PM opted courage over caution by making Gen Rawat army chief
The appointment of Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat as the next chief of the Indian Army briefly stole some thunder away from demonetisation. He superseded two of his senior colleagues, Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, GOC-in-chief of Eastern Command, and Lt Gen P M Hariz, Southern Army commander, provoking habitual baiters to cry wolf. The Prime Minister was accused of flouting the ‘convention’ of picking the senior-most General for the post of the Chief of Staff and setting a bad precedent by making a political choice. Never shy of fishing in troubled waters, a Congress spokesperson alleged that Gen Hariz was denied promotion because he was a Muslim. The uproar quickly lost its steam as it came from those who have practiced double standards over the years and cannot help shooting from shoulders of the Muslim community.
There would have been no need for a selection committee to pick up the Army Chief from a panel of eligible officers, had seniority alone been the criteria. Selection involves an application of mind and use of discretion, based on officer’s reputation and his field experience in the context of current challenges. Since right to select is institutionally vested in the PM, he would have failed in his duty had he simply ticked the name of the senior-most General and walked away. His critics should have waited for Gen Rawat to fail in guarding the country’s borders or when he starts building political support for the PM in Uttarakhand, where he comes from.
Filling top posts with senior-most officers is the easiest option. But it works as a disincentive for those who are far more professionally sound and have handled tougher assignments. Making it to the selection panel is not difficult, for what one needs is just to manage reporting officers to earn outstanding reports. Courtiers and conspirators are extremely good at it. After serving for 13 years, I nearly lost my promotion because I carried a lukewarm record. Those who were about to sidestep me had impressive annual confidential reports (ACRs), but they were either corrupt or served mostly in inconsequential jobs. I still got promoted but was informally advised to be ‘tactful’ and ‘learn to pay back’. I know an officer who had 32 outstanding ACRs in 32 years of his service. When I enquired about the secret of those reports, he said that he treated his senior as God and though he personally remained honest and hardworking, he never shied away from committing illegality for Him.
Very rarely, a boss takes it kindly if he is shown his professional inadequacy. In such a sycophantic working environment, if an officer, who speaks up his mind fearlessly, adheres strictly to rules and practices financial and intellectual probity as an article of faith, makes it to the panel, he deserves to be kicked up and not passed over for ranking low in the list.
A leader can actually make or mar an institution. His selection, therefore, must not be guided by the accident of being born earlier. At the time of entry in the service, one tends to be casual and carefree. He is then also too young to realise that his inter-seniority will hang as albatross around his neck for the rest of his life. In later years, when his commitment, hard work and professionalism bloom out and distinguish him from the herd, his merit needs to be recognised rather than ignored. It is also a fact that seniority is often manipulated to promote cronies, pushing the deserving ones to the bench.
Barring a couple of chiefs in the R&AW, who were both senior-most and outstanding, the rest have been operationally weak, petty and vengeful. This has grievously affected the production of intelligence over the years. Two of the agency’s most outstanding operatives had to retire as additional secretaries because age was not on their side, whereas rank third-rate officers continued to be promoted as secretaries. The CBI is worse on this count because the Chief Justice invariably goes by the seniority and record of officers in selecting the director. Other members avoid backing a junior and more deserving officer, lest they are accused of ulterior motives.
Selection does bring an element of subjectivity in the process and can be abused to promote favourites. In such cases, the selector runs the risk of being condemned for his bad choice. But if he routinely goes for the senior-most officer, it is the ‘convention’ that takes the blame and the nation pays for it. In picking Gen Rawat, Modi has creditably preferred courage over caution.
Amar Bhushan
Former special secretary, Research and Analysis Wing
amarbhushan@hotmail.com