ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

A service chief who cannot uphold discipline is not fit to hold office

The dust raised by the Bhagwat episode refuses to settle down especially after Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat has said, without stating how, he will 'defend his honour.' Meanwhile, journalists are simply recycling leaks and speculation to write the next Bhagwat story.

Anguish and dismay peppered with misinformation have taken over from logic, rationality and facts. The angst is over the indignity of sacking a service chief -- even cook, the Bhagwat brigade says, is given a show cause notice -- and its adverse fallout on morale. In other democracies several chiefs have been sent home, but most of them once confronted with the option, chose to resign or took Voluntary Premature Retirement to uphold the sanctity of their office.

In India, neither the government nor any chief crossed the Rubicon, though in a few instances, they were close to it. In order not to publicly embarrass offending flag rank officers, the government has sometimes, used the softer option: offering VPR. If the charges are of a grave nature and their enquiry inimical to security interests, the Pleasure Principle is invoked. Read with Article 310 of the Constitution, Section 18 of Army Act 1950, Section 18 of Air Force Act and Article 15 (1) of Navy Act 1957, empower the President and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces to be pleased to terminate the services of anyone subject to these acts without having to serve a show cause notice.

This erstwhile sovereign power of the British monarch was passed on to the President by Parliament. In the language of the Judge Advocate General it was the Raambaan or guillotine. But no stigma is attached to dismissal and pension is permissible.

Till 1994, such a Presidential order was not justiciable. It was only Justice Sunanda Bhandare's judgment in the case of Major N R Ajwani and eight others implicated in the Samba Spy Scandal in the Delhi high court, upheld by the Supreme Court, that the matter became justiciable in November 1994. However, the onus of proving that it was malafide was still on the petitioner. But the government has still been loath to produce records. Fourteen months after the hearing, the judgment in the Samba Spy Case is still awaited.

Since 1994, Admiral Bhagwat's is perhaps the only case of the President withdrawing his pleasure because the Chief of Naval Staff had 'lost his confidence and fitness' to hold that office. He was not given the softer option because according to Defence Minister George Fernandes, even if he had implemented the unimplementable ACC orders, he would have been presented with a fait accompli. For Bhagwat, 'services no longer required' was waiting to happen.

In responses to a PIL in the Delhi high court, the court has demanded Bhagwat's records on camera. What others could not achieve in four years, Bhagwat might, in seven days. But a precedent would have been set -- any magistrate responding to a PIL could call for classified documents.

Going by Bhagwat's less than flattering spoken reputation following a 1990 writ petition and its seeds of discord, it is being said that the Navy is quite pleased to be relieved of Bhagwat despite the heavyhanded manner of his removal. It need not be regarded as a triumph or defeat for one or the other side. Its effect on morale is limited, certainly not on the scale in the aftermath of the Fifth Pay Commission award and the IAF revolt.

The recommendation to dismiss Bhagwat was made by Fernandes and accepted only after consultation with the President and the Opposition by the Cabinet Committee on Security which includes an ex-serviceman, Major Jaswant Singh. After informing the ACC that he could not implement their orders, Bhagwat met the President. In fact, the President meets his services chiefs periodically and at the height of the IAF revolt had summoned the Air Chief. So, it is incorrect to say that the President or the Opposition were not consulted.

Now, a lesson on the Quarterdeck. In Naval headquarters, there are four senior vice-admirals as Principle Staff Officers: Vice-chief of Naval Staff, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of Personnel and Chief of Material. The vexed appointment of DCNS is neither the deputy to the CNS nor is it DCNS (Operations). The DCNS in the navy alone deals with operations and intelligence, unlike in the other two services where it is the vice-chief. The seniormost admiral after the CNS is the VCNS who officiates in the absence of the CNS and not DCNS as has been reported.

The other incident which is frequently misquoted is the half resignation of Bhagwat's so-called role model, General K S Thimayya. Timmy put in his papers after a series of tiffs with Defence Minister Krishna Menon. Because they were good friends, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru persuaded Timmy to withdraw his resignation, which he did. But the next day in Parliament, he castigated Timmy.

The most unfortunate aspect of the Bhagwat affair is the go-by given to military tradition, ethos and heavy reliance on litigation. Wives are not subject to service acts and therefore, not in the chain of command. Women, sex and politics are topics still taboo in an officers mess. In the Navy there is so much inbreeding that wives sometimes usurp command functions and become either advisors or advocates. In her most recent television interview, Niloufer Bhagwat referred to George Fernandes as a threat to the unity of the armed forces. She has levelled the most horrendous charges against the Navy itself and lumped Fernandes with Akalis and arms dealers. Niloufer Bhagwat must act responsibly.

Make no mistake, former Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar alone cannot be held responsible for Bhagwat's dismissal. It was the minister's decision, endorsed by the Cabinet. However, he and Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh should also have been sacked for contributing to the mess.

Bhagwat is a brilliant officer but not even a service chief, least of all one who cannot uphold discipline and carry his team along, is fit to hold his office. Service chiefs are neither infallible nor indispensable.

Hopefully when Bhagwat's records are produced in the Delhi high court, the dust will settle, letting the new CNS, Admiral Sushil Kumar, settle down. On the other hand, the government may decide it is better to lose the PR battle than spell out details of breach of national security.

Is the latter a red herring or another case of inept drafting, like naming China as the reason for India's nuclear tests?