‘A serving chief should not go to court’

Author Image:

Air Chief Marshal S. Krishnaswamy (Retd) says Army chief Gen. V.K. Singh should not have taken the government to court while holding the post of Chief of Army Staff (COAS). Speaking to Sridhar Kumaraswami, he explains why.

Do you think Gen. V.K. Singh should have gone to Court?

He should not have gone to court against the government or its interest. The Service Chiefs are very much part of Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence which means, the Armed Forces HQ and the Head himself is a part of the Government machinery. The Chief is also an adviser to the government and is privy to several important deliberations and decisions. He also serves to strengthen diplomacy and build a strong international relationship of our country with other friendly countries. Hence, a serving Chief, a confidant of the Government, should have no occasion to move Court to seek relief or against the Government or embarrass the Government.

Why did things reach this stage?

To me, this is a shock and not anticipated. There has been no precedent of this kind of a drama. In my opinion, there has been a severe lacunae in interaction between a serving Chief and the Government leading to erosion of confidence and trust.

Given that two records on the date of birth within the Army itself were not reconciled and that the Army top brass
itself had decided the issue in 2008, do you feel the Government is to be blamed?

The Government definitely cannot be blamed and probably had little to do for the escalation. The Government surely had nothing against its Army Chief. He was given a most honourable assignment a soldier could hope for — a two year term as Chief of a Service. The government had not intentionally cut his tenure or intended to belittle him. What difference does a few months more or a year make? The Government has a million problems to cope with.

What else could Gen. Singh have done except go to Court?

The Service Chief is highly respected and has the privilege to meet and discuss with any senior government official, including ministers. Whatever has happened has not created a good impression about India. A Chief has a responsibility to guard and enhance the country's pride as much as security of its borders.

The Army Chief says the controversy has had no impact on his official responsibilities. Do you agree?

I seriously doubt this statement. If I were him, I would have spent traumatic moments taking this decision. I would have spent hours thinking and researching about action and consequence and consulted specialists on legal matters. It would have taken hours or days to pen down actions. Before then, there would have been discussions at least with the Defence Secretary and Defence Minister. These would need preparations. This could mean postpone or cancel other 'less important' engagements. Service Chief's mind has got to be free and lively to work constructively and usefully. Affliction on own morale and consequences could take its toll on functioning. Chiefs' function is very hard; he would need to study, innovate and experiment ways to improve his Service and structure and convince those serving under him and the government with his projections. Ceremonial and other responsibilities come in the way. Twenty-four hours a day is not good enough if he has to achieve anything substantial within his tenure. I'd call the situation tragic.

Will this damage civil-military ties?

Well, it definitely leaves a sour taste and bruises. When the country is going through difficulties, this is the last distraction we deserve.