FB   
 
Powered bysps
        Society for Policy Studies
 
 

 
Defence policy has to be a joint effort between civilians and the military
Updated:May 10, 2017
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 
Speaking to a military audience in 1973, the eminent war historian Michael Howard said that he was tempted “to declare dogmatically that whatever doctrine the Armed Forces are working on now, they have got it wrong.” But he went to add: “It does not matter that they have got it wrong. What does matter is their capacity to get it right quickly when the moment arrives”. I was reminded of this speech after reading the recently unveiled Joint Doctrine for the Indian Armed Forces. The first such doctrine to be published by the Indian military, it has been panned by many perceptive analysts of military affairs.
 
All the same, the doctrine is an important attempt by the armed forces to inform and influence public debates on strategic issues. From this standpoint, the most curious part of the document is an appendix on “Civil-Military Relations”. These couple of pages lay out the military’s perspective on what is wrong with our existing institutional arrangements of civil-military relations and how to set it right.
 
Civil-military relations in India have been on the brink of a crisis over the past few years. Controversies over one-rank one-pension and the latest pay commission were symptoms of deeper problems. Yet successive governments have done nothing to address them. The doctrine’s attempt to flag this issue in public attests to the military’s deepening disquiet on this front.
 
The appendix on civil-military relations opens with a quote from an air marshal: “Direction in the Civil-Military Relationship in any democracy is strictly the right of the political leadership and not bureaucracy”. This harks to the military’s longstanding complaint that civilian control has turned into civil service control. There is something to this claim, though it tends to be overstated in military discourse. Nevertheless, the doctrine is right in observing that “it is prudent that institutional and structural mechanisms exist that facilitate free flowing communication between the two, thereby enabling critical and timely decision making. The functionaries in the MoD ought to be enablers of this relationship.”
 
More problematic is the military’s own view of how these arrangements should function when it comes to such critical areas as the use of force. The doctrine states: “Military professionals are experts in the use of force under the political institution of the State. Apropos, it would always be essential for the civilian authority, in consultation with military (as part of decision making process) to decide the Military Objective and then leave it to the military professionals to decide upon the best way of achieving the objective.” In other words, the military should have a say in deciding the aims and should be left free to pursue it.
 
The underlying premise about military professionalism is not as compelling as it sounds. As scholars of civil-military relations have pointed out, the military is quite unlike other professions. Few military officers have actual experience of fighting wars: our top military leadership, for instance, joined the services well after the 1971 war. Treating them as experts in the management of violence is a bit like entrusting a crucial surgery to a doctor who has prepared all his life to perform a surgery without ever having done one.
 
Equally dodgy is the subsequent claim about operational independence for the military. Earlier, the doctrine quotes Clausewitz’s famous dictum about war being a continuation of politics. But the demand for operational independence is inconsistent with the Clausewitzian view. If war is a continuation of politics, then politics will influence and intervene at levels of warfare down to the tactical.
 
It is curious that on one hand the military wants greater say in policy matters, but on the other it wants to keep the civilians out of its domain. The former demand is entirely understandable, but the latter is incompatible with any properly integrated system of civil-military relations. The military can’t have its cake and eat it too. If strategy is the bridge between political ends and military means, then it will have to be jointly constructed by the civilians and the military.
Hindustan Times, May 11, 2017
 
 
 
 
Print
Share
  
increase Font size decrease Font size
 

Disclaimer: South Asia Monitor does not accept responsibility for the views or ideology expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, which appears on its site. What it does accept is responsibility for giving it a chance to appear and enter the public discourse.
Comments (Total Comments 0) Post Comments Post Comment
Review
 
 
 
 
spotlight image Relations between India and Morocco go back a millennium with the first recorded links dating to the 14th century, when the famous traveller and writer from Tangier, Ibn Batuta, travelled to India.
 
read-more
US President Donald Trump has said he sees a “critical” role for India in his country's South Asia strategy for fighting terrorism and building up a safe Afghanistan.
 
read-more
On 14 August 1947 Pakistan, consisting of East and West Pakistan, celebrated its independence. The 14th was chosen for the ceremony because Lord Mountbatten who came to Karachi as the Chief Guest had to later leave for Delhi where ot the midnight stroke India was to declare its independence.
 
read-more
The Doklam stand-off and a variety recent opinion pieces in magazines and newspapers draws attention to the poor state of defence policy preparedness and the lack of meaningful higher defence control in India. 
 
read-more
The two ideologically divergent ruling partners - the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - in Jammu and Kashmir are headed for a showdown as the debate over the abrogation of Article 35A of the Constitution of India heats up.
 
read-more
At the root of the present Doklam crisis is China’s intrusion into Bhutanese territory for its road building projects. These connectivity projects are integral to President Xi Jinping’s dream project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). India and Bhutan were the only two countries that did not participate in the first forum
 
read-more
There are six encouraging and bold pillars in the new US strategy on Afghanistan as outlined by President Donald Trump.
 
read-more
Is the United States threatened by Nazism? The short answer is no, notwithstanding the frightening events in Charlottesville, Virginia, recently.
 
read-more
It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.
 
read-more
Column-image

As talk of war and violence -- all that Mahatma Gandhi stood against -- gains prominence across the world, a Gandhian scholar has urged that the teachings of the apostle of non-violence be taken to the classroom.

 
Column-image

Interview with Hudson Institute’s Aparna Pande, whose book From Chanakya to Modi: Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy, was released on June 17.

 
Column-image

This is the continuing amazing spiritual journey of a Muslim man from Kerala who plunged into Vedic religion after a chance encounter with a Hindu mystic under a jackfruit tree in the backyard of his house when he was just nine. It is a story w...

 
Column-image

History is told by the victors but in our modern age, even contemporary events get - or are given - a slant, where some contributors soon get eclipsed from the narrative or their images tarnished.

 
Column-image

Humans have long had a fear of malignant supernatural beings but there may be times when even the latter cannot compare with the sheer evil and destructiveness mortals may be capable of. But then seeking to enable the end of the world due to it...

 
Subscribe to our newsletter
Archive