news details |
|
|
| Defence Service Chiefs don't decide policies | | Ministry of Defence is responsible, not accountable | |
B L KAK
NEW DELHI, NOV 26
The high-voltage Ministry of Defence is a unique institution by itself since it has under its umbrella a vast apparatus, including defence production, defence researtch and development and the three armed services. But there is a type of dichotomy which makes the Ministry of Defence (MoD) responsible but not accountable, invariably on grounds of public interest.
The MoD controls access to all information on defence production, procurement, acquisitions, research and development, and the general structural organisation of the armed services. On the operational side, the Defence Headquarters of all the three services remain segregated and even if armed forces officers have to communicate with the media, it is only through the medium of the DPR, which is again under the control of the Administrative Ministry. For all practical purposes, the Joint Secretary (G) controls the flow, quantum and quality of information, even to Parliament and the public.
In India, it is a strange situation where access is totally denied at the highest levels in the Defence Ministry as well as in the services unlike the other departments of government, where mediapersons on the beat get information for the asking even from the sensitve Finance Ministry. Although it might be fobbed off as a legacy of the British days and a consequent colonial hangover, it can be safely pointed out that in the United Kingdom (UK), defence is an open affair, even if it be the production and deployment of nuclear weapons. This has become possible because Parliament and the media in Britain are quite strong and government is not in a position to take cover under any acts of the realm.
The present dichotomy although it is much more than that, helps government to sufficiently camouflage the policy making process and the implementation. Policies are not decided by India's Defence Service Chiefs who are only there to implement them as initiated by government. They can at best make recommendations, but one would never know what these were since government in its wisdom always tries to project what they feel is best suited in terms of their own perceptions which are determined jointly by an inter-ministerial committee of representatives of Defence, Home, Finance and External Affairs.
Above all, the final decision or veto rests with the Cabinet Committee on Politcal Affairs (CCPA). And very often the decisions may be at variance with what the Defence Service Chiefs want. This is not a wild conclusion. A perusal of CAG reports on Defence Services will provide any number of examples where extraneous considerations have overruled precise and specified requirements stipulated by the empowered technical and pricing committees.
Government decides the policy but often it is the armed services which have to take the blame. And defence officers have no means of defending themselves because they are governed by a code of conduct and the Offical Secrets Act. Take for example Sri Lanka, where an adventurous policy not long ago led to disastrous consequences but the Indian Army had to bear the brunt of the blame. Here, it was the Ministry of External Affairs which was at the steering wheel of events controlling even operational moves, and the media had to faithfully rely on information provided by its spokesman at Delhi.
Inputs of course were provided every day by the Defence Headquarters but the service officedrs did not have a chance to explain their position and difficulties they were encountering. Herein comes the question of accountability. The media perception has all along been that it was the Army that failed to deliver the goods, although the fact was they were hamstrung by fast chancing policies dictated by politcal exigencies.
Therefore, the people at large were led to believe that the Indian armed forces failed in their mission. Not only that, a situation so developed that the IPKF (India Peace Keeping Force) had to be withdrawn on an ultimatum by the Sri Lankan government. There was no explanation from the government for this predicament in which Indian forces were no longer wanted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
