Defence Minister Antony shows who’s boss

The 1950s and the 1960s were a period when the US and its European allies backed the takeover of governments in Asia by the military. One after the other, pro-US generals staged coups that toppled elected governments, to applause from North America and Europe. The West saw no contradiction between their frequent exclamations of support for democracy and their connivance in putting into power the uniformed services. After all, to Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles or Duncan Sandys — as to Winston Churchill earlier — democracy was a gift meant to be enjoyed only by those of European ethnicity. The rest of the globe, in their view, was not fit enough for such a privilege. In a period when countries in their midst were staging military coups almost on a yearly basis, it is to the credit of the generals in India that they rejected hints from abroad that they take over power from the civilian leadership. Those in the know say that the only period when a few senior officers in the military actually considered a coup was in 1959, when then Defence Minister V K Krishna Menon behaved in an insulting way to senior officers of the armed forces, whose protest to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru fell on deaf years. Menon was, after all, a favourite of Nehru.

At that time, the Chief of Army Staff was General Kodendera Thimayya, a superb tactician responsible for forcing open the Zoji La pass in Kashmir in 1948, by the use of tanks. The Sandhurst-trained “Timmy” was beloved by the troops, but excited the attention of the paranoidal B N Mullick, Director of the Intelligence Bureau, who suspected him of planning a military coup.In fact, there was nothing more to the rumour of a coup than some loud talk in army messes by a few senior officers who ought to have known better, and who were angered by the public rebuke given to General Thimmayya by Jawaharlal Nehru in Parliament. An angry and ungracious PM administered the tongue-lashing after having got the COAS to withdraw his preferred resignation. Thimmayya, his spirit broken, finally retired in 1961 and died soon afterwards. The next year, a once-proud army weakened by political interference and crippled by severe budget cuts went to defeat at the hands of the Peoples Liberation Army. It was only after that shock that Nehru realized the need for a strong army, especially since his warm welcome of the Dalai Lama in 1959 had angered China and made that country’s leaders suspicious of Indian designs. From the time that the Dalai Lama took up residence in India, relations between Beijing and Delhi have never been warm, despite the need for both to work together.

That even a competent, popular COAS such as Thimmayya could be treated so cavalierly indicated the reality of civilian control over the Indian military even in the 1960s. However, in India, this has been carried too far, with the military getting excluded from decision-making at the higher levels. Till today, unlike in countries such as Japan, serving officers of the military have zero presence in the Ministry of Defence, which is filled only with civilian officers. A Defence Secretary (the bureaucratic head of the ministry) may have been Secretary of Sports just before he took charge of the administrative oversight machinery of the armed forces, and may never have seen a tank or a gun in his life. Yet he would now be taking decisions that directly impact India’s readiness to face threats.

None of his bureaucratic colleagues would have any expertise in Defence, unlike in the case of the External Affairs and Finance Ministries, where there is greater specialisation. Worse, as yet, there is no Combined Headquarters for the three Services, which continue to operate as separate fiefs. Such a lack of coordination, while operationally unwise, suits the interests of politicians and bureaucrats eager to be in the driver’s seat on military affairs. The result has been that decisions on equipment and career progression have been taken by civilians with little understanding of military requirements. Despite such setbacks, the military in India has cheerfully soldiered on, aware that democracy is not a perfect system, but that it is preferable to the alternative of military government.

After the Thimmayya episode, another major blow to the prestige of the armed forces took place on December 30,1998, when Defence Minister George Fernandes dismissed the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, for insubordination. Admiral Bhagwat had publicly declined to accept the Defence Ministry’s appointment of Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh as Deputy CNS. While such a stand was untenable in the context of civilian control over the military in India, the numerous punitive steps against the fallen Admiral - including efforts to strip him of his rank and retirement benefits - created much heartburn within the uniformed services. However, as in the past, they accepted the barbs without public demur, and after a while, some justice was done to Admiral Bhagwat, who is one of the finest strategic minds in the country, and a strong votary of Sea Power, by withdrawing some of the punitive measures against him

This week, the mild-mannered Minister of Defence, Arecaparambil Kurian Antony, once again showed the Services as to just who is the boss. The present Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, a tough and no-nonsense general, seemed to be going soft on his Military Secretary, Lt-Gen Avadesh Prasad, who has been accused of favouring a businessman in what has been termed the Sukhna Land Scam. Lt-Gen Prasad allegedly influenced his colleague, Lt-Gen P K Rath, as well as Lt-Gen Ramesh Halgalli, to ensure that the businessman was given prime land, ostensibly to set up a college, but in fact, to build houses on.

The Defence Ministry has already cancelled the appointment of Lt-Gen Rath as Deputy COAS, while a court-martial of him and Lt-Gen Halgalli seems imminent. The COAS had sought to delink the top man involved in the transaction, Lt-Gen Avadesh Prasad, from a court-martial, merely slapping him on the wrist by “administrative action”.

In other words, Lt-Gen Prasad would have escaped scot-free in two days, when he retires from service by January 31. Had the Inquiry Officer (Lt-Gen P K Singh, the incoming COAS) been of the same view as his boss General Kapoor, Lt-Gen Prasad may have escaped. However, Lt-Gen Singh recommended a court-martial for Lt-Gen Prasad. When Defence Minister Antony was told of this divergence of view between the two top officers of the Indian Army, he examined the records and ordered a court-martial, overruling General Kapoor.

Antony is one of the very few top politicians in India who are financially honest (another being - it must be admitted – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh), whose wife and children still use public transport, and whose sole wealth is a tiny house in Trivandrum, the capital of his home state of Kerala. He is aware that scandals involving procurement have cast a cloud over the Ministry of Defence, and may be hoping by this public move to retrieve some of his department’s lost reputation. Certainly the fact that the upright incoming COAS, Lt-Gen Singh, was of the view that severe steps needed to be taken against Lt-Gen Prasad would have been decisive in making the normally non-confrontational Defence Minister deliver the coup degrace to his army chief, who seems to have very little leeway left but to resign, in view of his advice not being taken. General Kapoor is known for his soldierly qualities, but friends have reportedly told him that he should not create a controversy by quitting, but accept the orders of the Defence Minister. The good thing is that the entire episode has been played out in public.

In both India and Pakistan, the media - especially the visual media have emerged as public watchdogs, challenging the writs of the powerful. With all its defects, Indian democracy has shown the resilience needed to ensure that it does not get smothered by military coups, and these days, in Pakistan as well, the media are playing an important role in preventing a repeat of the past, when elected governments were replaced. In the case of India, perhaps the pendulum needs to swing slightly in the other direction. The men and women in uniform need to be directly associated with decision-making in the Ministry of Defence, and reforms such as a Combined HQ for all three Services need to be introduced. Of course, none of this should take away the reality of civilian control over the military, a reality that has been emphasized to General Kapoor by Defence Minister Antony just two days ago.