Blunders of babudom

The rules are such that a service chief is barred from utilising even the allocated budget without the ministry8217;s prior sanction. Service chiefs are higher in status than the defence secretary. But he has financial powers, not they. Every proposal has to go to the ministry wherethe consideration usually begins at the under secretary level, if not below.

Military officers hate to do the chasing because some time ago one under secretary had put up a notice outside his room that officers below the rank of colonel could not meet him. It created such a furore that the notice was taken off quickly.

Why service chiefs have been denied the authority to spend the amount already earmarked for their wing has no rational reply. Nor has the ministry8217;s sole control over all transfers, promotions and appointments. The set answer is that the country cannot risk Bonapartism in the armed forces. The example of Pakistan is cited to prove that once civilian control becomes effete, the military is tempted to take over. It is argued, Islamabad has not yet been able to shake off the army from its back.

I do not know why an extreme case is brought in to justify the pettifogging by the ministry in the name of civilian control. Civilian control does not mean civil service control. The defence secretaryand his subordinates cannot arrogate to themselves the authority that belongs to the elected representatives of the people.

Defence Minister George Fernandes has admitted bureaucratic interference. But he has woken up after having bungled over the dismissal of Navy chief Vishnu Bhagwat. It was the minister8217;s over-reaction to Bhagwat8217;s procedural errors. Bhagwat cannot be held guilty of disobedience when in a communication to Cabinet Secretary, he says: 8220;It is respectfully reiterated/clarified to honorable members of the ACC Appointments Committee of Cabinet through the cabinet secretary that the chief of naval staff has never once stated that the directions will not be implemented.8221; He argues in the same communication that 8220;the appointment of Vice-admiral Harinder Singh is violative of the relevant/basic features of the constitution of Indian Navy Act, 19578230;8221; He was pointing out the rules. He could have been pulled up but not dismissed.

If at all any action was called for it should have beenagainst Harinder Singh who hurled charges of communalism against Bhagwat. The government preferred to sit on his fulmination. Fernandes remained unmoved despite Bhagwat8217;s complaint that Singh8217;s links with the Moscow-based arms deals should be looked into. The minister has got away with a wrong dismissal because he has taken shelter behind the supremacy of civil control, which nobody questions.

The ministry has covered up its tracks with the remark that Bhagwat8217;s defiance was a threat to the 8220;established structure of democracy, the traditional neutrality and objectivity of our armed forces, as well as national security.8221; But the pretext of civil control cannot be used for every mistake that the defence ministry makes. Action against him was called for when he described his chief, Admiral Nadkarni, as a CIA agent in his petition to the court against his supersession. That was in 1991.

Many years ago when General Thimayya submitted his resignation, it was because of Defence Minister Krishna Menon8217;swhimsical orders. Civilians cannot tell service chiefs how to fight a war. It is their job and they are trained for it. Similarly, it is up to them which weapons they want to employ because they have the expertise.

Fernandes has done well in saying that the defence ministry will have a new structure. What is required is an integrated defence system. The ministry should have military officers working at various levels so that their expert knowledge is available to civil servants. After the debacle in 1971, Pakistan created a joint staff headquarters. Something similar was sought to be established by former minister of state for defence Arun Singh.

He failed because Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, lost faith in him. Fernandes should pick up the thread from where Singh left it off.

But all such efforts are of no consequence if the dignity of the armed forces is eroded. The status of a service officer needs to be equal to those in the IAS and IPS. The situation has been further complicated by thelarge-scale proliferation of higher ranks in the army for career8217; incentives to keep up with the rank and status of the IAS and the police.

8220;The equation of the service officers with the civil service and police cadres has been degraded several steps,8221; says Lt. Gen J. F. R. Jacob, now the Goa governor, whom I met at Panjim a few days ago. He complains that 8220;the dignity of the armed forces is being steadily eroded.8221; According to him, 8220;the fears of a coup in the Indian environment are without foundation. The Indian Army is based on a diverse ethnic structure and its leadership too is drawn from all regions and religions. This is unlike the structure of the armed forces of Pakistan, which is predominantly Punjabi.8221;

What he says is probably true. The government does not have to fight phantoms or unfounded fears. All that it should ensure is that financial approval and the misuse of authority by civilians in the ministry does not stifle initiative and decision-making powers. One believed that theNational Security Council would bring about coordination. But like its short-lived predecessor, it is superficial and toothless. The wars in 1962, 1965 and 1971 showed that we lacked geo-strategic and geo-military assessment of our interests. There was no effective machinery to plan, coordinate or execute war. The National Security Council is a doubtful answer. A chief of defence staff, with adequate support, can do the job better.