Military brass should avoid public spats

There is an unfortunate controversy over the relative roles of the three wings of the armed forces in the proposed integrated theatre commands. Last week, there was a public airing of differences between the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Gen Bipin Rawat, and the Air Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria, over the relative roles of the army and the air force in the new set-up. Explaining the nature of the new structure at a seminar, Gen Rawat said that the IAF was a “supporting arm” of the army. But the air chief, who spoke later at the same seminar, said: “It is not a supporting role alone. Air power has a huge role to play. In any of the integrated battle areas, it’s not an issue of support alone.’’ It showed the air chief contradicting the CDS on a major matter concerning the forces.

It also showed that there was no agreement between stakeholders of the country’s biggest military reform. The need for theaterisation has been agreed upon and was being pursued seriously. Gen Rawat had announced last year that the process would be completed by January 2021. But the matter is still being publicly debated. Theaterisation involves integration of the capabilities of the army, the navy and the air force under unitary command in the proposed military theatres. At present, the army and the air force have seven commands each and the navy has three. The proposed theatre model envisages the setting up of six new integrated commands in place of the 17 single service commands. There is one tri-service command already existing in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The new structure is expected to increase the efficiency of the forces.

While the army and the navy do not seem to have substantial disagreements, the air force is thought to have concerns over matters relating to the leadership of the commands, division of assets and nomenclature. Other areas of concern may be the powers of the service chiefs and budgetary allocations. There was enough time to sort out the issues and address the concerns. Instead, the top leaders of the forces are seen in open disagreement. Gen Rawat’s statement was itself inappropriate because it is wrong to describe the air force as a support force. The role of each force depends on several factors. It is known that inter-services competition, rivalries and ego clashes exist in the forces. Competition can even be positive but public contestations like last week’s can do no good. Gen Rawat acted more like a political person than a professional even when he was the army chief. If there are disagreements, he should strive towards a consensus, not aggravate them. Public arguments should be avoided.