19 Mar 2010 Ali Ahmed: Having been an Army kid, I can testify to the immense problem Army parents face in educating their children. My parents settled for packing me off to a military boarding school, while my sister had an eclectic educational profile which in my reckoning did less than justice to her talents and potential. Since increasingly life’s race is dependent on the quality of education, it would entirely understandable for service officers to wish that their vigil at the borders for the nation is compensated by a reasonable, if not best, education for their children. Therefore, if a school was to come up in the environs of a cantonment at Sukhna, I couldn’t quite see why this was found objectionable by the Command Headquarters at Kolkata. This article seeks the good sense behind the action, given the dire need for schools in and around military cantonments.
Legality, morality, the media angle and bureaucratic politics on display of the case have found ample mention in cyber space. The version of the defendant General was carried on the Karan Thapar show. The courts martial proceedings and the legal proceedings in Armed Forces Tribunals and the courts will play themselves out over the next Chief’s tenure. What is lost in the legalese is the fact that postings to areas where schooling is inadequate are understandably not popular. Despite such stations being peace stations officers may prefer to continue staying away from families so that families can static. It is reported that there was a surplus of vacant officer married accommodation in Sukhna military station. This is entirely plausible. It bears mention that officers do not prefer postings to ‘remote’ North East due to this constraint. Given all this does the hullaballoo over the construction of a school near the station make any sense?
While there is no denying that some sharp practices have surfaced, but it is a cliché that to negotiate the Indian reality of red tape requires some cutting of corners. Take for instance the very requirement of taking an NOC from the Army (No Objection Certificate) for construction near military stations. Since cantonments dot the Indian landscape, thanks to British post 1857 paranoia, this would be a considerable imposition on developing neighbourhoods in vicinity of cantonments. That the military is to deliberate on the NOC is itself temptation to which the military is being unnecessarily exposed. Cantonments, at some prominent locations such as Pune, Hyderabad etc, being right in the midst of urban agglomerations, would retard development if this rule were not to be given an enlightened go by.
Secondly, while investing in schools, particularly in prized locales such as hill stations, is indeed a gold mine, only those with the capital, risk taking ability and a certain worldliness can pull it off. Therefore, if a certain Mr. Agarwal was undertaking to build a school and created a constituency for it to go through the military bureaucracy, there is little reason to sabotage the school itself. The gains for the military station would have been considerable. Children in school, Army wives getting a teaching job and happier officers staying with families contributing better to combat effectiveness of formations they were serving. Its certainly the kind of environment we’d like in stations manned by troops facing the ‘assertive’ Chinese. But this was not enough to convince its higher HQs. It’s possible that given the known conservatism of the military bureaucracy Mr. Agarwal may have ‘sexed up’ his publicity material on the proposed school. But that reflects less on Mr. Agarwal than our systems based on petty file-pushers requiring every breath taken be justified by precedent and an encyclopaedic ‘statement of case’.
Nevertheless, the General in command felt it necessary to over haul the system to an extent as is now obvious, at some cost to its internal cohesion and image and, as yet uncertain and unknowable, price to be paid in future. Command HQs Kolkata owes well wishers of the Army an explanation. What pray were the security considerations against a school coming up?
Lt Gen VK Singh has set impossibly high standards of rectitude by taking four generals involved in the ‘land scam’, which commentators as no less than a retired Vice Chief, Lt Gen Oberoi, tell us was not quite a ‘scam’. The Chief designate has a tough act ahead. For one, by his own standards, it is not self-evident how the ‘correction’ of his date of birth in Army records (as reported in the same breath as his elevation to Chief) has not helped in his alleviation as Chief. It is well known that among other considerations as being senior most, balance in years left to serve is a consideration for short-listing of names for the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet to clear. In case the correction to the date of birth did help with getting Lt Gen VK Singh’s name on to the list, then the General can be said to have taken some far-sighted action while in command of 2 Corps, when the controversy found mention in the press. The incoming Chief may like to clear the air, lest questions linger.
Lastly, the media fanned ‘controversy’ over supposedly differing perspectives between Army HQs and Command HQs in the Sukhna affair apart, it bears noting that differences between the top two echelons of the Army also have operational fallout. Whispers in differences between the Chief and the Command HQs in Northern Command in the mid nineties, cannot but have had some impact on how the Army coped with the disturbed situation there. It had been reported - a report admittedly later contradicted – that the Army Commander had offered to resign if foreign special forces were inducted into the Valley to search for the foreigners allegedly kidnapped and later killed by the terrorist group, Al Faran. Likewise, there is an as yet untold story behind the absence of the then Army Commander Northern from the Kargil pantheon.
In the present case the fallout has not been operational but institutional, in that the Defence Minister was forced to give out his mind on the issue. Differences are healthy and speak for moral courage and open mindedness, particularly where operational, legal and moral considerations are concerned. However, in the circumstance of bureaucratic politics on Raisina Hill, interested forces can be expected to indulge in their favourite sport of tripping up the ‘brass’ if they are allowed an opening. In the present case, debate over acquisition related limitations in preparedness - attributable to the bureaucrats - was short circuited by the eruption of the ‘scam’. That South Block took a position on the issue indicates that there is more at stake than a mere school coming or otherwise. It is perhaps for these not so apparent reasons the General VK Singh took the firm line he did. This has appalling implications for the state of the Army.
Perhaps the formidable team in the form of a Defence Minister, widely acknowledged as a rarity in political circles for his honesty, and a Chief, who has set challenging standards of ethics, would be able to do the needful. While they are at it a task that could also be pursued is reaching the best education possible to India’s remote regions where services children are left to albeit valiant attention of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Perhaps the school can finally be allowed to come up.
(Ali Ahmed recently left the armed forces to pursue a PhD, CIPOD, SIS at Jawaharlal Nehru University)
