DOES INDIA REQUIRE A GENERAL NO 1

DOES INDIA REQUIRE A GENERAL NO 1

 Gallipoli, during the First World War, when General Sir Ian Hamilton, commanding the Royal Army, desperately wanted Naval gun fire support but this was not available as the Admiral commanding the Fleet had ordered his warships to clean their boilers. The Gallipoli disaster taught the British the need for ensuring proper coordination between the Services in battle. The need for this got further underscored with the emergence of the Air Force as a major partner in battle, whether on land or at sea. There was need for close professional co-ordination between the three Defence Services.

After the First World War, the British introduced a Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), comprising the three Service Chiefs in their Defence High Command. This arrangement was also adopted by other countries. During the Second World War, the concept of a Supreme Commander in all theatres of war was evolved. Within a few years after that War, the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) was made at the national level in all countries, except India. Some countries use different nomenclature for this appointment but the functions assigned are the same.

Higher Defence Organization as per records flourished during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador in Chandragupta’s court brought out in his Book “Indika”, that the Mauryan War Office in the fourth century BC was a combined headquarters for both the Army and the Navy. The Mauryan War Office functioning under the Commander-in-Chief had six boards, each of five officers. These were Infantry, Cavalry, Elephants, Chariots, Admiralty and Commissariat. The War Office administered a standing Army of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, 9,000 elephants and 8,000 chariots plus an unspecified number of warships.

The Mauryan Empire extended from Kashmir to Karnataka and Kamarup to Kabul. During the British era, India was perhaps the only country in the world which had a single Commander-in-Chief for all the three Services.

In 1947, this arrangement was discarded and each Service came to have its own Commander-in-Chief, independent of each other. The nomenclature of the three Chiefs was changed in 1955 from Commanders-in-Chief to Chiefs of Staff. This re-designation has been both meaningless and misleading.  In our set up, the Chiefs of Staff are not part of the Ministry. They are not authorized to take any decision on behalf of the Government nor issue any Government orders. These functions are performed by civil officials in the MoD. The Service Chiefs continue to function as Commanders-in-Chief of their Service. Thus, it is a misnomer to call our Service Chiefs, Chiefs of Staff.

After the Kargil War a Task Force under Arun Singh, a former Minister of State in the Defence Ministry, was set up to examine India’s higher defence organization. The recommendations of the Task Force on the Management of Defence were accepted by the Group of Ministers,  As per that the Services Headquarters were integrated  with MoD and even re-designated the three SHQs as Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence(Army/ Navy/Air Force). However authority in regard to subjects of little consequence, have been delegated to Service Headquarters for integrated functioning but all issues of any consequence are dealt with by the civil officials of MoD. In other words the old arrangement of the civilian bureaucracy exercising authority without expertise or responsibility has continued. Even the suggestion that civil servants in Ministry of Defence should be from the Indian Foreign Service rather than Indian Administrative Service has not been accepted. Defence Policy and Foreign Policy being two sides of the same coin, an officer from IFS is far better suited to serve in Ministry of Defence than an IAS officer.

As far as CDS was concerned, a similar attempt has been made to derail the recommendation of the Task Force, accepted by the Group of Ministers and approved by the Cabinet. A large headless Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) has been provided which serves little purpose. Without a CDS, the required professional co-ordination and unified approach will lack.   Some of the reasons for strong opposition of the post of CDS are

1.      The political leadership’s fear, of the man on the horse back. It is apprehended that the Defence Services will become too powerful and subvert civilian control over the military, a military coup will occur.

2.      The opposition of the civilian bureaucracy to any arrangement in which their dominance and stranglehold over the higher defence set up is diminished.

3.      The feeling among the smaller Services, particularly the Air Force, of Army dominance in defence policy formulation. Some fear that a CDS lead to a situation like the one that prevailed before 1947, when the Army was the dominant Service.

4.      The inhibitions of serving Service Chiefs that their position would get undermined if the CDS were to be appointed.

But however the fear that a CDS will erode the supremacy of the bureaucracy over the military is proved wrong as the CDS will not be a Supreme Commander. He will only be an Inter-Service professional coordinator with individual Service Chiefs having the right of direct access to the Head of the Government. It also needs to be mentioned that Army Chiefs in different countries have staged military coups but no CDS has ever done so. India’s Defence Services are fully committed to upholding democratic values and in a well established democracy like ours with such diversity, and of continental dimension, the question of a military coup does not arise. In the absence of a Chief of Defence Staff, his functions are virtually being performed, less efficiently by other functionaries.

Thus it is high time we in India introduce this appointment and also in due course have integrated field commands. This is imperative for efficient, economical and effective functioning of our higher defence organization in both peace and war. National interests should not be allowed to be held hostage to vested interests