The events of January 6, 2021, in Washington were the first occasion in the USA, when an orderly post-election transfer of political power faced a serious threat. The underlying political environment of divisiveness and polarisation that led to these events has created serious concerns amongst American military veterans as well as politicians. They fear that the upsurge of toxic politics that looms over America, also threatens the “non-partisan” ethic of the armed forces, considered vital for the survival of its democracy.
Unlike in India, the American ethos does not require the military to remain “apolitical”, but demands a commitment to being “non-partisan” in their professional conduct. While the former term suggests total non-involvement in politics, the latter implies, that regardless of personal political inclinations, military officers, while upholding the constitution, must give the elected civilian leadership their best professional advice and execute their lawful orders.
Alarmed at the polarisation of American society, a vigilant media has been commenting on the increasing enlistment of military veterans by politicians for boosting personal/political electoral prospects. In a co-authored article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, General Dunford, former Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), declared that maintaining a nonpartisan military is a matter of “sacred trust”; not just for military officers but also for political leaders and citizens.
Dunford points to a recent “open letter” signed by 13 former US Secretaries (ministers) of Defence and Chairmen JCS, (https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/to-support-and-defend-principles-of-civilian-control-and-best-practices-of-civil-military-relations/) that outlines the rules and best practices of civil-military relations. Impressing upon serving personnel, veterans and political leaders the urgent need to counter forces that threaten the military’s nonpartisan ethos, these eminent Americans not only call upon politicians to desist from “dragging the military into partisan activity” but also urge them and the media to call out offenders who violate norms of non-partisanship.
Interestingly, the Foreign Affairs article also speculates about the risks that could be posed by a president, intent on politicising the military. It asks, whether a US President, who is also the commander-in-chief (C-in-C) and approving authority for general-rank promotions, could manipulate the process to fill senior military leadership positions with party/personal loyalists.
We need to pay heed to the ongoing discourse in America, because, despite the economic and technological chasm that separates them, there is an uncanny similarity in the challenges that currently face American and Indian democracies, spanning their political, societal and military domains. In India, too, active-duty military personnel are prohibited from engaging in any kind of political activity by Acts of Parliament and service rules. Moreover, their conduct is circumscribed by the solemn oath of allegiance to the Constitution that each serviceman swears on recruitment/commissioning. By tradition, India’s military veterans had also, till a few years ago, remained aloof from overt political activity.
As a measure of insulation, India’s armed forces, despite occasional criticism, had persevered with the “seniority-cum-merit” principle for promotion from the pool of C-in-Cs to the post of chief. The rationale was, that every officer who reached the penultimate rank of C-in-C, after 35 odd years of unblemished service, having been filtered by three successive promotion boards — each with an attrition rate of 60 per cent to 70 per cent — was equally fit for the chief’s job. Whatever the drawbacks of this approach, promoting the “senior-most of equals” obviated the possibility of political interference or nepotism in military promotions.
While this principle had been accepted and upheld, with some exceptions, in the past, the present government seems to have shrugged off the constraint of “seniority”, and has started using an alternate definition of “merit”, has promoted military officers over the head of their seniors. Since selection for senior military posts remains the prerogative of the government, one cannot take exception to its discarding the seniority principle. However, by doing so, it faces an inherent risk: A selectee who considers himself beholden or indebted to the political establishment, for his out-of-turn promotion, could become a political “echo chamber” rather than a source of sound and candid professional military advise.
An even greater risk of politicisation has been created by the latest rules framed for selection of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). By a Gazette of India notification, the Army, Navy and Air Force Acts have been amended to open the eligibility for CDS candidature, apart from serving and retired chiefs, to serving and retired officers of 3-star (Lt. Gen/equivalent) rank, with an upper age limit of 62 years for all. The retirement age of CDS has been fixed at 65 years. Without going into an extensive critique of this amendment, which has needlessly expanded the CDS candidate-pool, a few salient issues deserve the attention of our decision-makers.
In almost all countries, the CDS, as the highest-ranking military officer who presides over the chiefs of staff committee, is chosen from amongst the serving chiefs. If our government wanted to enlarge its choices, it could have included recently retired chiefs in the pool. But the age limit of 62 years (at which chiefs retire), has eliminated this option. At the same time, placing serving/retired 3-star officers (some who possibly missed promotion to C-in-C rank) in the same candidate-pool as serving chiefs, not only ignores the inherent merit and vast experience — military as well as politico-strategic — of the chiefs, but also casts into doubt, the credibility of our promotion system.
Lastly, with a mixed bag of serving and retired officers to choose from, and with no methodology available for assessment of professional competence, selection will have to be on spoken reputation, political loyalty and personal preference. Such subjective and problematic criteria are an invitation to arbitrariness and politicisation.
Our apolitical and non-partisan military has remained a steadfast pillar of India’s democracy, silently underpinning the peaceful transfer of power after 17 general elections. Exposure of the military to political influence risks their divergence from the normative constitutional framework within which they are duty-bound to function.
Sustaining India’s democracy requires that our armed forces remain detached from politics, and the nation’s security demands that military leaders render unbiased professional advice to the government, without fear or favour.
The author is a former navy chief and chairman chiefs of staff
