abhishek_sharma wrote:Viv S wrote: 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.
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".
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.
For instance, look at how US soldiers have been treated in last 10 years. They certainly have major problems.
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.
Hardly. In my world, 'aman ki tamasha' is not "fair enough" job of informing the public about the *real* world.
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.
Why did you phrase such a question?
So that you question yourself at where the line is drawn.
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.
I don't think that is true.
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.
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.
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.
1. The military is NOT infallible.
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.
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.
And I have wasted a few hours responding to your less than useful points. *sigh*.
I end up with four angry replies to every post of mine. I've got it harder.
All of them, really? Major problems compared to? Unprofessional militaries?