ELECTION 99
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Admiral J G Nadkarni (Retd)

The BJP and its allies are perfectly justified in claiming credit for Kargil

The chief of the army staff's plaintive call to the political parties 'to leave us alone' is not likely to find many takers. It does, however, throw open for debate two issues connected with Kargil and India's armed forces.

The first concerns whether the ruling party can take credit for India's success in Kargil. There is a large section of the public as well as the Opposition parties who are propagating that the government should not bask in the glory of what was essentially a military operation. In fact one of the election planks of the Congress is that the government brought upon the situation in Kargil by its apathy and negligence and was bailed out by our gallant jawans. There is a widespread beliefs in our country that armies win wars and that the civilian leadership has very little to do with the success.

This is nonsense, of course. Armies win battles, wars are won by a combination of many ingredients. Both civilian and military leadership, a nation's industry, scientific know-how and even the ordinary man on the street have a lot to do with the final outcome of a war.

Consider the following. Was the Battle of Britain won by only a few? Were not the invincible Winston Churchill and the resolute civilian population of London, who stood firm through the fire bombing of their beloved city, equally responsible for the outcome. In 1982, thanks to an Iron Lady in power, Britain sent her fleet 8,000 miles away to recapture the Falklands. The people of Britain acknowledged the real winner when they re-elected Margaret Thatcher with a thumping majority. Indira Gandhi rightfully claimed the credit for splitting Pakistan and creating Bangladesh.

When things go wrong, the responsibility still lies with the top leadership. Lyndon Johnson was a victim of Viet Nam and Carter of the bungled attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon will forever be linked with the 1962 debacle, long after General Kaul's name is forgotten.

In the present case, the BJP and its allies are perfectly justified in claiming credit for Kargil. Barring a few lapses in rhetoric, the handling of the entire affair does credit to the government. The admirable restraint shown on the battlefield, the effective sidelining of Pakistan in the international arena, the galvanising of the civilian population and the handling of the media are reminiscent of a mature, responsible and well-run government. They may even be forgiven for their zeal to fully milk Kargil for all its is wroth until the elections.

Prime Minister Vajpayee could not have found a better campaign manager for the elections than Nawaz Sharief. By his perfectly time misadventure the Pakistani prime minister ensured the certain victory of the BJP and its allies in the elections. The Opposition can only stand and watch as the euphoria of victory raises the prime minister's approval rating sky high.

A far more relevant and important question concerns what is being called 'politician of the armed forces'. To start with, nobody appears to be clear by the phrase. Obviously there are many shades of 'politicisation.' At one extreme are the armed forces of, say China or the erstwhile Soviet Union, where the services are an extension of the ruling party. Thank God, we are some way away from having political commissars and brainwashing in our army.

In countries like Indonesia and Pakistan, where the army has tasted political power, they still form formidable power centres. The Indian army is not one of them, either. But if by politicisation is meant the ability of any political party to wield influence on the armed forces then we have been practising that art for many years.

India's armed forces would like to keep their distance from politics. But will the politicians leave the services alone? Even in the most advanced democracies political interference in the nation's armed forces is always inherent. In the United States, for example, the appointment of the chairman, joint chiefs of staff, is a personal decision of the president. And it is not just merit or seniority that is predominant in the selection. There have been many cases when a particular officer has found disfavour with the President and has then been sidelined. Of course, unlike India, he was not subsequently adopted by a political party for its own ends.

In the early years of our Independence, politics and the armed forces came together only during the selection of a chief. It was only during the late fifties, during Krishna Menon's tenure as defence minister that, things began to deteriorate. Civilian ministers began to appreciate their power. A few senior officers also began to cosy up to their political masters. At first the political interference was only in the matter of selections, appointments and promotions. It was also not all pervasive. Directions from the top were received rarely and the services did not mind pleasing the political masters once in a while. Only in the selection of the chief was the decision totally political and absolute.

In the late seventies and eighties the political interference multiplied manyfold. Apart from personal matters, for the first time unscrupulous politicians realised the easy pickings, which were available in the purchase of weapons. The Indian navy went through its worst humiliation and shame when in 1976 a 20-year-old Sanjay Gandhi interviewed candidates with 40 years service for the post of naval chief.

In the arms arena the political domination was complete. Bofors and HDW are only two of the scandals which surfaced. There were many more. Although the naval technical evaluation committee for the ASW helicopter recommended the French Super Puma, the navy was forced to buy the British Sea King. The navy wanted to buy Dutch action information systems. The defence minister arbitrarily ruled in favour of an Italian system. Ironically, many years later the Controller and Auditor General criticised the Navy for selecting the Italian system!

Today, political interference in the running of the services is complete. The interaction is both ways. The Vishnu Bhagwat episode has opened the floodgates of political interference in the affairs of the services. There are neither scruples nor any compunction in championing the complaints of sacked and disgraced officers to score political points. The nation's armed forces now find themselves in the thick of every controversy and are required to spend most of their time in justifying the sacking of tin-pot brigadiers.

The trend is hardly likely to diminish. The holy cow has already been besmirched. The worst part is over. There has hardly been any protest from the public who only the other day were dancing in the streets after Kargil. If the BJP returns to power, as appears likely, they will have the army, and of course Nawaz Sharief, to thank for their fortunes. Yet when they do return, they will surely tell the armed forces who is the master.

Admiral J G Nadkarni

Tell us what you think of this column