The decade of the 1990s will be remembered by naval historians for two particularly disturbing trends. The first was the steep decline in the force structure of the service. The other began with the bitter succession battles fought in the courts of Bombay. It is a moot point whether these two trends are in any way related. Has the propensity to go to court cost the Navy in an era of globalisation? It is only logical that the national role of the Navy would be reconsidered once India entered the era of liberalisation and vied for a global trading position.If, therefore, there is any relationship between these two major facets of the 1990s' naval life, then the fault lies entirely within the service. It is pointless looking for scapegoats. The civilian side of the fence will fish in troubled water only if the water is troubled, in the first place. There is no gain in opening such flanks. This would have weighed in the minds of those who gathered on the occasion of Navy Day 1998, to commemorate thesuccessful missile attack on the Karachi harbour on December 4, 1971.The Navy is unique amongst the defence services in that it has an Act of Parliament to govern its rules and regulations. As highlighted in this paper some days ago, the Navy is once again in the midst of a court battle; it involves the Defence Secretary also. This is a case that calls for the intervention of the political leadership. There is nothing to be gained in playing softly, for the services are made of harder stuff, and need to be handled thus.If a Vice-Admiral can get away with the type of language he has used against the Chief of Naval Staff and his wife, then the doors are being opened for much worse. Despite the precedence, there is no reason why a wrong once committed must be allowed to be repeated. The Naval Chief has exacerbated the issue by taking the Defence Secretary to court. He has a point in that the timing and selectivity of the media leaks regarding the Vice-Admiral's case suggest the involvement of a bureaucracyinterested in putting down the Naval Headquarters. But was taking the Defence Secretary to court the only option available? Or was it the end result of frustration with an executive unwilling to lend an ear?The Ministry of Defence (MoD) would like the issue to be sorted out with an apology from the Vice-Admiral. But in the armed forces there is no room for apologies. Just as there is no reason for the MoD to want to impose its own choices on Naval Headquarters. The highest appointments in the services are the result of a political choice, in that they are made by a cabinet committee. After that it is a service matter who is appointed where.This is known to all those in uniform. The MoD, therefore, has been the catalyst in this sorry saga by wanting to delay and deny two key appointments in the Navy Headquarters. It is for the executive authority to determine the validity of the case, for they are the ones accountable to the people. It is for the political leadership of the country to determine whetherthe services are going to be governed by Acts of Parliament, or acts of subterfuge.
