The burden of heading 1.3 million-strong Army

The Defence Minister took four months to reject the statutory complaint from his own Army chief.

Minister of State for Defence M M Pallam Raju has aptly summed up the government’s largely self-created mess, after Army chief Gen V K Singh petitioned the Supreme Court to get his date of birth in the government records corrected: “It is an unfortunate development and it is not a healthy precedent either for the ministry or the armed forces…It is an unhealthy precedent. It does not augur well either for the ministry or the forces,” he said.

There are three reasons why this simple administrative matter has blown up into a national issue. Firstly, it is yet another instance of Manmohan Singh government’s governance deficit. Its impact is disproportionately high when the Army chief is the affected party. Secondly, the embarrassing controversy has come at politically inconvenient time. Congress party is facing crucial assembly elections in five states, including the largest of all states – Uttar Pradesh. Lastly, it comes as the last straw to the armed forces’ long list of grievances over pay, status, procurement of arms and so on.

Gen Singh heads an army of 1.3 million soldiers, and even those who do not agree with him on this issue, see the cavalier way the Defence Ministry has treated his complaint as a reflection of all that is wrong with military-civil relationship. The media also added its penny’s worth, when it “leaked” innuendoes on the Army chief’s motive.

It is surprising that the bureaucracy and the Defence Minister were not prepared to face the legal consequences of their action when they turned down the Army chief’s statutory complaint. The Ministry appears to have selectively depended upon what they wanted to believe: Gen Singh’s letters agreeing not to raise the date of birth issue were accepted, while rejecting his other documents produced in support of his claim.

Some media stories have discussed the Ministry examining possible “breach of discipline” or “violation of professional code of conduct” by the General. Army personnel are governed by the Army Act and Army Rules. The Regulations for the Army in India lays down the rules of conduct for service personnel. But these are regulatory in nature and cannot be considered a code of conduct for the Army.

Duty, honour, country

So what is the code of conduct for the Army? In the Chetwode Hall of the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun are emblazoned the words: “the safety, honour and welfare of the country come first, always and every time…that the men you command comes next, and your own ease, comfort and safety come last – always and every time.” This may be considered as Army’s code of conduct; broadly it also conforms to codes of conduct of global armies.

General Douglas Macarthur of the US Army, who had his own share of confrontation with President Truman, once said “Duty, Honour, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.” To the civilian mind corrupted by the words of false prophets of politics, these words may sound clichéd; but not for the army men who hold “izzat” (honour) as the watchword of their actions.

Breach of discipline

Has Gen Singh breached military discipline by going to the court? If a serviceman has exhausted all the service avenues to seek redress for his grievance, he can approach the court of law to seek assistance. From media reports, the Army chief appears to have followed the correct channels of grievance handling. So if the government contemplates disciplinary action it will only add to the controversy.

Though Gen Singh might have filed his case as an individual, as the serving Chief of Army Staff, it has serious organisational connotations. It has put the government and its unsavoury relationship with Army in public glare. Any government action now has the potential of turning into affront to the Army chief in the eyes of soldiers. This could create an awkward situation for the government.

The Army chief must be aware of these implications of his action. If so, why did he file the petition? Was he pushed to the wall to exercise his right? Or was the chief assured by any minister, or the NSA, to get the date of birth corrected if the Army chief withdrew his complaint? Did the failure of government to live up to its assurance goad the Army chief?

At present, answers to these questions can be speculative at best. However, three facts have emerged: the Army chief had met the senior UPA leader and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee to brief him on the issue after filing his statutory complaint to the Defence Minister on August 25, 2011. The chief also met the National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon on January 5 before his trip to Myanmar. Secondly, the Defence Minister took four months to reject the statutory complaint from his own Army chief, on December 30, 2011.

Lastly, the Army chief’s explanation that he was running out of legal options after the Supreme Court admitted a PIL filed by the Rohtak Chapter of Grenadiers Association appears to be correct. As the NGO’s PIL has been dismissed as not maintainable, the options are limited to fighting it out in the court or work out a compromise. Defence Minister Antony appears to have decided to take on the General. There are reports of a compromise on the anvil to get out of the gridlock.

The moral of the story is the government has to sort out its style of governance and put in place a structural framework to handle civil-military relations. And the Army chief would do well to consider the burden of being the Chief, before jumping into precipitate action.

(The writer is a retired Military Intelligence officer.)

What’s in a birth date?