ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

A chasm wider than the Brahmaputra

Seen through the disciplined eye of the soldier, the televised debate on the vote of confidence which brought down the government had crossed the threshold of decency and civilised norms. What is more, it hurt the country's national security interests. Barring a few, most of the 40 members of Parliament who spoke, probably forgot the oath they took on becoming members of the 12th Lok Sabha.

It would be useful for the Rt Hon MPs to be reminded of the Code of Conduct service officers follow:

The safety, honour and welfare of the country come first, always and every time.

The safety and welfare of the men you command come next.

Your own safety and welfare come last, always and every time.

The demonstrated performance of the majority of the members of the House during the debate turned out to be just the opposite of these values. Servicemen, on getting better acquainted with the doubtful mores and methods of their elected representatives, are, under these circumstances, beginning to question the morality of civilian political control over the military. The nexus between criminals, insurgent groups and politicians is now an established fact, and a source of worry for the man in uniform.

The chasm in values and ethics between soldiers and their political masters is wider than the Brahmaputra. Yet, the armed forces have displayed a remarkable consistency in remaining apolitical, despite poor governance and political instability.

During the debate in Parliament, during which some speakers went into explicit details of internal and external security, no one attempted to restrain them on grounds of national security.

Before Parliament was convened, a debate had been raging outside it over the desirability of a debate in the House between the government and Opposition on Vishnu Bhagwat's dismissal and his charges against Defence Minister George Fernandes. Members of the House were livid they'd been kept in the dark about the no-holds-barred exchange between the two using the print and electronic media. They wanted, in fact felt entitled, to be privy to even the classified aspects of the alleged breaches of national security.

A few days prior to the debate, the Ministry of Defence issued an elaborate official handout in Hindi and English justifying Bhagwat's dismissal and rebutting most of the allegations made by him against Fernandes. Bhagwat comes across from the handout as a habitual offender, congenital liar, someone who should never have made it to the high office of Chief of Naval Staff.

His networking of political and civilian bureaucratic authority is impressive. When naval history is written Bhagwat will emerge as the first senior officer who dragged the entire service to court and initiated the politicisation of the navy. Thanks to Madame Jayalalitha, the debate on national security was turned into a vote of confidence.

Many military officers had come to regard the BJP-led government as the first to take up the question of national security seriously. To their credit, they were able to implement military reforms and provide the military greater autonomy than made possible by any other previous government.

The record of previous governments, especially the Congress, is singularly lacklustre. Their failure to take important decisions on the nuclear and missile tests is a case in point.

The fall of the government is bound to lead to greater instability and lack of continuity. Sensitive negotiations on CTBT, minimum nuclear deterrent, regional security and border disputes will lose the momentum the government had provided. Already Pakistan has sought a postponement of the bilateral talks following the Lahore declaration.

It was evident from the debate that Bhagwat was not an issue and it was hijacked into Parliament thanks to the encouragement provided by the Admiral himself and the Opposition which was ready to fish in troubled waters. The MPs who took part in the debate did not care to read the MoD's rebuttal of the Admiral's charges or the explanation for his dismissal. They chose instead to produce newspaper clippings and make off-the-cuff remarks.

Unlike most others, former prime minister Chandra Shekhar was clearly against any debate on sensitive matters relating to defence. In fact, he was categorical in his support of the defence minister. But veteran parliamentarians like Somnath Chatterjee and Indrajit Gupta ignored his pleas and stuck letter and word to Bhagwat's affidavit.

Another former prime minister, H D Deve Gowda, went off at a tangent. In his detailed presentation on the alleged irregularities in the T-90 tank deal, he criticised the army's choice of the Tank. But by making a disparaging reference to Lt Gen S S Mehta, the officer in charge of the tank project, he committed a grave excess in the House.

This led to a virtual storm outside it. Army Chief Gen Ved Malik was very upset that his deputy chief had been singled out for remarks totally incompatible with the officer's record and demanded an expunction of those remarks from the proceedings of the house.

No political drama is ever complete without the performance of the very creative Dr Subramanian Swamy. He had the last word on Fernandes, and his links with the LTTE. Unfortunately the debate on serious issues such as defence and security was trivialised without any care that national security was being hurt. It was also clear Bhagwat was not the real issue.

General Ashok K Mehta