Indian Defence Review

The dawn of 20 September 2013 will long be remembered for the headlines of a national daily of suspect credentials screaming “Unit setup by V K Singh used secret funds to try and topple J&K government and block Bikram Singh”. The day marked the abysmal depths to which Indian military leadership had stooped to tarnish the image of the previous Chief. The current top brass has shamed the nation, the army and the soldiers. Such a precipitous fall in moral and professional ethics has left all serving and retired soldiers aghast.

Allegations of attempted destabilization of the state government by giving a bribe of Rs 1.19 crore to the current Agriculture Minister and blocking Bikram Singh’s promotion are too preposterous to warrant a comment. Apparently, the news of 20 September 2013 is a deliberate leak and a plant.

Although the news report raises many pertinent and worrisome questions, there are two aspects that deserve mention here. The first one pertains to the procedural attributes. It has been discussed in the public domain to some extent. The second aspect concerns propriety and carries the ominous potential of becoming a precedent. Therefore, it merits a far more serious discussion.

Procedural Infirmities  

It is claimed that the said report is based on ‘a secret Board of Officers (BOO) inquiry report into the functioning of the Technical Services Division (TSD)’ and that ‘the inquiry was led by Lieutenant General Vinod Bhatia, DG, Military Operations’.

Technical incorrectness of the news item is apparent from the fact that a BOO is ordered to take stock of the facts and take them on record for reconciliation purposes. It carries out no investigations, questions no one and submits no enquiry report. It submits board proceedings. If required, a Court of Inquiry may follow.

Two, it is not understood as to why a BOO was ordered in the first place. Is it the job of the Army Headquarters (AHQ) to carry out an appraisal of the functioning of a unit? What were the compelling reasons for deputing a Lieutenant General for the same? Was it a façade with malicious intents?

Three, the report alleges that TSD was raised by VK Singh in May 2010 and off-air interception equipment was bought to conduct ‘unauthorised’ covert operations. Apparently, initiators of the report are totally unaware of the functioning of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Raising of a new unit requires manpower, equipment and recurring expenditure. A detailed statement of case has to be prepared by the service headquarters (SHQ) and submitted to MoD. Prior to according sanction, all facets of the proposal including necessity, functioning and funding are discussed at length at various forums and echelons. It is ridiculous to aver that the raising of TSD could be a surreptitious act of VK Singh with mala-fide intentions.

Four, financial powers delegated to SHQ are not absolute and can be exercised only with the prior concurrence of the Integrated Finance Advisor (IFA). IFA scrutinises every aspect of the proposal including acceptance of necessity by MoD. Hence no equipment can ever be purchased underhandedly, as alleged in the news report.

Safeguarding Reputation of Predecessor is a Sacred Obligation

Indian army functions on the basis of well established norms. Norms are unwritten rules which are required to be followed diligently by all members for the continued sustenance of the organisation. They provide a code of expected conduct and thumb rules for guidance. Norms can be descriptive (what to do or ‘Dos’) and proscriptive (what not to do or ‘Don’ts’).

It is a proscriptive norm that a military officer never lets down his predecessor.  He is expected to ensure that no aspersions are ever cast on his predecessor’s character and military reputation. All decisions taken by him in good faith must be defended. There are three reasons for the same:-

• Decisions are always taken as per the prevailing circumstances and with inputs available at that time. It is very unfair to find fault with them in retrospect with the benefit of the hindsight. One does not know what made a predecessor choose a particular course of action.
• A predecessor is never present to defend his decisions. Thus, vilifying him amounts to his trial in absentia. Even Army Rule 180 mandates that any officer whose character or military reputation is questioned must be provided full opportunity for defence.
• Most importantly, military as an institution is highly sensitive to the reputation of its leadership. Vilification of the image of the military leadership can upset the vital trust-loyalty equation. When leaders try to malign each other, troops’ wonder if such officers are worthy of their confidence.

It is the first instance that a SHQ has initiated and leaked reports to tarnish the image of a previous Chief. One dreads to think of such an obnoxious practice becoming a trend-setter. Are we going to witness the ugly spectacle of every Chief (or other commanders) denigrating his predecessor? It is a terrible prospect indeed and does not portend well for a disciplined force.

Finally

Whereas even the existence of an intelligence unit should always remain a secret, the army leadership has compromised its operations by questioning its functioning through selective leaks. Many feel that recent cross-border incursions could well have been prevented by TSD. An excellent asset has been sacrificed at the altar of personal vendetta.

Click to buy

More worrisomely, one is surprised at the spinelessness of the senior staff officers who failed to caution an errant Chief. By causing deliberate damage to the standing of the predecessors, the army as an institution is damaging its own credibility. It can prove extremely dear in the long run.