Jan.29 : Defence minister A.K. Antony has all but pulled up the outgoing Army Chief, Gen. Deepak Kapoor, over handling of the Sukna land scam matter, in which four generals have been found wanting. It is the Army Chief’s differential treatment of military secretary Lt. Gen. Awadesh Prakash in the episode that appears to have raised eyebrows in the defence ministry.

Whatever his strengths and weaknesses as defence minister, Mr Antony has always enjoyed a sturdy reputation for probity, and was unlikely to be impressed with the chief’s way of disposing of the case. After seeing the material on record, Gen. Kapoor recommended disciplinary action against some of the officers involved, but only administrative action against Lt. Gen. Prakash, who appears to have been the prime mover. Separate treatment for a senior officer who is said to have set off the corruption case — and is even alleged to have been involved with a businessman in the affair — can have an impact on morale. Assessing the same material that the chief weighed, the defence ministry concluded that all directly associated in the murky affair should have been placed on the same footing — in this case been up for court-martial. This, in a nutshell, is the instruction conveyed in the form of “advice” to the Army Chief by the defence minister. The good thing is that it indicates the minister’s zero-tolerance outlook towards corruption, especially at the highest levels of the armed forces. There appears to be another consideration as well. In the weeks since the Army Chief’s handling of the Sukna scandal came to be talked about, there seems to have been a worry in the upper echelons of the government — possibly at the level of the Prime Minister as well — about the possible emergence of favouritism and factionalism among the Army brass, detracting from the high level of professionalism which the armed forces have been known for. It was deemed necessary to put an end to any speculation in this regard. Mr Antony’s communication to the Army Chief will hopefully scotch anxiety on this score.
It needs to be said right away that Gen. Kapoor’s own probity has at no stage been in question in this affair. Especially keeping this in view, perhaps it was desirable that the defence minister’s intervention should have come before the Army Chief’s instructions in the Sukna case were placed on record. A silent nudge in the right direction could have achieved the appropriate result. Were that the case, the issue of differential treatment would not have arisen at all, and all could have been spared some embarrassment. As matters stand, the defence minister virtually countermanding the Army Chief’s order on an administrative issue comes in the fading days of Gen. Kapoor’s tenure as chief of staff. Although civilian control of our armed forces is an established fact, and a cherished one, it is hard to think of another occasion in recent years when the chief has been overruled by the minister in such a public manner, especially when he is about to retire. Dissonance between the defence minister and sections of the Army brass had surfaced during the China conflict in 1962 when V.K. Krishna Menon was minister, but that was over wholly different issues. In the first NDA government, defence minister George Fernandes publicly clashed with Navy Chief Adm. Vishnu Bhagwat. The reasons appeared inexplicable, and looked avoidable. In general, soldiers do not like their commanders being taken off the pedestal. The defence ministry could have pre-empted this by informally making the Army Chief aware of its own reading of the guilt and punishment of senior officers involved in the Sukna case at an early stage.