The "Pragmatic" blog is a known services baiter, and its opinion is often biased and nuanced in a deliberately misleading manner. The fact of the matter is, that it is the DUTY of the service chiefs to sway the opinion of the government, in the light of their PROFESSIONAL opinion, which is informed by the military apparat. It is axiomatic that Govt opinion on security matters should be guided by the advice of the security professionals, and not inexperienced bureaucrats.Pranav wrote:
Here a deeper exploration of the possible disconnect between the dynasty and PC.
Dealing With Maoists: MMS-Sonia Rift?
That there are differences in the Congress party over how to handle the Maoist/Naxal insurgency is not a secret. But the recent flurry of public statements and press-releases have Delhi's gossip circles abuzz about how the PM and the home minister on the one hand and the Congress President Sonia Gandhi and her son, Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi, on the other, are not on the same page regarding the strategy to be adopted against the Maoists/Naxals. That the BJP firmly backed the home minister adds further grist to the mills.
Exhibit 1: No statements from Gandhis
As R. Jagannathan put it in the DNA:
Given the extremely secretive nature of the Manmohan Singh-Sonia-Rahul Gandhi interface, it is not possible to conclusively prove this, but it is reasonable to presume that Sonia is not actively backing the government in its anti-Maoist campaign.
We certainly haven’t heard a single Sonia statement on Maoism that backs the official stand of her government. At best we have had non-descript statements deploring violence — something similar to what the human-rightswallahs mumble when confronted with the latest Maoist atrocities. In her last statement before the Jharkhand polls, Sonia said “there is no place for violence in a democracy” — a motherhood statement at best. Her son Rahul blamed non-Congress governments for the Maoist violence, neatly deflecting the issue. More here http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-ar ... nt_1368625 .
Exhibit 2: Controversy over public statements by the service chiefs
Take the recent controversy over whether or not the Army and Air Force chiefs should be making public statements (or airing personal views (http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-ar ... nt_1368625)) about the advisability or otherwise of using the defence forces in anti-insurgency operations against the Maoists.
For instance, as a well-argued blog-post points out:
All decisions related to employment of security forces — whether internally or externally — are political decisions, taken after inputs of all government agencies and executed by the security forces of the State. When service chiefs speak out of turn publicly — even unintentionally — they sway public opinion and constrain the government in its decision making. Thus, it is often considered imprudent for the service chiefs to express themselves publicly and unduly influence the political decision-making process of the government.
Under Mr. Antony’s watch as the Defence Minister — starting from the Pay commission fracas, one-rank-one-pension issue, and recently the Sukhna land controversy — the civil-military relations in the country have come under a great strain. It must be said that Mr. Antony seems to be singularly incapable of maintaining this delicate balance of civil-military relations. Mr. Antony has no choice now but to read out the riot act to the service chiefs so that these mistakes are not repeated. More here http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/20 ... ust-speak/ .
However, in Byzantine Delhi, conspiracy theorists point out that the very fact that such statements from the service chiefs have been made -- and particularly that they have not been one-off occurrences but are being repeated -- means that they have the go-ahead from civilian authority (read Defence Minister).
The Defence Minister is of course considered a Gandhi family loyalist.
Exhibit 3: The Home Ministry Statements
Earlier, the army chief's statement that "internal deficiencies, which may be in their training or some other things" had led to the Dantewada massacre was joined issue with by the home minister and his ministry. While the home minister said, "please do not be disrespectful to the jawans. Please do not be disrespectful to our forces", his ministry came out with a release saying, "The Army has trained 10 Battalions of CRPF, 10 Battalions of BSF and 5 Battalions of ITBP prior to their induction in naxal-affected States.
Exhibit 4: The Cabinet Secretary's Note
Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrashekhar is said to have written to all Ministers and Secretaries on Saturday making it clear that only the Home Ministry would speak on internal security issues as it is the nodal ministry (http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?679290). Not that it stopped the IAF chief from once again expressing his "personal views" today (http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?679240).
http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.a ... 0&pid=2230
If injustice was done by the pay commission, it is the bounden duty of the service chiefs to speak against it. And far from being "angry" with the service chiefs, the most voluble of them on the pay commission matter, Admiral Mehta, was sent as an ambassador after retirement, despite the bureaucrats wet dreams which they conveyed through leaks that he was "told off".
Finally, the Cabinet secretary is a government functionary, just like the service chiefs. The Cabinet Secretary and the service Chiefs are of equal status, as inter se government seniority is determined by pay scale, and the Service Chiefs are the only Govt officers of equal pay grade to the Cabinet Secretary. The CabSec is placed one spot higher than the services chiefs on the Warrant of Precedence, but that document is only for ceremonial use, and should not be mistaken for functional superiority, which is determined by pay grade. The chief of the Intelligence Bureau is placed several spots below Lieutenant Generals, and yet he is in the same pay grade as a Lieutenant General, and would find any allusions to the WoP laughable.
The cabinet secretary therefore cannot "Tell" the service chiefs what to do, only convey the wishes of the political leadership, which, it is evident, the political leadership can amply convey to them themselves.
If the Army chief says the CRPF has bungled, then if there was a problem, the DEFENCE MINISTER will tell him about it. The CabSec has no locus to do any such thing. And, as it seems that the Defence Minister has not done any such thing, it is evident that the conveyance of such a message is not the will of the government, merely that of a bureaucrat/ A section of the government.
There is one simple matter to be remembered. India is a republic, and within it, the armed forces have historicall, traditionally and correctly been at the service of the political leadership. The bureaucracy has tried to usurp the role of the political leadership at all points, and thus desperately wants the armed services to be subservient to it. Crying "coup" is just one of the many weapons in their arsenal to try and intimidate the forces. Alas, the real coup is being carried out by the civil servants, in their desperate bid to snatch power from the elected representatives of the people.
