India’s armed forces are apolitical. Ensure that they remain so

Thereafter, despite him becoming a politician, his pronouncements and espousing of ideas and affirmation or denunciation of happenings would still need to conform to the secular ethos and ethics of the force that afforded him a ladder to reach a position of eminence (as the rank and file still see him as a leader). His silence will also speak.

Second, an increased public exposure by positioning uniformed personnel to face the media has been witnessed whereas the civilian bureaucracy or politicians should be doing this task.

Third, there has been an increased projection of uniformed personnel as being the only repository of matters of national security. This, perhaps, is a fallacy being propagated. It’s true that there are scholar warriors, and whose tribe is fortunately increasing. However, the world over — and India is no exception — there are many learned and erudite civilian academics who are security experts, and who can be disregarded only at the nation’s peril; remember, it is not military tactics one is talking about, but issues that impinge on the higher directions of war and international relations.

It would be condescending to consider someone who has worked in an earlier political dispensation as being biased in his outlook when the person expresses his thoughts — one may disagree with his views but he is as nationalistic as someone who agrees with the government of the day. Remember Clemenceau said, “War is too important to be left to the generals”?

War is a whole-of-nation approach, and that means the military and the non-uniformed, the government and the Opposition, critics and protagonists, with the ball stopping at the political executive’s table. This happened with Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1962 debacle, Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965, Indira Gandhi in the resounding 1971 victory and AB Vajpayee in Kargil (1999).

So, is there a case for the Army going back to the proverbial barracks? Well, yes and no. No, because scholar warriors of the armed forces, serving and retired, add to cerebral debates on national security. And yes, because the net result of the above three points is resulting in excessive public exposure of the armed forces, especially due to its exploitation by toxic social media and the allure of being seen on television. A balance, thus, is necessary.

The responsibility of the government of the day is immense, since we are not China where the People’s Liberation Army’s loyalty is to the Chinese Communist Party. The Indian military belongs to the nation and not any political entity, and any action that besmirches this standing will be deleterious to their professional prowess. That earlier dispensations allegedly violated this maxim does not give carte blanche for others to do the same. In the final analysis, India will be the loser.

That our armed forces retain the trust and confidence of the aam aadmi as being apolitical goes to their eternal credit; it is an imperative, for all of us, to ensure that they retain this virtue.

Manmohan Bahadur is a retired air vice marshal. He was additional director-general, Centre for Air Power Studies The views expressed are personal