The discord between the armed services and the Indian government over theSixth Pay Commission recommendations took a new turn recently when the Army andthe Navy decided to defy the government and delay the implementation of therevised salaries till the pay anomalies are sorted out. This happened even asthe government was trying to assert its authority with the defence ministercategorically informing the three service chiefs that the armed forces cannotunilaterally decide not to implement the decision of the union cabinet. Thegovernment is within its right to see the sending out of unclassified signals bythe Navy and the Army as a breach of discipline with the some serious broaderramifications. The unprecedented decision of the military chiefs to not notifythe cabinet order on the pay commission will have some significant long-termimplications.
Though it might be tempting to view the present turmoil in civil-militaryrelations primarily as a dispute over some technicalities in the Pay Commissionrecommendations, something much more substantial is at stake here. The Navychief let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that the real issue in thedispute is the command and control relationship between the officers of thearmed forces and their civilian counterparts. More than ever, the balancebetween the Indian state, the Indian society and the nation’s militaryinstitutions is out of kilter. This can have grave implications if theequilibrium is not promptly restored because only nations which are successfulin evolving a properly balanced pattern of civil-military relations succeed intheir search for security while those who fail merely end up squandering theirlimited resources and put at risk their national security.
A state makes a sacred contract with its soldiers that while they will lay downhis/her life when called upon to do so, the nation will take good care of theirand their family's needs to the extent its resources would permit. This contractunderpins the very survival of a nation as when its territorial integrity andpolitical independence are under threat, the nation looks upon the onlyinstrument that can protect it -- its armed forces. While all governments haveto look for a considered bargain between their commitments and power and betweenpower and resources, a responsible government will always be aware of theserious implications of not spending adequate resources on defence.
The debate as it has been made out to be in some quarters between defence anddevelopment is a spurious one. Unless adequate provisions are made for defence,no state will be able to pursue its developmental agenda. This is much moreimportant for a country like India that faces a unique security environment withtwo of its 'adversaries' straddling it on two sides of its borders, problems onall sides of its periphery, and rising internal turmoil. Force remains theultima ratio in international relations. Politics among nations is conducted inthe brooding shadow of violence. Either a state remains able and willing to useforce to preserve and enhance its interests or it is forced to live at the mercyof its militarily powerful counterpart.
The Indian society, meanwhile, remains apathetic on defence issues. It makesKargil into a television spectacle, an opportunity for journalists to try toshow off their temporary bravery by going to the frontlines for a few hours andgetting the excitement of covering a war from the inside. And then when it isall over, when the soldiers have been interred into their graves, the societymoves on to new and more exciting spectacles -- to our song and dance realityshows and saas-bahu sagas, oblivious to the everyday struggles of thenation’s soldiers on the frontlines.
Shunned by the larger society and ignored by the state, Indian armed forcestoday are witnessing unprecedented turmoil and dissatisfaction. The discontentover the Pay Commission recommendations is just one of the manifestations ofthis chaos. The armed forces feel they have never got their due from various paycommissions over the years but the government in its wisdom decided to keep thearmed forces away from any representation in the latest Pay Commission. Thedominance of bureaucrats meant that while the interests of the bureaucrats werewell-recognised, the armed services once again ended up getting a raw deal. Thediscontent is so serious that some of the best and brightest in our serviceshave refused to go for the Higher Command Courses and more and more are seekingan early retirement. Such turmoil within the ranks of any nation’s armedservices should be a cause for concern but in the case of India that aspires tojoin the ranks of world’s major global powers this is a recipe for disaster.
There is a broader issue here about the Indian military’s growing disdain fortheir civilian masters and about their knowledge of defence issues. Indianpolitical class lacks any substantive understanding of the role of force in thepursuit of national interests and projecting national values. Moreover, noindependent civilian expertise on defence issues is present in India. One canfind students writing their PhD theses on Mongolia’s foreign policy ordomestic politics in Belize but hardly any research is encouraged on defence-relatedissues in Indian universities. As a result, one finds ex-servicemen monopolizingthe discourse on national security and defence issues. They should certainlyhave an important voice on these matters but it should not be the only voice.
Yet it is not entirely clear if the top leadership of the armed forces is reallyup to the task of harmonizing the growing imbalance in civil-military relations.With their recent defiance, the military chiefs have merely tried to cover theirflanks given the overwhelming resentment within their rank and file against thePay Commission recommendations. While the Indian armed forces have oftencomplained of the politico-bureaucratic nexus thwarting the rights of thedefence services, the behavior of the top leadership of the armed services is indanger of being perceived as increasingly petty and bureaucratic itself.
Blaming the government for all the ills afflicting the defence sector seems tobe becoming the default position within the ranks of the military and takingthis too far can be really dangerous for the liberal democratic ethos of thisnation. The state is responsible for the allocation of resources among importantsocietal values of which military security is but one. Moreover, Indian armedforces need fundamental reforms, a restructuring that enables them to operatewith utmost efficiency in a rapidly evolving domestic and global context. Amidall the hoopla surrounding the pay commission, it is important to remember thatIndia is losing some precious time by continuing with a defence policy thatremains mired in a time-warp. And the onus is on the armed forces leadership togive the Indian defence policy a new direction, a trajectory that does justiceto India’s rising stature in the global inter-state hierarchy.
The military exists to serve the state but a military that lacks societalprestige and the attention of the state will not only endanger the security ofthe state but will also pose a challenge to the liberal societal values that weso love to espouse. It has become imperative now to get the balance between theIndian state, society and its military institutions right if India is to avoidthe high costs that will inevitably follow if the present turmoil persists.
Advertisement
Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London
