Remove Sikhs8217; suspicion

Had merit and qualifications alone been the criteria, Lt. Gen. Jagjit Singh Aurora, who led Indian forces to a brilliant victory in East Pakistan 8212; taking over 90,000 elite Pakistani troops prisoner 8212; would not have been later bypassed for the Army Chief8217;s post. He was not theonly one to be sidelined despite the laurels earned for India through outstanding military leadership.

Lt. Gen. Kulwant Singh was the first to be treated thus, and in 1969, Lt. Gen. Harbaksh Singh, despite his superb conduct of the 1965 war, was bypassed for the Army Chief8217;s post after his appointment, approved by the Cabinet, was turned down by the then Prime Minister. In the 52 years since Independence not a single Sikh has been made Army Chief. Is this accidental? Or an oversight? Or is it indicative of an unstated decision to prevent a Sikh from reaching the topmost position in the army?

Since the present debate is about the navy, a look at the manner in which communal elements in this service 8212; with the active connivance of the Centre sabotaged the chances of a very able Sikh officer, will show the extent to which communal bias exists in the navy.

Vice Admiral Inderjit Singh Khurana, who had commanded both the Eastern and Western fleets was earmarked to be the C-in-C of the Southern Naval Commandin November 1984. Within days of Mrs Gandhi8217;s assassination on October 31, 1984, his posting to Cochin 8212; which would have placed him in line for the Chief of Naval Staff8217;s post in the coming years 8212; was cancelled. In February 1985 he was sent as Director General, Coast Guard, a paramilitary organisation, which effectively placed him outside the mainstream of his service. Then on Au-gust 30, 1986, the De-fence Ministry issued a communication Revision of Tenure of Service and Ages of Retirement in Flag Ranks by which the retirement age of Vice and Rear Admirals was extended. Nothing wrong with that. But the timing and purpose of this order was significant: it was timed to extend the tenure of a favored Vice Admiral who was to retire the next day, on September 1, 1986. This cannily timed order gave him extension in service till December 1989 and placed him in line for promotion to Chief of Naval Staff, which in fact he did become.

Interestingly, the extension of service rules did not apply to Khurana sincehis post as DG Coast Guard was not covered by the Revision Order despite his rank of Vice Admiral. He was not even allowed to serve until the age of 58, the normal age of retirement of heads of paramilitary forces, even though three of his predecessors in the same job had served till the ages of 59 1/2, 58 1/2 and 59. But he was asked to retire at 57. Why? The real reason is that had he served longer like them he would have still been in the run for the post of Chief of Naval Staff.

Real reasons of course seldom surface in such cases. Neither the extension of service under the order of August 30, 1986, was applied to him because he was in a paramilitary organisation, nor was he allowed to avail of the Coast Guard rules of retirement. Instead, the naval rules for retirement were app-lied which stated that since he had already served four years as a Vice Admiral he had to retire, even though only 57. So what does one make of this? Because the double standards are breathtaking.

Khurana is not the only onewho was sidelined. Rear Admiral Kirpal Singh was similarly treated. Since the idea is not to catalog all the cases only Admiral Khurana8217;s is given to show that if communalism has destroyed much of the civil-political framework, it has by no means spared the armed forces.There will be no winners in the Bhagwat controversy. Only losers. And the biggest loser will be the nation. No civilized state in the world with a constitutionally established system of governance destroys the morale and self-esteem of its defence forces by summarily dismissing a serving Defence Chief, the way India has done. The Admiral is not entirely blameless since he himself had set an unhealthy precedent earlier by going to court on being denied command of a fleet. The first time a naval officer of his rank did so. Admiral Khurana refused to take this option since it was against the best traditions of the service.

Exactly 100 years ago France was split down the middle in a raging controversy over the unfair treatment of an armyofficer, Captain Alfred Dreyfuss. The sense of outrage almost led to a civil war between those in his favour and those against him. Some of the greatest names in France, like Emile Zola, Clemenceau, Henry Comte de Rochefort and Theodor Herzel were involved in the battles over a Captain, fought for twelve years in courtrooms, newspapers, salons and streets. In the view of Victor Brochard, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Sorbonne: 8220;To convict a man on evidence not shown to him is not only illegal, it is judicial murder8221;.

Why hasn8217;t the Indian government produced convincing evidence to justify Bhagwat8217;s dismissal? Talk of national security8217;, civilian control,8217; etc. is worthless. Its only aim is to cloak the ineptness and indiscretion of men unaccustomed to govern with grace or wisdom. It will be a good thing if a Joint Parliamentary Committee is appointed to report on the entire affair. And it will be better still if it is also asked to investigate the reasons for not appointing a single Sikh to thetopmost position in the army or navy since Independence?

Only then can people decide whether the Sikhs are paranoiac about a bias against them, or whether the Indian state is paranoid about the Sikhs.