The blog takes a stand for peace. It comprises my epublications on strategic affairs and peace studies issues in South Asia. Views expressed are personal. My three books Think South Asia; Subcontinental Musings and South Asia: In it Togehter, with my published commentaries can be downloaded free from the links provided and hard copies from http://cinnamonteal.in/authors/firdaus-ahmed/. @firdyahmed. Firdaus Ahmed is the pen name of Ali Ahmed.
An opinion piece in The Tribune referring to the subtext of the statements of two army commanders speaking at a seminar late last month at Punjab University, Chandigarh, calls for the army chief Bipin Rawat to listen to those statements and pull himself back from going down a political route and taking the army down the same route with him.
At the Chandigarh seminar, the head of the army’s western command said that the idea of a two-front war is not ‘smart’. The army chief had dwelt on the concept of ‘two and half front war’ with the Doklam crisis as context mid last year. The second general, its training command head, called for activation of a political track with Pakistan. He seemed to suggest that even though the Line of Control (LoC) has been activated for some three years now, there is nothing to show for the political utility of the military operations there.
His latest remarks in the context of elections in three north eastern states drew attention to the threat of illegal immigration. While it cannot be said that BJP’s good showing in the elections was a result of those remarks but the timing unfortunately rules in the possibility that they were designed to be helpful. The timing has a precedence. In the run up to the Karnataka elections, the Chief went down to Coorg and pitched for the Bharat Ratna for a son-of-the-soil, Field Marshal Cariappa. His comments were criticised by the commentariat and assorted politicians.
Over his tenure, the army chief has through his public remarks been rather useful for the ruling dispensation. Not only is the army chief voluble, but his utterances are political. This explains the latitude he has been given to discourse on aspects that are much outside the army’s domain.
The two army commanders were speaking at a seminar on Pakistan. Drawing analogy from Pakistan’s case, the training command head had this to say, “This (Pakistani praetorianism) is in stark contrast to India where the armed forces owe allegiance to the Constitution, and not to any party, person or religion (italics added).”
This follows the joint doctrine (p.2) of the armed forces that reiterated the national interest as being: ‘To preserve the democratic, secular and federal character of the Indian Republic.’ This is a corollary to the national values encapsulated in the documents as: ‘sovereignty, socialism secularism, democracy, republican character, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, human dignity, unity and integrity of our Nation, respect for our diversity, peaceful co-existence, pluralism and tolerance and international peace defined by a just international order.’
The training command head said as much, likening Pakistan to a mirror on the wall, which India needs to look at so as not to “make the same mistakes, particularly in light of growing radicalisation and intolerance within our own society over mundane issues.”
An unseemly political proximity is visible between the army and the right wing. While traditionally only personages of national stature are allowed to speak at the military’s haloed training institutions, a captive military audience is now being treated to talks by cultural nationalists such as Zee News anchor, Sudhir Chaudhary, at the staff college at Wellington and former major and current day Republic TV host Gaurav Arya at the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun. Former Chief VK Singh donned his true colours by taking up the RSS uniform.
The extent to which the strategic path adopted by the army is sustainable in strategic terms has been questioned, not just by the General heading perhaps the most consequential command in case of conventional war, but also by a retired General who served as military adviser in the national security council system of the previous administration.
The army chief in the context of nothing specific had at a conference this winter called for keeping the army out of politics. It is unlikely the advice was for himself. Army’s discipline and sense of obedience cannot be an excuse to ignore the change in its public profile brought about by a Chief, deliberately given rather a loose rope by a self-interested government.
The two army commanders need to pay heed to the subtext of their own remarks and, at the closed door conference of army commanders, discuss the new phenomenon of the army flirting with politics. Hopefully a Chief suitably cautioned by his peers would then steer a strictly neutral course, particularly as national elections are on the horizon.