Nov 14, 2011

Civil Military Relations in India: In Times of Change

            Located in a neighbourhood that has had its share of military influence on polity, India has been a shining example of smooth civil military relations over the years. Recent statement by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Mr Yousuf Raza Gillani at the Addu SAARC Summit that, “Pakistan completed its democratic transformation and is now well on its way to realising democracy’s dividends by pursuing development at the grass roots level,” should be an indicator of how political structures are still evolving in South Asia’s second largest state. The story has been no different in some other countries in the Indian Sub Continent with influence of the military varying from virtual martial law to covert control of power from time to time.

India has avoided this discredit by developing balanced institutions which have ensured that the military role is confined largely to the professional of external security and internal one only when called for. The military has assiduously avoided falling in the trap of exceeding this mandate and there has also been firm direction from political leadership of the country since independence.

            There is a need however to review civil military relations not due to fears of any break down or skewing on an uncharted course but in the light of changing times particularly greater transparency in public discourse which has led to perception of divergence between the military and civilian leadership in the country.

Three issues where major differences have emerged can be recounted; one rank one pension, Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) particularly in Jammu and Kashmir and defence modernization. The intent here is not to be judgemental but only attempt to decipher the variations and examine how these can be resolved.

Before addressing these it is also important to highlight the shift in public discourse due to new trends in perception building that have emerged as we move towards a more informed and egalitarian society. The influence of exposure to media, traditional as well as non traditional of issues which would have been otherwise confined to corridors of exclusivity has been extensively debated. Of particular significance is social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs being unhesitatingly used by leaders of the younger generation to air their views in public, Mr Omar Abdullah Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir being the most famous and recent example.

E mail groups are another medium for coagulation of opinion to generate support for a cause within a closed community, though the value of a larger debate is generally lacking in this forum.  While the military cannot obviously use these means it has also been able to shape the debate through active interventions in the media by informed and interested observers including a number of veteran servicemen.

Many times tweets and responses on television take the form of instant second guessing and may lose value given short span of attention that such media invariably carries but this does reflect a body of opinion of the larger mood within an institution or society and thus cannot be ignored. The importance of the media to provide feedback to the government is also highly relevant in this context.

Transparency has also resulted in proliferation of tools such as Right to Information (RTI) and selective leaks to the press of official correspondence by interested parties which media sources claim as exclusive access. Friendly and intrusive media sources are also reportedly used to provide live SMS updates on happenings of important events apart from leaks by so called, “unnamed,” officials.  The propriety of this form of revelation is a separate issue, suffice to say this seems to have come to stay.

Under these circumstances it is evident that there is scope for strain of relations between two arms of the government as much as within a society. Their impact on civil military relations only adds to sharpening the divide and therefore needs to be carefully caliberated.

Against the backdrop three issues of import selected need consideration. Firstly the one rank one pension case. The core issue here is how a society supports soldiers, sailors and airmen who serve in an exclusivist profession during best years of their youth through long years of retirement in an era of declining purchasing power, consumerism and increased value of economic necessities.

Thus far applying corrections through Pay Commissions has been the normal trend however with changing norms, escalating costs of living and need to keep up with the Jones’ an indexed increase based on rank and date of retirement is socially challenging for those who superannuated even a decade or so ago. There is thus a demand for one rank one pension to bring about parity without reference to year of retirement.

The case has been actively sponsored by a number of ex-servicemen bodies but has not found favour primarily due to perception of snowballing effect on the government’s pension bill with similar demands by others anticipated including possibly in the public sector. There is an impasse which needs to be broken.

The underlying gripe behind one rank, one pension needs to be understood. In a hierarchical system as the armed forces, where rank matters as much after retirement pension to a general who retired say in the 1980’s less amount than a colonel who retired in 2010 may seem dichotomous.

For this there is a need for change in approach and restructuring of resettlement of servicemen to firstly provide them requisite skills to pursue civil jobs of equal status and compensation. This is easier said than done but would become inevitable as in future a pension regime may not be as monetarily liberal as it is now for civilian pension has become contributory and thus the writing is on the wall. Till this model where an ex servicemen is reskilled to adapt to civilian life is implemented, there is a need to provide one rank one pension  by identifying a cut off year before which this will be applicable. This will provide much needed relief for those who are aggrieved and also give an opportunity for others to adjust to the times ahead.

The second issue is that of AFSPA. The current debate essentially revolves around political necessity established by the Jammu and Kashmir government to remove AFSPA from certain pockets where it is assessed that there is low level of violence. The military on the other hand feels that this will create security gaps which can be exploited by separatists and terrorist groups. It is also felt that the idea is being sponsored from across the border.

In such a case three institutions are relevant, Unified HQs in Jammu and Kashmir, Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA). The CCS has placed the ball in Unified HQs court which has not been able to decide, under the circumstances the CCPA must step in and take an informed decision. Given that the CCPA includes members of the CCS and representatives of the National Conference which is leading the government in Jammu and Kashmir decision taken will be binding. This should end the vacillation as a divide between the civil government and the army in Jammu and Kashmir is helping no one particularly so when some of the issues are being contested rather unsavorily in the media.

Past experience from Manipur reveals that this is best course as there is limited scope for breaking an impasse between a State government and the military. In long term there is a necessity for building institutional models at the state level for better civil military interface to avoid airing of public differences in the future.

The third issue is of defence modernization. There is a difference in perception of threat particularly from China and government response to the same. This is evident in numerous debates in the media which has had some impact with the constitution of the Naresh Chandra Committee. The general sentiment is that defence preparedness is lagging behind and there is likely to be a serious gap in the years ahead particularly on the Northern borders. Some media reports do indicate there has been a build up in numbers and enhanced procurements, however these have not raised level of public confidence particularly due to rapid pace of infrastructure and military modernization by the Chinese in Tibet. The defence industry lobby which has become increasingly active with some global arms majors who have special skills in perception management has also pitched in to create a hiatus.

A survey of public source literature on defence modernization would reveal that the pace is picking up but for instruments of synergy between the services, complex multilevel procurement processes where each tier is doing virtually the same task as the one below or higher, lack of capacity in the indigenous defence industry at large and the Ordnance factories in particular and the slow processes in the army which has not been able to get its act going so far. The procedure oriented bureaucratic approach adopted for acquisition is also unlikely to get the best for the cheapest in the shortest possible time let alone generate indigenous capacities.

  These are systemic issues which need to be addressed soonest. A beginning could be made by issuing a Defence White Paper to overcome apprehensions of right minded citizens who are concerned about the impact of gaps in defence preparedness. This will also facilitate identification of vectors for progress of modernization.

Three issues, one rank one pension, AFSPA and military modernization which are being extensively debated and which have an impact on civil and military relations have been flagged here. On the whole there is a need for improving communications, processes and culture to overcome differences before they assume crisis proportions particularly so in the ongoing counter insurgency operations scenario in Jammu and Kashmir. Hopefully institutions empowered to take decisions will do so and reform where necessary is undertaken in this vital field of national interest.

Rahul K Bhonsle

New Delhi

14 November 2011

Article by Same Author