Opinion
-
Editorials
Upping the ante
IT IS AN axiom of our democratic way of life that the political executive enjoys the exclusive right to rattle sabres. The Army's role, when ordered, is limited to using them. In this context, the markedly combative edge that shaped the overall tenor of the Chief of the Army Staff, S. Padmanabhan's press conference is truly unfortunate. The General would have done far better if he had measured his words carefully rather than lend the impression that the Army was engaging in its own bit of military muscle flexing and eager to indulge in the rhetoric of war. While the substance of his remarks was extraordinary in itself, the timing was particularly inappropriate. They were made in times that are extremely sensitive (in which a calibrated diplomatic offensive should not be undermined by an impression of needlessly aggressive posturing) as well as excessively surcharged (where a drastic upping of the ante could result in the situation spinning well out of control). More specifically, the General's comments were made exactly a day before the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf's address to the nation - a speech which was widely expected to have a direct bearing on the question of curbing cross-border terrorism and reducing the spiralling tension between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Of particular note are the General's references to the nuclear issue, which appear to have created a considerable flutter within the political leadership and which provoked the Union Defence Minister, George Fernandes, to issue a clarification which read like a modest (but nevertheless distinct) rebuke. At a time when virtually the whole world is concerned about the possible consequences of an outbreak of hostilities between the two nuclear powers in the subcontinent, it was unwise of the Army Chief to have even referred to the possibility of bringing nuclear weapons into play. Even though Gen. Padmanabhan referred to the use of such weapons only in the context of a second strike, the language in which this specific reference was couched, which cannot but be read against the tough tenor of his other statements, risks sending the signal that India is getting into combat-mode and primed for an offensive. There is a certain margin accorded to the sabre-rattling of politicians since they often indulge in it for a variety of other ends, mainly diplomatic or political. But Generals who virtually announce that two countries are ``close to actual war'' are not accorded the same interpretative leeway. The Army Chief should have considered this.
As a military man, Gen. Padmanabhan enjoys a formidable reputation for competence, knowledge, even sobriety. This is why there remains a lurking suspicion that the aggressive gung-ho posture he seemed to strike at the press conference may have had the tacit blessing of the political leadership. It may be significant that Mr. Fernandes' clarification refers wholly to Gen. Padmanabhan's remarks on the nuclear issue but is absolutely silent about what could happen in the event of a limited conventional war - such as India's capability of hitting terrorist training camps across the border and the possible use of both artillery and aircraft for this purpose. It may be uncharitable to suggest that Gen. Padmanabhan's performance at the press conference was, in any way whatsoever, influenced by the compulsions of India's coercive diplomacy, which makes transparent use of the threat of war with the aim of pressuring Pakistan to crack down on the jehadi groups operating on its soil. But it must be stressed all the same that in a democracy such as ours, the role of the military must be limited to the battlefield. And it is the obligation of both the political leadership and the military brass to ensure that this remains so.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opinion
|
