I have already written that the most potent enemy the Indian army faces is the Indian defence ministry. The ministry is hell bent on destroying its own army. The defence minister's ruling to change the official age of the army chief is a case in point. Now that the army chief has filed a statutory complaint against the defence minister's decision, the point has been proved.
Do we even appreciate what has happened? The chief of Indian army has felt aggrieved enough by the decision of the defence minister to raise it officially! Could there be a worse situation than this? It is like the home minister revolting against the PM on a trivial issue and filing a case in the Supreme court!
Yes, the official age of an army official, irrespective of the rank of the official,is a trivial issue on the radar of the defence ministry. What was the need for the defence minister to give it so much importance? Why did the defence minister make his own army chief look like a liar and manipulator? Did he really expect the chief to take this insult lying down? If he had, he would have belied the army code of personal honour. After all, the army officers do not live by the code of the politicians and thank the good lord for that.
Before you argue that technically the defence minister is correct, let me add that my objection is not that his action is illegal. That question will be answered by the courts. I am questioning the wisdom of the action.
It is unwise to create a situation where you may have to publicly cross swords with your army chief. Would you much rather be right or useful ( to the country and army )? Does the defence minister not have even one sensible advisor who could foresee that the action of the defence ministry will force the army chief to go public. And what after that? Strategic sagacity largely depends on your ability to look three moves ahead. What moves did the defence minister envisage after making their own army chief look like a Mr 420?
Can the 'honest' defence minister not think beyond his nose? If so, how will he take strategic decisions in war? If he can't control even a simple interaction like this, how will he steer war scenarios to India's benefit?
If I were to choose between an honest but ineffective civil servant or politician, and a dishonest but effective one, I'd unhesitatingly choose the latter.
Reminds me of an episode of the American civil war. There was a general who was very effective but an alchoholic. His detractors complained of his drinking habits to the chief, who made this classic reply, ' Find out what brand of whiskey he drinks. I want to send several cartons of same to those who just sit on their backsides, drinking pure water.'
Get the point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment