| | NATIONAL SECURITY
military role
The Last Post for the soldier
The trend in democratic nations is to downsize armies, by choice or necessity
by COL R HARIHARAN
THESE are not happy days for armies in the democratic world. Their influence on national policymaking is waning as the scope and content of national security grows well beyond physical security. The process is not uniform and varies with historical military traditions and the ethos of different nations.
At one end is Turkey, a recent convert to democracy, where the army was the self-appointed guardian of secularism. In the past, whenever its primacy was threatened, the army came down hard on civilian rulers. A referendum has voted for Constitutional reforms to curtail the powers of the military. The package of reforms put up by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) aims at making the armed forces more accountable to civil courts. This is happening in spite of the army's well-founded suspicion that the AKP is a fellow traveller of Islamic fundamentalists.
 At the other end are countries like Sweden and Norway with armies populated largely by short-term compulsory service cadres with only a sprinkling of career soldiers. In the West, as memories of the Cold War fade, most armies are leading a hand-to-mouth existence. The British military, which once built up "the Empire on which the sun never sets", today seems to have endless woes. A Ministry of Defence survey of 10,500 Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel in 2009 was revealing. Most suffered from low morale and major concerns over the military equipment they used on the frontline in Afghanistan. Gen Richard Dannat, Chief of General Staff, went public about the state of his troops fighting in Afghanistan. He spoke of poor pay and acute shortage of essential equipment, including helicopters, for soldiers in operation. Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not take it kindly; his government denied the outspoken General appointment as the Chief of Defence Staff.
The case of the Russian armed forces was no better till President Vladimir Putin pulled them out of the morass of low esteem and shortages. In the US, the role of the military that went up during President George W Bush's tenure is now being pruned by his successor, Barack Obama. In keeping with his election promise to pull back troops from Afghanistan, Obama's national strategic policy of 2010 talks of giving diplomacy, rather than the military, a larger role in the US's global power projection. The President substantiated this by sacking General McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, when the General made public his differences with Washington's war strategy.
In South Asia, most countries have used their armies as tools for sustaining governments characterized by poor governance and political corruption.
In South Asia, countries have used armies as tools for sustaining governments characterized by poor governance and political corruption. These armies with their colonial baggage were useful in crushing extremism and insurgencies. The Indian National Congress came to power after its struggle for freedom under Gandhi's leadership succeeded, and this probably influenced the early perception of the army's role as watchdog of the rulers rather than guardian of national security.
There was perhaps also suspicion about the former colonial army's readiness to function under an elected civilian government. This is probably what prompted Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to write a letter to General Lockhart, commander-in-chief, two days before India became independent. He wrote: "In any policy that is to be pursued, in the Army or otherwise, the views of the Government of India andm the policy they lay down must prevail. If any person is unable to lay down that policy, he has no place in the Indian Army or in the Indian structure of Government." While the armed forces have been following this dictum, successive governments failed to lay down policies not only on national security but also on a host of issues related to security forces and their competency.
The progressive downgrading of armed forces officers in the bureaucratic barometer of order of precedence reflects this mindset. The roller coaster downslide has now put the Army chief on a par with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission. This is more than symbolic.
EVEN in defence policymaking, India is one country where the service chiefs are only on listening watch. This, in spite of the use of the armed forces continually for six decades in both external and internal wars of many hues. Even now, India's National Security Council (modelled on its US counterpart), presided over by the Prime Minister, has, besides the National Security Adviser, the ministers of Defence, External Affairs, Home, and Finance, and the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission as members. Contrast this with President Obama's National Security Council which has the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a statutory attendee.
So it is not surprising that even issues concerning the combat readiness of the armed forces stagnate for want of timely decision-making. It has become routine to recast the recommendations of successive pay commissions (with only civil bureaucrats as members) on armed forces pay and allowances after the service chiefs complain about them. Veterans have been treated shabbily and we see them taking to the streets to remind the government of unfulfilled promises.
A career in the armed forces is no more a popular occupation the world over. And India is no exception. With the technology boom triggering growth, the better class of people is reluctant to bear the hardship of serving in the Indian Army, deployed in difficult areas. A huge shortage of officers is affecting morale, especially as officers are always expected to deliver regardless of such problems. In spite of all this, the armed forces strive to meet the near impossible expectations of the rulers and the public.
People forget that soldiers come from the same society in which corruption, absence of rule of law and human rights violations have become endemic. Twelve months of military training alone cannot completely change the mindset of soldiers coming from rural societies steeped in caste prejudices and politics and human rights violations. Unless there is social change, we cannot expect the armed forces to be insulated forever from pernicious influences.
Added to this is the problem of employing the Army in counterinsurgency operations. In such situations, the armed forces have become the whipping boys for national maladies, mostly because it is convenient. Those who criticize the Army for highhandedness forget that, since 1990, as many as 1,473 of 1,511 cases of human rights violation or abuse levelled against security forces personnel have been proved false after investigation. Traditionally, military leaders maintain a low profile unlike politicians or the intellectual class. If the service chiefs comment on vital issues affecting their professional competence or national security, the bureaucracy and politicians get restive and the media frowns.
Take the case of New Delhi's latest discovery that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and not inept governance or bankrupt policies, is at the root of the unrest in the Kashmir Valley. So the government is seriously considering repeal of the Act in parts of Kashmir. Not one leader has the moral courage to condemn the political leaders inciting the riotous mobs carrying out intifida – a form of indirect warfare.
Besides, 104 personnel have been punished. It is easy for policymakers to forget that, between 1988 and the first seven months of 2010, 5962 security personnel have lost their lives in Kashmir. Can soldiers forget? |
| | | | | | | ![]( "RSS") | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment