Acknowledgment is in order

But from 1975 on, the government attitude has been a mix of unarticulated suspicion and cosmetic praise. Thechanges in society’s impulses and in socio-economic forces have reduced the defence services’ attraction as a profession. Though some initiatives were taken in Rajiv Gandhi’s time to improve service conditions, they have not made an impact because of later developments. Armed forces’ chiefs have been on record since late 1996 about continuing shortage of officers. Despite the upgradation of weapons, forces personnel feel they are not being adequately equipped.

The Fifth Pay Commission’s lopsided recommendations have brought matters to the point of armed forces’ resentment finding public expression. The views of the three service chiefs were made public. The number of times they had to plead their case with the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister’s office reflected a dissatisfaction which should cause national concern.

The agitation by officers of the maintenance branch of the IAF, the Navy’s feeling of neglect despite obviously increasing responsibilities, and the Army’s worries about being drawnexcessively into civilian operations, combined with a sense of inadequate logistical back-up and weapons systems, need immediate attention. Though the officers and the ranks do not speak of the frustration at the way the political leadership and the civilian side of the defence establishment deal with them, there is a simmering feeling that they are not treated well or trusted. Suggestions from the three forces headquarters to improve defence capacities, they feel, are subjected to doubting scrutiny both in functional terms and in terms of motivation.

India has one of the largest standing armies, but it is a voluntary force. Our civil society and government have a special responsibility to make the profession economically attractive, socially prestigious, functionally effective and imbued with a sense of belonging. Our armed forces have been a pillar of strength to democratic institutions in an intensely pluralistic society. Compared to those in other post-colonial countries, they have been exemplary intheir commitment to professionalism and aversion to political intrigue. India has much to be proud of in this. If their personnel feel resentment and frustration, remedies are obligatory.

I might add that in not a single conversation have armed forces’ colleagues questioned the legitimacy of civil authority over armed forces as a prerequisite for sustaining democracy. It is axiomatic that, in a democracy, civilian authority should be supreme and that macro-level defence policy decisions should come from elected representatives. But their implementation has to be a cooperative exercise between civilian and military personnel.

The solution is to restructure the institutional framework of interface between the armed forces and the political and civil-services segments of government. A more transparent public discussion on defence matters will make public opinion a supportive force for our defence establishment. Armed forces personnel should be deputed to ministries and departments dealing with science,technology, energy and electronics to increase their professional abilities and expand their operational horizons. Another step would be to integrate the Ministry of Defence and the three armed forces headquarters along lines similar to the defence establishments of successful democracies such as the US, Britain and France. This would facilitate integrated strategic perceptions, military doctrines and defence policies where the civilian side of the defence establishment and the political leadership would benefit from sustained professional inputs and advice.

The Chiefs of Staff Committee should be replaced by an institutionalised General Staff branch with a chairman with a fixed tenure, separate from the three service chiefs. This chairmanship could rotate between the three services. The present `Defence Planning Staff’ in the Defence Ministry should be converted into the secretariat of this General Staff branch.

The authority for macro-level decisions of political orientation and allocation of resourcesshould remain with the Ministry, assisted by civil services staff. But the formulation of options should become a joint exercise between military and civilian experts. To ensure checks and balances, the Defence Secretary should be designated as a Principal Secretary and have similar status to the Chairman of the General Staff.

A National Security Council with a National Security Advisor at its head has been publicly debated for nearly a decade. There has been consensus about the need for it, but turf battles have prevented its creation. The creation of this institution as a coordinating agency, garnering inputs from the armed forces, the intelligence agencies and the foreign and defence ministries, has been long delayed.

It is not enough to say complimentary things and pay homage to the armed forces on Republic day and Independence day. Neither is there a need to consider them exempt from public scrutiny. Their work conditions and remunerations should be commensurate with their sensitive responsibilities.Equating these with police and para-military forces is not logical except where the latter are specifically engaged in similar tasks. The problem needing most attention is that armed forces personnel feel they are not wanted and have no sense of belonging. Their “angst” needs a corrective response. They are the ultimate repository of the strength of our republic. That strength will be rooted in this acknowledgment.