General Bipin Rawat's elevation as head of the Indian Army superseding two senior Generals has kicked off a debate on if top appointments to the Army are being politicized. Here, General Shankar Roychowdhury, the last Chief of Army Staff from the armoured corps, answers a few questions on the concerns that the mechanized divisions are being given a go by when it comes to top rank promotions as "experience in counter-insurgency ops" becomes a major benchmark. Excerpts from an interview with CNN-News18's Shreya Dhoundial.
Lt Gen Bipin Rawat has been made the Chief of Army Staff superseding two senior generals. While appointing the COAS is the prerogative of the government, the unusual move has called into question the benchmarks for making a "merit-based" appointment. Do you think the government should have clarified why Lt Gen Rawat was a better choice to lead the Army than his seniors Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi and Lt Gen KM Hariz?
I am personally uneasy with the term “merit-based” being loosely used in the media, because the entire system of promotions in the Army is already structured around an elaborate merit-cum-seniority based system. In our system, an officer's basic seniority dates from his date of commission, when he graduates from the Indian Military Academy. This date remains unchanged throughout his service career. His professional "merit" is assessed every year by a chain of reviewing officers, graded on a point system, and recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR), which is initiated every year. Plus, promotion examinations are mandatory, which he has to successfully clear at various stages in his career.
No performance reports are initiated on a young officer during the first five years of his service, except special reports if he has displayed either outstanding or negative behaviour involving moral turpitude of any kind. ACR's are communicated personally to the officer by his commanding officer every year. They are not brought into the public domain.
No ACR is are initiated on Army commanders or the Vice Chief of Army Staff nor are any promotion boards to the next rank held for them. Their cases are reviewed directly by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, presided over by the Prime Minister.
Another issue this appointment raises is the parity between Infantry/Artillery and Mechanised divisions. The two other Generals were reportedly superseded because of their lack of counter-insurgency operations. Does this mean that from now on only artillery/infantry officers can hope to make it to the COAS?
By the time General Officers reach the Army Commander stage (Lt Gen) they have acquired adequate operational and administrative experience to be fully capable of handling any operational environment anywhere in the country (or outside it.). Branch, Arm, or Service (Armour, Artillery, or Infantry) are no longer relevant to their capabilities or performance.
However, denial of higher ranks on grounds of "inadequate exposure to mountain and jungle terrain" is an old ploy to keep the armour out! Don't know why Manohar Parrikar fell for it.
This is an issue where even the Supreme Court had interfered when there was an allegation that infantry was cornering more officer posts. Won't this affect the morale of the armoured corps?
No comment on the Supreme Court judgement. But a two-star general from an administrative service commanding an armoured formation?
Who would you rate as the best Army chief you have seen while in service. And why?
My own choice as "Best Chief I have encountered"? General Thimayya. We should have made him a Field Marshal!
What's your opinion about the quality of the applicants who aspire to be Army officers these days? Has it got better or come down?
Defence services are the last choice of people. Nevertheless, these are the people who got us through Kargil, and led the "surgical strikes"! Can't be ungrateful!
What do you think about the plan to have a tri-service chief? In many countries it has become a slot to elevate the senior-most general whom you don't want to be the COAS, reducing it to an ornamental position.
Yes, We should have a Chief of Defence Staff for integrated management of the three defence services. The key word is "management", and not command, which is the prerogative of the three service chiefs for their respective Services.
Comments
0 comment