Is the Indian Army in Danger of Being Politicised Like Pakistan’s?
Unlike Pakistan, transitions in the Indian army have conventionally been less newsworthy, writes Rohit Agarwal.
General Dalbir Suhag, the present Indian Army Chief, is due to retire at the end of this month. However, in a surprising break from past practice, the name of his replacement has not been announced yet. As things stand, Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, the present Eastern Army Commander, will be the senior-most on the day Gen Suhag retires, and going by precedence, he should have been named as the next chief by now.
While Pakistan Army Chief’s Appointment Makes News, Barely Any Noise Over Next Indian Army Chief
The appointment of Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa as the Chief of the Pakistan Army has been in the news on both sides of the border for the past few days. His appointment too was announced just three days before Gen Raheel Sharif retired, and the new incumbent took over the reins of Pakistan Army, superseding two senior serving generals.
- With less than a month to go before the present Army Chief retires, the government is yet to announce a new name.
- Unlike Pakistan, transitions at the helm of the Army in India have conventionally been less newsworthy.
- One bit of speculation doing the rounds is that the senior-most General will be named as the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) instead.
- The government may be paving the way for irreparable long-term damage to the Army.
With last minute extensions to the serving incumbent and selecting politically appropriate candidates having several precedents, this was not unusual.
Unlike Pakistan, transitions at the helm of the Army in India have conventionally been less newsworthy. This is not because of lesser significance attached to the appointment per se. It’s merely the fact that the civilian-military equation in India being as it should in a healthy democracy, the army chief’s influence on the politics and diplomacy of the country is not as significant as it is in Pakistan.
Also, the succession has almost always been along predictable lines, with the senior-most Army Commander taking over on the retirement of the chief.
The notable exception to this rule was in 1983, when the Lt Gen SK Sinha was passed over and Gen Arun Vaidya was appointed. There was no deviation from the principle of seniority even in the only instance when a serving chief, Gen BC Joshi, died in harness. Gen Shanker Roy Choudhury, the senior-most army commander, was appointed even though he had not commanded a field army – something that till then had been considered an inescapable requirement for the appointment.
Will the Govt Spring a Surprise?
A few eyebrows were raised when in September this year, a relatively junior Lt Gen Bipin Rawat was appointed as the Vice Chief. Conventionally, the chief designate is placed as the Vice Chief to help him ease into the appointment. Although this was not unprecedented in itself, the fact that with less than a month to go, the name of the new chief has not yet been announced indicates that the government may have a surprise up its sleeve.
One bit of speculation doing the rounds is that Gen Bakshi will be named as the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) instead, and the COAS be appointed from amongst the next few senior generals, based on merit rather than seniority. Just like Gen Bajwa was selected in Pakistan. Both these moves are likely to cause turbulence and long-term damage.
Firstly, the appointment of CDS could start on a wrong footing. This has been a long-standing requirement, recommended by the Kargil Review Committee, which felt that a single point military advice is essential for effective planning and conduct of operations. It’s heartening if the government is finally implementing this. Yet, for the fledgling concept to succeed, it would be advisable that the first incumbent is appointed after gaining experience as the chief of his own service.
Secondly, while promoting merit over seniority may sound prudent, in effect such a move while selecting the army chief from among the army commanders has several major drawbacks. First and foremost, the reason why the principle of seniority has been followed for this appointment in past has not changed. This is that each of the army commanders is considered potentially capable of holding the next rank.
The extreme steepness of the pyramid in the army ensures filtration to an extent that only two or three of the two thousand-odd officers commissioned every year reach that rank. For this reason, seniority has been the standard yardstick to select the primus inter pares to appoint as the chief.
Govt Paving Way For Irreparable Damage to Army?
More importantly, overlooking the principle of seniority is likely to bring in a degree of subjectivity in the otherwise objective selection process. The most dangerous symptom of this could be it potentially affecting the apolitical outlook of future army commanders.
Although the army has always been assiduously under civilian supremacy for the past seven decades, the rigid adherence to the seniority principle in appointing the chief (with the one exception quoted) has been a contributing factor in keeping political influences out.
So, while the appointment of the army chief has always been a political decision, there has been no politics behind it simply because the government has been appointing the senior-most army commander. By violating this principle, the government could potentially bring in politics in the decision itself, and thus pave way for irreparable long-term damage to the army.
(The writer is a retired colonel of the Indian Army and currently a research fellow at the Ministry of Defence, writing the official history of India’s participation in World War I. He can be reached at @ragarwal. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.