STRATEGIC AFFAIRS

MilitaryBureaucracy
Brinksmanship
Srinath Raghavan

There is a widening civilmilitary

gap in India today which stems
from developments on both sides
of the divide. The liberalisation
and rapid growth of the Indian
economy over the last 25 years
have considerably increased
the gap between the economic
profiles of the civilian and
military personnel.

Srinath Raghavan (srinath.raghavan@gmail.

com) is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy
Research and former infantry officer in the
Indian Army.

10

he face-off between the government and the service chiefs over

the implementation of the Seventh
Central Pay Commissions recommendation once again underscores the deepseated problems in our civilmilitary
relations. Coming on the heels of the
bitter controversy over One Rank One
Pension (OROP) (Raghavan 2015), the
latest episode shows that it is impossible
any longer to brush these problems under
the carpet. The situation demands urgent
attention not just of the political leadership, but the citizens as well.
The fracas over the Seventh Central
Pay Commission was no bolt out of the
blue. Soon after the commission had
submitted its report in December 2015,
the three service chiefs wrote to the defence minister pointing out several problems with the recommendations. Fundamentally, the suggestions made in the
joint memorandum submitted by the
services to the commission had been
glossed over. In particular, all the major
problems that the armed forces had
with the previous pay commission had
been brushed aside. The defence minister
reportedly assured the service chiefs
that their concerns would get a full
hearing. In the months since, the chiefs
had written to him several times. The
matter had also been formally brought
to the notice of the Prime Minister in
July 2016.
Yet, the formal notification for the
defence services failed to address four
key issues raised by the chiefs: a common pay matrix for military and civilian
employees; higher military service pay
for junior commissioned officers, and two
and three star generals; a notional Nonfunctional Upgrade with 31 December
2015 as the base date and continuing to
the Seventh Central Pay Commission;
and, the restoration of disability pension

from a fixed rate to a percentage system

(Singh 2016). The chiefs, however, refused
to notify the order until such time as their
concerns on these counts were satisfied.
Eventually, the defence minister assured
the chiefs that their concerns would be
taken up at the highest levels; the latter
announced that they were satisfied with
these assurances.
A Perfect Storm
Now, it should have been clear to all concerned that a perfect storm was brewing
on this issue. The controversy over OROP
had already injected considerable levels
of poison between the military and the
civilian bureaucracy. And, it was well
known that the commissions recommendation would have knock-on effects on
pensions. Moreover, a similar stand-off
had occurred in 2008 when the Sixth
Central Pay Commissions recommendations were implemented. Then, too, the
chiefs had initially refused to notify the
order, but eventually fell in line. In
effect, this has become a periodic game
of chicken, where the military leadership resorts to some degree of brinksmanship, hoping that the civilians will
concede their demands.
On this occasion, though, there was
another interesting dimension to this
issue. In the first place, the service chiefs
apparently informed the rank and file
that their concerns had been highlighted
at all levels time and again, that they
had requested the government to hold
the order in abeyance till their concerns
were addressed, and that all ranks ought
to be mature and avoid being swayed
by hearsay. A copy of this message has
been doing the rounds on social media
and is also available on the internet.
There is no reason to doubt its veracity.
And, it suggests a deep discontent among
military personnel, one that the chiefs
take seriously enough to try and address
in this fashion. The chiefs statement
expressing satisfaction after their meeting with the defence minister was
clearly aimed at assuaging the anger of
their rank and file.
Senior retired officers have been vociferous in expressing these currents of

SEPTEMBER 24, 2016

vol lI no 39

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

STRATEGIC AFFAIRS

discontent. A former vice chief of army staff

publicly congratulated the service chiefs
for having put their foot down (temporarily as it turned out). It was, he wrote,
a highly unjust award, planned, written and
implemented by the bureaucracy by taking a
nod from the political leadership The
Indian Military has been at the receiving end
of unjust and even illegal decisions that our
political leaders have thrust on the military,
at the behest of the bureaucracy.

The general had nothing but contempt for

the semi-literate politicians who were
being led by their nose by the bureaucrats and failed to fathom the depth of the
anger in the military (Oberoi 2016).
Leaving aside for a moment the question of what such attitudes portend for
civilian control over the military, it is worth
noting that such views are widely shared
and that their circulation has been given a
boost by the proliferation of social media
platforms. Whether we like it or not,
there is a real problem on our hands.
CivilMilitary Relations
These views, as the retired generals argument shows, draw on a certain reading
of the history of civilmilitary relations in
India. The militarys resentment against
the bureaucracy goes back a long way. As
early as 1951, the first defence secretary
of independent India, H M Patel, observed
that the military leadership deeply disliked the role of civilian bureaucrats in
policy and administrative matters alike.1
The Study Team on Defence Matters set
up by the First Administrative Reforms
Commission of 1966 noted that there
was some misapprehension that civilian
control amounted to civil service control
(cited in Noorani 2006: 392). As I have
argued elsewhere, this notion of bureaucratic control is a very partial and misleading account of the militarys role in
our system (Raghavan 2012). Nevertheless, the reality of its hold on the Indian
military mind cannot be denied. Nor can
the bureaucracy be absolved of its role in
cutting the military down to size on a
number of issues pertaining to status,
pay, and service conditions.
The larger problem has been the
inability of our political leadership to
assert their weight and ensure harmonious
functioning. Several committees have
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

SEPTEMBER 24, 2016

recommended eminently implementable

measures to improve civilmilitary integration, but these remain securely stapled
in the governments files. On the flip side,
successive governments have allowed
the military to overstep its bounds on
issues such as withdrawal from the
Siachen glacier and amending the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act, 1958. The
present government has also set a terrible precedent by politically rewarding a
former service chief who took the previous
government to court.
Yet, as the latest controversy shows,
the problem is no longer about the institutional relationship between military,
bureaucracy, and civilian leaders. It has
percolated down the chain. At bottom,
this is a reflection of the fact that there is
a widening civilmilitary gap in India
today. This stems from developments on
both sides of the divide. The liberalisation and rapid growth of the Indian
economy over the last 25 years have considerably increased the gap between the
economic profiles of the civilian and military personnel. Prior to this, the military
could take comfort in a putatively better
social profile. Available data shows that
for a majority of officers joining the defence services up to the 1980s, status and
glamour were the main motivators. But,
by that time, the appeal of a career in the
military was already in decline owing to
economic as well as social factors.
Indias vaulting economic growth in
the subsequent years has transformed
the social profile of civilian elites and
pushed it well above that of the military. This is compounded by the militarys perception that it is losing out to
the civil services as well. Together these
have led the military to stake out institutional positions that would have been
inconceivable in the past.
The military, for its part, has failed to
fashion appropriate policies to enable its
retired personnel (many of whom are
young) to have a serious second career in
the civilian world. Nor has it managed to
sustain institutional norms and an identity that can counteract the desire to the
keep up with the Joneses. Indeed, the
military has been unable to refashion its
identity to keep up with the rapid changes
in the wider society. On a number of
vol lI no 39

issues, its response to these changes has

been defensive and aimed at asserting its
need to be different. Think only of its
stance on permanent commissions for
women officers.
Redressing these problems will require
steps to be taken on all sides. The political leadership needs to adopt policies
that will bridge the institutional divide
between the bureaucracy and the military.
Cross-posting of military and civilian
personnel at the Ministry of Defence and
service headquarters would be a good
start. The creation of the office of a
single-point military adviser to the defence
minister (call it chief of defence staff
or what you will) would be vital to reducing the militarys concern about its marginality in policymaking. Conversely, the
political leadership will have to take a
more assertive stance vis--vis the military
when required. In particular, it must
make clear that senior officers cannot get
away with fanning the discontent against
the bureaucracy and political leadership.
Then again, this has to be accompanied
by an attempt in good faith at addressing
the legitimate demands of the services.
The militarybureaucracy brinksmanship
that we have recently witnessed portends
a dangerous trend. The government
needs to get its act together before it is
too late.
Note
1

H M Patel to General Roy Bucher, 23 February

1951, Roy Bucher Papers, 7901/8733, National
Army Museum, London.

References
Noorani, A G (2006): The Doctrine of Civilian
Control, Constitutional Questions and Citizens
Rights, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Oberoi, Vijay (2016): Seventh Pay Commission
Award (Military) Rejected: Well Done Chiefs,
Stay Firm!, Citizen, 12 September, viewed on
18 September 2016, http://www.thecitizen.In/
index.php/NewsDetail/index/1/8698/7th-PayCommission-Award-Military-Rejected-Well-DoneChiefs-Stay-Firm.
Raghavan, Srinath (2012): Soldiers, Statesmen and
Indias Security Policy, India Review, Vol 11,
No 2, pp 11633.
(2015): Is There a Way Out? One-Rank-OnePension Logjam, Economic & Political Weekly,
Vol 50, No 52, pp 1013, viewed on 18 September 2016, http://www.epw.in/journal/2015/52/
commentary/one-rank-one-pension-logjam.html.
Singh, Sushant (2016): Satisfied with Governments
Response on Pay Panel: Military Chiefs, Indian
Express, 15 September, viewed on 18 September
2016, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/
india-news-india/defence-minister-manoharparrikar-pay-commission-satisfied-arup-raha3031785/.

11