Service chief's post should be a political appointment: Pravin Sawhney

Interview with editor of FORCE, a magazine on national security

The armed forces are in the news with the government appointing a new navy chief, superseding his senior, and with the Bharatiya Janata Party cautioning the incumbent United Progressive Alliance government against initiating the process for appointing the next army chief before the results of the general election are declared. Pravin Sawhney, editor of FORCE, a magazine on national security, tells Indulekha Aravind that the political leadership needs to understand the role of the military and recommends major reforms in the defence forces. Excerpts:

Admiral RK Dhowan, appointed the new Navy chief, was technically not next in line for the post according to seniority. Was this departure from principle justified?

There is no government order that only the seniormost officer should be made service chief. This convention is followed because it is politically convenient for three reasons. One, it does not generate controversy. Two, the government is not required to explain its action, which, in turn, implies that both the defence minister and the prime minister should know the officers in contention first hand. And three, no officer goes to court seeking redress. I would argue that the political leadership should prefer choosing a chief from a panel of qualified officers placed before it by the defence ministry, provided they first understand the role of the military in national power.

BJP has cautioned the UPA government against starting the process for appointing the new army chief. Would you agree that it might be prudent to wait till after May 16?

I agree with the BJP position. The next government should have the right to start the process and thereby decide the chief of army staff when the incumbent, General Bikram Singh, retires on July 31. The tradition of announcing service chiefs well before they assume office is meant to facilitate smooth transition. There is enough time for that, and surely, things can wait till the next government is in place.

Is the appointment of the chiefs of the armed forces becoming overly politicised?

I would argue to the contrary. The appointment of service chiefs should be a political act because ideally, the political and military leadership should work together. What requires reforms is the system of creating the final panel of officers (by the defence ministry) from which a service chief is selected.

What kind of reforms are needed?

Major reforms are needed especially in the army, which has nearly 40,000 serving officers. Shamefully, the Indian Army does not have written promotion policy for officers. All it has are innumerable amendments to a (non-existing) promotion policy, which have been inserted by successive service chiefs to retain undesirable control and subjectivity. This has resulted in more officers going to courts for redressal. The next government should correct this.

These elections have a former army chief in the fray. In other ways too, the army has been dragged into the electoral battle. Your views.

It is a myth that soldiers are apolitical and above religious proclivities. They are very much a part of society. The difference is that their training instills regimentation that elevates them to a higher plane during service. On retirement, they have as much right as anybody to be part of electoral politics.

What requirements of the armed forces should the next government address urgently?

It is preposterous to sustain a massive force of - 1,300,000 personnel in the army, 170,000 in the air force and 80,000 in the navy - without the political leadership telling them how military power is to be used to build national power. The government should ask itself why a mere 600,000-strong Pakistan army is not deterred by us. And how did China succeed in military transgression in April-May 2013 in Ladakh, with India watching helplessly?

To optimally utilise the armed forces, the next government should do three things. One, order a strategic and defence review by parliamentarians and experts from outside the government. Two, have regular and formalised interaction between political and military leadership. And three, develop human resources by asking the army to formulate a promotion policy for officers and by removing the numerous anomalies from the other services.