IDR Blog

A Response to Shri Manavendra Singh’s Article in The Print
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Maj Sam Desbandhu | Date:03 Aug , 2018 2 Comments
Maj Sam Desbandhu
Experience in counterinsurgency, special operations and international peacekeeping

In responding to the words of Hon’ble MLA Sh Manavendra Singh (hereafter MS) (The Print, 18 July 2018: By No Stretch of Imagination Can the Military be Compared to IAS and IPS Officers), one doesn’t deign to run down the many dedicated and talented officers one encounters in all spheres of public life. Their commitment to nation building is second to none, and for that one proffers them a salute, while also seeking their understanding when speaking in general about our governance.

Even though the directionless piece doesn’t deserve a point by point response (inanities like: command & control of the IA is ‘expeditionary’ one, our State has become ‘insular’ etc.), a few (mis)conceptions cannot not go without deeper discussion. For example, MS claims a Superintendent of Police to hold a 3-star position. If he meant it in the sense of a Captain’s rank badges – why compare to, umm, a Captain? Confounding for an editor of a Defence Magazine, sitting legislator and former member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence, to impute that the issues troubling the military have only become important since (and due) the army’s incorporation in internal security operations.

The fundamental question in this debate is: whither the ever-louder cries of anguish from the military? Should the society not learn where this thing (parity et al) started, and where it has wound up – the military feel loved by the people, ignored by the politician and back-stabbed by the bureaucratic establishment? If the change in the pecking order has been to the detriment of the military alone – was it well reasoned (say, our security threats have dissipated and an army is now notional in nature)? Why has MS no words for recommendations of Pay Commissions based on false inputs, and no military member to point them out?

One has observed with an open mind the political establishment acquiesce that policing functions, earlier run by one Brigadier rank officer for a state, have become so complex as to require multiple HAG+ level officers today. So also for most other services.  When MS says things have changed, one can’t help asking which specific changes justify the rewards. Compare to Singapore, South Korea or even China – this country – helpless in disasters and rains alike, boasting pathetic infrastructure, insensitive police, capricious government officials, failed education and civic systems. (Never mind the Rising India narrative, for which a Bengaluru CEO deserves more credit). Everything that went wrong (or was allowed to), was sought to be fixed by more bureaucrats of ever higher ranks. Please account for it, Mr Singh, how many things were fixed? Air India or HMT? Municipalities or Sanitation? Internal Security or Defence Production? The cold fact – stated conscientiously – is that the civil services have by omission or commission let millions of Indians die undeserved, inhuman deaths since ’47. Which Indian is not exasperated at the humungous manifestation of injustice and failure that goes by the name of governance?  On the other hand, what have the forces been punished for? MS clearly misses the irony when he counsels the military must never hope to stand on the same pedestal as his fellow elites of modern India – those who brought about a situation of military ‘aid to civil authority’ becoming “well neigh permanent”. Mind you, it is the soldier who is frequently asked to mop up many of these botches. Of course it takes no asking if any of his favoured ‘UPSC’ grandees would be able to pick up after the army.

Mature governments across the world are not maintaining the privileged position of the military for nothing. If one must not compare apples and oranges – and agreed that administrative work is far different than military, pray tell us, how well do Forest and Foreign Service jobs compare? Beyond the principle of equitableness, one just can’t shirk away from the practical questions of parity that are faced in daily situations. It is no longer only the administration, but also organizations intimate to the military – such as the MES, DGDE, AHCS etc, that are diverting the time of the military leader from pursuing excellence in his Commission, into firefighting, tail-chasing and generally, pulling his/her hair out. When MS claims comparisons don’t matter, why does he not tell us why the IPS put on (misleading) military rank badges to draw false equivalences on ground – while their superiors claim otherwise on paper? When even the UN requires inter-se status to be clearly laid down for functional clarity, why is India the rare country to shirk from doing the same – even at the already soured equations? Instead, NFU is (craftily) justified for the cadres having minimum stagnation, and MS counsels humble acceptance. While mentioning how few officers handle things at district level, would it be impertinent to also ask why such a large number is required in senior ranks? With the kind of governance we have, what performance justifies entire batches continuing to rise through the ranks? There are nearly 20 DGsP in a single state – heading Housing, Telecom, Recruitment etc, and even separate DG for Home Guards and Civil Defence. Does that not weigh on the national coffers or the pension bill, Mr Singh? More perplexing are the other services who enjoy better anonymity and even better perks. What their accountability is, the impoverished masses do not even know to ask. Yet, one just cannot imagine the government ever installing different Cs-in-C for trenches, barracks, artillery maintenance or pay accounting.

A Captain has a sharper locus of responsibility, not because the govt felt compelled to commission one officer too many, but that the complexity of military operations requires a more intimate leadership (the officer as an institution bringing special training, leadership, technical learning). With no prejudice to complex decision-making in governance, it bears impressing that an officer acts in the stomach-turning zone of life-death decisions. Directing the application of (state-warranted) violence is compulsorily an alchemy of both art and science – and not achievable by education/training alone, guts alone or experience alone. The military officer is the exclusive professional expert, and it is easy to undermine him when you lack direct knowledge, or eat out the hands of the ‘bean-counters’. And even if I have to state this myself, and very mindful of our shortcomings, the Indian military remains consummate at its job. The mistakes of the civil services are paid for by the public, while those of the officer are paid by his own life, and worse (in his mind) by those of his command, and worst, by a pie of national sovereignty. The acceptance of ‘unlimited liability’ is a pledge that drives a soldier beyond ‘the call of duty’ so often – and acknowledging this conscious acceptance by honouring him while he’s still alive, is the least a state must do – a covenant which breathes meaning into the flag.

Still, I indulge MS to sidestep the fact that the deployment, risks and responsibilities of Indian military have expanded in the past decades (albeit whose failure would that be?). Just register that the Revolution in Military Affairs has made arranging forces and operations such a complex exercise; that on top of the cardinal requirement of field leadership, it requires life-long education, perhaps more as a percentage of their working lives than any other profession (and one says this mindful of the rigorous labours of surgeons, scientists and others). It is also an opportune moment to state that warfighting is seeing today, the same kind of tribulation as was faced by the Prussians of Frederick the Great, and we need not only leaders like Scharnhorst or Bill Creech – which can only be achieved by having top-class young men and women wanting to join, but also a politically led revolution in training, equipping and organizing of your military. In such a setting, MS insinuates the military stands for nothing, have little caliber or responsibility. What you as a lawmaker should be doing, if one may make bold, is to ‘gen-up’ on what goes; then give decision-making freedom, and demand more, much more from your generals.

It is curious that MS lays the blame at the feet of the military by quoting “military ignorance in governance”; almost as if the famed apolitical conduct of the Forces is now a fault. If one were to play the devil’s advocate, perhaps he is right – the military brass ought to have done more in terms of civil military interaction. The generals supporting the newborn swa-polity, and the construct of trust that Pt Nehru presaged, were clearly idealist in a world that just works differently. Such trust on the government was a given as late as the 90s, when junior officers were still being taught to not pay attention to their pay: “Soldiers don’t count the money”, they were told, “the government will look after you always”, and when the longlist of slights and shuffles hadn’t begun compiling itself. Don’t worry, sir, the soldier is waking up now. Thanks to social media and active veterans, the truth of betrayal gets clearer day by day – and it does singe deeply. Your party may have our support, but the likes of you are doing well to take it away.

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

Post your Comment

2000characters left

2 thoughts on “A Response to Shri Manavendra Singh’s Article in The Print

  1. To how many will you respond sir.
    Thousand years of foreign rule has reasons which has been deliberately wiped out of मनस /memory.
    Opinions can be many, you are too optimistic.
    Nation and nationhood is yet not largely understood by the leaders of Bharat..
    We’re putting across the point of treating the armed forces with the due it deserves, only thing where we shouldn’t be bothered about is comparing military leadership with the others, by comparing with bureaucrats we shall not demean the profession.
    The importance of armed forces if not understood well by the leaders of Bharat, or any national, will only lead to doomsday

  2. THE RETD MP IS NOW A POLITICIAN AND THE CIVIL SERVICE IS HIS LADDER TO STEP AGAIN AS A WINNING CANDIDATE . THE TERRITORIAL ARMY IS HIS PAST AND HE HAS NOTHING TO GAIN BY PRAISING OR SINGING ITS VIRTUES .THE ARMY HE SERVED CANNOT BE HIS LADDER TO SUCCESS. WHATEVER HE AND HIS FATHER HAD TO GAIN THEY HAVE ADEQUATELY MILKED THE SYSTEM OF PERKS PRIVILEGES AND EXSERVICEMEN BENEFITS . NOW TH E POLICE CIVIL SERVICES ARE THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH HE CAN MILK FOR HIS BENEFIT . THE ARMY CAN GO TO HELL.

More Comments Loader Loading Comments