Military & Aerospace

Military be included in the National Security Decision Making Loop
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Net Edition | Date : 25 Oct , 2013

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne Chairman Chiefs of the Staff Committee (COSC) pitched for a common pay commission for armed forces and said it must have representation from their side. In the light of the announcement of the Seventh Pay Commission, COSC demanded that its terms and references of must include all those anomalies, which have crept in the emoluments of armed forces over the decades. He wrote to defence minister AK Antony to demand “full representation” for the armed forces in the new central pay commission, it was couched in extremely polite language.

…message was crystal clear: the forces do not have faith in the civilian dispensation – largely the bureaucracy…

“In central pay commission you must have your armed forces representative there to explain your case and also to explain your peculiar condition of service and they must also be able to explain the equivalence of parity, status and so on and so forth,” he said. “What we found is from third pay commission onward, lot of anomalies have crept into the system with each pay commission and some of the anomalies have still not been resolved till date,” he said.

But the underlying message was crystal clear: the forces do not have faith in the civilian dispensation – largely the bureaucracy — to “fully grasp the unique challenges” of military service. And, hence, address long-standing, deep concerns over their eroding “status, parity and equivalence” as compared to their civilian counterparts.

Experts say the huge politico-bureaucratic resistance to critical reforms in the country’s higher defence management — suggested by late K Subramanyam-led Kargil Review Committee and the 2001 group of ministers’ report on ‘reforming the national security system’ as well as the 2012 Naresh Chandra Taskforce Committee Report last year – is one of the main reasons for the failure to bridge the divide.

On the recommendations of the Subrahmanyam Committee Report on Kargil for the appointment of Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) the Government appointed a Task Force under the former Rajya Raksha Mantri Arun Singh to give its recommendations on defence and security matters. Arun Singh also strongly recommended the formation of CDS on the lines of other world democracies. Finally Group of Ministers under the chairmanship of Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani appointed on April 17, 2000 also recommended the appointment of CDS in rotation, but the Defence Secretary was also recommended to be the Principal Secretary.

The Government finalised the basic structure of the CDS set-up, which will revamp top defence management. The setting up of a Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the tri-service Andaman and Nicobar Command under an Indian Naval Vice Admiral was also approved. The conceptual framework was more or less complete. The new apex set up will promote joint planning and execution of military affairs.

Just a few months ago, the defence ministry quietly rejected most of the key recommendations of the Naresh Chandra Taskforce.

The Government with a modification accepted all the recommendations contained in the GoM report that before a view is taken on the recommendation relating to the institution of CDS, various political parties could be consulted. The process of consultation with political parties was initiated by issuing letters to National and State level political parties by the Raksha Mantri on 02 March 2006, eliciting their views on the establishment of CDS. The Raksha Mantri issued a reminder on 12 June 2006 and again on 11 January 2007. Replies from four political parties only were received and replies from the majority of the political parties were silent.

Among the numerous controversies triggered during General V.K. Singh’s tenure as Chief of Army Staff, perhaps the worst kept secret was the lack of “defence preparedness.” Most informed analysts know about the deficiencies stemming from higher defence mismanagement, but the leak of General V.K. Singh’s confidential letter to the Prime Minister made this public.

The other controversies around civil-military relations revealed the crisis of confidence and trust deficit between military officers and civilian bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Union Defence Minister A.K. Anthony admitted as such when he referred to the “bitterness” between them. While the reasons for this are many — including the legacy of the controversies over the Sixth Pay Commission, at an analytical level it is a structural problem arising from at least three peculiarities in our institutional structures.

In view of the large number of legal complaints in the various courts against the MoD on pay and allowances discrepancies, defence procurement scams and lurking threat perception from our adversaries China and Pakistan, Naresh Chandra Committee, a 14-member task force on national security was set up by the Union government on 21 June 2012 to suggest ways to revamp of defence management in the country.

The main objective behind the constitution of the committee was to contemporarise the Kargil Review Committee’s recommendations, which was tabled in the Parliament on 23 February 2000. Besides, the task force was also asked to examine the state of country’s border management and restructuring system. The Committee submitted its report to the government on 8 August 2012.

The bureaucracy needs to be tamed and controlled so that the political leadership in the interest of national security overrules its objections.

The Naresh Chandra Taskforce on national security, in its report had recommended a permanent CoSC chairman to exercise “administrative control” over the nuclear arsenal, head a separate joint special forces command, prioritize modernization of the armed forces and prepare annual defence operational status reports.

Much like the politico-bureaucratic combine scuttled the recommendation for a CDS after the 1999 Kargil conflict, the defence ministry has expressed major reservations against the fresh proposal for a permanent CoSC chairman as recommended by the Committee.

Just a few months ago, the defence ministry quietly rejected most of the key recommendations of the Naresh Chandra Taskforce. Pointing to lack of consensus in the armed forces as well as the need to consult political parties, it shot down the proposal to create the post of a permanent chairman of the chiefs of staff committee (CoSC).

This General No. 1, a four-star officer like the three Service chiefs with a fixed two-year tenure, would have been the principal military advisor to the government and an “invitee” to the Cabinet Committee on Security. He would have also helped usher in some desperately needed synergy among the Army, Navy and IAF in planning, procurement, operational and doctrinal issues.

Similarly, another key recommendation that was junked was “cross-staffing” — posting of military officers to MoD. Over a decade ago, in his report, the late strategic doyen Subramanyam had held, “India is perhaps the only major democracy where the armed forces HQs are outside the apex governmental structure.”

The situation remains somewhat similar till this day. The three Service HQs, once merely “attached offices”, have been rechristened “integrated HQs of ministry of defence” with some delegation of financial powers. But the nomenclature change is perceived to be “largely cosmetic”. Till the armed forces get some concrete institutional role in policy-making, along with effective cross staffing, the divide and the drift will probably continue.

http://www.lancerpublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=78

Click to buy

It is not only surprising but also shocking as to why should Government appoint high powered committees when it is not going to implement is recommendations? Why should taxpayers’ money be wasted over such an expensive exercise? The bureaucracy needs to be tamed and controlled so that the political leadership in the interest of national security overrules its objections.

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.

About the Author

Col (Dr) PK Vasudeva

is author of World Trade Organisation: Implications for Indian Economy, Pearson Education and also a former Professor International Trade.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left

One thought on “Military be included in the National Security Decision Making Loop

  1. the babus without responsibilty and accountabilty with all perks , power and commissions and rent seeking will never give up the power they have . THE FAUJIS HAVE TO DEMAND RESPONSIBILTY , ACCOUNTABILTY OF EACH OF THE 18000 CIVILAN EMPLOYEES WITH THEIR DUTIES AND REPONSIBILTIES
    PASTED ON THE DOOR FOR THE 3000 CRORES OF TAXPAYERS MONEY WHICH THEY SPEND ON THEMSELVES IN THE NAME OF DEFENCE .
    ONLY WHEN OUTCOMES ARE DEMANDED FOR THE 240000 CRORES SPENT EVERY YEAR AND PUBLISHED IN PRESS AND PRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT WILL THEY ACCEDE. FOR FAR TOO LONG THEY HAVE PLAYED THE CAT AND MOUSE GAME WITH THE THREE SERVICES AND IT IS TIME THE BANDICOOTS ARE SENT DOWN THE HOLE .

More Comments Loader Loading Comments