|
An interesting feature of the 2014 national elections was the large number of service personnel or their wards who contested for a seat in parliament. Five of the thirteen veterans who contested, won their seats. Of these, four were from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and one from the Indian National Congress (INC), the two mainstream political parties of India. From the BJP, General VK Singh (Retired), India’s former Army Chief, won by the second highest margin in the country, defeating his nearest rival from the INC by a huge margin of 5.56 lakh votes. The performance of Colonel (Retired) RS Rathore, contesting from Jaipur rural and Major General (Retired) BC Khanduri, contesting from Garhwal were also impressive, notching up victory margins of 3.3 lakh and 1.8 lakh votes respectively. The two other veterans who won were Capt Amarinder Singh of the INC who defeated the BJPs stalwart Mr Arun Jaitley from Amritsar and Colonel (Retired) Sona Ram from the BJP, who defeated another veteran, Major Jaswant Singh, contesting as an independent by a narrow margin. Besides these, seven other veterans contested from the newly formed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and while all lost, most notched up impressive vote shares. Kirron Kher and Gul Panag, both daughters of veterans, fought against each other in the Chandigarh constituency, the former representing the BJP winning by a narrow margin. Meera Sanyal, another ward of a veteran and representing AAP fought and lost from Mumbai.
The above marks a much-needed shift in Indian politics. Issues concerning India’s defence have not received the attention they deserve, primarily because adequate representation of veterans was lacking in Parliament. The release by the Australian author Neville Maxwell of parts of the Henderson Brooks report pertaining to the 1962 debacle, points to the lack of reasoned discourse in Parliament as one of the causative factors of the defeat suffered by India. Of equal concern was the sorry state of civil military relations, where the civil bureaucracy held total sway. This had its roots in post partition events in the region, which saw democratically elected regimes overthrown by military coups and created a fear psychosis in India’s ruling establishment of India suffering a similar fate. Nehru’s worldview, where he saw the military as an instrument of colonial power, further added to the distrust. As of now, even in the best of times, civil military relations maintain but a façade of civility. For the most part, they remain mired in distrust and suspicion of the other, fuelled largely by an obdurate bureaucracy, intent on preserving its fiefdom and instilling fear of the military in the minds of the political leadership. While civilian supremacy over the armed forces is accepted in democracies the world over, and is an article of faith in the Indian military establishment, it refers to political and not bureaucratic control. It was the civil military disconnect which was largely responsible for slippages and deficiencies in India’s defence preparedness in 1962. Sadly, the situation has not improved much since then.
The poor state of civil military relations leads to undesirable outcomes whenever issues concerning the armed forces are highlighted. Letters written by Service Chiefs to the Prime Minister giving out the state of preparedness of the country’s armed forces receive negative publicity whenever they find their way to the media, with some even questioning the propriety of the military in highlighting such issues. A routine move by two army units near Delhi led to panic among some in India’s bureaucracy, as a possible coup attempt! There is also a reluctance to discuss matters having a bearing on national security, which is perhaps why our border areas remain undeveloped. The role and performance of the defence public sector undertakings (DPSU) rarely comes under the scanner, enabling them to offload whatever they produce to an unwilling clientele. An example is the Tatra vehicle. Manufactured in the Czech Republic, it is imported by BEML, an Indian public sector undertaking (PSU) in a knocked down condition through a UK intermediary Tatra Sipox. After reassembling by BEML, it is sold to the Army at well over its original price. The Ashok Leyland Stallion (ALS) vehicle, manufactured by Ashok Leyland Defence Systems based in Chennai, is transported in knocked down condition to the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, where it is assembled and resold to the Indian Army, again at heavy cost overruns. The blueprints of the Bofors gun were available with India, yet the gun was never indigenously manufactured. Production of the Tejas aircraft has been inordinately delayed and we are still not producing a world-class rifle, something which has been done by a small country like Singapore. The list is endless.
To improve matters, there needs to be greater discourse on defence and security issues in the political domain. With increasing number of veterans or their wards representing various political outfits, and some finding their way to Parliament, the hope remains that discussions on these issues, both in Parliament and within political parties will take on a more realistic and practical hue. Some people have viewed this in a negative light, equating the entry of veterans into the political life of the country as “politicisation of the Army”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For the most part, vested groups within the country spread such canards, as also interested parties abroad who have their henchman writing spurious articles maligning the defence forces to serve the interest of various arms dealers whom they represent. Some of the articles critical of veterans joining politics have used terms such as “soldiers of the party” for such veterans. An example is an article written by Christophe Jaffrelot, in the Indian Express of 5 March 2014, where he expresses his angst at Indian veterans joining the political mainstream. As a Frenchman, Jaffrelot conveniently forgets the role played by French veterans in the political life of France, especially of Charles De Gaulle. Not only does he betray a lack of understanding of the Indian Armed Forces, but the article smacks of a motivated agenda, making one wonder who Jaffrelot really represents! A poorly researched article, the author also throws himself open to the charge of lazy journalism. Rather than politicising the Armed Forces, an increasing number of veterans in the political system, representing all shades of political opinion will improve understanding of the way the Armed Forces function and allay the sense of disquiet that some people still feel. Most importantly, it will lead to improved policies and better utilisation of the scarce resources of the country on security related issues. While shrill voices keep getting raised against defence personnel entering the political arena, the counter narrative is rarely given space in the mainstream media. This is counterproductive. In a democracy, it is important that all issues pertaining to India’s defence be debated, rather than being confined to a one sided diatribe against the armed forces.
The famous French statesman and journalist Georges Clemenceau, famously said “war was too important to be left to the generals”. This is undeniably true. Nevertheless, the counter to that statement has equal relevance. In the parody, “Dr Strangelove”, General Jack D Ripper replies… “But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought”. An infusion of veterans across the political spectrum in India could perhaps be the right way of negotiating between the two viewpoints.
Major General Dhruv C Katoch (Retd) is Director, CLAWS.
|
