A fine balance

Jettisoning seniority principle without creating a better selection process could hurt civil-military poise.

Written by Sushant Singh | Published:December 20, 2016 12:03 am
army chief, bipin rawat, lt general bipin rawat , new army chief, new army chief supersession, army chief appointment, appointment of new army chief, opposition on new army chief, india news, indian express Lt Gen Bipin Rawat

It is an occurrence so rare in India that the announcement of Lt General Bipin Rawat as the new army chief by superseding two of his seniors — Lt General Praveen Bakshi and Lt General P.M. Hariz — was bound to cause controversy. In principle, there can be no argument with the civilian government choosing an army chief it finds suitable considering the prevailing security environment and requirements. That is the essence of civil-military relations in a democracy, and a principle followed in most modern and mature democracies. Seniority cannot be the sole determinant for any post in any modern organisation, including the military.

But things have been different in India, and a lot of this flows from the experience of the 1962 India-China war. Among the many lessons learnt from that military debacle by the political leadership, particularly the first post-1962 defence minister, Y.B. Chavan, was that he should have a hands-off policy towards all the operational issues pertaining to the defence services. The insularity from political influence got even stronger with the passage of time, and such has been the situation that the political leadership now only deals with the army chief — or, at best, the director general of military operations — when it comes to the army. This means that even the army commanders of operational commands, whether it be the northern command looking after Kashmir or eastern command involved in fighting insurgencies in the Northeast, rarely get to interact directly with the political leadership.

As an outcome of that insularity and to shield military promotions from “political interference”, the system arrived at this norm of following the seniority for selecting military chiefs. It is not enshrined in any law or rule book, but has been followed bar once in 1983 when Lt General S.K. Sinha was overlooked for promotion to the post of army chief by the Indira Gandhi government. There have been a couple of similar cases in the navy and the air force, but none as controversial as Lt General Sinha who promptly resigned from service. He later contested the Lok Sabha election from Patna as an independent candidate, supported by the Opposition parties, which he lost. The political controversy surrounding Lt General Sinha’s supersession further had the effect of reinforcing the norm of seniority, with politicians becoming even more averse to being seen as interfering in the affairs of the military.

This principle of seniority is publicly seen as a person being appointed as a military chief solely because of an accident of date of birth and seniority. The inter-se seniority of officers from the same batch is determined by their performance at the training academies, which hardly has any bearing on his suitability as a military chief 40 years later. Those who argue in favour of seniority say that the few people who remain in contention for the post of a military chief are there because they have risen to the top in a deeply hierarchical military. They have been selected by four promotion boards, and each one of them is meritorious by virtue of the hoops crossed on the way to becoming an army commander. There is little to choose between them. The discretion of the government should thus only be used as a veto in case the system has failed and thrown up someone egregiously bad.

When the political leadership makes a deep selection and the people overlooked do not have any big red tick against them, it is bound to raise heckles in the organisation. The bigger worry is that it could soon lead to a situation where various contenders start courting political leadership for patronage, as has been the case with the DGPs of state police forces. In the late 1990s, there were a couple of cases of political leaders recommending certain names for military chiefs to the central government. The government wisely chose to ignore those political pleas, putting an end to that practice. When it comes to seeking political patronage, the case of the Pakistan army, which also owes its origins to the colonial British army, is instructive. In the 1970s, Pakistani PM Z.A. Bhutto made General Zia ul-Haq the army chief after superseding seven generals, after Zia had made Bhutto the honorary colonel of his regiment and got him photographed in the military uniform. Even today, the selection of army chief in Pakistan is made by the political leadership but the process of selection is always controversial and problematic.

The issue at the core of this debate is the process of selection. The alternative to the longstanding norm of seniority cannot be an arbitrary selection by the political leadership. There should be a due process to weigh various contenders, where each candidate’s suitability on certain established parameters is considered by the political leadership. Besides an understanding of military ethos and culture, it would require a certain interactive awareness among the political leadership of the career path, performance and potential of military officials. There is a fine line to tread between interaction and interference but that is a risk inherent in making deep selection. That risk, however, is better than making a blind selection based on personal political preferences.

Formalising and institutionalising the process of selection will remove arbitrariness while shielding the military from political interference. It will also instill a sense of fairness while rewarding merit. Doing this will take a lot of effort from the political leadership but in its absence, the politicians will be leaving themselves open to all kinds of charges of favouritism, parochialism and sectarianism. As in 1962, any future military setback will then be laid at the door of the politicians. Jettisoning the principle of seniority without creating a better alternative will be detrimental to the delicate balance of civil-military relations, which boasts of an unblemished track record in India so far.

sushant.singh@expressindia.com

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. R
    Ramakrishnan
    Jan 6, 2017 at 7:49 am
    All the selection boards have laid down criteria and those on the panel for promotion are put through these criteria by a point system. Based on the points scored they are put in a merit list and the required number are approved for the next rank. Why can't the Govt lay down criteria for selection to the Chief's appt and do the selection objectively based on these criteria? These criteria should be known to every one and should not be changed frequently. Then there will be a fair system of selection. There is yet another point connected with this, that of putting them through equated operational experience as Bde and Div commanders as well as operational staff. In ter arm exposure in the ranks of Capt/Major is yet another measure which will give adequate varied operational experience to officers of all arms.
    Reply
    1. S
      Sri
      Dec 20, 2016 at 3:53 pm
      Meritocracy does not need a process, Mediocracy require a process. India has had enough mediocracy and it is time for some meritocracy and excellence.
      Reply
      1. I
        indian
        Dec 21, 2016 at 12:30 am
        The appointment of a military chief is the sole prerogative of the Government. The government claims they made this appointment based on the new chief''s particular expertise in counter terrorism - which appears to be the need of the hour. What's wrong with that? Just politics.
        Reply
        1. L
          Lovely
          Dec 20, 2016 at 12:02 pm
          This is not clerical post, it depends on many factors.Be careful before writing useless trash.
          Reply
          1. A
            abc
            Dec 20, 2016 at 5:20 pm
            Indianexprezz should be renamed to StupidExpress
            Reply
            1. B
              Balaji
              Dec 20, 2016 at 3:31 am
              If seniority is everything then What is the role of performance. If a non performing senior will get his chance then what is the role of Govt. Do not elect Govt and instead put everything in the system and let them enjoy as per the seniority. What a poor logic this writer showing. Whether this article comes from his logical brain or from the hate brain is difficult to understand. It shows the mentality of some so called intellectuals towards the Modi. They do not want to understand that it is not Modi alone it is the Govt ,means a group of intelligent people doing the act for the country. Articles coming to media without perfect logic is only baffling the public mind . This is really very dangerous than the appointment itself. These people with their unknowingly politics damaging the spirit of the defence force.
              Reply
              1. B
                Billu
                Dec 20, 2016 at 5:23 am
                Nobody can trust Murari Lal Modi who annouced Demonetisation without printing new Currency. People are scared he may start Bullet train without laying down tracks for it. People are worried about border due to his appoinment that Nation does not have to pay price specially our soldiers putting their lives on risk while kiddish spoken Parikar yelling at everyone and dancing and jumping in surgical style. So many j*kers in BJP Government.
                Reply
                1. B
                  Bochan
                  Dec 20, 2016 at 5:46 am
                  Already 100 deaths in Bank queue due to faulty decision people are worried because of this appointment we do not see mayhem on border.
                  Reply
                  1. S
                    Shashank Singh
                    Dec 20, 2016 at 5:05 am
                    what has happened to the intelligentsia of the country? this article provides an unbiased perspective and logical points, and in comment section i see some prejudiced hooliganism
                    Reply
                    1. J
                      Jawahar D.R
                      Dec 20, 2016 at 1:30 am
                      When all 5 commanders have reached those places after rigorous selection process, seniority could be the best option especially in insutions like army. The selection of such posts should be by appointment committee with opposition as members like in CBI head selection. Ruling govt should consider the views of opposition which have 69% vote share on matters of national importance and security.
                      Reply
                      1. S
                        Sriniwasan
                        Dec 20, 2016 at 5:09 am
                        A stupid article which itself is open to instigation for the Political parties to create an issue where none exists.It has been made clear that IN today's scenario,India faces threat from Terrorism in LOC and Insurgency in North East and at LAC.lt;br/gt;The Army need an experienced and hands on Commander to tackle this Growing challenge.The Selection process would have given weightage to all the parameters before putting up the final proposal to the PM to make a decision.lt;br/gt;Where is the question of Political interference?.The Country in the last 10 years under DR MMS and the in the earlier years during the tenure of DeveGowda and Gujral has been so used to humouring the TENANT at 10 Janpath,the political leadership sought an easy way out by saying Seniority matters more than hands on experience.lt;br/gt;Even in the Private Sector,when a CEO is required to be appointment among all the functional and line Managers,the most competent guy is appointed or an outsider is brought in.The same principle applies here also and for a change,the PM and the BJP has shown the courage to take a decision jettisoning the past practice followed by the UPA and KHAN GREASElt;br/gt;If required,let the parliamentary panel on Defence matters raise the issue with the selection committee instead of the media trying to create an issue to increase their TRP
                        Reply
                        1. S
                          Sriniwasan
                          Dec 20, 2016 at 5:19 am
                          In a house of 543,do you consider a party of REJECTS with 44 as opposition.lt;br/gt;They can be called Shouting BRIGADE or STREET END THUGS,not Opposition Party members
                          Reply
                          1. G
                            G B
                            Dec 20, 2016 at 2:42 am
                            Criteria for selection of Army chief should be only based on two variables:Operational situational context - whether full scale war is likely or Hybrid Warfare over extended duration. In either case, battlefield/operational performances should be the sole criteria for selection of army chiefs. Many senior officers manite their postings and promotions serving in peace stations around Delhi and rise to the exalted state of Lt Generals due to their easy access to Political leadership. How can senior officers who have not worked at field or gr root level of post or battalion or brigade commanders levels in "Hybrid Warfare" environment like J and K or the NE ever know what is hitting them hard and the country. Armoured Corps officers are good at dramatics, theatrics and social graces and for "computer or sand model or paper" ear games. Remember always the cliche - don't attempt to fit to a round peg in a square ".
                            Reply
                            1. H
                              Hh
                              Dec 20, 2016 at 1:00 pm
                              The army is disciplined , so no coup or en m strike or protest. That does not mean no serving is liking it. These who write justifying superceding a senior general are duffers who support the govt in this mov. It's the down fall of doval and the govt.
                              Reply
                              1. S
                                Suresh Hattangadi
                                Dec 19, 2016 at 11:25 pm
                                When some other Govt. does it other than Congress it is jettisoning. Disgusting.Congress has favoured so many people over six decades that slowly people are coming forward to support their charge against this Govt.
                                Reply
                                1. I
                                  indian
                                  Dec 20, 2016 at 3:22 am
                                  1. The armed forces make seniority into a sacrosanct parameter for all walks of life - seniority should be used only for operational matters and nothing else. In many cases like the current one, the seniority is only a difference of a few months (over a career of 35-40 yrs) - how does that make someone more or less worthy ? lt;br/gt;2. the author states "When the political leadership makes a deep selection and the people overlooked do not have any big red tick against them it is bound to raise heckles" - in fact, it is the other way. If the overlooked people have red ticks, the worry should be how did they reach such a high level ? lt;br/gt;3. the author also askes for "a certain interactive awareness among the political leadership of the career path, performance and potential of military officials". What matters more is the needs of the country and its security situation, not the career paths of individual officials. lt;br/gt;4. While it is a fine line, political authority has to have the upper hand - after all, this is only at the highest level and not throughout the forces.
                                  Reply
                                  1. J
                                    jay desouza
                                    Dec 20, 2016 at 2:30 am
                                    Do you think Govt should discuss this with opposition leaders, who support terrorists? and and talk about defense strategies, no way
                                    Reply
                                    1. J
                                      jay desouza
                                      Dec 20, 2016 at 2:24 am
                                      There should be no discussion or debate on this. It is Govt strategy and choice. Media and public (including myself) should keep off.
                                      Reply
                                      1. K
                                        Kesavan
                                        Dec 20, 2016 at 1:41 am
                                        I agree Sushant. To lay a criteria that can be seen and practised in a fair and consistent manner, repeatabily is critical. Else, surely the skeletons are going to fall out of the Govt.'s closet soon. lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;In this case, the Govt. may have a genuine case, they just have to explain the process and criteria.lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;For those who criticise seniority as a measure, one question: what is the alternative criteria? How do you define merit for officers serving at the highest level? Only once it's defined and can be applied unambiguously (like Seniority can be), we can criticise the existing criteria of seniority.
                                        Reply
                                        1. K
                                          Kirit
                                          Dec 20, 2016 at 7:05 pm
                                          Other believing to keep things as is(corrupt) instead of meritocracy. What a Boot licker..
                                          Reply
                                          1. D
                                            das
                                            Dec 20, 2016 at 5:37 am
                                            Selection should be on criteria and merit basis. If this is a seniority basis then why there is a cabinet committee and selection process? This should be an automatic process. who ever senior they should be the next General. Why we have to do that. A very talented person will never become a chief. All should be on merit basis. How many talented are getting neglected due to this. A Sientist get his nobel price not because of his age, same way many other things. If the selection process is on seniority can anyone guarantee that people will not approach the next one to get their dues? Army should be under political leadership, otherwise we will be same like stan.
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments