Generals Must Speak Up in the Interest of the Nation
No religion is greater than national security and no service is greater than defending the nation against the enemies. It is the duty of the generals to defend the nation and no one does it on his behalf. Thus those who put the Philip Campose Committee report in the dust bin are not answerable to the men and people of the country. It is the COAS Gen Bipin Rawat who is answerable to the nation and family members of those who were martyred in Sunjwan Jammu. People will ask him a question why he failed to protect his camp? The question is legitimate because loss of life under such circumstances is unacceptable and military leadership must take the responsibility for this disaster.
Historically national security was entrusted to the generals with great virtues, wisdom and vision. They were supposed to speak the language of national interest without political bias and unperturbed of the anger of the king and his court. Dissent and expression of frank opinion in the wellbeing of the state was supposed to be their duty. Why should a General stand up and speak up? The main reasons for this trait is that ultimately it is the soldiers who will face the consequences of ignoring military advice and capability building. Thus it is onerous responsibility of the generals to ensure that they protect the honour, safety and security of the nation and his command. The French Military Chief, Gen Pierre de Villiers resigned because French President had cut defence budget by €850m. General Villiers thought that he will not be able to guarantee the protection of France and the French people. He said, “Throughout my career, I had believed it was my duty to tell politicians of my reservations”. In his hard-hitting statement to the parliamentary Committee before resigning had said, “as long as he is the head of the French Armed Forces, he will not let the government mess with defence budget and security of the nation.”
No citizen will accept the excuse that failure to protect the nation and its citizen was due to lack of resources that were not made available to the military by political leadership and bureaucracy of the day. If the government does not accept the legitimate and genuine concerns of the generals and if they have to beg for every proposal they make for capability building, under such circumstances either generals must speak up or step aside for others to take over the mantle. There is no question of political leadership not listening if the generals say it forcefully. Political leadership is aware that if the military raises serious concern and god forbidding reversal take place, that political party can forget return to power. Bureaucracy is the servant of the soldiers and they are not the masters and thus military leaders should stop lining in front of the bureaucracy for legitimate concerns. If the generals do not take upon themselves to fight for the men they command they will be guilty of bleeding men and fidayeen will continue to target till someone says enough is enough.
Civil military relations is at the centre of the most of the ills for which men are paying the price. Let us face the fact that six soldiers in Sunjwan were not killed by Pakistan sponsored terrorists but by the inability of the nation to provide basic structural security for the military establishments. Military leadership should have thumped the table that armed forces are not prepared to lose men while sleeping and eating food in their camp. It was the responsibility of the three services Chiefs to take up the matter with the Prime Minister if the bureaucracy was dragging feet to implement Philip Campose study report for more than two years now. Some may argue that where is the money. Answer is simple, bullet train can wait but national security and protection of the military establishments cannot be exposed to the terrorists. A healthy organization should be introspective, it should questions itself, and correct the maladies.
Tom Ricks’s wrote in his book, that nation needs generals who lead campaigns that win wars and in peacetime who can prepare for the next war. There is a need for introspection if military is unable to protect the men they command in their bases where they are supposed to train and prepare for war. Risk averse generals will often create weak system and will ultimately bleed army in peace and war. Time for services Chiefs to stand up and be counted or let the army be embarrassed time and again.
Notwithstanding the above, it is high time Prime Minster must take charge of the ministry and see all loopholes in national security are plugged and all bottlenecks are removed. However, it does not stop the government to order a thorough probe on two account why there was collective failure of intelligence, border guarding forces, local police and finally perimeter security of the camp? Second, why the Campose Committee report was not implemented when it had such serious ramifications on most vital aspect of national security?
Originally published at The Dialogue.
