Discord in uniform

An unfortunate fallout of the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack has been that various points of friction between different government agencies, including security forces, that have been festering for long have come into the open. These range from functional issues of command and control to after-effects of the sordid incident in form of awards and rewards. At the same time, old issues of turf, pay and allowances have also come to the fore. A number of retired Army officers have openly aired their views on these issues in the media and also taken to holding protests and rallies. The civilian officers too are angry at efforts to belittle their contribution. All this points to increasing differences between the Army and civilians. Since both sides accuse the other of seeking their own advantage, the issues ought to be discussed threadbare at the highest forums of the government. The alarming security environment around us underlines the need to act quickly. These ought to be the top priority of the incoming government at the Centre. Every career has its peculiarities and is as important as another. But the very fact that the family tradition of a military career is all but withering away and the youth no longer prefer a military career only underlines the fact that neither the peculiarities of the job nor its importance is recognized any more. The very fact that defence personnel, irrespective of the rank, invariably seek second or third jobs after retirement, points to their pecuniary condition. The inequalities in emoluments and status lead to squabbles between the soldiers and civilians also because with the nation in turmoil due to disturbed internal security environment, they are often called upon to rub shoulders with one another. The lowering of protocol equations of the Army officers via-a-vis the civil servants is a cause of friction, especially when the Army takes control of a situation in aid of civil power. In many cases, the government’s lack of foresight has added to this friction. For the prestigious National Defence College (NDC), or example, while usually defence officers with at least 25 to 30 years service are selected, the civilian officers selected for the same course have less than half the service. In the past, this often created a piquant situation when some of the civilian officers sent for the course were ex-short service Army officers! Although defence services too have unfortunately got into the rat race of ranks but their efforts pale before their civilian counterparts. Today, in the order of precedence, not only is a Corps Commander (an officer in the rank of Lt General) and in command of more than 50,000 troops, placed below the state Director General of Police but to all those holding that rank – some states have as many as one dozen DGPs! So also in awards and decorations. Even in the defence services, the VSM series have been devalued and many senior officers have been given these for doing their basic job. Even in the awards for gallantry, Siachen and Kargil came in for special dispensation, despite limited opposition from the enemy. Against three Param Vir Chakra (PVC) in the 1962 war with China, two against Pakistan in 1975 and four during the 1971 war, as many as six PVCs were awarded during the clashes in Siachen and intrusions in Kargil. But this is even more glaring when one looks at the 11 Ashok Chakras (peacetime equivalent of PVC) awarded in the last one year for Mumbai and other incidents. Both these awards – PVC and AC - are not for “putting oneself in the harm’s way”, but for “most conspicuous bravery or an act of daring or pre-eminent valour or self-sacrifice….”. Unfortunately, when governments try to make up for their own failures in preventing such attacks or intrusions with liberal dispensation of awards, they undermine the very act of valour - and the awards. The grudge of the armed forces for having been downgraded in emoluments and status is not without reason. Had successive governments set up separate Pay Commissions for the armed forces or at least ensured their fair representation in the combined Pay Commissions, as demanded, this grudge may have been redressed. Unfortunately, in denying this, the governments failed to recognize the unique place that the Constitution provides to the armed forces. Unlike any other service in the country, the basic fundamental right of speech and expression of a man in olive green is abridged. For example, while a serving IPS officer could air his views in the media on the issues under discussion by calling them his personal views, no defence personnel can do so. This “denial” of rights to the man in olive green, which distinguishes him from other uniforms, is not without reason. Being the nation's last resort, the armed forces have to be "empowered" to deal with any eventuality. To do so, the old thumb rule as penned down by Lord Tennyson in "The Charge of the Light Brigade" still hold good ("Their's not to reason why; Their's but to do and die"). Of course, this "empowerment" ought to be subject to certain foolproof in-built checks, lest some overzealous elements in uniform resort of adventurism. But, this abundant caution should not result in their neglect. Since the Army rank and file is feeling belittled, this is rife with serious implications. It could invite an angry and violent reaction from within its rank and file. Fortunately, the apolitical nature of the Army and the service ethos is holding up. But, at the same time, it could result in demoralization. Either way, the nation would be the loser. If egalitarian values and civilian functioning have to take precedence over somewhat archaic and chivalric values of the military, the military usage has to be minimized not only in dealing with neighbours but also internal disturbances. The only way to "cut the military to size" is to strengthen the democratic value system of equality and social justice. Till such time the armed forces remain fundamental to the nation's entity, they have to be cared for.