Like the US, we, too, deserve a National Security Act deliberated, discussed and passed by Parliament
Air Marshal Brijesh Jayal says…
Recently there has been considerable public focus and debate involving the senior-most military appointments in the oldest and largest democracies of the world. In the US, this involves the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military officer and principal military adviser to the President and National Security Council. This post is mandated by law that also prohibits it to exercise operational command authority over the armed forces.
In India, this involves the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), a post only recently created and whose authority and charter appear to have evolved solely within the administrative walls of the Ministry of Defence without any legislative scrutiny. The CDS simultaneously wears two hats, one as secretary, department of military affairs within the MOD and the other as the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee. The Service Chiefs, however, continue to be responsible for operations involving their charges.
According to a western media report, the debate in the US is centered around accounts in a book titled ‘ Peril’ that indicates that chairman, JCS had carried out acts of insubordination to prevent Donald Trump from starting a war as a diversion from his election defeat last year. Not only had General Milley reportedly called his Chinese counterpart to reassure him that the US would not conduct a surprise attack, and that he would alert Beijing if the President tried to order one; but he also ordered officers assigned to the Pentagon war room to let him know if the President ordered a nuclear launch, despite the fact that he was not in the chain of command.
The General is currently appearing before the senate armed services committee for what reports say will be a tense crossexamination of steps that he reportedly took and it will be instructive to see what lessons emerge. Whatever be the outcome, one can assume that since the US system operates under a law, it will only be after due legal and legislative processes have played their legitimate part.
Closer home, in a strongly worded column titled ‘ A General cannot set narrative in democracy’ in a national daily, a senior journalist of repute is highly critical when in the context of theatre commands, the CDS is quoted to have said: “The chiefs will be responsible for raising, training, and sustaining functions of their services” and “the war will be fought by the theatre commanders on a plan approved by the chief of staff committee (COSC)”. Further adding, “In the long run, what we are looking at is the theatre commanders will become operational commanders, reporting to the COSC chairman”. The column is critical of this claim since it runs counter to the notified charter of the CDS, and observes that in our parliamentary democracy, it is only the cabinet committee on security that is empowered to decide on sensitive matters such as these.
This follows close on the heels of another recent observation made by the
CDS in a seminar wherein he is reported to have mentioned the “clash of civilisations” theory to describe China’s growing ties with the Islamic world vis-a-vis the West. Diplomatically embarrassed, the external affairs minister was quick to distance the government from this viewpoint when he reportedly told his
Chinese counterpart that “India had never subscribed to any clash of civilisations theory”.
In fairness to the CDS, in both the above cases, he appears to have been sharing his thoughts and ideas in an academic environment presumably wearing his secretarial hat and not that of the chairman COSC. In the former role, he ought to be able to use an intellectual platform to reflect his views, but not so in the latter as he is also the ‘first amongst equals’ in military hierarchy and continues to be subject to the Indian Army Act. Quite apart from any other fallout of such ambiguity, the bigger danger of such instances is one of creating confusion in the minds of ranks of the armed forces and weakening the strong foundations of unity of command and control on which the entire national war fighting edifice rests.
It will be recalled that soon after the CDS announcement, the Defence Secretary had publicly stated that the CDS would hit the ground running and show tangible results in hundred days. The subsequent complexities in attempting to introduce theatre commands is but one pointer towards problems that will crop up if major reforms in the national security management structure are rushed without carrying out due diligence and essential background work. Thorough administrative, operational and legal scrutiny is critical to ensuring that changes contemplated not only enhance national security in its complex dimensions, but do so without in any way disturbing the complex relationship amongst various institutions of governance and democracymore importantly the profession of arms whose personnel are also subject to their respective Service Acts.
Mercifully, these are early signs of the type of complexities that may arise in our hurry to appoint a CDS without clearly defining the appointment’s area of authority and responsibility and backing it with the necessary legislative and other safeguards. If there is one lesson that emerges from the cases reflected above, it is that for as vital a subject as national security, like the US, we too deserve a National Security Act deliberated, discussed and passed by the Parliament.