The recent fallout between the Army Chief and the civilian government over several issues—age row, bribery allegation, leaked letter on internal security—all this has put unnecessary attention on the country’s security apparatus. It is to be expected that the institution of the army establishment which should be above politics. Perhaps at no time, at least in recent memory post-independent India, has the armed forces and the government of the day been ever embroiled in any sort of controversy, dispute or conflict. Unlike in some of the neigbouring countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh, where the army has tried to play a larger than life role, the tradition in India has always been one of cordial relation between the army and the civilian establishment. The army in India has always maintained decorum and never tried to be in the limelight and even during times of war, the army has always remained under civilian control. And for this reason perhaps, the army has been one institution that has won the trust and respect of every section in India, from the political class, governments and citizens. And given this high tradition of courtesy and goodwill, the series of incident one after the other is a big body blow not just for the Army but to the trust and confidence that has been bestowed on the apolitical armed forces by billions of its citizens.
What has happened over the last few weeks in the conduct between the Army Chief and the government (Ministry of Defence) is both unfortunate and could have been better managed by the concerned authorities. Some have suggested that the Army Chief be sacked. However this is an extreme step that could be well avoided by the government. What needs to be done is to get to the bottom of the entire chain of event and find out what really went wrong or the people involved if any. However it seems to be the case that there is some ‘third force’ behind the recent unnecessary controversy. As both the Army Chief and also the Government they are saying that they have done no wrong. As such, the work of some third party must be thoroughly investigated by the government. As for the barrage of criticism and condemnation whether against the Army Chief or the Defence Minister (Ministry of Defence), whether by political parties and their leaders or media comments, the situation demands greater self restraint and civility so that we do not provoke one against the other otherwise rather than helping in rebuilding trust and goodwill from within, we may create more ill-feeling and this will be unhealthy for the well being of our security apparatus.
Coming back to the role of the military or army in any government set up, the nature of its actual functioning differs from country to country based on the values and systems in place. However in a democratic country like the United States or India, the military has always been under strict civilian control. A few years ago President Barack Obama took the decision to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal as top commander in Afghanistan after the latter’s disrespectful comments about his Commander-in-Chief (i.e. the US President) and top administration officials. As President Obama rightly noted, one can tolerate debate within his team, but not division. This brings us to the fundamental question of team work, consensus building and respecting authority. All these factors are important while executing policy whether they are military or civilian in nature. So perhaps the latest controversy should be used as a time to reaffirm the respective role of the Army Chief and the government and that the need for civilian control over the military should be well understood. Without compromise, the Army has to remain accountable to the political establishment and the latter in turn has to answer to Parliament. This tradition must be protected.
