The Government was well within its rights to appoint Lt Gen Bipin Rawat as the Chief of Army Staff.Even
in Pakistan, where the army actually runs the show, the prerogative of
appointing the chief rests in the hands of the civilian government.
This
is how it should be. But the appointment left a bad taste in the mouths
of many after the remarks of Lt Gen Pravin Bakshi surfaced.Taken
in conjunction with the controversies that rocked the nation when
General VK Singh was Army chief, they are not a good sign for the health
of one of the world's largest armies.
Controversies
This should not be seen as a critique of General Rawat; he does not lack anything in comparison to those who he superseded.
But the remarks of Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, the Eastern Army commander who was superseded, are somewhat shocking.
According
to media reports, in a New Year video broadcast to the 3,00,000 men in
his command, Bakshi said 'there has been a malicious campaign to smear
my name, a very deeply rooted conspiracy' carried out against him by
'men in the shadows.'
According to
reports, in recent months, anonymous complaints were filed to the
defence minister against the General, alleging irregularities in
procurements in his command.
These were investigated by the Controller General of Defence Accounts and found to be untrue.
The
general said he was not resigning so that he could expose these shadow
men who, as his remarks implied were from within his own command.
The country has had to face controversy over Army chiefs in the past decade and some have found themselves in deep controversy.
Outgoing
chief Dalbir Singh had a discipline and vigilance ban slapped on him by
General VK Singh, allegedly aimed at preventing from becoming the
chief.
Likewise, Singh, now a minister
in the current government, sought to extend his tenure so as to
allegedly prevent Bikram Singh from becoming the chief.
A
lot of this came out in the open last August, when Dalbir Singh, the
then serving chief formally accused his predecessor General VK Singh of
trying to stall his promotion 'with mala fide intent.'
In
an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, he said that as chief, V K
Singh tried to 'victimise him' with the aim of 'denying promotion.'
Grievance
Behind
these charges lay an even murkier story relating to the deaths of three
informants allegedly by military intelligence officials, one of whom
was reportedly close to another former chief JJ Singh who it has been
alleged wanted to manipulate the line of succession to deny VK Singh his
turn to be chief.
The controversies
over the appointment of the chiefs are only the tip of the iceberg of
grouses, complaints and grievances that afflict the military.
The
government has created Armed Forces Tribunals to take away the pressure
of promotion-related complaints from the courts and provide a channel
to air grievances.
The appointment left a bad taste in the mouths of many after the remarks of Lt Gen Pravin Bakshi surfaced
But
this does not take away the fact that unfortunately, a culture of
malice, deliberate manipulation of rules and regulations to promote
favourites and undermine the chances of others exists.
You
can create systems and rules and grievance redressal processes, but
what is needed is a restoration of the ethical culture which the forces
used to be so proud of.
The politicians have, by and large, stayed away from the issues relating to promotion after the disaster of the 1962 war.
But
the same cannot be said of the MOD bureaucracy or the national security
bureaucracy who believe that they are the true custodians of national
interest and can and do get involved.
Discretion
In every system, democratic or otherwise, politicians have the discretion of making high-level appointments.
This
is necessary to underline the principle of civil control of the
military. In the Indian system, there is a tendency to misuse discretion
and deep selection, which is actually desirable.
It
is for this reason that previous governments decided to appoint the
senior-most officer as the COAS unless there was something clearly
negative against him.
In the case of Bakshi and Lt Gen P M Hariz, there was nothing in their career that required them to be superseded.
The government of the day must have
the ability to make a choice. However, it would be helpful if that
choice was made transparently and the government does not take recourse
to false claims, as they did by saying Gen Rawat was chosen because of
his counter-insurgency experience.
CI is a subsidiary part of the Army's job. Its real job is to fight external enemies.
Perceptions matter a great deal in managing men. For this reason, the government must not only be just, but appear to be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment