything else Bhagwat could have done?

Bhagwat had no inclination that anything was about to happen. Surely if something so drastic was to happen, the defence minister should have called him for a private meeting, the prime minister could have called him, his supreme commander-in-chief, the President, could have interviewed him. But nothing was done. That is why I say the dismissal was carried out like thieves at night.

Tell us something about Bhagwat.

He is not a person who would stand out socially, because he has taken a deliberate decision that these social attributes distract from serious work. With the result that when you talk of a whole lot of people getting together to have a drink, you will not find Bhagwat in the middle of them. He is very serious, and perhaps laughs less that others. He lives a very modest life, and has transferred his modest and patriotic views to his children. He genuinely believes in the great intellect and patriotism of our early leaders, of whom he really has this thing for Jawaharlal Nehru. He doesn't take too kindly to criticism of Nehru and has even named his son Jawahar. The entire family has this social services streak. That is why all these reports of him leaking secrets is so crazy.

Any negative attributes?

You may criticise Bhagwat for having fought the legal case in 1990 to get his promotion. But in his defence, I can only say that it was just a legal tactic to make the case as unpleasant as possible. Yet, I guess he could have avoided that case. You see, Bhagwat was the senior-most in a certain batch, and if he had not got that operation fleet command, he would not have become chief of naval staff.

Back

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview