Asia must not fight to defend America’s aims

The Asian region, including India, has an American problem. From Okinawa to Aceh and Assam to Abbottabad, Uncle Sam’s boot marks are discernable, reminding us of the wasteful wars that Asians have waged against each other at the behest of America - to be more precise, 1% of the American population. For the past six decades and more, the continent has been suffering from unsolicited advice and unnecessary interference by America.

Today, we stand at the cusp of change in international politics. The coming decade promises to offer Asia a window of opportunity to finally come out of the imperial yoke and chart its own destiny. The relative decline of America’s power and the concomitant increase in the Indian and Chinese potential gives an opportunity to shape the region based on Asian values and sensitivities - a willingness to pierce through the labyrinths of distrust and horror weaved by America to keep the neighbors fearful of each other’s growth.

The Korean brothers are baying for each other’s blood; Afghanistan dislikes Pakistan; Pakistan hates India, China maligns Japan and Japan continues to remain in a state of stupor, unable to distinguish friends from foe. Japan’s case militates against all reasoning and logic. Japan is Buddhist enough to forgive its colonizer, America for the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. However, it refuses to give up its Samurai instincts against China, its erstwhile Colony.

All the Asian hatred is now pouring into the South China Sea. And nobody is more delighted than America to fish in troubled waters through political, financial, and ideological interventions. Asia continues to suffer because regional relations remain mired in the ‘territorial trap’. To understand this trap let us see how America exploited the Indian elite’s fear of communism to create an India-China border dispute leading up to the 1962 war.

Just to have a convenient military base America played along with their British friends to divide the Indian sub-continent. In 1947, when millions were getting uprooted and killed in the partition of India, Uncle Sam was busy comprehending George Kennan’s telegram from Moscow on how to contain USSR by planting their former soldier in India, MO Mathai as a CIA agent in Jawaharlal Nehru’s office. That Mathai continued in the PM’s office till 1959, dutifully fulfilling his role as a mole tells us about the extent to which India can rely on America. If talking about Mathai is making a mountain out of a molehill, then imagine what America was extracting from others including Morarji Desai -our Finance minister in 1957 and the Prime Minister in the late 1970s - allegedly working for his masters in Washington.

The late forties was also the time when America was hobnobbing with Mao and Chiang Kai- Shek to form a national government in Beijing. When this plan did not succeed, Chiang Kai-Shek was pushed to a corner in Taiwan and Mao’s brand of Marxism was accorded a prime place in the US scheme of things to divide the communist world. Since Mao could not be left loose, therefore, Taiwan and Tibet wounds were allowed to fester.

 Nehru understood this game and refused to play ball with the Americans on Tibet, though his colleagues like Patel was too eager to tow the American agenda in the 1950s. Nehru used the threat of Indian communism to make his deals with America. Both Churchill and Truman encouraged Nehru to play the role of an Asian leader to obviate communist China from assuming command. Referring to her meeting with Churchill on 22 March 1955, Vijay Lakshmi Pandit had written:

“He was very conscious of past mistakes but he said that since the commonwealth conference he was convinced that ‘Asia is with us’. He said, ‘it is Nehru who is bringing this about. He can and will interpret the best we have given him to the Asian people. Nehru is the light of Asia…yes, and a greater light than Buddha.”(Nayantara Sahgal, Jawaharlal Nehru: Civilizing the Savage World, Penguin, 2010)   

 However, the imperial benevolence, as Nehru knew it better, could be enjoyed only for a limited period. Two years after the Bandung Conference of 1955, the Americans were there to clip Nehru’s wings.  In 1957, when the financial crisis hit India, America through the comprador bourgeois heading the financial and monetary policy institutions in India was able to ensure that enfeebled Nehru had to stop chanting Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai and go with a begging bowl to Fund - Bank managers.  Nehru sent a team  consisting of  Finance Minister Krishnamachari, and RBI governor H.V.R. Iyengar to World Bank in September 1957, to ask for $600 million aid package and to reassure the  Bank President Eugene Black that

"The 'socialism' contemplated in India does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean communism; it does not mean state capitalism......It is a system under which private competitive enterprise has and will continue to have a vital role to play; it is a system which respects private property and provides for the payment of compensation if such property is acquired by the State. I submit there is nothing in the system which should be repugnant to the social conscience of the USA".

Within ten days the US Aid started flowing in, thanks also to US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Since there are no free lunches, Nehru had no option but to change his stance on the Tibet issue in conformity with American wishes. Dalai Lama whom Nehru had sent back to China in 1956 was now welcomed with open arms, leaving the Panchsheel agreement in tatters. CIA was given much greater access to Indian territory to install nuclear devises and agents to keep constant pressure on China to break up with the Soviet Union and cause deep fissures in communist parties across the globe. This was best achieved through the events leading up to the 1962 war, where the Soviet Union was forced to choose between India and China. M.Y. Prozumenschikov, writing in the Cold War International History Project Bulletin, 251, says:

The fact that the USSR did not take a clear “class” position in a conflict between a socialist state and a bourgeois state provoked indignation in China. In a 13 September 1959 letter to the CC CPSU, the CC CCP accused the Soviet government (although in a veiled form) of “accommodation and compromise on important matters of principle” and noted that “the TASS statement showed to the whole world the different positions of China and the Soviet Union in regard to the incident on the Indian–Chinese border, which causes a virtual glee and jubilation among the Indian bourgeoisie and the American and English imperialists, who are in every way possible driving a wedge between China and the Soviet Union.”

Nehru came under the US thumb and changed tack in 1957 to become more aggressive towards China. Nehru and Chou En-Lai had fully appreciated the futility of war, yet the war happened. Who initiated the war is irrelevant, but why the two great nations got sucked into it is more important.

For Americans, India-China war was a part of their Soviet containment policy. America was hardly bothered or moved by Tibet. As Dalai Lama writing in his autobiography says,

America felt it was worthwhile to provide limited assistance to Tibetan freedom fighters, not because they cared about Tibetan independence but as a part of world-wide efforts to destabilize all communist governments.”

For Washington, Tibet was just a strategic tool to keep the Communist Party of China reminded of the reach of American power.  In the American game plan Congress party, Swatantra party and the right-wing political outfit of the RSS, Jan Sangh saw an opportunity to decimate once and for all, both Krishna Menon a potential heir to Nehru and communism from India. They all achieved their purpose.

In the end to fulfill America’s ideological imperatives - the Indian army sacrificed 3000 soldiers and also its pride - Nehru lay crestfallen, seeing the failure of his non-alignment policy writ large on those two letters that he wrote to Kennedy on 19 November 1962 asking for F-104 fighters and B-57 bombers. They kept him waiting for the help and also fed him wrong intelligence inputs and military advice through their ambassador in India, John Kenneth Galbraith.

Nehru was betrayed by none other than his friends in America who led him into a dark alley and left him stranded. Once China had been distanced from Soviets, America too turned its back on India, knowing it fully well that Pakistan was enough to meet its strategic needs.

In 1971, India once again lost 10,000 of its brave men to help Bangladesh win independence. But the net result was that the Bangladesh government and its army under US tutelage banned India’s entry into their country. The strategists need to ask, after all, who did the war eventually benefit? And the clear answer is America. Pakistan too was used by America to fight frivolous battles with India only to keep the entire region in rotation.

If in the 1950s, communist China’s expansionist designs were used to scare India, now it is the threat posed by Capitalist China that is being projected to woo India into falling into another trap. But this time India should be wise and tell the Americans that we will not let any of our soldiers shed its blood for Tibet, heavens will not fall if "Tibetan government-in-exile into further exile outside India..” India needs to be attached to a cause but only with a sense of detachment, just as the Chinese were when in the 1960s they reiterated their independence to the Soviets by informing them, 

“If the international Communist movement collapsed, this will not cause the sky to fall down.”

 For too long America has been playing like a systems administrator, making others dance to its tune. India must resolve not to lose even a single life to defend the American empire. Empires have come and gone. India is better prepared to deal with the new empire. If India could enjoy Halloweens and Valentine, it will hardly be an effort to absorb a bit of Confucius for the sake of peace and development in Asia.

ANIMALS IN SERVICE OF IMPERIUM

London has numerous interesting war memorials. However, the one that specifically caught my attention is neither dedicated to any General nor any soldier. It is a mark of respect to those numerous horses, pigeons, mules, dogs, and myriad other animals, who laid their life in service of the British nation during the Wars in the 20th century. 

The war memorial is driven by British love for animals rather than animals’ desire for recognition. Sculpted by David Backhouse, the memorial is situated near Hyde Park. The monument shows a horse in the lead majestically gazing at the future. Following the leader’s tail is a dog. A wall divides these two warriors from two loaded mules bringing up the rear. 

The nameless animals depicted in the memorial were neither citizen-soldiers nor mercenaries. They neither understood Clausewitzian ‘absolute war’ nor were they capable of comprehending Kant’s ‘perpetual peace’. The mammals merely followed the idiosyncratic and autocratic commands of their masters engaged in the pursuit of power, because terms like glory, honor, and sacrifice were alien to them. 

Unlike the human soldiers, they never bothered their commanding officers with issues like morale, mother or matrimony. Barring the canine, the other animals could hardly distinguish between friend or foe. They neither required special wartime rations nor the morale booster booze to plunge themselves into war zones. They became witnesses to the most brutal periods in human history not for any entertainment value but because their DNA strands were networked to serve the humans. 

Viewed purely in military terms the horse represents the strike- core, the dog symbolizes the importance of intelligence to military operations, the pigeons form the signal corps and the beast of burden carrying the supplies reveals the crucial role played by military logistics in any war.  

However, when I look at the monument as a student of international politics, I tend to superimpose my ideas on the hapless animal figures and see them as nations. If horse represents the power of British imperialism and the wall symbolizes the divide between the core and the periphery, then where does India (the jewel in the British crown) fit into the scheme of things? Is India represented by the dog or the mule? India was a faithful servant of the empire, but was it considered good enough to be an intelligence agent? 

India could not be a dog, because the British never considered Indians intelligent enough to be an officer in the army. But the Indian colonial rulers recruited a large number of Sepoys (foot soldiers) to consolidate their empire. 

One could argue that India was a mule in the British war efforts; it bore the burden of war without questioning the supremacy of its masters. If India was one of the mules, then who is the other mule in the memorial? The other mule represents the African soldiers, who much like the Indians added to the British strength, without ever asking questions about the validity or legality of the war. 

We have identified the horse and the mules but the question still remains-who was the dog? Whom did the British consider to be the most trusted ally during WW I. Who did they consider intelligent enough to provide them with battlefield information? It could not have been France, because it obviously was another big horse in the war? America was on the British side of the fence; moreover, it was a neutral observer at that time merely sniffing around to gauge the international situation. Possibly, America was a British dog during the First World War. 

Unlike the sculpture, history continues to dynamic.; it has undergone a massive shift over the past century. Britain is still at the forefront, but it is no longer the horse in international power equations. America is the new horse and Britain is its sniffer dog. Is India still a coolie in the present scheme of things? How can India be a mule? It has become an important American strategic ally. Moreover, the war against terrorism and growing Chinese might require better intelligence and therefore more dogs around the world. 

So when India expresses it wishes to be a world power, it actually is hinting that it has crossed the Rubicon dividing the underdeveloped and the developed world. It is no longer a dud mule on the other side of the wall, it is in fact fit enough to be a dog of the American empire. 

Years later, if an American sculptor decides to pay his tribute to animals in war, he probably will have many more dogs following the American horse and the private military contractors or robots will have the privilege of being depicted as mules.

PENTAGON PSALMISTS RETURN TO ASIA PACIFIC

Last week, Leon Panetta, Pentagon’s chief hit-man was in Asia, signaling 'Broken Arrow, Broken Arrow!’. This bogey was meant to gather gullible Asian leaders, persuading them to come to the aid of the American empire in grave danger of being overrun by China. 'Broken Arrow’ was a code reserved by the American forces in the Vietnam War to signal extreme danger to their positions. 

Panetta's appeal for help has had such an impact that great strategy pundits from India, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia Australia, Japan, South Korea and others have joined Pentagon psalmists' chorus - chanting imprecatory prayers - predicting disgrace and shame to the Chinese. 

Post 9/11, the world was introduced to a similar imprecatory number against Islam. A little over a decade ago, Bush had stood up to tell the world about the ensuing ‘clash of civilizations’. Now all that war on terror lies buried under the cacophony of Osama’s death pronouncement and the din of ‘Arab Spring’. 

The latest American mantra pivots around the Oceans in Asia Pacific region. Dr John Chipman, Director General and Chief Executive, IISS says, “one of the most important subjects in the Asia‑Pacific is the idea of protecting maritime freedoms and the acceptance that this is an international and global role, not only a regional and particular role.” 

Fresh words are being woven and new alliances are being sewn together; only to pull wool over Asian eyes. Dangerous needles are being pricked into Asian minds to prove that their salvation lies in preventing China from uprooting the treasure tower embedded the South China Sea. Scarborough Shoal - a disputed territory between China and Philippines – is now the chief reason for Asia to be “in a state of strategic flux.” As Sanjay Baru tells us, America is “seeking to provide an element of stability to this flux, and inject a measure of certainty to an uncertain world.” 

Today, Panetta talks about shifting an additional 10% of American forces to Indo-Pacific than what it has committed in the Atlantic. Towards the fag end of their empire in Asia, British too had tried to use huge forces at their disposal to protect “the crescent of land that stretched from Bengal, through Burma, the Southern island. It was hinterland of the Straits of Malacca, one of the greatest arteries of oceanic trade that separates the Indian Ocean from South China Sea.” (Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, Forgotten Wars: The end of Britain’s Asian Empire, 2008). Bayly and Harper also tell us that during these years the Americans used to make fun of the British South East Asian Command (SEAC) under Lord Mountbatten as nothing but an acronym that stood for “Save England Asian Colonies”. 

Today, America finds itself in British shoes. It is paranoid about the longevity of its empire. It’s declining money power and reduced ability to spend on military is making it seek military hardware and manpower from within Asia-pacific. It is playing the same old game and making sure that Asians are once again buffoon(ed) into fighting against each other. 

It is a paradox that in the era of advancing life expectancy the collective memory of the human being is on the decline. It is only sixty years ago, Panetta’s predecessors had entered Asia pacific with an atomic bang, making the Japanese experience the horrors of weapons of mass destruction and colonization. 

Just prior to dropping of the atomic bomb, the communist cadres in South East Asia and British Indian army soldiers were used as cannon fodder to defeat the Japanese colonial designs. And all they got in return for fighting the Japanese was a fresh tranche of brutal British imperialism. 

By 1946 Japan had been mollified and the threat of communism was the new clarion call on which Asia was to rotate. How does one forget the US role in ensuring the division of Korea and the use of ‘Agent Orange’ in Vietnam? They used Soviet Union in WW II only to make it an enemy. Islam was used against godless communism and then made into a dreaded monster after 9/11. They used China in the Cold War and now China is the enemy. This is an endless game that can no longer be brushed aside in terms of, “there are no permanent friends or enemies, but permanent interests in international relations.” 

The people of Asia must expose this farce and say that there is only one permanent interest - not to expose global poor to wars initiated at the behest of the leech like descendants of Rockefeller and Rothschild. The people must come together to prevent their younger generations from being used once again in frivolous wars. Wars indulged in by these banking monsters representing 1% of the global population. For this tiny minority, war is a necessity. They will create reasons to display their masculinity and keep the global 99% in a perpetual state of shock and awe. Thus, there is no use blaming Americans, now we know the real culprits behind the wars. 

For these global elite, the multitudes are expendable earthworms and cockroaches. Nations and Gods are all strategic commodities to be used and thrown away like disposable crockery. Protection and perpetuation of property rights is all they live for and make us die for. They will not change; let us at least, not allow ourselves to be used.

A Deadly Strategic Triangle - Hillary, Hasina and Mamata

Bless me please! Shah Rukh Khan and his team with Mamata Banerjee  

Mamata Banerjee is blessed. Shah Rukh, the King of Bollywood has added a purple patch to the otherwise tattered Trinamool rule in West Bengal.
Hillary Clinton, (technically the second) lady of the empire, too has showered praise on Mamata for being looked after well during her brief stay at Kolkata.

While Shah Rukh is bowing before Didi to seek state patronage after being mistreated at the cricket ground in his home town at Mumbai, Hillary intentions are directed more towards making Mamata genuflect in front of imperial desires.

The two ladies in an animated discussion 

Needless to mention, Ms Clinton patted Mamata ’s back for bringing out a regime change in West Bengal - without US and Nato special forces - and without making the US state department run around United nations to seek legitimacy to bomb Bengali Marxists to stone age - for causing discomfort to Manmohan on civil-nuclear deal.

After exchanging the pleasantries, Clinton must also have given Mamata her piece of mind on the strategic importance of Bangladesh in the US scheme of things. While giving assurances about stepping up US investments in the state, Clinton must have told Mamata to be nice to Sheikh Hasina on Teesta River issue.

After all, Clinton did not travel thousands of miles to discuss FDI in retail sector and collect some Bengali goodies. This is being reinforced by the recent news reports regarding the US plans to open a military base in Bangladesh.

Keeping in mind, the city of joy’s intellectual capacity to understand imperialism and its sinister designs, Washington must have nudged Mamata to prevent the comrades from establishing any links with the growing anti-Americanism in Dhaka.

To top it all, Clinton must have reassured Mamata not to worry to much about strategic aspects as the US has made sure that India’s former national security adviser and an expert on internal security matters is always there to tango.

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 Revolution for Respect- Civil-Military Relations

There is discontent among the veterans. The discontent that began with demonstrations and rallies against the non-implementation of One-Rank - One Pension by the government during 6th Central Pay Commission deliberations has taken the shape of a movement against injustice to the personnel of the Defence Services and Ex-Servicemen. Where is this movement of erstwhile soldiers headed? Will the veteran’s agitation transform into a vote bank and thus a political interest group? And will such a political entity lead to greater politicization of the armed forces? The past history of other nations in the world shows that such benign veteran’s mobilization can be exploited by forces inimical to the health of a nation. If the military was to emerge as a separate entity, will such an entity then be used by others to further their own parochial interests? 

The US Library of Congress has decided to preserve twitter messages for posterity. Twitter archives will be stored under the "Web capture" project of the library. This project has already stored 167 terabytes of digital material. The library uses the "universal body of human knowledge" for scholarly and research purposes. But one is hardly sure if such sophisticated data preservation and mining is carried out in India for trend analysis and policy research.

A look at the scores of ‘Yahoo groups’ and ‘Facebook’ pages related to the service community, adequately inform that the internet is a catalyst that helps rekindle the course and the squadron spirit among the long separated buddies. Here, men in uniform simply intend to connect to or locate their old friends - share the nostalgia of their younger days - seek post-retirement consultancy – find suitable service accommodation to facilitate their travel plans – seek advice on the career options for their children. Such bonhomie on the net is palpably innocuous and can easily be categorized as social networking that largely represents the technology driven new way of socializing and communicating.

Another trend that is visible on e-mail chains and ex servicemen blogs is the emotional debate related to the life of a soldier, his pay and perks, the One Rank One Pension (OROP), bureaucracy bashing and last but not the least a yearning for respect in a society that seems to be happy to keep the armed forces confined to the periphery of national polity. Some of these blogs and emails exhorting the entire service community to join hands give one an eerie feeling about the future of civil-military ties in India. For example one of the messages reads, "Come on be a man and stand up for the welfare of the veterans and please do not split the NDA slogan of ‘service before self’ to ‘self before Service’." In one of the e-mails Gen VP Malik is quoted, "If we wish to maintain good civil-military relations to optimise national security, our people, particularly political and media leaders, must realize this important responsibility and ensure that there is no feeling of frustration or injustice in the military profession.

This feeling of frustration reached its crescendo during the 6th Pay Commission deliberations. The services were then made to look weak and meek in front of the bureaucracy that just refused to take the service representative onboard the Commission that sat to decide the future pay structure of the armed forces. For every enhancement in their salary, the armed forces were literally made to beg. It is during such tumultuous times in 2008 that the ex-servicemen movements like the IESM came out on the streets demanding OROP. The IESM even went to the extent of returning their medals to the President of India. In a clear attempt to attract media attention, they even sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister signed in blood.

There is no denying the fact that the issues being raised are genuine. For example, the issue of continuous fall in the warrant of precedence (WoP) for the Indian Armed Forces is a cause of concern. The Service Chiefs now stand at number 12 in order on the WoP list, at least three notches below the UPSC chairman. That the civilians have been climbing up the ladder, pushing the Lt Generals to the 23rd slot is a story that narrates the mindset of the nation that either views the military as a "class enemy" or as "junta".

The above mentioned concerns of the Indian service community can best be described under the rubric of "corporate interests" of the military. According to Eric A. Nordlinger, the corporate interests include "adequate budgetary support, institutional autonomy, and protection of the institution against encroachments from other institutions and institutional survival". Nordlinger in his book Soldiers in Politics: Military Coups and Governments, also warns that interference with these corporate interests constitute "the most powerful interventionist motive". Unfortunately the Indian paranoia related to coup d’état results from pathetic paucity of literature and knowledge of military sociology in India

It is primarily, this fear of intervention or praetorianism that leads erudite writers like AG Noorani (Frontline, August 13, 2010) to say, "It speaks for the strength of our democratic system that it survived those generals who did much harm. But it should not condone the trespasses of such men anymore. Only the moral and intellectual authority of the political leadership can nip the creeping menace in the bud". But the point that Noorani is missing is that post the 1962 war - once the Western influences on our military had considerably reduced, the Indian armed forces did settle down to following a professional ethical code, which led them to evolve as "managers of violence". They also dutifully accepted the civilian supremacy over the military - what Samuel P Huntington in his 1957 book, The Soldier and the State, described as the "objective control" of the military.

The Indian armed force’s acceptance of subordination to elected representatives was much in tune with the civil – military norms that had evolved in the industrialized world in the Post-War years. Once the ideology of Non-Alignment was clearly defined, the Indian armed forces followed it to the hilt. Despite, regular contacts with the Soviets for the purpose of arms purchases - one did not witness any ingress of communist ideology into the armed forces. Contrast this with the state of other newly independent third world nations (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand) that developed strategic and military ties with the West during the same period. They all ended up either being overtly or covertly controlled by military junta. That both the Indian military leadership remained unfazed by military takeovers in their vicinity speaks about their understanding of the international political-economy at that juncture in history.

It would be wrong to suggest that it was only the armed forces that acceded to the "objective control", The civilian leadership too granted the military a degree of autonomy to pursue professionalism. This probably explains the harmonious relationship between the two. The Indian armed forces (born and brought up under British tutelage) devoted their heads to master Soviet equipment, while their hearts continued to be governed by Western military ethos. The most sought after courses in the Indian armed forces continued to be the ones offered by the USA and UK. The Indian naval officers were encouraged to read Tom Clancy’s, The Hunt for Red October and the United States Navy Institute journal, Proceedings. In the staff college examination much emphasis was laid on the campaign studies related to Normandy landings or General Macarthur’s exploits both in the battlefield as well as in the US Congress. The influence of Western literature dealing with the World War II continued to be followed mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the military leadership that took over from the British was largely trained in the West. For them the victorious western militaries were the best in the world. Therefore, it was a matter of convenience to follow the British training curriculum. Secondly, the body of literature from Russia was hard to follow due to the language and there was hardly any attempt to build a body of indigenized military literature. Furthermore, post-1962 wars, the communists in India were demonized. There was a concerted campaign in the military to keep all and sundry, with even a modicum of left leanings away from the military fold. It is primarily, for this reason that many leftists continue to view the Indian armed forces as a "class enemy". The Indian extreme right with its natural predilection towards military masculinity believes in Huntington’s hypothesis that the "natural liberal inclinations" of society cannot be allowed to permeate into military structures because liberal tendencies can "fatally undermine its (military’s) effectiveness.

The end of Cold War and India’s embrace of liberalization ideology helped the military (much like the other Indian elite) to get rid of the burden of continuously balancing their mind and the heart. This new found harmony led the Indian armed forces to develop fresh linkages with their Western counterparts through joint military training programmes and exercises. According to Indian naval experts, "The professional skills and experiences exchanged during these interactions go a long way in enhancing co-operation and understanding the nuances of naval operations as well as disaster management and combating maritime threats of terrorism and piracy. Having initially involved only basic operations, the current interaction will feature advanced aspects of naval warfare, including anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine operations." Needless to mention here, that the Indian armed forces have been interacting with the US as well as other militaries on a professional front.

While no one can dispute the gains that accrue through such professional interactions, the cause of concern is how these interactions impact civil-military ties in the country - unfortunately in India no study is carried to evaluate such aspects either by the universities or by the think tanks. Since India has now entered into a strategic military partnership with the US, it becomes imperative for us to look closer at the impact of such a partnership on the Indian military mind. This is important because in almost all the countries that the US has established military ties with (barring the European countries), the military has emerged as a predominant political force. Take the example of Pakistan, it is widely acknowledged that "the Pakistan military is not just an apparatus of the state: it is the state." The extent to which the relationship between the military and the civil-society is soured can be gauged from the fact that majority of the experts are of the opinion that Pakistan is almost a failed state. Throughout the Cold War and post 9/11 the US has expediently encouraged letting the Pakistan army retain its power base and also determine the nation’s foreign policy. The Pakistan example leads one to agree with Morris Janowitz’s thesis that professionalism is not the best bulwark against coups. Janowitz’s book, The Professional Soldier: a Social and Political Portrait (1960) - that provided an important counterbalance to Huntington, argued that "the transformation of the military to one which ‘seeks viable international relations, rather than victory…leads to an inevitable politicization of the military. And with this comes an implicit challenge to civilian supremacy."

There are no visible signs in India that should suggest us that the military mind is tainted with any ideas about acquiring political power. However, certain indicators pose a disturbing picture about the possible future scenario. Just as majority of the country is disenchanted with the politicians and bureaucracy, the military veterans too seem to have lost trust. Now many would argue that veterans are also a part of the society and the government is capable of handling discontent in a democracy. However, a closer look at the current situation reveals that this time the voice of the veterans is not mixed up with that of the common masses. The body of veterans is fast emerging as a separate entity and their pronouncements have strong political undertones. The ex-military men’s natural propensity to support conservatism can lead to a head on collision with the civil society that is fast embracing liberal values in all spheres. For example, the Armed Forces Special Power Act, that many in the military consider a sacrosanct document and the role of women in the combat arms are being increasingly challenged by civil society and the media. Similarly, the recent incidence of a mother of an officer coming out openly in the press challenging the army’s version of her son’s death and demanding a CBI probe into army affairs points to demands for greater transparency in matters military. Furthermore, the liberal Indian society that has whole heatedly supported the armed forces in all wars fought for the protection of national boundaries may turn their back, if the military were to become a part of a coalition force fighting in some distant lands. The anti-war protests that one witnesses in Europe may get emulated in India too.

The conservative veterans with a focus on military are most likely to have an impact on the serving community too. The retired community is most likely to be in the forefront to prevent any ingress of liberal values into the military mainstream. And that such a body will be supported by right wing politicians in the country can also not be discounted. All this combined may impact the apolitical and secular character of the armed forces. Such a condition would be most conducive for our foreign friends to exploit for the purpose of their own national interest. One says this with a degree of caution, because most of the Indian veteran’s emails and facebook messages that one sees floating on the net are hinting towards replicating the American model to get respect from society that a soldier deserves. Comparisons are often made between the way the American President treats the soldiers and veterans and the way the Indian media and politicians handle the genuine grievances of the armed forces.

The trends are certainly a cause of concern, if not yet dangerous. The political class must begin to appreciate that inadvertently the Indian social order is veering towards greater militarization of the society. They must also begin to acknowledge that such trends cannot be nipped in the bud using the old Huntington’s methodology of control of the military - where the military acts as "a politically neutral profession, isolated from society and concerned with the efficient achievement of victory without regard to non-military".

The game changing relationship that we have entered into with the US is largely based on military to military relations. And it is indeed a paradox that those who support such interactions with the US are opposed to military offering any advice to the government on foreign policy matters. The time has come that the government will have to redefine the civil-military relations in the country. The need of the hour is that constitutional provisions must be enacted to integrate the armed forces with the society and the higher decision making in the country. India cannot afford to let the trust that the armed forces have in the state to erode. Like all other state institutions military too need an umbrella under which it can operate without fear of retribution. The Indian armed forces fully appreciate the fact that this umbrella has to have the logo of the Indian state. But it is incumbent of the Indian establishment to make sure that the holes in the umbrella are plugged. Plugging of holes is important to prevent the armed forces from seeking respect under more attractive umbrellas offered by national political parties of various hues or by the foreign powers with vested interests to court our armed forces.

This article was published in Purple Beret- September 2010 

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.