Bharat Rakshak

The Army is not a parallel or equivalent branch of the government. Under the Indian constitution, the issue of the military, political, environmental or geographical implications of demilitarization or any other similar issue for that matter is for the government to address, whether the question is posed by the media or by the parliament.




Why just the Army Chief? Why is it the Jawan, NCO, JCO or junior officer serving in Siachen or scheduled to serve there, at risk to life and limb, is not permitted under army regulations to talk to media? The same rationale applies to the COAS' interactions with the media.




Different issue.

>> Why is it the Jawan, NCO, JCO or junior officer serving in Siachen or scheduled to serve there, at risk to life and limb, is not permitted under army regulations to talk to media?

I think they should be allowed to talk to media. I would like to know their views.

Like I said to Eklavya, the Army is not an independent branch of the govt. Its opinions and concerns are for the Cabinet's consideration not for dissemination to the general public. Not unless a new found political role is to be carved out for the military.




That is the point. While in uniform he doesn't have that right even if it involves unclassified information. And this is true for the military of all democratic countries whether they're in Europe, North America or elsewhere.




Unfortunately there is no middle ground to be found here. The govt was given a mandate to govern for a period of five years subject to a majority in the Lok Sabha. That mandate included formulation of defence and foreign policy. If, as it seems, the govt fails to deliver, other political parties will have the opportunity to make their case and replace it. Constitutionally, there is no space for the military in this setup.

That said, if the military is truly a wiser, maturer institution better suited to policy making, well we should try military rule then.




Blaming a politician for appointing a 'pliable' or political safe COAS serves no purpose. People come and go, it is the systems that are put in place that endure. And for all its flaws, the current system preventing not just the COAS but the rank and file of the army from unsanctioned interactions with the media, has kept the military from getting politicized.

There are myriad of reasons relating to discipline, respect for the chain of command and military ethos. But suffice to say, no professional military permits its uniformed members to broadcast their personal opinions in public.

Paki bhaichara at one end, and complete 'media access' at the other will be a fast end to the nation and the IA.

Is that true? If yes, then in my view, it should be changed.



No, it is not suited for the entire spectrum of "policy making". But I certainly believe that it has to play a role ("role" is not synonymous with "military rule") in issues that concern the defense of the country. Siachen issue is certainly one of them.



Actually, blaming the politician for appointing a pliable COAS is the only correct thing to do. When you find an undesirable situation, you should find who is responsible for it. Here, the appointment is *done by* the politician. If generals start dancing to the tunes of politicians then *both* should be blamed.

He

The Indian media has always had access to the Service chiefs and have always asked them direct questions about controversial military matters, such as AFSPA, Siachen, deployment against Maoists, etc, and has always received a direct response from the Chiefs.

The public in India wants to hear the views of the service chiefs on these issues and the established norm in India is for the service chiefs to represent the views of the armed forces.

On the issue of Siachen, the current PM would like to muzzle the Army as he is inclined to take actions that are militarily highly stupid. The media is doing its job in exposing the stupidity of the demilitarisation faction in Government.

Please go and teach how you think the Constitution works to someone else. People on BRF know perfectly well that interaction between the Chiefs and the media is an established part of democratic public life in India.

Respecting the chain of command is not inconsistent with pointing out obvious flaws/mistakes/deficiencies. If a jawan does not have appropriate clothes/shoes/weapons, then he should be able to talk to the media about it. His superiors should not be worried if they have used all the funds appropriately. And I don't care about their "chain of command" if they have been misusing the funds. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As long as information is not classified, I believe everyone should be allowed to talk about it. The public would listen to all sides and make up their mind.



And that is one of the reasons why all professional militaries have major problems.

Please define this role. In explicit terms. Just calling for it to play 'a role' is not sufficient. Do you want the defence ministry to be headed by the COAS? Or maybe we should be more like Pakistan where the army exercises near-veto power over foreign policy. Perhaps you feel he should have a place in cabinet of ministers?




That's an awfully simplistic way to consider the matter. First off all, how would you identify an individual as pliable? Its a sufficient enough characterization to be suitable for the politician yet vague enough that no concrete accusation can be made against him. And secondly, say you blame the politician, so what? Some people will pay attention, others won't and sooner or later the issue will fade away. His successor will likely be someone in the same mold.

From the govt perspective some one who will stay on message will always be a better choice than someone who'll undercut the govt's authority by going to media. Blaming individuals will not change the fact that when the system is faulty, there will exist a deficit of forthrightness at top which in turn will seep down the ranks.

No, but the role certainly includes informing the public about *defense* issues.



Can you stop barfing here? What makes you think I was recommending the Paki model? Please use your psychic powers somewhere else.



I don't know. You brought up the issue of "pliable" individual.



That should not be your/my concern. I believe that there are enough people who would care to notice these issues and take steps to inform others.



Why would the government worry if the military talks to the media? If the govt is doing everything right, then no one can undercut its actions. But if the actions of government are based on shaky premises, then I am not too worried if their position is weakened.

And that access has always been subject the cabinet's approval and there is a mutual understanding that the MoD will not micro-manage the service chief's interactions with the media, and the chiefs in turn will remain on message.




The public in India wants to hear the views of the service chiefs on ALL issues. They'd like to hear not only from the service chiefs but from all ranks general downwards. That does not mean the chain of command should now be compromised.




In your opinion certainly. The army is not infallible and its view is not any more important than that of the IN, IAF, external affairs ministry, IB or RAW, the latter set's opinions being conveyed directly and not through the media.




Oh pray tell, why just the service chiefs? Why not army commanders as well? And if so, why not corps commanders as well? And why not filter the whole thing down to the platoon and section leaders?

The army is not a democracy even though it exists to defend one. If soldier and officers can publicly question the actions of their superiors it will lead to an utter breakdown of the command structure and the media as usual will gleefully report on the spectacle.




All of them, really? Major problems compared to? Unprofessional militaries?




The media does a fair enough job of informing the public about defence issues. Specific inquiries are posed to the DM in the parliament.




That was phrased as a question. You have an abstract idea of what the military's role should be. And abstract ideas cannot be implemented as policy.




Without a proper concrete system in place all these expectations are bandages and no amount of wishful thinking will prevent the rot at the top. Like I said before, its not a coincidence that every major democracy in the world has a military who's media interaction is subject to approval.




Who's to say what is right and wrong? You're looking at the Siachen issue and you can see everything in black and white.

Here's an example - Arjun Mk2 clears trials successfully. Army decides to stick with T-90/acquire upgraded T-90. The MoD considers Army's position, considers the industrial benefits of the Arjun program as well as the savings in foreign exchange and instruct HVT to switch production entirely to the Arjun. After the US, Israel, UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea etc don't import their tanks.

In such situation would it be appropriate for the COAS to go the press and declare that military preparedness was being compromised by the govt. It would compromise the govt's position yet be 'morally right' from the general's perspective. The govt may be cowed down into settling for the T-90. There are three points to be made here -

1. The military is NOT infallible.
2. At the end of the day, its govt's call to make and while the service chiefs may not be able to block it overtly, they will end up using the media to undercut the govt's authority and thereby subvert the democratic process.
3. If there is be oversight communicated to the media over the govt's actions it needs to be through the parliamentary committee not from uniformed individuals.

It might also reduce corruption. It would help the public know what the soldiers need and how existing funds have been used/misused. Just gagging people is a poor way of running any organization.

And why would it break the command structure? I don't think any soldier is going to say: "Well, I don't think we should look for terrorists today." I am not referring to that kind of "freedom".




For instance, look at how US soldiers have been treated in last 10 years. They certainly have major problems.



Hardly. In my world, 'aman ki tamasha' is not "fair enough" job of informing the public about the *real* world.



Why did you phrase such a question?



I don't think that is true.



People will listen to all sides of the arguments and decide for themselves. Some will agree with the government. Others might be skeptical.



And what makes you think that people would just accept what the COAS says? People would listen to his points and judge the relative merits of his and government's arguments. It might turn out that people are not convinced by the Army's stand.



Yes. Similarly, the politicians are NOT infallible either. And merely allowing the army to talk to the media is not "subverting the democratic process". Such lahori logic should not be posted here.

And I have wasted a few hours responding to your less than useful points. *sigh*.

But they have done nothing of the sort. Why are you blaming the service chiefs for something they did not do? Answering a question about a national security issue, asked by the media, truthfully, does not equal subverting the democratic process. Especially if no classified information was revealed.

What exactly did J.J. Singh and V.K. Singh say that was so objectionable that they are being accused of undercutting the government's authority?

Lets get a little realistic here. The Army is blamed for the 62 debacle to this day, despite being sent in to fight with no winter gear, obsolete guns and insufficient ammo. If things go south after MMS gets his peace park and hangs up his boots, and if the Army is unable to recapture lost territory, who do you think is going to get blamed by the people? In such a situation, what's wrong in the service chiefs clarifying to the people of India what they advised the government, before the yellow stuff hits the fan? Few (especially the great champions of democracy here) will listen to them if they try to explain themselves later. If the GOI is behaving like as a$$, the people deserve to know. Just because they voted them in 4 years ago, doesn't give the govt. a free run over everything.

+1

+1 Nachiket ji. Not exactly the greatest of virtues in GoI.

Even when Omar Abdulla talked about reducing military presence in J&k the army responded by issuing public statement. There is nothing wrong for the army to publicly respond on the matters of national security. It is in their basic duty and not at all unconstitutional.

wonder what would be the reaction if army wanted to demilitarise and PM wanted to stay put!!

Slight deviation, but wondered why during war or conflicts the media briefing is managed by the generals?

Another incident, in the very early days of kargil vajpayee hurriedly issue a statement that indian army will not cross LOC. Gen V P Malik then requested (asked?) him and others not to issue such statements without consulting military.

Do you think the general crossed the line and did something unconstitutional?

It is like blaming AFPSA in Kashmir during agitations without any reason while everyone do their politics.

Let us ask if those who put question marks do the same exhaustively where they should.

Why should India do this to appease warmongering? The constitution never says or could say anything as such so it is rubbish, it is ad-hoc and it hardly upholds the highest standards set by the very same constitution.

Service chiefs are not the ruling party's spin doctors. The Chiefs are at liberty to tell the truth as they see it. Congress and BJP party spokespersons can stay on message if they like. If the PM does not like the message being delivered by the Chiefs, he is at liberty to muzzle them; but he certainly has no right whatsoever to ask them to stay 'on message' i.e. tell lies on his behalf.



The interaction between media and service chiefs is focusssed entirely on military matters. Please don't make out that army chief's views are sought on the price of onions, etc.



Nobody is infallible, not even you, so please spare us your wisdom. When it comes to defending mountainous territory like Siachen, Indian Army has the required professional expertise to determine what constitutes a defensible position. They might be wrong, but I trust them more on a military matter than the IB, RAW or external affairs. Air Force has its area of expertise and Navy has their area of expertise.

Which branch of government leaked the so called "1992 deal" to the media before the latest Defence Secretary talks in Islamabad?

Which branch of government leaked the Army Chief's letter to the PM about the poor state of the Army?



People below the chief do interact with the media on specific issues. Each service has press officers / public relations officers. After multi-national exercises, the officers leading the Indian contingent invariably talk to the press. In every organisation, only certain people are authorised to speak to the media on behalf of the organisation on certain issues.

There are no buyers of the the Viv S Slippery Slope Theory (VSSST), which fails to reconcile the basic established fact that service chiefs have always interacted with the media, and have commented extensively on military matters.

a rebuttal of Gurmeet Kanwal and AG Noorani's articles by By Maj Gen S.G. Vombatkere.

The Siachen Imbroglio

^^Sahastron dhanyawaad Pragnya jee for posting this beautiful peace of work, here posting it in full:

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-siachen-imbroglio/0/

Maj Gen S.G. Vombatkere has written an article based on reason and logic. But, our candle kissers have forgotten all that Pakistan has done to us for over six decades now (or even planning to do to us in future as we understand from the likes of Zabiuddin Ansari et al) and feel that an Indian act of extraordinary generosity will turn the Pakistani tide in favour of a 'peaceful co-existence' with us. Even Zbiuddin's arrest and the revelatons from him will not convince this people of the futility of trusting Pakistan. These people somehow think that there is a peace constituency in Pakistan and all that it needs is some concession from India which would enable this powerful constituency to immediately overcome all the accumulated Pakistani hatred, jihadi religiosity and hostility and establish ever-lasting peace with us. These Indian quarters also believe naively that India must seen to have conceded to Pakistan for a turn-around to happen in the Pakistani psyche and withdrawal from Siachen can achieve that. Some never learn.

here is a strident, hard hitting article - though 'not specific' to siachen but does touch on it - on Pakistan, by By Dr Amarjit Singh.

Why the existence of Pakistan is not in India’s interest

Very often on this forum misguided (or is it guided) souls have often quoted some of the Track - II'ers (with Video links) on the pakistani side as being sincere and imply that it is the GOI at fault for not trusting the other side and should show a gesture in vacating the Siachen. Well for those Pakistani sympathisers check this:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/406892/the- ... -doctrine/

This TFTA and UBER RAPE representative is a regular Track - II member from the Pakistani side. Just look at the difference of how dedicated he and the other Pakistani interlocutors are in sticking to their govt's MO of deceptions and outright lies and compare that to the Indian Track - II'ers some of whome for the sake of 5 star hospitality and a First Class air ticket have let our country down and always imply that India should show big brotherly attitude in making compromises. For those willing jaichands and their sympathisers on this forum .........a big aackthoo.

Got to admire G Parthasarathy.The Pakistani's are so used to dealing with the Pathetic self-hating WKK's, that when they encounter a true plain speaking Indian Nationalist, they just cant handle it.

The military isn't just any organisation. No civilian organisation is composed of men who've sworn an oath to observe and obey all commands even to peril of their lives.

Introduce the media into the mix and it'll end up as a tool for disgruntled juniors to attack their seniors. There's more to the command structure than just obedience, and there's a lot more to army life than just 'looking for terrorists'. Officers often have to make hard choices over even something as seemingly mundane as a grant of leave. With the battalion required to maintain a minimum standing strength, some men have to denied leave. The unfortunate individuals are expected to suck it up and carry on. When a jawan gets cussed out by his havaldar, even if its blatantly unfair, he's expected to stand there and swallow it. That's the army way. There's no avenue that lets them seek to air their grievances whether legitimate or otherwise by approaching the media.

In a profession where life is tough, pay is inequitable, promotion prospects start shrinking with time and breaches of discipline aren't tolerated, providing that avenue is just asking for trouble.




Its an army that's been at war for over 10 years, of course they have problems. But no one has ever posited that those problems would be ameliorated let alone solved by allowing servicemen unfettered access to the press.




You and I don't visit the LoC on weekends and have never seen PoK or Afghanistan in person. Yet we both believe we know about the 'real world', as different though our outlook might be. Point is there is no paucity of information out there. But expecting that the entire media should march in lockstep is obviously expecting too much.




So that you question yourself at where the line is drawn.




Can you name any non-reservist (unlike say Israel or Singapore) militaries whose members are allowed to go on record with the media without authorization.




Quite simply because the COAS is not an elected individual and he remains under the president's command, which means all the constraints that apply to junior officers and other ranks also apply to him. His army commanders cannot publicly take a position contrary to his and similarly he cannot publicly take a position contrary to the government's. Any dissent is supposed to be expressed in closed meetings.




The military like the civil services is not elected and like the civil service is subservient (not equal) to an elected government. Yes neither politicians nor military leaders are infallible but since the cabinet exercises the president's will, one of them is higher up the command chain.

Besides, the government DOES allow the army to talk to the media. All the interviews that one sees on television are conducted with the govt's approval. But at the same time, the officer is expected to stay on message, not deliberately contradict any of his seniors or the govt and excuse himself from answering questions that entail subjectivity. And as it happens the army DOES respect that convention and its in very rare cases that they off-message and then too its done diplomatically so as not too cause serious offence at South Block. The govt in turn tends to overlook breaches but pushed hard enough it can demand a resignation, an event that would be a disaster as far as civil-military relations in the country are concerned.




I end up with four angry replies to every post of mine. I've got it harder.

>> So that you question yourself at where the line is drawn.

It is fairly clear to me (and many others) where the line is drawn. Of course, I should have known that not everyone is capable of understanding this issue. Apologies.

Stay on message doesn't mean getting the chiefs to lie for you. It simply means the service chiefs need to confine their interaction to broad terms and not to come down on any side of an argument that the govt is still deliberating on.




The public would like hear as much as possible from the army chief whether its about corruption, or the Sri Lankan Tamil issue or the 'price of onions' for that matter. There'll certainly be no outcry from the public if the army chief were to comment on any of these issues. The response from the intelligentsia, bureaucracy and political scene is a different issue.




And their professional opinion is to be conveyed to the govt directly. The media cannot be playing the middle man.




I don't work in government, I'm not privy to the identity of the culprit. But I do know that the DM took the views of the COAS into cognizance and then firmly opposed demilitarization during the cabinet's deliberations.




You've smoothly side-stepped the question. Why are servicemen prohibited from speaking to the media? Is it justifiable or do you agree with abhishek_sharma's view, that they should have complete freedom as far as talking to the press is concerned? Yes, the service chiefs have always interacted with the media, but that always been with the govt's approval. And that approval has always been subject to the service chiefs not undercutting the govt's authority.

The limits of the service chiefs' powers vis-a-vis the govt have been defined in black and white for the last 60 years. Just because an issue is 'important' or 'very important' doesn't the change that equation.

I don't think the Army should speak against the govt on most issues. However, we must avoid a repeat of 1948 Kashmir & 1962 China fiascos. If the Army can prevent the govt from putting our security our stake, I am all for it.

I think it is a similar situation here. We can't expect Pakistani/Chinese forces to follow the "siachen peace park" proposal. If the Army does not stop a security breach, who will?

They are the head of the Indian Armed Forces. We expect them to place the interests of the country above all else.

And those limits have never been violated by any service chief. You are raising a bogey here. I ask again (since you have conveniently ignored the question) what precisely did the former chiefs say, that led you to accuse them of subverting democracy?

Another tool is the govt does issue gag orders off and on, whenever it feels so, as AK did last year.

If one dissects this entire Siachen issue, one has to ask the question, is the entire issue not just of trust on Pakistan but trust on our own polity that is part of the mix here. Have not seen many go into this aspect.

Most issues? Chain of commands do not work based on dilly-dally interpretations. All the army can do is as its govt commands it to and are capable of. By themselves, they cannot prevent ANYTHING. They are a national asset, completely and entirely subject to political control, not some independent entity of the national polity. A version of what you wrote, would be a coup.

This is a policy decision for civilian authority, not of the army to make.

As do we expect of the RM, PM and indeed it is expected of every Indian citizen. Service men, who serve deserve out eternal gratitude. The problem of the IA is not that it wants a say in any policy , the problem is the political authorities do not govern adequately, and defense matters are no exception to this rule.

This is the underlying reason many here feel, it is OK for the IA to speak on "some" matters. However, a broken system is a bad excuse to break systems further.

Subverting democracy is a strong set of words, not used by anyone. Why do you not not look at my post, in the previous pages. I believe, I raised the issue and gave examples. Please look them up.

For no reason this thread has become a dumping ground of all slurs against the army.

^ +1. Yeah, I think we are wasting our time. I am out of this discussion.

I'm not accusing any service chief of any thing; that would entail delving into their statements (and news reports publish only excerpts that are often devoid of context). My response was to a broader issue unrelated to any individual - should a service chief publicly take a position on an issue that the govt is undecided on or has a contrary opinion about. Its not an India specific question let alone a Siachen specific issue. Its a debate that regularly comes around in the US and UK (and I assume other non-English countries as well) whenever something arises that the military and govt are at odds about. My contention is that it would subvert democracy (to what degree is debatable) not to mention ultimately encourage nepotism. Others disagree, so we have two pages of head butting.

I am sure other members are responding you in the context of Siachen. And if that is not your intend then please take this discussion somewhere else. Why are you guys polluting this thread?

this is your quote from up above this same page.



In that quote you have just said COAS interactions with the media are not permitted and since the army chiefs have actually spoken, viola you have just accused the army chief(s) of not following the army regulations.