ISSN 2330-717X

Why Is New Indian Army Chief Still In Abeyance? – Analysis


With less than three weeks for the current incumbent to retire from service, the India government has still not appointed the new Chief of the 1.4 million strong Indian Army. The government claims it does not want alternate power centres. Certain other sources feel that a long pending demand for a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is being considered, and the delay is due the decision in this regard. A third school of thought revolves around the internecine struggle for power within the army itself.

An earlier analysis by this author dealt with the politicization of armed forces in the US in the run up to the Presidential elections and what could be learnt from it in the Indian context.

With Donald Trump as the President-elect, he has announced a slew of names, former Generals to key appointments such as Secretary of Defence, National Security Advisor and Secretary of Homeland Security, and the most sought after Secretary of State may also go to a former General. The Indian state is yet to reach that level of trust for it to appoint a former General to such key appointments in Cabinet. In fact it is still unable to decide whether the principle of civilian control over the armed forces can be tested to the extent of having a 5-star General as its Chief of Defence Staff. Certain other factors add to the feisty debate.

The Indian government could not have come up with a weaker excuse as that of alternate power centres. The process of transition in the Indian Army (or the Air Force or the Navy) is meant to obviate just that. Within a reasonable period of the retirement date of the present incumbent General Dabir Suhag, ideally the officer next in line, Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi should have been brought in as the Vice Chief. He would then have had adequate time to learn from his predecessor thus ensuring a smooth transition on 1st January 2017. Instead, Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat was brought in as the Vice Chief, leaving Bakshi to continue as the Eastern Army Commander. Even if for a moment this argument is ignored, with less than three weeks for him to take over, citing ‘alternate power centres’ seems a bit far fetched at this stage.

To the credit of Prime Minister Modi, he has stressed upon the need for senior defence management reforms and for jointness in command since he has entered office. Therefore if the appointment of the CDS is indeed being considered, would it not work in his favour by at least announcing the step than by keeping it under the wraps?

In any case, with the bureaucratic stranglehold on military affairs in India, it may well take more than even the Prime Minister for such a decision. As is well known, the buraeucracy suffers from an inexplicable fear of the power that the military is allowed to wield, and naturally a 5-star CDS seems to be the epitome of this unfounded fear. Unfounded because the armed forces in India have always taken pride on their apolitical stance. Yet the fear remains. And naturally again, the bureaucrats cleverly pass it on the political leadership in order to keep the armed forces subservient to their own will.

If a CDS is under consideration, then it remains to be seen how much clout is the government ready to yield to the office? Would it be a full fledged 5-star General’s appointment, functioning as the single point military contact to the political leadership, and with the three Service Chiefs being subordinate to him? This would essentially devolve operational powers from the Chiefs, leaving them free to deal with training, equipment and administration; in turn these operational issues then become the forte of the theatre commanders (Army Commanders as they are called).

However such a move would require extensive preparatory steps because it would effectively mean a revamp of structures as are known presently. Or would it just be another watered down version? A few years back the appointment of the Chief of Integrated Staff Committee (CISC) was just that- a watered down version to keep the debate at bay, with virtually no role as envisaged for the office.

What could not be a more unfortunate turn of events for one of the finest armies in the world, would be the internecine struggle for power within the army itself that is causing this undue delay. It is well known that an underlying current exists in the form of rivalry between two fighting arms, the Infantry and the Armoured Corps (Suhag is from the Infantry, as is his protege Rawat, while Bakshi is from the Armoured Corps).

Much has been documented as well, on this issue, including a deliberate attempt to undermine the service profiles of officers by policies which can be termed dubious at best. The veracity of this claim can be well established by the fact that even Courts of Law have questioned such policies being in vogue. If this were indeed true, it would definitely be the final nail in the coffin. The Indian Army may not have to look outwards for threats; its intrinsic ability to create fissures would suffice then.

Vishakha Amitabh Hoskote

Vishakha Amitabh Hoskote is a Communication Professional, Research Scholar and a Defence Enthusiast. With an MA, MPHIL in International Relations, Political Science and Development Communications, Ms Hoskote regularly writes for Eurasia Review on subjects of geopolitical importance.

7 thoughts on “Why Is New Indian Army Chief Still In Abeyance? – Analysis

  • December 9, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Nicely written..but How would anointing a CDS address the malaise highlighted by would it lessen the stranglehold of the bureaucracy..wouldn’t it extend the ever increasing bureaucracy…or are we considering that he should wear dual hat/ replace defence secretary..

  • December 9, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    It’s high time, defence Secretary be replaced by a CDS. Do we really need this link between the Govt and Armed forces

  • December 9, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    The concept that CDS will be a five star gen is incorrect as that is associated with the FD Marshall. The CDS will be a four star and will be more of coordinator with the three services and should have the nuclear command under him

  • December 10, 2016 at 7:34 am

    The CDS will be a first among equals and certainly not superior by donning 5 Stars. He would replace the Chairman cosc and free the Chiefs from that responsibility. time has certainly come for our armed forces to graduate to this level.

  • December 10, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Very well written article.In my opinion by creating a post of CDS we would be diluting administrative powers,enthusiasm,self-thought process of planning, sense of pride etc. of being Chiefs of forces under their Commands. The best options to my mind would be to replace the Defence Secretary by the CDS with a five star General(or equivalent), alternatively a retired General be considered to be a Defence Minister, to resolve this complexed situation.

  • December 11, 2016 at 5:11 am

    The issues first to be sorted out are babus v/s defence forces. No government would like to do away with def secy. Responsibility of CDS is next. Army being largest, say about 5/6 times of combined strength of Navy and AF and each service getting equal tennure and term as CDS Chief is another issue. Internally promotion related issues of promotion need not cloud other issues. It is matter of serious concern that most vital issues of operational employment and administration are decisided by civilian set up with bare minimum knowhow and involvement.

  • December 12, 2016 at 5:40 am

    We have a history of designing and creating institutions appropriately defanged and defective to prevent any manner of effective functioning. The appointment of a CDS at this juncture without even beginning to create the necessary joint operational structure would create a toothless figurehead, and would be one more instance of playing to the gallery merely for its sake.

    But then, we are so attuned to acting only when kicked, the appointment of CDS and devolving sweeping powers for implementing the restructuring required may be seen as the way out to overcome obstructions by vested interest. However, will the civilian masters be comfortable with such a powerful military figure? I don’t think so.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *