Give Military Man the Entry, or he will Kick it Open...

There are only two contenders for political power in any nation. The first is the political man backed by money and second is the military man aided by the gun. Since money is more powerful, the military normally accepts to play second fiddle to it. This acceptance of a subordinate role results more from expediency than magnanimity. While money has the strength to stand on its own feet, military often needs the crutches of the state to stand tall. However, the two normally stay together in a symbiotic relationship. 

For example, in China,  men-in-uniform are seen rubbing shoulders with other party members in the Politburo. Similarly, in America, money power vesting with the military industrial complex has ensured that the US armed forces elite are active members of the club that rules the world and garners  global wealth. It is this dubious connection of the top military leadership with the top 1% of the wealthy population that is agitating the US veterans who have fought in distant lands. As one US war veteran says, “Don't stand with the global 1 percent. Don't stand with these generals that continuously abuse their own service members and then talk about building democracy and promoting freedom." 

However, in the unique Indian civil-military set up (that has refused to change even after 60 years of independence), the military leadership continues to be debarred from entering the elite club that gives exclusive entry rights to politicians’, bureaucrats and businessmen. Having seen the enormity of dubious money transactions that happen in this shady club, the military man is feeling shortchanged for being kept out of its premises.  

There is growing perception among many veterans and serving officers that the sanctity and security of the country that Chetwode had described as the utmost duty of a soldier has been destroyed by the tainted Politico-bureaucratic nexus aided and abetted by unscrupulous businessmen. 

In the neo-liberal age, national causes look too profane and weak to be the raison d’être for the armed forces. Their association with business interests  is too obvious to be ignored. Over the past two decades, there has been considerable weakening of the state -military umbilical cord. 

I recently read an interesting blog by an army officer that once again asked the age old question – “What do I die for”? The article begins with Anatole France’s quote that the ‘soldier dies for the industrialists’. The author of the article, Col VP Singh further says, “Soldiers, today, must learn that they no more fight nation's wars but the conflicts started by inept, inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy in league with self-centered, greedy and corrupt politicians.” 

Unlike the pre-independence officer, the post-independence lot do not suffer from any guilt conscience of having served a colonial master. They have won victories for India in various wars and are not ready to buy the argument that confines the military to the periphery of power structures in the capital for the sake of democratic health of the nation. 

The trends hint at the armed forces trying to swim hard to locate an anchor. This search can either lead them to become more ambitious for political power or ferociously hanker for a trans-national alliance as an independent entity – similar to what Pakistan and many other third world armies have done by getting into a cozy relationship with the Pentagon or letting their elite mortgage them to the empire. 

We are almost back to 1950s, when the military leadership, like many good servants of the Queen, was skeptical about the ability of the home-grown leadership to govern India. The Indian military officers trained under British tutelage - had tasted - if not fully savoured - the glamour of power while working for the British flag. Post independence, the military elite thought that they would continue to be as important to democratic India as they were to the empire. However, the roles and missions of the newly independent India were completely at variance to the imperial aims. 

Leaders like Field Marshal Carriappa and General Thimmaya did try to disturb the civil-military apple cart by asserting the military supremacy. However, the progressive elements within the political class ensured that independent India’s military unlearnt their imperial lineages and were confined to the fringes of the corridors of power. The military leadership reeling under the guilt of their erstwhile mercenary connections accepted to remain a passive spectator and concentrate on their professional development. 

The generation of officers currently at the helm is witness to deterioration of political standards in the country. They have also seen the frontal assault on Indian democracy in 1975, when ‘emergency’ was declared. The question that comes to mind is, why is the post independence officer speaking up now - why did he remain a mute spectator to the growing criminalization, and communalization of Indian polity in the late 1980s and early 1990s? 

The only plausible answer to these questions is – in 1990, after the demise of Soviet Union, a new hope was sold across the world and the global herd began moving in the direction of generating wealth by hook or crook. The Indian military elite (more at an individual rather than at an institutional level) too got busy keeping up with the Joneses in the “race to the bottom”. 

However, as the gloss of capitalism started peeling off and the blatant loot of state assets started tumbling out from the closets of those who had been singing paeans of inherent virtues of neo-liberalism, the military officer could not believe that he has been fooled. 

Let us not fool ourselves and the nation by thinking that military leadership is short on respect and once they get this rather vague commodity, everything will be smooth. Because one is yet to find a military leader who questions the basics of the neo-liberal set up that is splintering the national security – they have never even once raised their concern about privatization of military that is fast usurping their turf. 

One is convinced that the battle for honour and respect that the military man is waging against the bureaucracy is just a decoy because much like the Englishman, the Indian military man too does not have any “false pretension to be loved; he wishes to be comfortable and to “make money”. The military man does not openly say it, but he also desires to be a part of the loot currently underway in the country. 

The military elite is cocksure, it has a natural life membership of the club that ensures how money is to be made and distributed within the nation, it is for the other club members to realize that they have very little choice but to make room for the military man.

The Civil-Military relations in India

This essay was published in Purple Beret -  Jan 2010

There are no mergers and acquisitions in the civil - military conundrum. Democratic norms prevent the military from acquiring the political space over which civilians have an exclusive right. And demands of the military profession discourage the men in uniform from completely merging into the civilian crowds.

Therefore a healthy distance between those who possess the “monopoly over the means of violence” and those who exercise hegemony over the political arena has to be maintained in the best interest of the people and the polity. Can this distance remain static? Does the altered socio-political environment and technological growth put additional pressures in reducing and in some cases perhaps, enhancing the hiatus? To understand the complexity of the armed forces relationship with the society at large one needs to draw a holistic picture of this relationship.

There are four planes on which civil-military relations work. Armed forces with (a) the people or nation (b) the government or the state (c) the civic society or civil rights groups and media (d) the corporate world. Unfortunately, in India most of the military and social science literature remains limited to viewing civil -military ties through the narrow prism of military hierarchy’s equation with the bureaucracy and political class. Such narrow analysis prevents both the nation as well as the military men from understanding the evolving dynamics that shape their relationship. Thus giving rise to undue tensions and misperceptions. 

The military and the masses

Thousands of young Indians that throng the recruitment rallies across the country bear testimony to the health of military’s relationship with the masses. Many would say that rather than peoples’ love for the military service it is unemployment that drives the village folk to join the services. This argument cannot be discarded completely. However, there is more to people’s preference for military jobs than just joblessness. In almost every Indian village, military families are held in high esteem. Association with the armed forces is seen as a symbol of pride. More importantly, the service conditions and care that the services offer to the men who enroll strengthens the military - masses bond.

One more crucial factor that needs to be borne in mind by the forces and the government is that the Indian military operates purely for national causes. Therefore the support that they get for protecting the peoples’ rights is unflinching. In contrast, the Western countries face serious problems when it comes to getting recruits for their military, mainly because the society perceives their military engaging in avoidable wars in foreign lands. This was evident in the during the Vietnam War and more recently the protests in both US and against the Iraq war. It is the support that the Indian military gets from the people that helps the government to make almost zero efforts to sell wars like the 1971 and Kargil War to the public.

Higher defence management

While the public provides the manpower resources and the legitimacy for the military to operate, the government provides them the machines and the diplomatic cover to engage in a duel with an enemy. However, ever since independence, the equation between the military’s top brass and the government has been a little unbalanced.

Although the military has never raised its voice against the government and the bureaucrats who run the show, the undercurrents of discontent are discernible. 

The first time the imbalance came to fore was after the 1962 debacle. The political class came in for severe flak for interfering too much into military affairs. And the military too was asked to pull up its socks for not making the government appreciate the inadequacies in India’s military machine. In the 1971 war both the Indira Gandhi led government and the army led by Field Marshal Sam Mankeshaw saw to it that both the national objectives and military preparedness were dovetailed to achieve desired results.

So far as the crunch situations are concerned the relationship between the two has prevailed in accordance with the laid down norms. The problems have been largely felt during peace times. And these have been reflected in the statements and articles written by senior service officers either just prior to their retirement or post retirement. The only time a serving service chief, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat tired to raise a pitch of protest - during the middle of his tenure-he was unceremoniously sacked in 1999 by the then BJP government. It was reported that the then army chief General V P Malik kept mum during the whole episode. The government managed the media fallout well and the country lost an upright and honest officer. The inter-service bonhomie hit an all time low. The final result was that the bureaucracy reasserted its supremacy in running the defence services as per their whims and fancies. 

More than the indifference of the politicians towards the armed forces, it is the rather negative attitude of the bureaucracy towards the defence services that irks those who work in the headquarters and interact with the ministry of defence on a regular basis. The rivalry came into the open during the 6th Pay Commission recommendations when the bureaucrats made the government bring the services almost on their knees to get their rightful dues. There was a phase in 2009 when the ex-servicemen were on the streets indulging in mass protests. The rumblings of these protests were also felt among the serving middle level officers. Making-hay- while-the-sun-shines political outfits in the country were quick to grab the opportunity to woo the disenchanted servicemen. What the government forgot in the process was that listening only to civil servants could dent the apolitical character of the Indian military in the long run and thus create new problems for the democratic polity.

The events in 2009 have adequately proved that on military matters related to service conditions as well procurement of defence equipment, the government needs to incorporate the armed forces into the decision making process.

The military and the media

The civil society represented by the media and the middle classes is largely sympathetic to the sacrifices that the military makes in the course of their duty. However the problem arises when human rights groups begin to question the military’s role in troubled spots like and the North East. Although one is not defending excesses in the name of defence, it is necessary for NGOs to realize that the Indian army has neither acquired the special powers in these regions by holding the government to ransom nor have they lobbied to impose special ‘Acts’ in their favour. The government has granted these powers to them due the prevailing security situation in those areas. 

Electronic media today is another Achilles’ heel in the civil-military matrix in the country. In a most recent case, the media covered the unproven land scam in the Eastern sector alleging direct involvement of top generals. What hurts is that the unsubstantiated news freely flowing into units directly impinges on the morale within the armed forces - severely denting the faith of the men and junior officers in the system; a system that trains them to prepare for the ultimate sacrifice for the nation. How the military needs to handle the all pervasive media is a challenge that requires deep introspection and perhaps an altogether new approach of confronting the 24x7 news networks through military information networks spread across the nation. The other issues highlighted in the media, like the gay rights movements are yet to affect the military ethos. But time is not far when these changes in societal values would begin to echo within the messes too.

Corporate warriors

The lure of lucre offered by corporates (until of course the economic downturn) is another disturbing trend that has challenged the intake of officer cadre into the forces fold causing acute shortage of offcers at the unit level. On the other hand when hiring ex-servicemen, the corporate world ignores the expertise they bring to the boardroom because of their strong sense of discipline and responsibility along with the varied experience in handling organizational and operational duties.

Unfortunately, India Incorporated is yet to realize that most of the management techniques have actually been tried and tested in various military laboratories of the West. Another fact that is so conveniently forgotten is that Indian armed forces have the tremendous experience of globalization because the nature of their job makes them interact with the outside world more often than not. And this is reflected well in their uniforms and marching traditions which are common across the globe.

The civil society has to comprehend the role that the military plays in society’s development. The Indian armed forces today are the best equipped not only to defend India’s national interest but are equally capable of handling disaster management, ranging from foods and droughts to searching for missing helicopters. The armed forces personnel after their retirement have contributed immensely to the growth of all sectors - aviation, golf, security, hospitality, corporate training and much more. So, all that money that the government spends on maintaining a standing armed force gives a long- term return and is ploughed back into society. The armed forces schools have produced the most outstanding students in all fields including the entertainment industry. Then why should the hiatus between the civil society and the armed forces grow? In fact, if the bureaucracy does not appreciate the role of the armed forces, the civil society must use all channels to educate the government machinery to integrate the armed forces fully into the national mainstream by including them in the national decision making process.