Participants in an informed debate
Can we start framing similar questions in India?
From the novel A Soldier’s Duty by Thomas E. Ricks:
We as a nation have not really come to grips with what should be the proper role of uniformed officers in debates about issues that affect the armed services. It is especially problematic in an era of deference to expertise of all sorts in many areas. At a time when fewer and fewer members of government and the electorate have any military experience, how should military officers bring their expertise to public discussions of national security issues? If military officers are made to sit on the sidelines, how can the debate be truly an informed one? And how can we, in our great democracy, ask American men and women to go out and die if we haven’t held an informed debate? In this key sense, the quality of the political debate boosts our military efficiency, our promise to the troops that they will be used wisely and well.
On one hand, these can be conveniently ignored as rhetorical questions framed to stimulate the intellect of a western audience. On the other, sixty years after India became a republic, isn’t it high time that we in India at least started framing such questions? Answers can follow later.
We are, perhaps, the only country in the world where the Politicians and their advisors, the Bureaucrats have isolated themselves (deliberately) from the Armed Forces. As a result, the Government is blissfully uninformed about military affairs.
There can be no doubt that military matters, both external and internal to the nation, need experienced and expert inputs for decisions to be taken at the National level.
If we analyse the reason for this lack of knowledge by the Politicians and Bureaucrats in military matters, it clearly emerges that the Bureaucrats have no background experience or knowledge in this field. Merely attending the NDC at an advanced stage of their career only results in an unreceptive mindset because the issues covered there are too complicated to be comprehended by someone who does not have a basic knowledge on the subject. Thus ignorance persists. As a result, by isolating the Politicians from expert advise in military matters, the Bureaucrats cover up their insufficiencies.
It is for this very reason that in my interaction with senior MoD Bureaucrats, I have observer an across the board lack of knowledge by them in military matters, be it in strategy or equipment capabilities. This is clearly visible in the matter of fact comments and arbitrary suggestions (leading to decisions) that are made by JS and AS level officers in the Defence Procurement Board, Defence Acquisition Council, Parliamentary Committees, Inter-Governmental Meetings, briefings, etc.
Some Suggestions:
1. Since, in the first 3 to 5 years of their career, the IAS officers are really only whiling away their time and holding appointments that can be held by State Civil Services Officers, they could be inducted for this period into the Armed Forces, to gain experience and consequent knowledge of military matters as well as administrative, HRM, resource management and related skills which will stand them in good stead in their careers. After all, the lion’s share of crisis management within the country is done by the Armed Forces.
2. Laterally induct officers of the Armed Forces into the MoD and MHA at the Director and JS levels, on permanent secondment to deal with military matters and related issues.
3. Select senior Armed Forces officers as members of panels/committees to render expert advise on military and security related issues. A National Security Council without a core group of Armed Forces officers, is unheard of anywhere else.
Adequate cooperation and synergy between the Armed Forces and the Bureaucracy, especially in present times is absolutely necessary to provide a full and correct perspective to the Politicians so that informed and correct decisions taken.
BUT does anyone want to solve the problem? Is the problem actually a Turf War?
If military officers were to get their views into a public debate then the boor0crats will get a phobia and a complex. So they resort to buying out the media to publish incoherrent gibberish and divert the issue.
like always:
(a) easy to kick OG ass, they cannot level field reply – no way. good, funny.
(b) more sensible to Brown Nose khakhi since lathis, FIRs + all in one social
security ids in the offing will silence critics.
http://tinyurl.com/yetp9bx
The same issue is also being raised in other blogs, but not even in the distant horizon of the attention of the mainstream Indian media (TV mainly). I suppose the MSM’s motto is: “Navel Gazing in High-Def Technicolour — the way you like it”.
Quote from the link:
“The Minister’s response brings home the truth that the leadership’s political priorities would always outweigh national security considerations. If the government had been serious about its role as per the 2004 doctrine, the three services would not be having huge backlogs today in their basic tools of trade. They are in bad shape for no fault of their making. In the words of veteran journalist Shekhar Gupta, “The larger state of our armed forces has begun to resemble 1962.”
This is very worrying, and the current Defence Minister should shoulder the responsibility for this — why is he messing around with the Army bureaucracy when there are more important things that he needs to look after? Micromanagement at that high level in the government is a recipe for disaster….it does not seem to work for far less important things, so do not see why the Defense Minister is immune from it.