Risks in tinkering with military promotions

A new proposal being studied for promotions to the higher ranks in the armed services has created some apprehensions and met with reservations. The proposal is to formulate what is claimed to be a “more progressive, common and merit-based” policy for promotion of officers to three-star ranks (Lt-Generals in the Army, Vice Admirals in the Navy and Air Marshals in the Air Force) and specifically for commanders-in-chief of different commands. There are reports that a committee of vice-chiefs of the three services may be formed to lay down suitable criteria for merit-based promotions. The matter has received special attention because of the ongoing theaterisation process in the services. The existing 17 single service commands are being merged into three tri-service commands, each under a single commander. The policy under consideration would put more emphasis on merit than on seniority for promotions to these positions and possibly for the levels from where these promotions are made.

The armed forces have an established promotion policy which is based on merit, seniority in terms of date of birth and commissioning date and residual seniority. The criteria have some variations for different services but the thrust is on a combination of merit and service. The new criterion should be such that no service will feel it has been disadvantaged. More importantly, it should clearly and convincingly show what bigger role merit can play than in the present method. Every officer at the three-star level has gained the rank after rigorous assessment of merit at many levels. There are only a few who reach that level and it will be difficult to make a selection again on the basis of merit. This is especially because an assessment of merit in such a situation, in spite of all objective criteria to assess it, can take on a subjective dimension.

The apprehension is that because of the room for such a subjective factor and for non-professional reasons, one more selection which puts more accent on merit can be misused, and may give room to favouritism of various kinds. It can also lead to politicisation of the top echelons of the services, and demoralisation if in the name of merit other considerations come into play. In any case, service chiefs are not selected strictly on the basis of merit even now. The present Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Gen Bipin Rawat was appointed as the Army chief in 2016 after superseding two generals. Prescribing and institutionalising a procedure to make such appointments the rule rather than the exception may not do any good to the armed forces. There is a need for care, caution and sensitivity in such matters.