Arms and the men

 

 

A 30-km drive from Siliguri on the way to Darjeeling will bring you to the forest area of Sukna. Famous as a crossing point for wild elephants, the area is home to a large Army establishment. Of course, by now, it has already been made infamous by alleged actions of top officers of the Army. But beyond the scam and the sham, it has brought to the fore a more important matter - possible rift between two senior-most officers of the Indian Army, who are supposed to be brand ambassadors of the institution. In the light of the recent developments, it is necessary to analyse the repercussion of such divides.

Our Armed Forces have always been viewed as highly professional, combat-rich and disciplined. For a common man, a soldier is a man of high morality and many virtues. No wonder, news of officers selling subsidised items meant for soldiers to make money, faking encounters by smearing ketchup to appropriate gallantry medals or, for that matter, colluding with civilians to usurp benefits in cash or kind evoke a feeling of betrayal. The news of two generals, working with a feeling of vendetta, and targeting officers because one is deemed to be close to the other, has far-reaching effect.

An officer, who starts serving a unit and works under the command of various officers, is exposed to different styles of leadership. This adds to his skill set in man management and tactical planning. The new officers not only learn professional skills but they also pick up nuances of managing expensive and important resources at their discretion. At this stage, if officers are seen or, for that matter, even heard of using the resources for their personal benefits, they are despised by the lot. Manipulations come out not just in form of tents, clothing, ration being sold in the open market but also in the form of buying substandard weapons.

Selling soldiers’ due and compromising on weapon quality hurts preparedness and national security. This vice gets compounded when an officer is under compulsion to please factions of superior officers. When TSI spoke to senior serving and retired officers, they expressed sadness. One retired lieutenant general narrated an incident where Lieutenant General S. K. Sinha was overlooked even after being the senior-most officer in the line to become the Army Chief. He said on the condition of anonymity, “A situation of infighting between two different groups had come up when Lieutenant General Sinha was overlooked. We could openly witness different groups talking ill about each other.”

Such situations land officers in uncomfortable situations and some are compelled to confirm to a particular group. Lieutenant General Raj Kadyan, who retired as the Deputy Army Chief, believes that incidents of rifts send a bad message down the line and it affects the morale of the force. Another retired general, who is now a defence analyst, blames it on wrong appointments in senior positions. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he said, “Once wrong people reach senior positions, their actions and priorities lead to a loss of camaraderie. This also sets wrong examples for junior officers down the line.”

The senior officers also pointed out to rift between the various arms of the force, termed inter-arm rivalry in the forces’ parlance. Promotions in the Army happen after exhaustive consultation and recommendation of senior officers and past reports. Once an officer picks up the rank of a brigadier, he is deemed above the regiment. Thus, an officer of an artillery regiment may be assigned to command an infantry brigade or an armoured brigade. This keeps growing to the level of division, corps and command as the officer gets further promoted to the rank of major general and lieutenant general. There is a prerequisite that the Indian Army Chief must be from either infantry, armoured or artillery arms. So if an armoured corp officer promotes juniors from his arm to higher ranks, it is bound to create a block for officers from other arms. Mudslinging and manipulation hurts many competent officers.

Even in the face of such rifts and rivalries, the Indian Army has earned respect for its rich experience in combat. The young officers prove this every day in Jammu and Kashmir and the country’s northeast. And it has been in full display during Kargil. General V. P. Malik, who was at the helm of affairs during the Kargil War, cautioned the media about verifying the facts which are reported and added that they should be reported in the light of the Army laws which are different than civilian laws. He further added, “We must remain strict on discipline. Any incident of indiscipline should be dealt in two ways. First and foremost, take prompt, transparent and exemplary action. It should not matter whether the person is a general or a jawan. And secondly, we should educate soldiers as to what is correct and what is not.”

Correctness of a soldier is judged by the common man’s yardstick of honesty. Incidents of corruption and motivated rivalries and rifts present a possible shift in this regard. Lt Gen. Raj Kadyan explains honesty to be of two kinds.

He says, “Honesty is of two kinds, individual and institutional. An individual may be corrupt but as far as the institution of Army is concerned, even the Army Chief will not be spared if anything wrong comes to light. The noting on the file on inquiries can lead to action against any officer even three years after his retirement.”

His words appear correct when TSI spoke to an officer who is about to shift to field duty after completing his tenure of staff posting in Army Head Quarters. He said, “Once I join the unit in the field, issues of rifts and corruption barely affect us. In any case, when a bullet brushes past my forehead, what will make the difference between life and death will be courage and my team.”

Major General G. D. Bakshi proposes the criteria of combat experience as the remedy for the malice. He says, “We should select senior officers who are combat-qualified because he will have the requisite judgement on every soldierly issue.” It is likely that such a person will appreciate the need to have high morale and is least likely to engage in corruption or factionalism which is bound to affect the forces’ morale.