The politicisation of the armed forces

Though the forces have systems in place to withstand the onslaught of politics, they are being challenged like never before.

Large segments of national life and institutions of state have increasingly been politicised in the recent past. Politicisation in itself is not wrong. Politics, in the larger sense, involves the relationship of individuals, groups, associations and institutions to the nation, defined by common goals and constitutional ideals and guardrails.

Ideally, politics makes democracy more inclusive and effective, and democracy enriches and expands politics. Democracy has gained by the progressive politicisation of large sections of society since Independence.

But politicisation of a wrong kind, of a party-political or ideological nature, sometimes revolving around a political personality, is now impairing some of the strongest institutions. It could weaken those institutions and the nation. Politicisation becomes wrong when the government takes the place of nation in defining relationships.  

One important institution that is facing the pressure of politicisation is the armed forces.

The armed forces have a strong tradition and systems in place to withstand the onslaught of politics but these are being challenged like never before.

Though the pressures have always been there, the present aggravated trend started with Gen Bipin Rawat, who was the Army Chief (2016-19) and later the country’s first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). He became the Army Chief after superseding two senior generals. He was considered to be overly responsive to the government’s sensitivities and demands.

Governments have always tried to take advantage of the armed forces’ actions, as it happened after the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war and after Operation Bluestar. But attempts became more blatant and political after the 2016 Uri surgical strikes, the 2019 Balakot airstrike and this year’s Operation Sindoor.

The distinction between government and the forces was being sought to be extinguished with the government taking the credit for these and the forces playing along. 

The new pressures have an ideological dimension also. According to reports, changes are being brought about in the Standard Operating Procedures (SoPs). Religious symbols such as ‘aartis’, ‘Om’ and ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ salutations are being introduced at parades and other functions. Serving officers of high ranks come out in public in support of the government when there is no need for that. Some of these statements have political overtones, and two of them, made recently, have stood out for their inappropriateness. 

Earlier this month, Army Chief Gen Upendra Dwivedi issued a stark warning to Pakistan and declared that India would not exercise restraint if Islamabad continued to support terrorism. “India is fully prepared this time… We will go a step further and Pakistan will have to consider whether it wants to remain on the world map,” he said.

Governments issue warnings to other governments but it is inappropriate for the Army Chief of a democratic country to issue such rhetorical warnings to other countries. 

Air Chief Marshal AP Singh went further and made unverifiable claims about the performance of the force doing Operation Sindoor. The fresh disclosures he made this month about the losses inflicted on Pakistan during May hostilities do not add anything to the information about the war or to the credibility of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

He claimed that the IAF took down 11–12 Pakistani aircraft, including F-16s and JF-17s. He also said a lot of other Pakistani assets were destroyed. In August, he had claimed that the IAF had destroyed six Pakistani aircraft. He also dismissed Pakistan’s claim of India’s losses as “fanciful stories”. Other senior officers have since then made similar claims and statements.

The serial claims by the IAF chief raise questions because they are made months after the event. The officers who briefed the nation during the days of the conflict, other senior officers, government representatives or politicians have not made these disclosures.

The question that naturally arises is why these claims of heavy losses suffered by Pakistan were not made when they happened. There is a discrepancy between the claims made in August and this month. While the country would want to believe the IAF chief on his claims, he has the responsibility to back them up.

The poser—why the country’s military authorities cannot be believed on their word—is the wrong question in this context. The authorities have themselves given varying accounts. While Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan has acknowledged “losses”, the Air Chief dismissed the claims of losses as fanciful stories. It may be noted that government leaders and politicians who declare that Pakistan has been taught a harsh lesson have been silent on the claims made by the IAF chief. 

The Air Chief also said that “a key reason for success was the presence of political will’’ and “very clear directions given to us’’. These statements are troubling because they raise the doubt whether the IAF Chief was himself pandering to politics with his statement.

The armed forces are professional and non-political and are not expected to make statements that serve politics of any kind. When the IAF chief says a key reason for success was political will, he speaks the language of the Indian cricket team captain who attributed the team’s Asia Cup victory to Prime Minister Narendra Modi batting on the front foot.

Leaders of defence forces should not be seen as trying to appease the government and political leadership. They should not make claims and statements that adversely affect their personal credibility and the credibility of the forces. It is the victory of the armed forces and the nation’s, not the government’s. To attribute it to the government or a leader is being political. Red lines are sometimes crossed. A serving lieutenant general tweeted ‘Happy Birthday PM Modi’ last year.

This kind of politicisation is the result of the forces or their leadership mistaking their relationship to the nation as a relationship to the government. Some even try to make the relationship personal and use it for personal advancement.

While the forces will certainly be under civilian control, which means control of the government, it does not mean that they should have allegiance to the government’s politics and ideology. The Supreme Commander of the armed forces is the President, who is the constitutional head, and not the Prime Minister who heads the executive.

The forces and their leaders should keep this distinction in mind and follow it in practice, so that they remain the professional and non-political forces that they are expected to be. 

(The writer is a former associate editor and editorial advisor of Deccan Herald)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.