Indian Defence Review

Bargain of Politician-Bureaucrat Solidarity

So how might the politicians, who occupy power through bureaucracy-conducted elections and bail them out from their election manifestoes through the same mechanism, not defer to bureaucracy’s ‘recommendations’, and not leave them free to exercise their superior administrative culture in managing the governing apparatus, particularly when such recommendations bring laurels to themselves. Thus over the years of governance under the reign of electable politicians of modest acquaintance with their charter, certain norms of business have crystallised within the independent India’s bureaucracy.

For example, no matter what the past affiliation be, priority is to be accorded to the agenda of the political superior, followed by that of the members of the party in power, while the interests of those from the opposition parties may be promoted when that is manageable. Another norm dictates that and when a political promise turns un-implementable, the good bureaucrat must devise ways to offer face-saving distractions or a smooth escape. Of necessity, to do all these without having to embarrass the political leaders, it becomes necessary for the bureaucrats to be accorded superior authority, and inter alia higher status – higher remunerations and exclusive opportunities follow as a matter of course. Yet, to escape being marked for their back-stage machinations and causing damage to their masters’ self-esteem, bureaucratic tradition enjoins the display of simple habits, quiet solidarity with the master’s agenda and recuse from self-interests. That demeanour allows them to keep alive their bargain with the politicians.

Bureaucrats, in their unshakable conviction, consider safe management of the state as a holy purpose ordained upon their class, so much so that this conviction has grown into a cult that identifies the state’s interests with their own monopoly over authority. That sense of purpose keeps the bureaucracy upright, competent, service-oriented and sincere to a fault, the sole exception being when it sees threats to that monopoly. Of course, under the current dispensation, the construct of the bureaucracy is no more so homogenous, what with revision of standards, politicisation and overwhelming greed amongst many of them. That justifies the logical conclusion that the mainstream bureaucracy – not the plethora of pretending cadres which have mushroomed in the state apparatus – remains as a steel-frame for the state to function in the right manner. By implication, in democracy, bureaucracy is the base on which the ruling party enjoys its merry-go-round. Thus even the most powerful rulers have been ensnared by the bureaucratic spell, the present Government being no exception.

Managing the Military Institution

There has been a tradition of mutual dislike between the bureaucrats and top military brass; notably however, the younger soldiery remains admired. The notion tutored into our political class is that the military hierarchy is made up of ever demanding perfectionists who do not ‘understand’ the ‘art of compromise’, ‘political compulsions’ or practical constraints of ‘pandering’ to their demands, and come to the terms only when kept in firm leash. Therefore, when it comes to higher management of national defence, they consider it most necessary to exercise bureaucratic control over the military brass. The extremity of destructiveness and irreversibility of the extreme consequences of the military’s ‘call’ are thus viewed through the prism of administrative and vote-garnering expediencies rather than from the excruciating hazards of war-waging. Further, as a norm more or less, India’s bureaucracy seeks military ‘enlightenment’ through extensive reading – Samuel Huntington’s “Soldier and the State” and reports of the British Ministry of Defence being the favourites – without giving itself the benefit of real and practical insight of that most exalted institution of the state. Resultantly, in a unique arrangement not found elsewhere, the Defence Ministry in India is run by bureaucrats who have little more than just passing acquaintance with matters military.

Having thus misguided itself through amateurish interpretation of such precedence’s and examples which might attract its fancy, our bureaucracy feels compelled to keep the military brass ‘in their place’ lest they imbibe over-ambitious ideas. This compelling purpose is sought to be secured, not by inclusion of the military hierarchy to the better management of the military institution as it is done in advanced countries, but by barring them from that process and instead keeping them engaged in whining and grovelling for ‘approvals’ of the most mundane kinds, of what they are already entitled to. Nothing excites the Indian bureaucrats more than triggering intra-service disagreements and finding smart, brave and competent soldiers humouring them to get past their expertise in prevent matters from progressing. This is the way, as they understand in all their truncated wisdom, to follow the principle of ‘civilian supremacy’! Ironically, by their display of sentimental rhetoric, crass nepotism, myopic convictions and unholy compromises, the military hierarchy lands up vindicating that notion.

Futile Slandering

Past few years have seen the people, press and military fraternity becoming rather vocal in lambasting the defence ministry bureaucracy; all the ills afflicting the military institution are sought to be ascribed to their ‘collective machinations’ to repudiate the noble, military dedicated state-soldier covenant. To much extent, there is justification in that charge. Actually however, the bureaucracy does nothing, literally so, besides letting the military hierarchy, by its frivolity, put its one foot in its own mouth and the other foot into that of the sister arms’ or services’. Conversely, there is no mention of the inexplicable silence, if not acquiescence, of the military brass in letting injustices being briskly meted out to the military fraternity over the past decades. We do not seem to ask ourselves as to while the soldier’s status, emoluments and combat capabilities were being undermined over time by ignorant, possibly inimical, politicians and bureaucrats, what had been preventing the military brass from intervening. How could they, from their exalted perch, either fail to notice the impending subversion or submit to wrong-doings; why did we had to wait for two decades for a Major to take up the cudgels at judicial courts and another decade for some of the retired veterans to shame the Government in giving their due?

We may, if we must, exonerate those venerated military leaders of post-independence era who, being inexperienced in South Block manoeuvres, had been outsmarted into irrelevance by the hard-nosed ICS and romantically naive politicians’ combine. But it should not be a slander if we aver that they too had failed to bust the falsehood of anti-military machinations as propagated by that combine to banish the great Indian military institution – like the lie that it was the British Indian Army, not the Indian civil servants and the police, which had perpetuated the British rule, and that peace, progress and panchsheel were possible without the participation of the military institution in such endeavours. As for the later lot of military leadership, while these worthies had been engaged in holding the external enemies at bay, they too seem to have remained oblivious to the ‘backstabbing’ – if what happened to the soldiers’ status was truly so – from internal saboteurs. And now, we wish to cover our stupidity by blaming bureaucrats!

In any case, to be candid, there is no gain saying that barring exceptions, all those who denigrate the bureaucracy from outside would do no better, possibly even worse, if inducted into it. Indeed, it is not very rare that within the military hierarchy one comes across cases of misuse of superior authority to promote the interests of regimental as well as individually devoted cronies, biased sanction of funds, works and facilities and self-grant of grossly unscrupulous privileges, instances when bureaucratic misdeeds pale in comparison. Conversely, hands of bureaucracy have been at almost every matter in which the military institution’s purpose has been met – supplies, medical, education, and so on. Indeed, bureaucracy does not hinder us from unflinching commitment to training, professional acumen, preferring meritorious demands and observance of traditional military probity. It would therefore be wise to look within before crying over bureaucratic ‘villainy’. After all, there are many key issues which may be accomplished from within – like de-link of regimental spirit from professional decision making, building up war rather than VIP culture, judicious committal of finances, wholesome modernisation of fighting formations rather than largesse to particular arms, and standing upright against pressures to compromise with military ethos.

Understanding the System

The hoary and ever-noble state-soldier covenant leaves the burden of protection of the soldiers’ welfare at the hands of the state, thus leaving the soldier ready to plunge into such extraordinary situations into which no one else may venture. But given the dispensation prevailing, the post-independence Government of India could not initiate itself into honouring that culture; even when the native bureaucrats inherited the departments of soldiers’ welfare, they could not appreciate its true import. It took six decades for the Indian military fraternity to discover this glaring truth! Now that the charade has been unveiled, may be it is time for the military leadership to forcefully espouse the state’s moral responsibility of nurturing, rather than undermining, the soldiery.

The sole purpose of military personnel is to fight enemies, not to manipulate bureaucratic norms or systemic processes. Obviously therefore, they cannot be expected to match bureaucratic wit on files, notes, business rules and regulations which even life-long bureaucrats find puzzling. Yet we cannot expect that all our demands be met without obstructive scrutiny from all angles. The answer to salvation from bureaucratic shackles therefore lies in military hierarchy’s deeper understanding of the governing and decision-making process and clever adoption of professional stance that leaves no scope for contest, particularly from within the fraternity, for the bureaucrats to assume decisive roles that they are not competent to perform. Towards this end, judicious revamp of the military staff structure in which civilian and long-tenure military officials have stake, is overdue. No doubt, politicians and bureaucrats, aided by military beneficiaries of the existing system, would not let go easily of their comfort of status quo, and so it must be for the professionally committed military leadership to lead that revamp. Cursing the system and lamenting political or bureaucratic indifference would not take us anywhere but to irrelevance. Looking within from that perspective, one cannot escape the uncanny feeling that the ailment lies within; even the Veterans’ associations have failed to join hands to the common purpose! Indeed, there is much to improve in our internal culture before the bureaucracy is called to question.

Whatever be the case, it is futile to contest the bureaucracy; even well meaning top bureaucrats have failed in that attempt – K Subramanian, for example. The state cannot do without them, nor can the people do so – least of all the military institution. The best way to tackle bureaucracy, as Field Marshal ‘Bill’ Slim had opined, is therefore to know more, make propositions unassailable, be firm in articulation and retains stoic fortitude in the face of bureaucratic machinations.

“Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status” – Laurence Peter.