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

Service HQ to be integrated into defence ministry

Amberish K Diwanji in New Delhi

Defence Minister George Fernandes has declared that before the end of the month, the service headquarters will be integrated into the defence ministry. In layman terms, this means the military establishment will be part of the defence ministry and be far more closely linked with the decision-making process.

Many believe that one reason why Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was shown the door is that he was a bit too keen to ensure that the defence services could bypass the bureaucrats and speak to the defence minister directly. Admiral Bhagwat had stated that he accepted political supremacy over the defence forces, not bureaucratic supremacy.

The idea to integrate the armed forces headquarters with the defence ministry was first mooted way back in 1967 when two administrative reforms committees -- the Ali Yavar Jung and the Mishra panels -- said the service headquarters should be integrated into the ministry. In the 1980s, the Arun Singh Committee once more asked the government to integrate the services headquarters with the ministry of defence, but to no avail. However, interest picked up when Fernandes mentioned it during his address to the commanders conference soon after taking office. In response, all the three services prepared separate reports how the process could be conducted.

"Integrating the services is long overdue," said retired Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak, now a security studies specialist. "Nowhere else in the world are the army, navy and air force kept out of the decision-making process the way they are in India, and the lacuna must be redressed."

Air Vice-Marshal Kak is right. While in non-democratic countries, the military establishment is very close to the government (if not the government), even in mature democracies like the United States, Britain, France, etc, the services headquarters have a major say in matters relating to security and defence.

"The Pentagon is part of the national security process in the US, in UK and France the armed forces are part of the defence ministries," pointed out Air Vice-Marshal Kak.

It was in the Nehru era that the services were separated from the civilian leadership. While one reason was the fear of a coup d'etat (the army took over Pakistan in 1956), another was the pacifist beliefs of Nehru who preferred diplomacy to defence. Yet, the move may well have been a blessing in disguise, because it insulated the defence forces from the general decline witnessed in civilian society. A good example is how the fine police force of the time is today a demoralised, corrupt lot thanks to constant political interference (the central police forces come under the ministry of home affairs).

Former defence secretary T K Banerjee cautions against a hasty integration of the defence services with the ministry, especially in light of the unfortunate recent developments. He is not too sure of the benefits to be gained from integration. "The present system is a time-tested system which has worked very well with a few hiccups now and then," he said.

"As civil servants, we spend years pushing files and being part of a collective process of decision-making. Bureaucrats are really part of a concert. Defence personnel, who spend years working in a command system where orders are given or received and implemented faithfully, do not realise how difficult the process is when an entire cabinet has to decide, when so many ministries and people are involved," he added.

A source at the defence ministry added, "The military people are so hierarchy-bound, so stiff and full of protocol. I wonder if they will be able to get along with the babus who have their own style of getting things done."

Banerjee fears that if the defence services integrate with the ministry, senior officers will become more involved in the nitty-gritty of daily administration rather than concentrate on defence operations and preparedness.

"For any decision to be made, you have to interact with the prime minister, the ministry of finance, the ministry of home and external affairs, besides your own ministerial departments. You have to chase files across ministers and bureaucrats. Not only that, a lot of time is spent in answering Parliament. With so much on hand, how can any chief of staff concentrate on long-term defence perspectives and planning, on strategic and other operations," asked the former defence secretary.

There is also the worry that with greater involvement with civilian authorities and politicians, the defence services run the risk of greater politicisation, harming the one institution that is considered still having retained its polish over the years, despite the recent upheavals.

Yet, defence experts feel that in today's world, wars are no longer fought purely in the realm of armies, navies and air forces. It concerns the whole nation, involves various sections of society and government, and is closely linked to the political set-up.

"All our battles after 1971 are politico-military operations," Air Vice-Marshal Kak pointed out. "They have been in the North-East, in Punjab and Kashmir, in Lanka. All of these involve the political element, not just the army, to resolve them. In such situations, can you really separate the military from the government any longer? After all, it is the defence forces who are most involved with the country's troubled spots?"

It is generally agreed that one advantage of integrating the services with the ministry of defence will be to give the services a greater say in policy-making. "Today, all defence proposals go through various secretaries who often do not understand such complex systems or their importance. Today you need expertise in such matters relating to security, which is much more than merely defending our borders," he said.

Banerjee agreed that integration would give the services a greater say in policy-making. But he pointed out that in Western countries where the services are part of the ministry, the officers who join the ministry virtually give up the operations side, since the two are hardly compatible. Given the need to plan in the long term on matters of security, that aspect will have to be considered.

Yet, if the services are integrated with the defence ministry, then perhaps the controversy created by Bhagwat's dismissal will not have gone in vain.

Officials at the defence ministry and the three services are to meet on Friday, January 8, to discuss the modalities of integration and restructuring. Presentations on the matter will also be made from the same day, a spokesperson said. A decision to this effect was taken at the defence's minister's meeting on Tuesday with the three service chiefs and senior defence ministry officials.

Additional reportage: UNI

Tell us what you think of this report