Not by homilies

Recent fears go back to Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat8217;s statements after the BJP government sacked him as the Navy chief. He had charged Army Chief General V.P. Malik of presiding over the Veer Savarkar awards function in May 1998. He also said that as the then Southern Army Commander, General Malik had invited Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray to the Army investiture ceremony in January 1996. The Army Chief explained quite appropriately the circumstances in both cases and one thought that would be the end of the matter.

Since then there have been certain cases, which have heightened fears of politicisation of the services. The briefing to the members of a political party by military officials on Kargil is one example. Army officers admit that this was a mistake. Contrast this with theprofessionalism of a former Army Commander, who had resisted a governor8217;s wish to be briefed in the Army operations room, although the person occupying the gubernatorial post was a former Army Chief. The Army Commander8217;s rationale was that if one governor was allowed access to the operations room, it would be impossible to refuse a similar request from any other governor. Civilian access to the quot;Ops roomquot; is limit-ed to a chosen few like the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister.

Political motives are also being ascribed to the hasty announcement of gallantry awards. Since certain mistakes crept into the list of awardees, credence was added to the fears. In the coming months, the Army needs to dispel these fears by displaying greater transparency.

As every girl knows, preserving quot;chastityquot; involves more than simpering quot;leave me alonequot; particularly if she has already let herself be led far down the garden path. The Army should know it too. Actions always speak louder than words and one correct example isworth a hundred sermons.

With more and more retired defence officers joining political parties, new areas of concern will develop. How should such officers be treated when they visit Army formations in the course of their political duties? A few years ago, an Army officer was pulled up when he provided mess accommodation to a Congress minister, who was an ex-IAF officer, when he visited Srinagar as a state guest. It is this scrupulous military disposition that has enabled the armed forces to remain apolitical.

A clear-cut hands off attitude on the part of the Army top brass will discourage vested interests from stalking the Army8217;s apolitical realm. This would automatically prevent a repeat of the spectacle of rakhis8217; with lotus motif being thrust upon the Army on Raksha Bandhan8217;.

A factor which will help reinforce the apolitical nature of the armed forces would be an Act debarring Defence personnel from contesting elections for at least five years after retirement. At present there is noconstitutional bar on anyone contesting elections or joining a political party after retirement. But the service chiefs should set a healthy convention in this regard. Men who retire at that rank are supposed to fade away to write their memoirs.

Equally odd is the spectacle of people who have retired from constitutional posts such as governor, supreme court and high court judges, chief election commissioner, comptroller and auditor-general contesting elections. They should refrain from doing so for their partisan attitude casts doubts on their functioning when they were in service.

It is for such people that the Constitution provides for nomination to the Rajya Sabha of 12 persons by the President from fields like literature, science, art and social service. Various parties could create a healthy precedent by nominating at least one retired defence person of eminence to the Rajya Sabha. He is bound to provide the military view during the debates, particularly on security issues.

Soldierly thinkingshould be reinforced among the rank and file by the top brass. To do so, the Army should take the help of the country8217;s top soldier, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, who should be requested to address officers and jawans in all training establishments.

At the height of the Bofors controversy, this writer had a chance meeting with Field Marshal Manekshaw. At that time, General K. Sunderji8217;s famous shoot and scoot8217; statement relating to the gun was being discussed. Calling the statement to be of pure military value, the Field Marshal said that while dealing with the politician, the soldier has to be more forthright. He narrated that when he was the Army Chief, the government was keen to push a weapon system. He stated categorically that the Army did not want it. When the government persisted with it, Sam, in his notings on the file, cautioned against forcing such decisions on the defence services, which could create conditions of the kind which ultimately led to the downfall of the Pashas of Egypt in the lastcentury. He said the file never came back to him and the Army was spared the weapon system. It is this candidness that the defence services need to reflect in their dealings with the political masters.

Some damage had been done during the tenure of Mulayam Singh Yadav as the defence minister. He tampered with the Army8217;s selection system. Though the system is not beyond improvement, such interference would be dangerous. Otherwise, important formation commanders will be appointed on the bidding of politicians as in the weeks preceding the 1962 debacle.