Fog surrounds civil-military intrigue in India
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - A newspaper's report last week about an "unexpected movement" of key army units towards Delhi on the night of January 16 has created a furor in the country.
Nowhere in the Indian Express report was the word "coup" used. But the article strongly points in that direction. Many have described it as exaggerated and mischievous.
At the very least events over "18 very tense hours" on the night of 16-17 January indicate how much civil-military relations in India have changed.
According to the report, on the night of January 16, central intelligence agencies reported an "unexpected (and un-notified) movement" towards Delhi of a mechanized infantry unit based in
Hisar in Haryana and of the airborne 50 Para Brigade based at Agra in Uttar Pradesh.
This so "spooked" the government, the report says, that "an old contingency plan to delay just such a move" was put in motion. The defense secretary was asked to cut short a visit to Malaysia, while the director general of military operations was asked for an explanation and ordered to halt and send back the units immediately; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defense Minister A K Anthony were also alerted.
Nobody has denied the events detailed in the report, only its interpretation, which the prime minister described as "alarmist", the defense minister said was "baseless", and army chief V K Singh dismissed as "absolutely stupid".
The army chief has said that the movement of the units was a routine maneuver for which no prior intimation to the government was necessary. He has also said that "no clarification was asked for" by the government. The army has said the movement of units that night was meant to test their readiness to mobilize swiftly in foggy conditions. Antony said that the government "endorsed" the army's explanation. "We are absolutely confident of the patriotism of our armed forces," he said.
So what happened that foggy night? Most commentators have dismissed the possibility of a coup attempt.
What could the two army units of less than a 1,000 troops have achieved? Around 10,000 combat troops are stationed permanently in Delhi. Their numbers were supplemented by the additional forces that had come in to the capital for the Army Day parade on January 15 and the Republic Day parade on January 26.
If the army intended something sinister, it did not need to move units from Hisar (165 kilometers away) and Agra (204 kilometers away). There were enough troops in Delhi. Besides, if it wanted to move troops from outside, surely it could have moved them from Meerut, just 70 kilometers away from the capital where a full infantry division is based, military experts have pointed out.
Analysts are pointing out that attempting a coup in India is foolish given its size and diversity, a task that is doomed to fail unless it has on board the heads of all the regional commands. "Any successful military coup would require the active support of all six geographical army commanders, and also the air force chief," defense analyst Ajai Shukla quotes a retired lieutenant-general as saying in Business Standard.
"If even one army commander were not on board ... an attempt could quickly degenerate into a fratricidal civil war between loyalists and rebels." In the present context, it would be "foolish to assume that the incoming chief, Eastern Army Commander, Lieutenant General Bikram Singh, [who will succeed Singh] would associate himself with a military coup."
Many have responded angrily to the Indian Express report, describing it as an insult, even a slur that does a "great disservice" to the armed forces. Indeed, the Indian army has a fine reputation of being apolitical and professional. India, unlike most other post-colonial states has never had a military coup nor has a coup been attempted.
But did something less than a coup happen on the night of January 16? Were units moved just to spook the government, rather than overthrow it? Was Singh flexing his muscles to scare his political bosses?
It was "a pre-emptive demonstration with a cover plan to pre-empt [a] likely impending decision," tweeted Lieutenant General H S Panag, who headed the army's crucial Northern command until his retirement in 2009.
On January 16, Singh had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the view of the Ministry of Defense that his date of birth was May 10, 1950, not 1951, as he claimed. In doing so, he had become the first serving army chief to challenge the government in court. Singh's decision to go to court had ruffled feathers in Delhi. There was speculation then that the government would sack the army chief.
Panag appears to be hinting that the movement of two units towards Delhi was aimed at pre-empting any move by the government to sack the army chief.
Whether the movement of army units that foggy night was an attempted coup or an attempt at spooking the government or just a routine military exercise is far from clear at this juncture. What is evident is that it made the government jittery.
"At no stage was the possibility of a coup, or any attempt to overawe the government, ever discussed. We worried about indiscipline, or a show of support by some elements - and it's our job to consider those possibilities," The Hindu reported a senior official of the Intelligence Bureau as saying.
The fact that the government put in motion "contingency measures" means that it anticipated something serious; it was not taking any chances.
The many safeguards to ensure civilian supremacy over the military and the professionalism of its generals are among several reasons why a coup seems inconceivable in India, so much so that over the decades, the government had become "totally relaxed and trustful" of the generals, as the Indian Express puts it.
The government's response on January 16 indicates that this perception has changed.
Relations have deteriorated significantly in recent months over the dispute with regard to Singh's age. Instead of amicably settling the issue, the government mishandled it, triggering an acrimonious row and resulting in the general going to court.
There have been other face-offs in recent weeks between the government and the general.
A letter Singh wrote to the prime minister detailing the Indian army's poor defense preparedness was leaked. Some have accused the general of leaking the letter to embarrass the government. Others maintain the letter was leaked by vested interests that want the government to sack the army chief
In an interview to The Hindu newspaper, Singh revealed recently that he had been offered a US$3 million bribe by a retired army officer to approve purchase of "substandard" trucks. He claimed that he had alerted Defense Minister Anthony on the matter. Anthony's failure to act on this information has added to the government's image of being soft on corruption.
It is hard to dispel the feeling that a concerted campaign is underway to deepen the distrust between the government and the army, and to oust Singh one way or another.
Singh has a rock-solid reputation for personal incorruptibility and professionalism. He has been tough on corruption in the armed forces and has refused to back-off under pressure from corrupt officers.
Right through the age controversy, he had pointed to corrupt generals and civilian bureaucrats as well as arms lobbies that were anxious to get him out. In recent weeks he has been talking of a smear campaign against him.
Was the "threat" posed by two army units moving towards Delhi on the night of January 16 exaggerated by vested interests? Were they hoping that a sufficiently spooked government would sack its army chief?
Rather than search for a coup in the events on January 16, we need to look for disinformation, as that better describes what happened that night. The role of arms lobbies in the events that night also need to be probed.
Singh will retire on May 31. The government will heave a sigh of relief.
But deteriorating civil-military relations in India did not begin when Singh's tenure as army chief. It is several decades old and much of the blame for the souring ties lies with a venal political class and bureaucracy.
Asia Times Online :: Fog surrounds civil-military intrigue in India
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - A newspaper's report last week about an "unexpected movement" of key army units towards Delhi on the night of January 16 has created a furor in the country.
Nowhere in the Indian Express report was the word "coup" used. But the article strongly points in that direction. Many have described it as exaggerated and mischievous.
At the very least events over "18 very tense hours" on the night of 16-17 January indicate how much civil-military relations in India have changed.
According to the report, on the night of January 16, central intelligence agencies reported an "unexpected (and un-notified) movement" towards Delhi of a mechanized infantry unit based in
Hisar in Haryana and of the airborne 50 Para Brigade based at Agra in Uttar Pradesh.
This so "spooked" the government, the report says, that "an old contingency plan to delay just such a move" was put in motion. The defense secretary was asked to cut short a visit to Malaysia, while the director general of military operations was asked for an explanation and ordered to halt and send back the units immediately; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defense Minister A K Anthony were also alerted.
Nobody has denied the events detailed in the report, only its interpretation, which the prime minister described as "alarmist", the defense minister said was "baseless", and army chief V K Singh dismissed as "absolutely stupid".
The army chief has said that the movement of the units was a routine maneuver for which no prior intimation to the government was necessary. He has also said that "no clarification was asked for" by the government. The army has said the movement of units that night was meant to test their readiness to mobilize swiftly in foggy conditions. Antony said that the government "endorsed" the army's explanation. "We are absolutely confident of the patriotism of our armed forces," he said.
So what happened that foggy night? Most commentators have dismissed the possibility of a coup attempt.
What could the two army units of less than a 1,000 troops have achieved? Around 10,000 combat troops are stationed permanently in Delhi. Their numbers were supplemented by the additional forces that had come in to the capital for the Army Day parade on January 15 and the Republic Day parade on January 26.
If the army intended something sinister, it did not need to move units from Hisar (165 kilometers away) and Agra (204 kilometers away). There were enough troops in Delhi. Besides, if it wanted to move troops from outside, surely it could have moved them from Meerut, just 70 kilometers away from the capital where a full infantry division is based, military experts have pointed out.
Analysts are pointing out that attempting a coup in India is foolish given its size and diversity, a task that is doomed to fail unless it has on board the heads of all the regional commands. "Any successful military coup would require the active support of all six geographical army commanders, and also the air force chief," defense analyst Ajai Shukla quotes a retired lieutenant-general as saying in Business Standard.
"If even one army commander were not on board ... an attempt could quickly degenerate into a fratricidal civil war between loyalists and rebels." In the present context, it would be "foolish to assume that the incoming chief, Eastern Army Commander, Lieutenant General Bikram Singh, [who will succeed Singh] would associate himself with a military coup."
Many have responded angrily to the Indian Express report, describing it as an insult, even a slur that does a "great disservice" to the armed forces. Indeed, the Indian army has a fine reputation of being apolitical and professional. India, unlike most other post-colonial states has never had a military coup nor has a coup been attempted.
But did something less than a coup happen on the night of January 16? Were units moved just to spook the government, rather than overthrow it? Was Singh flexing his muscles to scare his political bosses?
It was "a pre-emptive demonstration with a cover plan to pre-empt [a] likely impending decision," tweeted Lieutenant General H S Panag, who headed the army's crucial Northern command until his retirement in 2009.
On January 16, Singh had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the view of the Ministry of Defense that his date of birth was May 10, 1950, not 1951, as he claimed. In doing so, he had become the first serving army chief to challenge the government in court. Singh's decision to go to court had ruffled feathers in Delhi. There was speculation then that the government would sack the army chief.
Panag appears to be hinting that the movement of two units towards Delhi was aimed at pre-empting any move by the government to sack the army chief.
Whether the movement of army units that foggy night was an attempted coup or an attempt at spooking the government or just a routine military exercise is far from clear at this juncture. What is evident is that it made the government jittery.
"At no stage was the possibility of a coup, or any attempt to overawe the government, ever discussed. We worried about indiscipline, or a show of support by some elements - and it's our job to consider those possibilities," The Hindu reported a senior official of the Intelligence Bureau as saying.
The fact that the government put in motion "contingency measures" means that it anticipated something serious; it was not taking any chances.
The many safeguards to ensure civilian supremacy over the military and the professionalism of its generals are among several reasons why a coup seems inconceivable in India, so much so that over the decades, the government had become "totally relaxed and trustful" of the generals, as the Indian Express puts it.
The government's response on January 16 indicates that this perception has changed.
Relations have deteriorated significantly in recent months over the dispute with regard to Singh's age. Instead of amicably settling the issue, the government mishandled it, triggering an acrimonious row and resulting in the general going to court.
There have been other face-offs in recent weeks between the government and the general.
A letter Singh wrote to the prime minister detailing the Indian army's poor defense preparedness was leaked. Some have accused the general of leaking the letter to embarrass the government. Others maintain the letter was leaked by vested interests that want the government to sack the army chief
In an interview to The Hindu newspaper, Singh revealed recently that he had been offered a US$3 million bribe by a retired army officer to approve purchase of "substandard" trucks. He claimed that he had alerted Defense Minister Anthony on the matter. Anthony's failure to act on this information has added to the government's image of being soft on corruption.
It is hard to dispel the feeling that a concerted campaign is underway to deepen the distrust between the government and the army, and to oust Singh one way or another.
Singh has a rock-solid reputation for personal incorruptibility and professionalism. He has been tough on corruption in the armed forces and has refused to back-off under pressure from corrupt officers.
Right through the age controversy, he had pointed to corrupt generals and civilian bureaucrats as well as arms lobbies that were anxious to get him out. In recent weeks he has been talking of a smear campaign against him.
Was the "threat" posed by two army units moving towards Delhi on the night of January 16 exaggerated by vested interests? Were they hoping that a sufficiently spooked government would sack its army chief?
Rather than search for a coup in the events on January 16, we need to look for disinformation, as that better describes what happened that night. The role of arms lobbies in the events that night also need to be probed.
Singh will retire on May 31. The government will heave a sigh of relief.
But deteriorating civil-military relations in India did not begin when Singh's tenure as army chief. It is several decades old and much of the blame for the souring ties lies with a venal political class and bureaucracy.
Asia Times Online :: Fog surrounds civil-military intrigue in India
