Seniority should be key factor to pick service Chief

Col Pritam Bhullar (Retd)

Col Pritam Bhullar (Retd)
Defence Columnist

Who will be the next Army Chief? This question is being asked at various fora because of General Bipin Rawat’s retirement on December 31. A search for his successor is in the offing. Three contenders for the Chief’s post are Vice Chief Lt Gen Manoj Mukund Naravane, Northern Army Commander Lt Gen Ranbir Singh and Southern Army Commander Lt Gen SK Saini. Their names are on the panel sent to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The final decision is taken by the Prime Minister. Generally, the appointment of the three service chiefs is by seniority. But this convention has not always been followed. The pertinent question that arises is — what should be the criteria to select a service Chief?

In the Army, the Chief’s appointment did not go by seniority on four occasions and that was when Generals KS Thimayya, TN Raina, AS Vaidya and Bipan Rawat superseded Generals Kulwant Singh, NC Rawley, SK Sinha and Praveen Bakshi, respectively. The rumblings in the Army in 1983 over General Sinha’s supersession were unprecedented. When General Sinha was appointed Vice Chief of the Army Staff after he had successfully commanded the Western Army, there was not even an iota of doubt in anyone’s mind about his becoming the Chief on the retirement of General KV Krishna Rao. That it did not happen and it came as a surprise to many.

When a Chief’s appointment goes by seniority, the decision evokes no criticism, even if the seniormost officer is not as competent as his immediate junior. But when supersession takes place, it becomes the topic of unsavoury controversy in the service as well as outside.

In the Navy and the Indian Air Force, mostly the Chief’s appointment has gone by seniority. In the Air Force, the seniority criterion was ignored twice. In a notable case in 1988, Air Marshal MM Singh, who was holding the appointment of Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Air Command, was superseded. Air Marshal Singh had a brilliant record of service and had the distinction of commanding 25 of the 39 combat squadrons of the IAF. Despite all this, he was superseded by a former Air Chief, Marshal SK Mehra.

The feelers, it was then understood, were sent to Air Marshal MM Singh that he would be given a lucrative appointment outside the service if he resigned before the announcement of Air Marshal SK Mehra becoming the next Chief was made. But he declined the offer and put in his papers on June 23, 1988, after it was announced that Air Marshal Mehra would be the next Chief.

Before taking a decision on the appointment of a service Chief, the Defence Minister examines the dossiers of the likely contenders for the post and gives his recommendations Thereafter, the case is first considered by the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs and then by the whole Cabinet. The final decision, however, is taken by the PM.

Though the system of selection seems reasonable, there is no one in any of the decision-making bodies to speak from the service angle. It would, therefore, be better if the Chief of the service concerned is present at these committee meetings to express his views where necessary.

Before an officer is selected for the appointment of an Army commander, vice chief or for an equivalent post in the other two services, his dossier is thoroughly scrutinised from all angles. In addition, a similar evaluation of the officer’s potential is done five to six times before he reaches this level. After all these checks for years, if the seniormost officer, when he is about to reach the pinnacle of service, is deprived of his right, it not only affects his morale but also that of the service concerned.

To say that there should never be a supersession in the selection of a service Chief will not be correct. But the supersession should be very rare and that too when something is found radically wrong with the seniormost officer all of a sudden, pointing towards an act of moral turpitude.

There is no denying the fact that a service Chief should be a person who faithfully and wholeheartedly translates political decisions into military actions. But then, this should not mean that he should be hesitant to come out with his professional opinion when it runs counter to that of the opinion of the political leadership. Admittedly, when a Chief is sucked into the vortex of politics, he cannot express his professional opinion frankly, leave alone differing with his political bosses.

The decision about the appointment of a service Chief should be taken well in advance. When the seniormost officer is kept in suspense because of the decision either not having been taken or not announced, he becomes cautious. This affects his thinking and actions. To put it more candidly, this caution turns him into a ‘yes man’. This is neither in the interest of the service nor the country.

In sum, though both seniority and merit should be taken into consideration while selecting a service Chief, seniority should be the main determining factor for the Chief’s promotion. And when the seniormost officer is ignored for genuine reasons, these reasons should be clearly spelt out so that the decision does not start an unhealthy controversy in the service, nor does it gall the affected officer. What needs to be added is that the morale of the rank and file is also fractured and it does dent the fighting potential of the soldiers, sailors and the airmen depending on which service Chief is overlooked.