Estranging the forces

There is no doubt that the unfortunate developments in Pakistan after Partition were related to a political vacuum that was created by the death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In India, we were fortunate inhaving leaders of the stature of Pandit Nehru, who acted as a firm sheet-anchor.

A close reading of developments in Pakistan which paved the way to a long stint of Army rule indicates that besides the political confusion in the fifties, the gradual alienation of soldiers from the system too may have contributed to the undermining of the civilian government. The alienation was gradual but unequivocal. The following events were turning points.

Between 1947 and 1949 the pay-scales of officers were reduced to pre-World War II levels surprisingly, the 34 Sandhurst graduates in service were spared. Though this was necessitated by circumstances, the manner in which it was done led to alienation.

In 1949, when dismissed personnel of the Indian National Army were regarded as having been discharged, it was seen with scepticism within the Army. It meant that the repudiation of military oath was equated with loyalty.

In 1951, when certain military officers were arrested for conspiracy against the state, theywere treated as common criminals and handcuffed. This alienated the soldiery, who felt that the matter should have been left to an Army court. Incidentally, some of these officers later rose to Cabinet rank!In the ensuing years, the soldiers8217; emoluments were continuously eroded by inflation. Ex-servicemen found no jobs on civvy street.

The status of Army officers began to fall. Before Partition, the status of the C-in-C was virtually second to that of the Viceroy. Though after Partition, maintaining this would have been anomalous, what happened was not appreciated by the military; the C-in-C was listed 15th in the order of precedence 8212; lower than ambassadors.

In 1953, within months of the imposition of martial law in Lahore, an effort was made to keep the Army out of decision-making. People detained by Army were let off without the Army being asked. Naturally, it began to feel used.

Corruption was an accepted phenomenon. In 1959, the Pakistan Finance Minister, while answering questions during a talk tomilitary officers stated that 8220;corruption was a concomitant of development and an index of prosperity.8221; The defence personnel, who were not used to corrupt and devious practices, were disgusted.

Though democracy confers upon soldiers the pride and privilege of being the symbol of national sovereignty, lack of a clear political direction could pave the way to cynicism. Moreover, a national army cannot remain immune to political and religious pressures. This is particularly true when an army is often called upon to put down sectarian violence 8212; and often without any gratitude.

In fact, Major General Shaukat Riza in his book The Pakistan Army War 1965 narrates an interesting experience which bears an uncanny similarity with the situation in India today.

8220;Sometime in the late twenties Subedar Major, Honorary Captain Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Sardar Bahadur, OBI, ADC to the King sought an appointment with the DC. He took his grandson, Aslam, with him to see the big town. As the party reached the gate of theDC8217;s office, they were received by the official8217;s personal assistant and a liveried peon. The DC greeted the Sardar Bahadur outside the office. Inside the office tea was laid out. The necessary work was finished within minutes and the Deputy Commissioner saw off the guests at the gate.

8220;Later, during World War II, Aslam was commissioned into the Indian Artillery and won a battlefield Military Cross in fighting the Japanese in Burma. In 1948, Aslam while commanding a field battery in Rawalpindi, made an appointment with the DC in connection with a license for his shotgun. No one greeted him and he was made to wait in the personal assistant8217;s room for half an hour. By the time he was ushered into the official8217;s presence, he was frothing blood. He narrated the experience of his grandfather and walked out. In 1978 he retired as a Major General.8221;

There must be hordes of such experiences in India too. After Independence, the soldiers on either side were not expected to be treated as employees of the colonialempire, yet the men in uniform expect to be shown the basic courtesies.

These irritants apart, recent efforts in New Delhi to interfere with promotions and top appointments in the services could do permanent damage. Though in all higher appointments, the files are routed through the Ministry of Defence, promotions and appointments of field commanders and principal staff officers are made on the recommendations of the service headquarters. In recent months, not only have the proceedings of certain promotion boards been delayed with an intent to add fresh names which in turn resulted in important posts lying vacant for long periods, there have even been occasions when posting orders of Army officers were passed directly by the Ministry of Defence. Since Independence, there have been very few such instances, including one in early sixties and with deleterious effect.

There is no doubt that the Army8217;s system calls for more transparency and improvement. But instead of trying to reform the system, there isan effort to undermine it. This is bound to result in resentment at the higher echelons.

Debilitating the military chain of command though disregard and arbitrary promotions is bound to corrode the professional edge of the services. For once, there is no harm in drawing the critical lessons from across the border.