Know Your Enemy

Reporting the General
It was on the day he took over as the 24th Indian Chief of Army Staff, March 31, 2010, that I first met General Vijay Kumar Singh. Jostling with a crowd of journalists for short interviews on the first floor of the Ministry of Defence at South Block, word had spread that the new Chief was speaking his mind, and laying it on the line about just how he planned to clean up an Army that had had its image battered by a series of scandals, many of them linked in some way or the other with the office of the Chief at the time.


120326070701_blog_280.jpgVK Singh just been handed the baton in a supremely awkward change of guard ceremony in the Chief's Office, with his predecessor General Deepak Kapoor. Anyone who saw the footage of that event knew just how much the two men disliked and distrusted each other. General Singh was aware of the wave of positivity that was his to ride, and ride it he did. The most memorable phrase he used in interview after interview that day was "internal health". Without exception, all newspapers and T.V. channels led with that phrase. A subdued Army crept out of the shadows, willing, for the first time in a long time, to believe that the storm had perhaps passed.

When I had my turn, Gen Singh was hospitable, eager and supremely warm. He exuded sincerity. He spoke with purpose, but not without humour. Most journalists (certainly me) walked out of South Block that evening assured that the Army we had collectively stripped down through a series of controversial episodes over the previous two years, was now in safe, no-nonsense hands. I'm a journalist. But it is my Army too, though I can imagine how that's easy to forget for many who look at the media, on occasion with perfectly good reason, as a bunch of disrespectful bloodhounds.

General VK Singh is the first Chief of Army Staff that I did not have a direct equation with (of any kind) in the course of my career. I asked him questions at press events, but I didn't have a 'direct line' with him, as many clearly did. As a journalist, I had to ensure I knew people on his team and in his office, but I couldn't have ever said that I could dial Army House and have them connect me to the General with a toss of my name. And somehow, this was fine. Because here was an officer who looked like he was immersing himself in a task that might have made many a General pass up the offer. Rescuing a force with such uniformly battered morale was always going to be a phenomenally unforgiving job. And the one thing it was always going to require was an almost divine selflessness. This, the General had plainly shown when he took over, was something he was ready to demonstrate. Frankly, it is hard to remember that time.

The weird thing is, and I suspect that this will hold true for anyone who has had even a cursory interest in the tenure of the Chief, I cannot for the life of me remember anything about his tenure. It is a complete blank. Usually, I have a more than decent memory of events and decisions, and my mind is a usually a ready hard-drive for a lot of, well, useless information. But I simply cannot remember anything about General Singh's tenure as Chief of Army Staff.

Other than, of course, the issue with his Age.

As the age episode intensified, peaking in January 2012 with Gen Singh choosing to approach court, there was a palpable sense for many that this was an Army chief who was sticking it to the man, standing up against a feelingless, vindictive, bumbling establishment that couldn't have known military if a jawan in olives came up and slapped it. An officer who was finally doing what countless generals and officers had no doubt dreamed of doing, but rarely had the nerve: giving it right back to the netas. A little known nugget from the time -- Gen Singh's final port of call with the UPA before he chose to sue it in January, was Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, venerable trouble-shooter-at-large. Pranab, as the Chief knew well, was the US Navy SEAL of the UPA -- if all else failed, this man wouldn't. In a 15 minute meeting, Pranab Mukherjee is understood to have told the Chief to hold his horses and that a solution would be worked out. Gen Singh did not, for reasons best known to him, think that this was assurance enough. After all, the Government may simply have been trying to forestall the inevitable. And so, he sued. It was historic stuff. I was in Mysore when the bomb fell.

The case thumped down a Y-fork in the Army's succession highway. If Gen Singh won his case, he would potentially retire a year later and would be succeeded by the Army's Northern Commander Lt Gen Kaiwalya Parnaik. If he lost, the Army's Eastern Commander Lt Gen Bikram Singh would succeed him on May 31, as planned.

But something deeply disturbing, that had lurked quietly through the age dispute at South Block, bubbled to the surface with the Supreme Court entering the equation. As a journalist whose job it is to speak to officers and men across the spectrum of seniority to track the story, it became progressively apparent that the Army had been pervaded by an insidious factionalism. For several reasons, both parochial, ideological and otherwise, there were those who wanted Bikram to be the next chief. Similarly, there were those wanted Parnaik to be the next Chief. Many of these officers and men gamely participated in the dispute, leaking confidential documents, tipping journalists off about events and meetings that wouldn't otherwise have ever made it out.

It was a stealthy war within. Anyone who understands the military will know just how unhealthy, how unacceptable this is. There was mess-hall intrigue and gossip in units across the country. I saw it and heard it. Many of us who report on defence got calls from both sides. There were constant offers of nuggets, information, documents. One officer even offered me a video clip of Gen Singh at a temple in Agra, presumably in an effort to peg the Army chief as inappropriately religious. I got frequent calls from officers asking why we were "screwing" one side or the other. What was being reported had become a matter of deep interest to several in uniform. It was dark, and it continues to be. In the Army, your boss is also your god. In the larger sense, there cannot be multiple power centres. As Gene Hackman's character Captain Frank Ramsey so memoraby says in the 1995 film Crimson Tide, "We're here to preserve democracy. Not practice it." Gen Singh had and continues to have powerful enemies within his own Army. And these aren't constructive dissenters that all Chiefs presumably have to deal with.

It was inevitable that any tough official decision the Army chief took after the legal setback on his age was going to be construed as a manifestation of his anger and frustration at losing a battle he chose to take to the level it's currently at. Therefore, a man who would otherwise have been applauded for a series of hard calls that questioned the status quo (and, as it turns out, the famous 'line of succession'), is instead seen by his critics as a bitter, vengeful dog-in-the-manger with no respect for established civilian authority. Whether such perceptions will stick, perhaps only history will decide. Among everything else, Gen Singh enjoys the reputation of being the Real Deal, of being a man of redoubtable integrity, shackled by the system and therefore fully justified in hitting back in any way he thinks fit. There is a perception that finally, here's a man who has the guts and indeed, chutzpah, to put a venal, cowardly, scam-ridden government in its place. Unfortunately, and there can be little argument about this, that isn't the job of the Chief of Army Staff. There is even less argument that the UPA needs severe correcting, but it can be nobody's case that this is the responsibility of a four-star general.

Even more unfortunately, Gen Singh was almost certainly misled by a retinue of probably well-meaning advisors who saw this as a battle of good against evil. The Chief appeared convinced that this was a fight to the finish. It appeared, at several points, to consume him. The perception that this was a righteous war was helpfully fuelled by a ham-handed government that appeared to lumber zombie-like from one public disaster to another.

For me, and I suspect for anyone who cares about lessons from conflict, especially one as polarising as this one, this story isn't over. And there are no absolutes. As a journalist, let me conclude with 10 questions I wish we could all have truthful answers to. None of these are rhetorical:

1. Is it appropriate for an Army chief  to be seen to be standing-off against a government, even if it's a venal, corrupt, indecisive one?

2. Is civilian authority over the armed forces, like it or not, non-negotiable and absolute? Isn't that precisely what sets India apart from Pakistan?

3. Are all of Gen Singh's future actions fated to be linked, whether he likes it or not, to the age dispute?

4. Nobody goes to court to lose. In retrospect, would Gen Singh have done things differently?

5. Could the events of the last two months have been avoided if the Govt had simply accepted that Gen Singh was born in 1951, but that he would retire on schedule in May this year?

6. We know that the Government acted with inconsistency, and in some cases, vindictiveness. But did the Army chief maintain 100 per cent integrity throughout the age episode?

7. Was the Army chief aware that people on his team and those who sympathised were breaking the law by leaking official documents?

8. The Army chief says A.K. Antony is an 'honourable man'. Come on. What does the Army chief really think about the Defence Minister?

9. Would Gen Singh have gone the Vishnu Bhagwat way if the NDA was in power?

10. Does Gen Singh leave the Army in better shape than he found it?

And I'll end with something I've said before. Gen VK Singh has had an illustrious career, and is a soldier as solid as they come. Bright, accomplished, loved by his men and respected by his peers. His integrity and honour were never in doubt. Tragically for him, for the institution of the Chief of Army Staff, and most importantly for the Army itself, it will perhaps forever be perceived to be just that: In doubt.

Comments(4)Add Comment

Excellent reply Radhika. Your answer at Sl.No. 8 is very correct. Civilian authority means it is the authority of Parliament and not Babus. The articles written at the instigation of babus will not tarnish the image of Gen.V.K.Singh. I once again request Shiv Aroor to write about our Supreme Commander .
May 30, 2012

Dear Mr. Aroor,

The mark of a gentleman and great leadership skills are often seen than displayed.

An effective organization is not a function of individuality but following a set of organizational rules.

Following are my views to your questions.
1. It is right to mention the flaws so that the decisions could be taken.
2. A strong democracy is also based on strong governance.
3 His actions on Sukhna were before the age row and is it wrong being forthright about the deficiencies of the system aimed at highlighting only within but later disclosed openly.
4. If there would have been no age row, would his actions be commended or criticized?
5. It shows how easy it is to maneuver the loyalty of the person
6. Were his earlier promotions based on his merit or age?
7. There is uncertainty who leaked the documents.
8. He believes in respecting his senior and to maintain the tradition of faith and trust.
9. A weak government results in stringent actions, we all know what happened there after in Kargil and subsequently to the government.
10. I am sure that MY ARMY is much better than other government machineries.

May 30, 2012

As the hon Supreme court pointed out that Gen Singh was well aware of status quo reg his age when he became the Chief. Trying to change same just prior to retirement smacked of selfishness whatever he & his supporters may say. The subsequent PR disaster with daily leakages only added to misery of govt & ultimately lowered prestige of the army in front of public who now see them as no better than bickering politicians. Also his sudden anti corruption avatar after 2 1/2 yrs in office which smacked of oppurtinism . Ultimately history will judge him as a person who placed his own interest & ego before that of the organisation & its future.
Dhruba Bhowmik
May 29, 2012

Here are the simple answers to your 10 Qs
1. Affirmative. The Army does have a role in ensuring good governance. The Army has to protect the Constitution.
2. The Political control is absolute. This does not mean that you will trample all over the Army. Please be honest and play by the rules.
3. The age issue was a private affair. The Gen has clarified to his troops.
4. The SC passed some ridiculous orders like"to sway with the wind". In hind sight it was a mistake to go to Court because the SC itself has corrupt judges who will tow the government line or they themselves will get exposed.
5. Yes. VK was not seeking extra time in chair. He was merely trying to correct the wrongs of two venal Generals called JJ and Kapoor.
6. Without doubt he was an icon. It was the government and interested parties who planted stories.
7. Please give names if you have the guts. I'm sure the COAS would have taken action.
8. Antony is an honourable man. There is no muck on him till now. However he didn't investigate beyond his office.
9. No way. The government knows that VKS is probably the most popular Gen after Sam Maneckshaw. You can't chuck a man who calls a spade a spade. The Army Chief is much superior to the Navy Chief.
10. The Army is definetly in better shape. At least there are most honest people now than in 2010.
New Delhi
May 29, 2012

Write comment
Yes No

security code
Write the displayed characters

Thank you for sharing your comments with us.


About the blog: Know Your Enemy

In a world where history is always the enemy, it's a good idea to fear the worst. Know Your Enemy gives you a dark, portentous sense of that vague concept, we collectively call the future. And why the globalised world without walls is a failed ideal.
 About Shiv Aroor
Shiv Aroor is defence correspondent at Headlines Today, and has made it his job to know enemies of all kinds. The ones that wage war on the country, the ones that murder justice, and also the ones that print lies on our tubes of toothpaste.
Other Posts

Other Headlines Today Blogs