In its dying moments, the UPA II government has appointed Lieutenant General D.S. Suhag as chief-designate to replace the current chief of army staff who is due to relinquish his post at the end of July. The decision is one of the last major decisions of this government and stands justified on grounds that it is based on the twin traditions of the seniority principle and the need to provide adequate time for overlap for the chief designate to familiarize himself. To stave off criticism, it has been clarified that the government is legally empowered to take such a decision. While these are legal arguments in defence of the decision it may be worthwhile looking at them in the wider context of ethics and morality when dealing with the sensitive institution of the armed forces.

In the eyes of many, this writer included, the government delayed the process considerably and allowed it to become embroiled in a political controversy, although in fairness this was not of its own making. But to then rush the decision was not an act of mature thought. Having completed all the preliminary formalities it could well have left the formal decision to the successor government, still leaving well over two months for smooth transition. The perception is that the government rushed through the appointment, driven more by political expediency than any deep concern for the larger interests of the army. It is disappointing that a political party that has decades of governing experience should be provoked into taking an action, which will undoubtedly hurt the one institution of our democracy that we as a nation can truly be proud of.

Having said this, the dubious credit for instigating the controversy in the first place must go to the principal Opposition party and, more specifically, its Lok Sabha aspirant and erstwhile army chief, General V.K. Singh. That the last few months of the latter’s tenure saw civil-military relations reach their lowest ever in the history of independent India will be stating the obvious. As a serving chief, he chose to make a personal issue of his date of birth into a public spat between him and the government he served, taking the latter to court, and bringing the institution of the army into this avoidable confrontation. At the time allegations had also been made about succession plans for future army chiefs being manipulated.That he launched into a political career with the principal Opposition party not long after shedding the uniform, and has since joined the electoral fray, has made many wonder if his actions during the final days of his tenure, including those of ordering discipline and vigilance action against Lieutenant General Suhag, had a wider political, and perhaps even a personal, agenda. If indeed such a perception is ill-founded, he could have won over skeptics like this writer, if after donning the political mantle he had scrupulously avoided getting involved in matters relating to the army of which he had only very recently been a valued chief. Instead, he and his political party chose to raise objections on the impending appointment of the chief-designate by the government of the day, citing political impropriety.

If indeed there were some genuine concerns, one expected a responsible Opposition to have discussed these with the government in strict confidence and to have left it at that. Bringing these differences in the open, making them a subject of electoral politics and making the chief-designate a political football has far deeper ramifications. This not only cast aspersions on the professionalism and hurt the chief-designate’s credibility in the eyes of his army, but also paved the way for even worse civil-army relations should the Opposition party take on the mantle of governance. One wonders if General V.K. Singh in his exuberance to make a political impact, paused to reflect on the indignity this would heap on the institution of the army that served him so loyally?

Whilst one could be generous and attribute General V.K. Singh’s enthusiasm to political naivety, it is hard to believe that the party to which he belongs (which polls indicate may well be forming the government by the time this piece is read) and one generally perceived to be strong on national security issues, should have fallen prey to the kind of political posturing that can only bruise the institution of the armed forces. In this political battlefield it is also difficult for General V.K. Singh to convince his detractors that his efforts at altering the line of succession are not driven by any high moral values, but to serve personal family interests. Now that he is in the political amphitheatre, he will need to be prepared to face such public inquisition.

In the midst of a most bitterly fought election campaign, one unfortunate message has filtered through to the minds of our apolitical armed forces that appointments and succession plans at the top of the rung of the armed forces are subject to political and personal manipulations. This perception is strengthened as in the past, in each of the services, political and bureaucratic sleight of hand has been used to alter succession lists either favouring or disadvantaging individuals. But those were relatively benign times with the media more forgiving; officers unfairly treated fading away in soldierly dignity and on the surface, at least, political parties keeping aloof. Alas, times are changing and what we are seeing today is verging on a ‘banana democracy’, where the armed forces are not only being taken for granted, but being selectively targeted and now being used as a political football.

This is not a good omen for Indian democracy, and it is time for the nation as a whole to pause and reflect on the very fundamentals of the civil-military relationship, before we reach a point where the armed forces also become fair game in our political battle space. There is, hence, need to temper our democratic polity within the broad framework of the moral and ethical values that drive the profession of arms. Whilst no society will ever accept destruction of life and property as legitimate actions, in exceptional circumstances like war or a national emergency, society accords this responsibility only to its armed forces and expects them to conform to the moral values of the society whilst upholding the laws of the land. In return, every professional military person is honour bound to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation even at the peril of one’s life. The foundations of this contract of unlimited liability on the part of the uniformed fraternity for the larger good of the society are based neither in laws of the land nor rules of governance, but on mutual trust and moral and ethical conduct on the part of both parties. That is why one wishes that despite the provocation from the Opposition, the government rather than hide behind the legality of its actions, had exercised the moral option of letting the new dispensation take a call.

This brings us to some of the allied issues that have been thrown up by this very unfortunate development .The clichéd principle of seniority is not only a lazy option, but flies in the face of meritocracy that should be the anchor of any dynamic society. Here the principle of seniority is merely restricted to arriving at a panel of contenders, beyond which strict and transparent meritocracy should take over. In the case of selecting military commanders and when looking for qualities of leadership, performance over some four decades in peace and war, moral courage and exposure to different assignments, which would add to experience in future employability, there can never be two individuals of equal calibre. That is why employability for each assignment needs to be weighed carefully during the selection process. And that is why in Western democracies the last mile selection process sometimes involves going well down the seniority list, with no slight being perceived by those passed over as they are also professionals and men of honour. If we were to follow this principle, all the ills of the present, where successions are being planned or manipulated or where those favourably placed seniority-wise begin to lobby or become risk averse, will become history, to the better health of the institution of the armed forces and a healthier national security environment.

The next is a desirable cooling-off period for commanders and chiefs before they choose to embark on public office in the garb of private citizens. This writer believes that chiefs and commanders on shedding uniforms still command widespread loyalty and respect and are held as models by a large body of those they have commanded and who still serve. To be fair to them and their morale, retiring commanders bear the moral burden of maintaining the same dignity of public behaviour as when in command. As the recent electoral battle has clearly demonstrated, this may not be easy in our present electoral climate. This writer believes that for joining electoral politics a decent self- imposed moratorium of a few years is a price commanders must be willing to pay. In a similar vein they should morally be obliged to maintain the dignity of the military position they held by not accepting diplomatic or other government assignments that are equated to government status below what they had held. Regrettably, of late, even this trend is seen to be increasing.

The eyes of every soldier, sailor and airman are now on the new government and how it guides the ship of our armed forces towards calmer moral and ethical waters. In an act of statesmanship, it could make amends by declaring its full confidence in the professional competence and integrity of army chief- designate Lieutenant General Suhag and bury the controversy once and for all.

The author is a retired air marshal of the Indian Air Force