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

In offense of Bhagwat

The Mahabharata records only one instance where Yudhishthira was moved to curse rather than bless. It came after the Great War, when a hesitant Kunti revealed that Karna was her eldest son. Aghast at the thought of being instrumental in his elder brother's death, Yudhishthira cursed all womankind that they would never again be able to keep a secret.

It is a nice, if admittedly sexist, story. But who laid the same malediction on Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of staff of the Indian navy? He is definitely guilty of violating the oaths of secrecy that bind every member of the armed forces. I do not make this accusation lightly; the proof, ironically, was given by his wife, Niloufer Bhagwat.

"The dismissal," she proclaimed to the media in the wake of her husband being sacked, "was a political move with wider conspirators involved in the arms supply to the navy." Defence Minister George Fernandes, it seems, has fallen for the wiles of "the arms lobby."

To anyone who remembers the Bofors case, these are serious charges. But is there any proof? Did Admiral Bhagwat put his reservations on paper to the defence minister or even the prime minister? I am afraid Vishnu Bhagwat's problems with the Government of India arose from differences on promotion policy, not armaments. But if the former chief of staff didn't inform his superiors, to whom did he reveal his suspicions?

By the evidence of Niloufer Bhagwat herself, it was she who was the repository of his confidences. And in doing so, Admiral Bhagwat was breaking the law. It was a clear dereliction of duty to reveal defence secrets to an unauthorised person. No, it doesn't matter if Niloufer Bhagwat is his wife; there is a huge difference between the marriage vows and the oaths taken by an officer in the armed forces. Revealing official secrets -- and here I am assuming these nutty charges might have some basis in fact -- is a criminal offence. Any military man who can't keep his mouth shut is unfit to be a raw recruit, leave alone the chief of staff.

I have read some reports where retired officers have tried to defend Bhagwat, saying in so many words that Niloufer Bhagwat is "no ordinary wife, she is a Supreme Court lawyer." Bunk!

For one thing, it is crassly sexist to make the implicit suggestion that housewives are somehow unqualified. For another, I can name a dozen attorneys qualified to practise in the Supreme Court who are just as good as Mrs Bhagwat. Does this mean every future navy chief may pour out his allegation to one of them, defence secrets and all? Most of them, I am sure, will keep quite in the interests of the nation, but what if any one of them chooses to speak to the media as Admiral Bhagwat's wife has done?

In fairness, Vishnu Bhagwat had a perfectly justifiable point when he tried to take on the defence ministry. Civilian control of the armed forces does not mean bureaucratic supremacy. It simply means officers are expected to obey orders given by a duly elected political leadership, meaning the Union Cabinet acting through the defence minister.

Had he stopped there, Admiral Bhagwat would have found sympathisers in the Cabinet. (External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has made the same point.) Instead, he decided that the Vajpayee government was a pushover and chose to challenge the Cabinet itself on its right to appoint officers.

Let me quote an expert on the subject: "Appointments to decision-making/higher command posts have always rested on the principle that while the chief of naval staff may recommend, it is the government at the level of the defence minister/Appointments Committee of the Cabinet which must exercise its judgement." Who said that? None other than Vishnu Bhagwat in a brief submitted to the Bombay high court in 1990! (He also accused the then prime minister V P Singh of "not applying his mind".)

In denying the Cabinet's rights, which he had so eloquently defended eight years earlier, Bhagwat was effectively claiming a veto over the Union Cabinet, something denied even to his commander-in-chief, the President. Admiral Bhagwat conducted himself at best irresponsibly, at worst with criminal arrogance? Could any responsible government have permitted such a man to continue as chief of staff even at the risk of unpopularity with a section of the media?

"Your country comes first, then your men, you yourself are last," is a lesson taught to every cadet in the three forces. Admiral Bhagwat seems to have turned that principle on its head altogether.

T V R Shenoy