ARMED FORCES AND THE INDIAN SOCIETY

Indian Armed Forces comprise the military services: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, supported by what is called as para-military forces: Assam Rifles and Special Frontier Force. As of 2010, the Indian Armed Forces have a combined strength of 1.32 million active personnel and 1.15 million reserve personnel. In addition there are 2.28 million paramilitary personnel making it one of the world's largest military forces in the world in terms of personnel.

pic courtesy: sankalpindia.com

Except for sporadic incidents, like the spat the soldiers recently had with their superiors in Leh; or General VK Singh, the 24th Chief of the Army Staff, trying to sort out the civil-military relationship balance through the curious instrument of his dates of birth, by and large, the Indian public holds its armed forces in great esteem. Many of our countrymen privately fantasize about the armed forces taking over the governance of the country and instill some discipline and accountability in our civic life.

However, sadly, Indian society has lately emerged as the most self-serving and devoid-of-values societies in the world. The reason is that we are too many of us (Read India - Too Many People) and there are limited resources and opportunities, after all. We, therefore, push, fret, scream, take short-cuts and be rude in order to somehow get ahead of others (Read 'We Are Like That Only). This sort of culture is anathema to the armed forces who largely follow the Chetwode code about one's own needs, safety and comfort being the last priority in comparison to those of the nation and the service to which the armed forces personnel belong.
But, why is the Indian society in this deplorable condition? On the Republic Day, last year, I wrote an article: How Proud Should We Be of Indian Republic at 62? The article was very well received. Amongst other data concerning how the average Indian is deprived of a good and safe life, itthe article brought out that the rich, on the other hand, kept on becoming richer. The average Indian, therefore feels, with some justification, that all this has been at his or her expense.

Lets look at the well known figures: The richest ten Indians (with declared assets) enjoy 10 percent of the GDP of the country. The richest 50 Indians divide 30 percent of the GDP between themselves. Lets, for a minute, detach ourselves from the effect of this inequity on majority of Indians; and look at its effect on the armed forces. What is the fundamental duty of the armed forces? It is to uphold the Constitution, ie, as the preamble says, to secure Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for we, the people of India. Whilst performing this fundamental duty,  doesn't he have a right to ask whose Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity is he really securing. In the Navy, for example, one of the tasks that he is asked to do is to secure the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) so that it would result in fulfilling these aims of the Constitution. But, doesn't the Navy, in securing these SLOCs, willy-nilly end up serving the best interests of the rich and powerful only since the benefits don't percolate down to the average Indian?

Don't they deserve Justice, Equality, Liberty and Fraternity?

With this irrefutable (if I may say so) background, lets see the difference between the armed forces and mercenaries; a mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".

In short, the one who is not fighting for the country but for the interests of a few powerful people. Well, the armed forces of India, indirectly, are doing exactly what a mercenary does. However, they don't get paid like mercenaries. So, to start with, if there is a chasm between the Indian society and the armed forces due to different mores, this chasm is increased by the armed forces serving only the rich and the influential and not being paid like others who serve the interests of the rich and the powerful. As an example, we just finished with the Indian Premiere League's fifth jamboree. Do you think that an armed forces team would get as much as say the Kolkata Knight Riders (after winning the IPL final); in flushing out terrorists holed up in a house in Kashmir; an operation in which some of the team members would inevitably lose their lives?
Hence, if you are being used as a mercenary, why not get paid like one? The Indian Police is already paid like one; most of it underhand and most of it the rich and powerful don't mind paying.

At this stage, I am not getting into the raging issue of deteriorating civil-military relations. However, lets consider just one thing, which is that because of the civil governments' lack or inadequacy of good governance and foresight, the armed forces are increasingly being called upon to do what the civil governments and the police should have been doing. At the same time, the civil government has a Nehruvian mindset to keep the armed forces as far away as possible from matters of governance. The two stands just don't sound compatible.

The armed forces used to be shining examples of a righteous few in a society seeped in corruption. However, recently, there has been a number of incidents painting the armed forces too in the same colours. (For example, Adarsh Society, CWG, Corruption in Armed Forces and Public Morality). In an article titled 'A Few Good Men Can Win the Battle of Morality' in Tehelka, on 20 Nov 10, the very respected Lieutenant General Satish Nambiar, whom the government honoured with a Padma Vibhushan, brought out that the army has to get rid of the five-star culture that has resulted in the decline of moral values; "where lavish hospitality and expensive gifts are proffered to, and accepted with some alacrity by, senior officers and even their wives."  My own observation, when I was in the navy, brings out that an average navy officer, up to the rank of Commodore, has just a few mementos collected from his visits to Kashmir, North East and abroad. However, as soon as this officer is promoted to the rank of a flag officer, his life-style suddenly undergoes a dramatic taste. He and his wife develop expensive tastes, have in their houses rich curtains, paintings, air-conditioners, furniture and other display items. Most often that not, all parties held at home, are either fully paid for by the Mess or highly subsidized. Also, all visits to the club by him and family are on the house. People below their ranks jump to provide them with all luxuries and comforts of life in the hope that they, themselves, would also reach those exalted heights. This five-star culture fuels the desire to have more and better and at least match the luxurious living style of the civilians, say, district collectors, ministers, industrialists and bureaucrats.

We have it now from a serving Army chief that there is a culture of cronyism in the army, especially at high levels. We also know it from him that a retired Army Lieutenant General offered to give him a bribe of Rupees Fourteen Crores for accepting sub-standard Tatra vehicles. What do these incidents tell you? You can't be faulted with forming an impression that such things are not rare and isolated in the army; for, if these are rare, a very senior Lieutenant General won't be so bold as to offer such a bribe. This indirectly means that earlier Army chiefs and senior officers have, perhaps, been accepting such bribes as matters of routine.

Armed forces in a democracy are both a part of society and also a bit isolated. Some of the charges brought out by Gen VK Singh have more or less confirmed that for at least some of the people in the army, the requirement to stand tall and righteous in comparison to the rot in the civil society, has not been given a high priority; and that, after years of disciplined service, they are vulnerable to similar greed and temptations as their civilian counterparts.

Therefore, the foremost requirement is not to hide behind a mistaken sense of loyalty and holier-than-thou virtue that some of the serving and especially retired armed forces officers have been doing (eg, "we in the armed forces are paragons of virtue and ethics. It is the civilians who need to be taken to task." and "Gen VK Singh was fighting for correcting the civil-military relationship imbalance" and "Here was a General who was finally doing to politicians and bureaucrats what we as young officers had always dreamt to do but didn't have the courage; and still we find fault with him" and "it is really idiotic to air dirty linen in public by people who don't know anything".

I think setting right the imbalance in civil-military relations and acknowledging armed forces' contributions to well being and safety of Indian society would require a more focused approach than Gen Singh's "I am honest and I have two dates of birth."

Firstly, the armed forces have to decide whether they still want to be respected for being different and virtuous than the average civilian or not? In case the answer is 'if you can't beat them, join them', then, they don't have any right to feel hurt when civilians treat them at par with rest of corrupt Indians.

Then, the government has to do some serious thinking about whether they require the armed forces or not as also under what circumstances and situations? Armed forces can't be continually made to feel small in comparison to police, bureaucracy etc. They, finally, have to live in the same society.

Thirdly, since we have been using the armed forces as mercenaries, thought should be given to strengthening the hand of the average Indian so that whilst doing a thankless job, the armed forces would feel proud of safeguarding Indian interests and not the interests of a few, which indirectly, and without even realising it, they are doing now.

Fourthly, we have to make our society far more disciplined and upright than what it is now so that the armed forces are not isolated examples of virtue and inefficiency in a sea pool of corruption and indiscipline.

Rampant indiscipline in Indian society (pic courtesy: blogs.bettor.com)

Fifthly, it is high time we think in terms of police reforms, bureaucratic and  governmental reforms and ridding theses institutions of unabated corruption and inefficiency. In this way, the gap between the armed forces and their counterparts in police, bureaucracy and government would be reduced.

Centuries back, from amongst the Athenians, only those could become Hoplites or soldiers who would be rich enough to buy uniform, armour and arms. We have come a long way since then. People nowadays don't join armed forces merely for the love of the country and pride in being a fauji. They are, nowadays, seriously questioning as to whether the government and the country values them or not. If they do, recent incidents have brought out that it isn't apparent if anyone cares. A sad reflection on our society indeed.

OUT OF BOX THINKING?

This is the dilemma armed forces face. In a uniformed service we choose to promote the uniformity of training, response, actions; in short everything. It is a virtual cloning. DSSC tells you that even letters have to be written a particular way: "I have the honour to state that we are not getting anywhere"etc. Then, suddenly, at a particular rank and seniority, we hope that some would still have some innovative grey matter left, and would be able to think out-of-the-box.

The ONLY solution is to separate the occasions that require uniformity from those that can be done in various ways, right from the beginning; say, if someone writes a Letter of Procedings like a blog we will not call him to task and use the "standard" armed forces response: "What s__t have you written?"

The entire thing arises from our sense of insecurity that if 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', it would be end of discipline in the armed forces; "For heavens sake, today, if we allow him do things differently, tomorrow there will be nothing left of our culture, traditions, and heritage."

Think about a simple thing like 'contact with foreign nationals'. Have we amended the Navy Order knowing that everytime you go on Internet you are in contact with foreign nationals? Or AC cars for Commodores and above only; knowing that these days, even if a Ag SubLt wants to buy a car, there is hardly any choice but to buy an AC car.

Are armed forces resistant to change but at the same time expect that its people would think out-of-the-box?

"Ah, but there is ample scope for innovativeness even in the strait-jacketed atmosphere of a hierarchical structure. Some officers really turn out to be innovative" is the oft heard refrain of some senior officers. The answer is, "Sir, we don't want a handful to become innovative. We want a larger percentage to be thinking out-of-the-box. And, in any case, Sir, those who turn out to be innovative do so not because of the system but despite the system."

We don't want out-of-box thinking as an accident or aberration. We want it as a norm. For this not only that we have to start thinking of it at fairly early stages (formative years) of officers careers; but, also send signals that it would be rewarded just as, if because of it, we land up into failure, we shall not do witch hunting.

MUSINGS IN A NAVY HOSPITAL

The word hospital, Wikipedia informs us, comes from the Latin hospes, signifying a stranger or foreigner, hence a guest. Another noun derived from this, hospitium came to signify hospitality, that is the relation between guest and shelterer. Hospes is thus the root for the English words host (where the p was dropped for convenience of pronunciation) hospitality, hospice, hostel and hotel.

I was recently admitted in the Navy's hospital Asvini in Mumbai because of a complicated and potentially dangerous Psoriatic (skin) condition. I record some of my musings as a stranger, foreigner or guest of the Navy.

The first thing that occurs to you in a hospital is that you are now confirmed sick. There is no fig leaf of pretension anymore. A hole in your socks is a mere accident; but, getting it darned is a sure sign of poverty. Similarly, the moment you are admitted you realise that your illness is beyond your own control and the docs have to do the darning. You are a proclaimed patient.

The second thing is that whilst earlier you could do your work simultaneously and attend to your complication, in a hospital, your complication is the only focus of attention for yourself and those around you. You don't have many options in a hospital; certainly not in Asvini whereat most cellphones don't even have a network. You are cut off, isolated, and entirely at the mercy of the staff. Fortunately the Navy has the best of the doctors and nursing officers, who are not just completely professional but devoted. Most of them you have grown up with and they are more your warm hearted friends than specialists at other hospitals who often subject you with cold-blooded detachment.

You are made to feel special and cared for in a Navy hospital much better than you would in a civil hospital. The doctors and the staff actually conduct themselves as hosts giving you the confidence that you are in safe hands. I have compared notes with even cancer patients. All of them have the confidence that nowhere they can get treatment comparable to Navy's own hospitals.

However, the same can't be said of the maintenance of the hospital infrastructure by the MES (Military Engineering Service) staff. These worthies often compete with the nation's worst in inefficiency and corruption; but, the Navy often finds that it doesn't have any choice. Curiously, with the best that the Navy offers in various aspects, eg, strategic thinking, operational efficiency, naval diplomacy, disaster relief, camaraderie and esprit de corps, it becomes helpless in inefficiently spending crores of rupees in new projects and in maintenance of existing facilities through MES. Everyone knows that it costs nearly thrice as much to get anything done by MES and that MES designs and methods are archaic, but, such is the stranglehold of MES that there is no escape.

One of the reasons it lands itself in this mess (MES?) is because of the penchant to do everything itself. For example, the same persons who are operationally engaged (and these days with ever increasing responsibilities from coastal security, anti-piracy to war, these personnel are hard pressed to even do justice to their primary responsibility) are also made responsible to oversee that works undertaken by corrupt and inefficient MES are executed properly and in accordance with laid down standards. It is the same in the naval hospital Asvini, which was inaugurated only a few years back as one of the finest in Mumbai, but, is already coming apart. The doctors, hard pressed for time with other responsibilities, are also made responsible for overseeing works (which is a highly specialised job) and are often taken for ride by the MES. Please have a look at the pictures of the ward that I was in. What a coincidence that the patient and the room were both getting darned at the same time

The last two pics are two cupboards on either side of same room. And here is the wonderful view from my window; MES has, like its civil counterpart PWD (Perpetual Works Department) has mastered the art of perpetually engaging itself in meaningless works. They often engage themselves in breaking walls and pavements and bannisters and re-building them.

Despite the proven sub-optimal track record of the MES, and naval officers and sailors constantly moaning their indifference and inefficiency, as soon as a naval officer gets promoted to a Flag Officer's rank he/she suddenly develops tremendous respect for MES. The reasons are not difficult to find. A retired C-in-C once told me that during his tenure, to his dismay, he found that "each of these officers spent an average of Rupees Five Lakhs in doing up their already well maintained houses". During our visit to one of them the lady of the house proudly took us to the bathroom and fawned over her colour choice of floor and wall tiles. The last occupant, she asserted, had such awful taste in colour.

Talking about bathroom, here is what I found in the toilet of my ward in the hospital:

For the life of me I cannot imagine as to why should Toilet Paper be specially manufactured for the Indian Navy; unless the intention is to show that the naval personnel have probably thicker skin. This is even more quaint because the Navy doesn't have uniform cloth, shoes, head gear etc "specially manufactured" for it, even though these items, as compared to toilet paper, are unique for its personnel. Some attempts have been made in the past but the corrupt procurement personnel ensured that the entire exercise was brought to a nought. I was personally responsible for obtaining 18 months Rigorous Imprisonment for one of the senior officers engaged in this.

So what exactly is the solution?

I think the main reason for being in this mess is because the Navy feels that since it is so efficient in its core areas of responsibility, it has to somehow prove that it is equally efficient in administration, maintenance, catering, house-keeping, logistics and other allied activities. It is high time that we offload these to people (even if civilians) who are good at it. By this if the Navy loses a bit of power and control, it should be acceptable.

Let me just give three examples. The Navy runs shore messes at great cost to itself (if one has to take in the overall cost of infrastructure, training and running costs). All it has to do is to outsource these activities to civilians. It may fear two things whilst doing so: one, the Flag Officers who feel obliged to lavishly entertain civilians and uniformed personnel, will not have similar options as they now have of being large hearted about such entertainement. Two, the naval tradition of great style, pomp and glory will see a come-down. I think both these are misplaced anxieties. As a corollary, a mall like Big Bazaar, for example, is able to provide more discounts than the Indian Navy Canteen Service and yet make more profit.

The second is the concept of supporting establishment to the headquarters, eg, Indian Naval Ship Angre to Headquarters Western Naval Command. Gone are the days when this establishment used to provide support for pay and clothing of sailors and general administrative support. At present it is expensive to keep it both in terms of manpower and infrastructure. However, we often are stickler to naval tradition (a euphemism for not acepting desirable change) and must keep this stone-ship alive. Most of what Angre does these days can be easily outsourced except perhaps to parade guards of honour to visiting dignitaries. But that doesn't really warrant a full fledged establishment.

The third is the Naval Transport Pool. In today's environment when cabs and particularly radio cabs are freely available, it would be much cheaper (as compared to the overall cost of owning vehicles, looking after their fuel, maintenance and most inefficient drivers and maintenance staff) than providing personnel with "naval transport". Oh, but the Navy personnel have to move in transports with stars and flags. I am sure an arrangement can be made with the transport hiring agency and they would easily oblige.

In 2009, together with the present Chief of Naval Staff I visited the Naval War College of the US for a Sea Power Symposium in which Chiefs of Navy and Coast Guard of over a hundred countries participated. I was pleasantly surprised to see that despite the Newport, Rhode Island US Naval Base being larger than most of our bases, it didn't have the equivalent of our Command Mess or for that matter an Officers Mess. All of us were accommodated in a hotel adjacent to the base. All of us were transported to and from the venue of the symposium by buses and there was no unnecessary and misplaced pomp and glory.

Indian Navy is one of the finest institutions of our nation, if not the best. It is fairly quick to assimilate changes, especially in comparison to its sister services (Indian Army and Indian Air Force). It is already making some transition into outsourcing non-critical services. For example, it is common, these days, to see officers stay in starred hotels on temporary duties rather than in the naval messes. However, it is high time that it goes whole hog and gets rid of its flab and white-elephants like the MES and support or depot establishments.

This will enable the Navy to concentrate on its core competencies and further excel at things that it is good at. My being admitted in the Navy Hospital after 17 months of retirement redeemed my faith in the excellence of Navy doctors, near angelic MNS (Military Nursing Staff), and medical assistants. But the state of my ward got me thinking about the baggage that we unnecessarily carry and must rid ourselves of now.

Lets not pride ourselves in having Toilet Paper specially manufactured for the Indian Navy.

NURTURING INDIA'S MARITIME MILITARY RESURGENCE

The British, when they ruled India, were circumspect in giving Indians any significant role in maritime matters. It is because, Britain being a maritime power, ruled over many parts of the world through the effective use of its navy. It had realized the importance of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and considered the Indian Ocean as its own “private lake”. Not many of our countrymen care to remember that we were subjugated by the British because we neglected naval power, even though at one time in history (the Cholas, Pandyas, and Vijaynagar kingdoms), we were a significant maritime power. Indeed, many won’t remember that at one point in history the RIN (the precursor of the Indian Navy) was the ‘senior’ service (having been raised before the Army and the Air Force). But then, the British decided to write off the Navy rather than pass on the ‘power’ to the Indians whom they considered “never having a maritime bent of mind”.

This statement was not altogether true since at one time India was a maritime power though we did not have maritime military ambitions. India had a substantial share of global trade and spread religion and culture through its maritime prowess. However, the British cunning in denying us any say in maritime matters resulted in our being content with our “sea blindness”. This is despite the fact that post independence we took several steps to acquire a three-dimensional, blue water navy.

Indian history, therefore, is replete with our leaders’ lack of strategic vision. In this, perhaps the area most lacking is maritime military strategic sense. As a result, it is often left to the naval strategic planners to do what the national leadership should have been doing. When I joined the Indian Navy, I was surprised to know that the GoI had not laid down any Roles and Missions for the Indian Navy. It was left to the Indian Navy to evolve these on its own. It is only recently that the Navy published its Doctrine and Maritime Strategy; assuming that the GoI’s silence on the same is to be read as acceptance in principle (AIP). Similarly, four years back, the Navy came up with MCPP or Maritime Capability Perspective Plan to seek the government’s AIP to resize the Navy against not just current and emerging threats but in keeping with the maritime capability that the nation desires to keep pace with India’s buoyant economy, assisted by 94 percent of its trade moving over the seas. The area of responsibility of the Indian Navy that was limited to the primary area of northern Indian Ocean comprising Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal got extended from the Mediterranean to China Sea. Indian Navy, in keeping with this extended responsibility, was the first one to rescue its people during the Lebanon crisis of Jul 2006 (Op Sukoon). The Indian Navy also realised that the hub-and-spokes mode of its operations (originating from an Indian port such as Mumbai and returning to the same) would have to be modified; it thus sought and obtained OTR (Operational Turn Round) facilities at a dozen ports in Africa, East and West Asia.

Globalisation is a primarily a maritime phenomenon. It is because 90 percent of the global trade moves over the seas. Navies have various roles to play. Whilst their primary role is during War, there are a number of peace-time roles such as Deterrence (especially nuclear), Securing SLOCs (Sea Lanes of Communications), HADR (Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Relief), SAR (Search & Rescue), and furthering diplomatic objectives. After the sad years of 1980s when our sea-blindness was more pronounced than in any other recent decade, the Indian Navy planned to become a true four-dimensional navy capable of multifarious roles. MCPP enabled it to build these capabilities. The ATV project culminated in the commissioning of Arihant last year, which is undergoing trials since then. That would complete the nuclear capability triad that India had envisaged.

All these are on course. However, incidents in the past have kept us from realising the full potential of our maritime military capabilities. I shall refer to three of these to bring out the damage caused by our knee-jerk reactions.

The first one is our response to 26/11 attack on Mumbai in 2008 that not only resulted in 166 deaths but also held India’s financial capital to ransom for more than two days. Even as Pakistan government denied any involvement in the attack, Pakistan Naval Chief, in a much publicised television interview, took the Indian Navy to task for not having done enough to ward off such threats from the sea. Our government, polity and our media too conveniently chose to forget that navies are not the primary instruments to guard against such incidents.

By the promulgation of Maritime Zones of India Act 1976, we had declared varying jurisdiction over waters around the coast. The primary one is that up to 12 nautical miles around our coastline is our declared territorial sea. This means that the sovereignty of India and the reach of its internal laws extend over this. You don’t require the navies to enforce these; just as, if there is a terrorist executed cycle bomb explosion in, say, Jaipur, you don’t call the mechanised infantry to guard the city (own territory) against it. However, the GoI, in its wisdom, chose to make the Indian Navy responsible for the Coastal Security in India; making it the only leading Navy in the world to be so encumbered. Hence, post 26/11, the Indian Navy got involved in such tasks as making a census of fishermen, boats and jetties in the nine coastal states. The situation was the same post 1993 Mumbai attacks when Dawood Ibrahim & co. shifted all the arsenal for the blasts via the sea. The India Navy was mired to get involved in coastal patrolling called Operation Swan along the Saurashtra and Maharashtra coasts; which it has only recently handed over to the Marine Police, Customs and the Coast Guard whose responsibility it should have been in the first place.

Navies in advanced countries are tasked to further the objectives of the foreign policy and shape the environment in which they function (such is explicitly mentioned in the Maritime Strategy of India, a document now in public domain). It is because the navies operate almost invariably in international waters. Powerful countries like the United States have aligned various arms of the government to further the nation’s interests. Even China has realised this and taken steps to do so. Not in India though. Various arms of Indian government staunchly preserve their turf. In February 2008, therefore, even when the Indian Navy came up with the highly successful Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) so as to involve naval hierarchies of IOR littoral nations in track II diplomacy, our own MEA ignored and boycotted it and let it be known through a number of articles by retired diplomats and others that the navy should stick to military issues leaving the diplomacy entirely to foreign service. We have this Nehruvian aversion towards involving the armed forces in any decision making; but, we have no aversion about getting them mired in such issues that the other arms of the government are responsible for but fail to deliver.

And finally, we woke up to the scourge of piracy. Earlier piracy was restricted to Malacca Straits. In the year 2002, India had escorted high value USN ships through these straits. This fell short of patrolling so as to respect the sentiments of the littoral states of the Straits. However, later, when piracy became quite virulent off Somalia Indian Navy was asked to “protect Indian interests” there. As it happened in the past, there was no clear cut government directive. Therefore, it was not understood how these interests could be best protected:

• Whether by protecting the cargo heading to and from Indian ports? In this case in 1998, Indian bottoms carried about 34 percent of this cargo but their share of carrying India’s exports and imports fell to merely 13 percent in 2007 (the neglect of our shipping sector by our government has resulted in this; but that is another story). If this cargo is to be protected, 87 percent of which is carried in foreign bottoms, how far out from Indian coast is this to be protected? Naturally, this is a mammoth task for as navy charged with responsibility of coastal security.

• Whether by protecting Indian bottoms? This is a relatively smaller number of about 900 ships. Once again we need to decide up to what range from the coast these need to be protected. It is not a war time situation requiring such stringent measures as convoys and escorts. It only calls for distant protection provided by the Indian Navy in SLOCs of our interest with the provision of on-call assistance. As I understand the Indian Navy has already promulgated SOPs to ships under pirate attacks and I believe these measures have brought some respite already.

• Whether by protecting Indians onboard? This again is a mammoth task considering that Indians may not be just passengers on board but also as crews even on foreign ships. The enormity of the task can be made out from the fact that it took the Indian government more than six months to seriously consider the release of Indian sailors on board MV Asphalt Venture, which was hijacked by the Somali pirates. Even after the ransom money was paid these sailors were not released in retaliation to Indian Navy’s very successful operations against the pirates that had resulted in the capture of more than 120 of them since the operations started in 2008.

Let me, therefore, end by mentioning just a few things. One, for news at sea, especially related to maritime terrorism, Indian media is almost totally dependent upon the foreign media and joins in the chorus of denigrating the Indian Navy without even realising the constraints under which our Navy works. Secondly, the nation needs to realise that the rapid strides that it is making economically increase the vulnerability of its maritime interests and energy sources. These need to be protected by a congruence of diplomatic, political, maritime, military, commercial, economic, and strategic means and measures rather than each one protecting its turf. And lastly, the government should realise that knee jerk reactions, as opposed to a well thought of strategy, would have their adverse fallouts elsewhere.

CAMARADERIE OR CRONYISM?

A few years back, a retiring C-in-C of the Western Naval Command openly bemoaned, in his farewell speech, the scourge of "cronyism" that had started to plague the Indian Navy. One could do nothing right unless one was in the good books of some flag officer or the other; conversely, if one happened to be the favourite of a senior officer, one could never do anything wrong. It reminded me of an industrialist facilitating a young employee in a public function, "Today, we have gathered here to facilitate young Rajkumar on his achievements in the company. Two years back he joined our company as an Assistant Manager. A few months later because of his hardwork he was promoted to become Deputy Manager. His dedication soon saw him become a Manager. He continued to do well and within a year of his joining the company, he became a General Manager. Today, ladies and gentlemen, with his sterling qualities, Rajkumar has become a Vice President. Now what do you have to say, young man?" Rajkumar takes the mike and simply says, "Thank you, papa".

In the Indian Navy, the phenomenon is not just to do with promotions; it is also to do with appointments including ships to command and foreign deputations, one's pecking order in social functions, success of one's ventures such as refits or exercises, command tenure, perks and dealing with support organisations. There was a time when individuals ran the Navy; now, it is similar to any organisation with parochial pulls and pushes, say, Hockey India or BCCI. In such a setup, should you want to stand as an individual you cannot succeed. You would be declared a pariah. You cannot get anything done against the general flow; no one would hold your hand. You are most likely to be labelled as the person who is "negative" and cannot get along well with anyone.

Sadly, this has come about at a time when the Navy went through the Transformation process. Two of its goals were to empower people at various levels and promote out-of-box thinking. Both traits are those of upright individuals and not of brown nosing men with a desire to belong to one camp or the other. I am not suggesting that every individual has to be maverick; but, at this juncture the cloning of people is so complete that it is frightening. I am sure a few years later the Navy will certainly realise that it permitted cronyism to become a scourge and that did more damage to the Navy than any other evil. But, until then, parichialism in one form or the other remains alive and kicking.

Cronyism is not to be confused with the healthy trait of camaraderie, which is dying down. I have seen senior officers who were great friends and swore by each other fall apart the moment they are to be considered for promotion and only some of them would make it. I have seen people retiring after decades of service and they are forgotten the moment they leave. I retired after thirty-seven years of service including training time and there was not a single officer who called us for a farewell dinner or get-together. I must be a bad example because of my stress on individality; but, I came across, in a social gathering, a couple who were very popular when in service. However, during that gathering since they had retired they sat alone. In the Navy, your goodwill ceases as soon as your perceived 'power' and 'influence' goes. That's the way it must be elsewhere too, say, on the civvie street; but, a uniformed service should be proudly promoting camaraderie and esprit-de-corps. Alas, both are victims of what is described as "cut-throat competition" and the flaming desire to somehow get ahead of others.

As India takes rapid strides to become a major global player there is greater awareness of maritime challenges and opportunities than ever before. Indian Navy would be the enabling force to squarely meet these. It is a fine service but for sometime it has allowed personnel policies to deteriorate and start resembling personal policies. Ascendancy of cronyism and decline of camaraderie have been the fallouts. We need to bring the ship on even keel before we sail ahead with confidence.

DURING OUR DAYS

One month out of the Navy and already I am using this hackneyed expression. Read on; it may just be different from the old-hat.

After wielding the stick at me for some time, one of my COs suddenly shifted to the carrot approach. “You are lucky”, he thundered, “I have made a list of my COs and believe you me, all of them were b------s of a very high order”. But surprisingly, instead of bemoaning, there was an air of wistfulness about him, as if his COs having been anything other than b------s would have been a letdown! How many times we have heard of these comparisons between the present and the good old days – our days? Is it only a natural instinct for us to somehow relate to those halcyon days of our youth or was there really a big difference?

The other day, a really dear friend came home to share the evening meal. The conversation drifted to the propensity of the senior hierarchy of the Navy to get entangled in trivial matters. I told him that I had seen the signs of this many years back. I recalled that whilst the Book of Reference on Seamanship laid down that a Petty Officer of the Watch would supervise lowering of sea-boats; in effect I have seen the Ship’s Commander personally involving himself in the evolution; and, in case there was to be a Commander who felt that his POOW was good enough, his CO would nudge him, “Number one, just go down and see everything is alright”! I also told him that we had anchored our ships in Bombay harbour as Acting Sub Lieutenants; and whether any CO of today would ever take that risk. My friend disagreed; lately he has taken to disagreements to appear more assertive and I granted him that. Then he went about saying that he knows of at least one Commanding Officer of a large ship who has permitted a Sub Lieutenant to bring the ship alongside.

Now that is something! Despite all his disagreements this friend is a good soul and in this case he had a relevant point – we are often too judgmental of the actions and perceptions of those who joined the Navy after us.

A few years back in the US Naval Institute Proceedings (USNIPs) I read an article titled ‘Fish Rot from the Head’ (Major General J.D. Lynch, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps (Retired) (Feb 1995). The crux of the argument was that whilst lamenting the decline in the professional ethics and morality of the junior officers we should do a little soul-searching and conclude that the senior lot is also responsible for the rot; indeed more than the juniors. Thus General Lynch concludes, “The best way to motivating and leading our young – rather than to merely criticise - is to set a living example of professional standards and moral courage of the highest order.”

The commendable leadership and courage displayed by the young officers during the Kargil conflict, against almost impossible odds, prompted the Commandant of Indian Military Academy to say, “Their bravery and sacrifices can be compared with those of Shahid Bhagat Singh and Shivaji”. Admiral Nadkarni reminded us in a post – conflict article in The Indian Express, of the “indisputable courage of our jawans and the leadership displayed by the officer corps. Hence, if our young officers have it in them to prove their worth in battle, the litmus test, why do we have this bias that they lack the values we had during our days? And yet, we often admit that the intake level of the present era men and women joining armed forces is much inferior than in our days. Isn’t it an admission of the sense of commitment of the present lot who have to climb steeper to reach the same heights or standards as were seen during our days?

Every era is modern in its own time. To compare the values of one with the other without a debate about the circumstances, constraints and opportunities may not be objective. I recall the period of my first CO as an officer. The ceremonial involved in his arrival on board and departure were such that all work, not only on the upper decks of the ship but also in the dockyard in vicinity, used to come to a standstill. A battery of men used to receive and see him off, including men for carrying his briefcase and keeping the car door open. The prestige and powers enjoyed by a Lieutenant Commander at that time were more than those enjoyed by a Commodore of today. A signal made by the Commanding Officer of a ship used to be respected by the shore authorities even when made for shore power supply or shore telephones.

Nowadays, irrespective of periodic and forceful reminders that the tail should not wag the dog, the ships are very nearly on their own, with their staff going from pillar to post to be able to meet deadlines. Authorities ashore find it more convenient to do the policing job, sending a plethora of do’s and don’ts on such wide ranging topics as ’care and maintenance of diesel alternators’ to ‘correct procedures and norms for expenditure through non-public funds’ to ‘parking instructions’. It is not my case that these subjects are not important. But if a great deal of time and energy is to be spent in correcting the perceived mistakes and proclivities of lower formations and personnel, it would leave very little time and inclination to assist in finding solutions to problems that ships and personnel are facing more than during our days.

“We never made such stupid mistakes” may not be the correct argument. It would be akin to a father shouting at his son for poor marks, only to discover that the Report card being shown was his own of his school days!

‘Every officer or sailor above a Seaman’s rank is a leader’; we never get tired of saying. But we conveniently forget that every leader requires some free space around him to be able to demonstrate and exercise his leadership. How many times have we let a Petty Officer to lead on his own or a Commanding Officer or Director to exercise his powers without keeping the headquarters posted (a euphemism for seeking prior approval). Should it be the argument that in the bygone era men could be trusted more because they had proved to be worthy of trust, the older generation would still have to share the blame for not having developed adequate trust in their subordinates.

We are good at issuing instructions on every conceivable subject – a sort of broadcast method of communications (no reply needed or expected). However, confidence, trust and values cannot be promoted by issuing tons of instructions. Let us examine the oft-repeated injunction to the youngsters not to do anything that may sully the good name of the Navy. Here too, a modicum of objective reflection would bring home the point that there are more oldies that have dragged the Navy into media and courts for promotions and appointments than the youngsters. Senior officers who had navy running in their veins only the other day, stridently air the ills of the Navy as soon as they miss their promotion or are posted at a non-choice stations or appointments.

The young officer of today does not look at the Navy with the same awe and optimism as his predecessor used to do. The never ending austerity measures, the ever diminishing free space, the intense and 24/7 security measures, and the perceived loss of dignity and prestige (especially in comparison to his civilian counterparts) are constantly tugging at his consciousness whilst we want to remind him of our times. It is all very well to assume the ostrich pose or to be always suspicious of his intentions, morals, ethics and professionalism or to keep reminding him of our lofty traditions and enviable heritage. But, it would be better to do something to change the reality – his reality, that is – and not the reality during our days where we continue to live even during these days.

LEADERSHIP IN THE NAVY – PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

We Revere Our Heroes

1. ‘Band of Brothers’; is that what we expect our youth to become in tomorrow’s battlefield? Nelson used this phrase on a number of occasions to describe the remarkably close and friendly relationship that existed between him and the captains who served under his command at the Battle of the Nile on 1 August 1798. The phrase also connotes a personalised or ‘collegiate’ style of leadership that Nelson personified, whence doctrine was often substituted by dinner table conferences just prior to battle. Nelson established himself as one of Britain’s most successful fighting admirals. He established a personal rapport not only with his captains but with his men too, through particular attention to their welfare, training and trust. His ‘band of brothers’ knew instinctively what was required of them. On the day of his funeral, according to Collingwood, there were tears in the eyes of ordinary seamen. Nelson loved them and they loved him. He trained his people by example, persuasion and sometimes sterner measures.

2. Even though his personal life was never exemplary, his men followed his other sterling qualities and largely ignored his aberrations. As described by Admiral Arun Prakash in his essay ‘Nelson – The Quintessential Naval Hero’, “While history has, on the whole been kind to Nelson, many biographers have not glossed over his frailties. Pages have been written about his ambitious nature, his thirst for public acclaim, his greed for prize money and his vanity about his own accomplishments”.

3. In the modern era, I quote an incident from ‘The Golden Book of Delhi’ by Commander Hugh Gantzer, on the occasion of the decommissioning of this illustrious ship. The annual Pulling Regatta was in progress and ships vied for the coveted Cock – a symbol of not only rowing prowess but also of the spirit and indeed the general efficiency of the ships. In a particular race Delhi’s boat won by many boat lengths. The euphoria about the victory was short lived when it was found that the crew had taken part in the wrong category race. It came out that unless the same crew took part in the next race, of the correct category, Delhi may not win the Cock. Here was a crew totally fatigued, profusely sweating and frustrated that their best was wasted in the wrong race. No one could have expected of them to take part in the next race let alone win. It was a lost race even before it started. But then the Commanding Officer of Delhi, a legendary figure by the name of Captain RL Pereira, stepped into the boat and talked to his men. Suddenly despair changed into hope and resolve, exhausted faces gave way to grit, and tired muscles had new life in them. The men not only took part in the race but won.

4. Both these are fine examples of Personalised or Direct style of leadership. As one of the Commanding Officers of yore declared, more with a sense of pride and responsibility than with arrogance, “Hum God to nahin but God se kam bhi nahin” (I am not God, but, am not less than Him). When we joined the Navy, John Winton’s ‘Rules on Seeing the Captain’ were prevalent and never questioned: ‘Rule 1: The Captain is always right; Rule 2: If the Captain is wrong, Rule 1 applies’.

5. Are these examples then of timeless traits of leadership that should be unquestioningly inculcated during the initial training and formative years by emulation? How many Nelsons and Perieras have we cloned so far by this process? What about those who do not become these legendary figures, and that includes the vast majority, but are still required to lead? More significantly, are these styles of leadership relevant now and for tomorrow’s Navy? If yes, what are these time tested qualities and how do we ensure their inculcation? If no, or partially no, how else to groom the youth?


We Believe in Timeless Traits of Leadership

6. Let us start with timeless traits of leadership. Even though Kautilya’s Arthshastra, a 4th century BC treatise, is largely perceived as a set of principles for Economic Administration for a king to preserve the integrity of the state and sustain it for the future, there are fine lessons in leadership too. Kautilya stressed on the importance of such core values as knowledge, skills and attitude. Some of these would be relevant even today: Character (Shilavan), Thinking Ability (Pragna), Communication Skills (Vangmi), Vision (Prabhu Shakti), Mission (Mantra Shakti), Concentration (Drudhachitta) and Watchful Alertness (Daksha).

7. These were followed by Dharma and Karma and Maryada or Izzat during the days of Mahabharata as the essential qualities of a Kshatriya. These have been translated in our times as: The well being of your nation and service comes first; the well being of your men comes next; and your own well being and comfort always comes the last. And, Service with Honour.

8. The essential traits of a good leader have evolved over a period of time. There may be differences of opinion about some of them or their relative importance but by and large the following are accepted as desirable traits:

• Bearing
• Courage
• Decisiveness
• Dependability
• Endurance
• Enthusiasm
• Initiative
• Integrity
• Judgment
• Justice
• Knowledge
• Loyalty
• Tact
• Unselfishness

9. Some have considered the following additions, in modern times, but, in many ways these are present in the original list:

• Assertiveness
• Candour
• Commitment
• Competence
• Confidence
• Coolness
• Creativity
• Empathy/Compassion
• Flexibility
• Humility
• Improvement
• Maturity
• Self-discipline
• Sense of humour
• Will

10. I am not going to take all but only a few to illustrate a point:

(a) Bearing. This demands the highest standards in carriage, appearance, and personal conduct at all times. By and large we don’t have any problem with carriage and appearance. But we do have some reservation about the changing ethos of personal conduct. Emulating icons such as Nelson, sometimes means that all is forgiven as long as one is a great leader, eg, Bill Clinton in modern times.

(b) Courage. This is the mental quality that recognizes fear of danger or criticism, but enables a man to proceed in the face of it with calmness and firmness. Let us see what Clausewitz has to say: “If the mind is to emerge unscathed from this relentless struggle with the unforeseen, two qualities are indispensable. Firstly, an intellect, which even in the darkest hour, retains some glimmerings of a light which leads to the truth; and secondly, courage to follow this faint light wherever it leads.” How does one acquire this trait, if one does not have this all along? Like the Army ad says, “Have you got it in you?”

(c) Decisiveness and Initiative. The ability to make decisions promptly and to announce them in a clear, forceful manner should be backed with the ability to take action in the absence of orders. A sub trait of these traits is the Propensity to Take Risks. The good old tenet ‘nothing ventured, nothing won’ is as true today as it was yesterday. Battles and wars are not won by all those who are very adept at naval ops but since all situations cannot be foreseen, we require not only knowledge or net-centric warriors but also prudent risk takers. Is it the fear of failure that lets a leader take the relatively safe middle path?

(d) Combative Spirit. I shall place Combative Spirit very high in the traits that I would want to inculcate in the youth joining armed forces. It is the main trait that differentiates a military leader from a corporate manager. It is a combination of many of the traits given above. In the present atmosphere of vying to improve Inter Personal Relations, especially with seniors, Combative Spirit has become almost non-existent. Physical courage, as given above, is easy to inculcate but there are not adequate examples, in our times, of combative spirit – the ability to meet challenges squarely, with calmness, without fear of consequences.


But, We Do Have a Changed Scenario

11. We have this undeniable fascination with tradition and heritage. After the Kargil War, this strong fascination translated into a series of articles by senior retired officers about crisis of leadership or otherwise. An article by Admiral Nadkarni, however, brought out that the young officers had vindicated our system of imparting values and in battle had displayed traits better than (expected) by the senior hierarchy.

12. Nevertheless, many far reaching changes have taken place in the environment. The Indian Navy’s ‘Strategic Guidance for Transformation’ acknowledges that the Indian Navy faces a fast-changing environment due to variety of factors, which include geo-politics/geo-economics, emerging technologies, rapidly evolving capabilities in our maritime neighbourhood, and, the changing role of the Armed Forces.

13. It would be naïve to assume that the grooming of our youth would be the same as hitherto. As brought out in the ‘Transformation’ document, “The demands of the 21st Century require that we become and remain First Class in the way we lead and manage the affairs within the Navy.” This requires, as brought out in the document, “Clear-headed leadership at all levels, adequate empowerment at senior and lower levels, flattening of the Navy’s internal bureaucracy, and adoption of technology-related ‘best practices’ from industry and/or the navies of other countries.”

14. As far as Personnel policies are concerned, amongst others, we need to revisit HRM in totality, encourage out-of-the-box thinking and reward intellectual inclinations, and a focussed approach towards professionalism, whilst simultaneously enhancing the attractiveness of a career in the Navy, by reviewing compensation and welfare packages and even preparing personnel for a ‘second-career’ beyond the Navy.

15. To give credit where it is due, the Navy has already started experiencing and working on many of these changes. Let us look at some of these. RMA is the readily discernible change but there are others too, which impinge on leadership in tomorrow’s battlefield. Here is a representative sample, and not exhaustive:

(a) There is a blurred distinction between peace and war. From Enemy Beyond, we have now Enemy Within; from well defined states of readiness leading to declaration of hostilities, we now have perpetual tension and alertness. In such a state, it is not uncommon for personnel to get frustrated and either commit suicide or shoot/berate their superiors or both.

(b) There is an explosion of information. As a result, the earlier adage of ‘you can fool some of the people some of the times’ has lost much of its relevance. Nowadays, even young officers have to reckon with an ever inquisitive media, which leave no stones unturned to break news even when none exists. Whilst some have misused the media to carry out campaigns of calumny with vested interests, there are other occasions when the aberrations of the armed forces personnel have been aired openly even when we would have wanted to keep them in wraps.

(c) Let us look at the prevalence of fast changing knowledge and skills. During earlier days, one could get away with some lack of knowledge and skills, as long as one possessed essential attributes of a leader. This is no longer the case. In the last US Presidential elections, the Republican candidate John McCain only had to air his not being Internet savvy and the media went to town bemoaning his potential incompetence to deal with increasingly significant matters of cyber security and privacy.

(d) Perhaps the biggest change in environment that has taken place as a result of the above two is that there is often no time to subject matters to careful deliberation (pause) and then decide. Leaders of tomorrow will have to take decisions on their feet, in fast changing situations, with an ability to quickly sift real intelligence from a heap of information.

(e) Today, we have many other roles of Armed Forces than merely combat. Although readiness for combat would always remain the absolute sine qua non of naval operations, we have to increasingly reckon with naval diplomacy, HADR, multinational peacekeeping ops and a plethora of other roles, wherein the military leader has to deal with many agencies, both governmental and non governmental.

(f) Joint operations are here to stay. However, the senior leadership has displayed a tendency to be assiduously guarding home turf. Military leaders of tomorrow will have to display larger accommodation and should be trained accordingly.

(g) In future battlefield we also have to deal with the nuclear factor. This requires assimilation of escalation matrix at various levels. A decisive blow to the enemy is to be laced with deliberate restraint, much more than it is to be in LIMO.

(h) The entry of women in the armed forces has brought about many changes in our leadership styles. It is not just that the media went to town with the (misunderstood?) remarks of an Army Vice Chief about women not being suited for combat duty, but, there are other questions such as whether the armed forces environment is safe for women? Does a lenient regimen pamper the ladies? Does this trigger rancour among male peers?

(j) Another reckonable factor is that the attractiveness of armed forces has taken a severe beating. It ranges from the youth of the country not valuing the President’s commission to officers declining the higher command courses. Never before in the past did we have armed forces personnel, even though retired, participating in a procession demanding better pay, perks and status, and also returning their medals.

(k) Last but not the least, there is a distinct decline in morals and ethics, and corruption having reached endemic proportions. Of course, we can blame it on the general lowering of standards in public life but gone are the days when the armed forces were immune to it. We often talked about Armed Forces being not just a noble profession but a way of life. We extolled the virtues of ‘An Officer and a Gentleman’, but, now there are an equal number of Booze Colonels and Medal Hopefuls through fake encounters.


And We Need to Do Something about It

16. Once again the list is only illustrative. The idea is to progress the argument that whilst there are timeless leadership traits, time has come to inculcate better suited leadership styles. The Indian Navy’s ‘Transformation’ document has this quote from Bishop G Bromley in the beginning, “Change is inevitable. The great question of our time is whether the change will be by consent or coercion.” Since a considerable percentage of leadership traits are emulated from the prevalent environment, let us see what the current impediments to inculcating leadership traits are and go about systemically correcting them.

17. Confusing Leadership Styles with Traits. We love to glorify personalised or direct leadership. We have this impression that a good leader must be seen to be taking charge of all situations. In recent past there was this senior officer who personally laid down norms for all occasions, which included even dress code and conduct in clubs and messes. The best books on everyday leadership characteristics, that I have read, are Maj Gen Aubrey Redwood’s ‘Follow Me’ series. He described the incident of his going by car and noticing the shabby haircut of a soldier. He was tempted to stop and correct the soldier and then it occurred to him that by doing so he would not only undermine the complete system of grooming but may also indicate wrong priorities. After all, what a senior officer says carries more weight than a junior.

18. Aversion to Other Types of Leadership. As opposed to Direct Leadership (Nelsonian), armed forces officers around the world have traditionally been averse to thinking about changing styles of leadership. Naval professionals had kept doctrine at arm’s length for fear that a binding set of principles might restrict their initiative and independence and hence their leadership style. Mahan said this of British naval officers: “To meet difficulties as they arise, instead of by foresight, to learn by hard experience rather than by reflection of premeditation are national traits.” We have to keep in mind that Direct leadership empowers just one person who gets overstressed to take all decisions, whereas organisational or institutional leadership empowers all personnel at various hierarchical levels. Organisational leadership is unobtrusive and less visible but, even more effective. In the Fleet, for example, with spread out operations in the future battlefield, the days of direct leadership of yore, through flag hoist or within LOS communication are over. The stress is already shifting from ‘where are you going?’ and ‘what are you doing?’ or ‘get back into line’, to more meaningful operations. Many a time when we expect our top hierarchy to display Strategic leadership, we see them engaged in pedestrian issues.

19. Preparing to Fight the Last War. Analysts often accuse Generals of ‘preparing to fight the last war’. The metaphor that comes to mind is that of a frog who tried to behave like a man. He stood on his hind legs and lifted his body up. In this manner his eyes were facing backwards. The terrain that he thus viewed looked familiar. Hence, he confidently marched into unknown territory with its newer dangers with the smugness that he had seen it all earlier.

20. Different Perceptions. The best way to groom the youth is to first know them, rather than at all times being judgmental of their motives. As brought out by Harper Lee in her inimitable book ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’, “The best way to know people is to step into their shoes and walk around in them. Most people are really nice when you finally see them”. We have often dismissed the youngsters with our perception that they don’t have the same values as we used to have during our days. For this, let us examine the Monkeys on a Tree Syndrome, with monkeys perched at various levels of the tree. When you observe from top, you see happy smiling faces; but, when you look up from lower levels, you see assholes. Hence, if we have to groom the youth, we have to stop seeing things from our point of view at all times and have to actually step down to their levels, understand and share their fears, anxieties, aspirations, dreams, biases and perceptions.

21. Zero Error Syndrome. This is translated into being worried not about tackling the situation but the aftermath of the situation. They say that ‘if you are not big enough to lose you are not big enough to win’. To change this perception requires a complete systemic change. Whilst over-exposure in media is always demanding of us to find and punish the guilty, we must be able to differentiate between an honest mistake and intentional or deliberate offences. In his farewell speech RAdm Kirpal Singh brought out that when he faced a BOI he was certain that he would make it to Flag rank because most Flag officers of his era had faced a CM or BOI. Today, with greater promotional prospects, we tend to write off an officer for even imagined offences.

22. Nothing Succeeds Like Success. It is the aspiration of every person who joins armed forces to become as senior as possible. He or she looks around and finds that the adage ‘everything is fair in love and war’ has been made into a way of life. In 2008 I attended a seminar on Terrorism. On the question as to why was it that Army’s Op Sadbhavna had failed to steer the youth of Kashmir away from terrorism, one of the panellists responded that most COs and their staff had translated Op Sadbhavna into a photo op and opportunity to project good image of themselves. Once in a while a case of fake encounters to win medal comes to light. However, in the formative years, the youth looks around and sees his seniors leaving no stone unturned to advance their careers. Thus, at a very early stage he learns that the report of an operation is even more important than operation itself and that he needs to be highly skilled in PPT even before assimilating bridgemanship. He also assimilates the stress on trivial that keeps his ship ticking.

23. Aversion to Out-of-Box Thinking. Out-of-Box thinking has become a popular catchword; but, when exactly do we want our youth to start thinking out-of-box. We are perfectly happy at uniformed personnel imbibing uniform or standard practices and look down on anyone whose cloning is not complete. Once again we must demonstrate that out-of-box thinking would not interfere with our personalised style of leadership. Empowerment at all levels would be the answer.

24. “Positive” Attitude. They say ‘the optimist invented the plane and the pessimist invented the parachute’. In our penchant to improve Inter Personal Relations, especially with those who matter, to be seen as a positive guy is these days more important than doing anything worthwhile. In such an atmosphere the Staff Officer is generally more successful than the Combat Officer, for the former has learnt how to be in good books of his seniors all the while. A Positive Attitude is actually a desirable trait. I only refer to what it has been translated into.


Conclusion

25. Preparing youth for tomorrow’s Navy cannot be left only to the Academy or the training institutions. It should be the systemic approach of the complete Navy. After all, the officer who joins the Navy today would be responsible for our operations tomorrow both in peace and at war. We have a tendency to find technological solutions to all our problems. However, it is the quality of leadership of this young officer, which would make a difference between success and failure.

26. Nelsononian Direct style of leadership was most suited for the era when getting out of line at the wrong moment would spell disaster. These days, we require personnel to think out-of-box, think joint, think fast, think other than war, and be Knowledge Warriors. We should, therefore, lay more stress on Organisational or Institutional Leadership, which is less obtrusive and more effective.

28. Every era is modern in its own times. Timeless Traits of Leadership have withstood the test of time but we need to be more adaptive of changes in our environment. Being constantly judgmental of the values of our youth is not the answer. Making an environment conducive to assimilation of these traits is the only pragmatic solution.

IPR

No, not Intellectual Property Rights, though enough debate has been generated in the public forum on that too. This article is about Inter Personal Relations. During my tenure of approximately thirty-seven years in the Indian Navy (including training time) I have been on the receiving end of a charge of having less than satisfactory IPRs with some of the others, which included a Commander-in-Chief. I have done a little soul searching and come to the conclusion that perhaps we need to sort out this scourge that has now reached epidemic proportions in the Indian Navy.

Inter Personal Relations have always been important. Just as it takes two to make a row, it takes good IPR to make a substantial difference to what can be achieved when a person or persons interact with a person or persons. A few years back the Indian Navy officially recognised good Inter Personal Relations as one of the desirable traits in its officers. These were amongst the attributes for which officers would be judged and reported upon in their Confidential Reports. A very desirable and lofty idea? Yes and no. Yes, because there is no denying the importance of politeness, tact and empathy whilst dealing with others. If one can, one should avoid treading on other people’s toes. If one can, one should seek to steer clear of controversy and confrontation. No, because not unlike the concept of Religion or even Goodness, it is subject to individual interpretation. And that is where the danger lies. Sometimes, the real interests of the unit and the navy are sacrificed at the altar of IPR. Sometimes, individual differences are reflected in the assessment about overall IPR. Sometimes, individuals who could not get along well with anyone at all comment upon the IPR of others as if they are an accepted authority.

A few years back when I underwent the Staff Course at Wellington, Tamilnadu, it amused me to note that we were not to ‘disagree’ with anyone. At best, we were to ‘agree to disagree’ or ‘beg to differ’. A few years back, General Musharraff, during the Agra Summit, became a hero of sorts with the Indian media, with his “straight talk”; the media having acknowledged this “disarming” quality in an army officer. They must have presumed that ‘straight talk’ or ‘shooting from the hip’ is what the armed forces officers are good at. If only they had attended the DSSC, they would have been shocked to realise that the injunctions about disagreements were being given for IPR between peers! One shudders to think what form of IPR would have to be evolved whilst dealing with superiors: “I have a different idea, Sir, but I beg to agree with you, yours is the most wonderful one”.

I think it was Winston Churchill who had once stated, “I may not agree with you but I will defend to hilt your right to disagree”. It would surely be an eye opener for those in authority who feel that good inter personal relations are completely dependent upon those they are expected to command.

A few years back, in an article in the USNIP, a comparison between the essential attributes of combat officers and staff officers was brought out. It was recognised that single-mindedness-of-purpose, brashness, and the ability to call a spade a spade, would be desirable in combat officers. However, since such qualities would tend to show these officers in poor light, during peace time, especially to their superiors, they would have dimmer promotion prospects in comparison to the staff officers, who are generally pleasant, and hence at good wicket, with their superiors. The article went on to add that both the qualities, that is of combat and the staff officers, were welcome in their particular areas, as long as, during war, it is the combat officer who is at sea and not the (good-in-IPR) staff officer.

Sweeping the dust under the carpet has been perfected as a national pastime. A country of one billion finds it well nigh impossible to produce just one medal winner in Olympics. And yet, any number of sports persons line up to lay their claim to the Arjuna Awards. An article in the newspapers brought out that many a time these awards are based more upon good inter-personal relations than performance. Recently, we had the sad spectacle of Ministers of Parliament falling head over heels to nominate for Padma Shri a certain NRI with dubious past record but good IPRs.

There would have been no harm if IPR were treated as one of the many attributes for which officers are judged. Unfortunately, though not stated or intended, it becomes the most important attribute. Assessment of even performance and promotion potential is made dependent upon the IPR. There is, for example, no attribute called ‘Combative Spirit’, because almost all Professional or Personal Qualities assessment is based on virtues desirable in a good staff officer. It may be argued that Combative Spirit would come naturally to all those who are professionally competent, mentally and physically agile, and meticulous in staff work. But, combative spirit is not exactly the same as competence and agility. For one thing, if you haven’t got it in you, it can’t be faked. Most Indians, whenever they lose, are described as good losers. An apt criticism doing the rounds, after the recent World Cup Hockey, is that we may not be just good losers; we may be perfect losers.

One of the greatest pitfalls of the assessment of IPR in the navy is that since it is seen as one of the stepping stones for success, all attempts are made to get it right in relation to seniors, especially those in judgmental positions. This is often at the expense of one’s juniors who have to bear the brunt of their senior’s penchant for excellent IPR with their superiors. In such a system dissent is often equated with insubordination. In such a system since everyone is busy being positive and improving inter personal relations, often the first signs of cracks in the system are aired outside the system, say media.

Was it always like this? No, I would like to believe. Stories about the navy’s most revered officer, Admiral Pereira, are legendary. He almost became a cult figure. During the Staff Course we would go out of our way to talk to him. Once when I met him there after getting my transfer orders to Vizag, he started telling me about his own postings to Vizag. “I enjoyed commanding the Fleet”, he told me during the course of our conversation, “but there was this C-in-C always trying to interfere. One day (his eyes had the characteristic glint when he said it) I barged into his office and told him a few things and thereafter we never had any problems again”.

I would like to believe that many of my own superiors had the courage and good sense to take disagreements in their stride. Arguments, many a time heated ones, would ensue and yet were never carried forward to reflect general adverse state of IPR. During one of the battle of wits with one of my Commanding Officers, we were all getting it good and proper from him, a little unjustly I thought. I kept drawing doodles on a paper. As soon as he noticed me doing it, he was enraged and snatched the paper from my hand. I had drawn a cricket field with him batting and all the other officers in various fielding positions. He had one look at it and I thought he was going to fulminate. Instead, he asked me to draw my own position before he would decide what to do with it and me. With trembling hands, I took the paper from him and correctly placed myself at Silly Point! He just pocketed the paper and we went about our work. The whole day I kept thinking of how I had thoughtlessly got him on the wrong side. We were very busy in various fleet exercises and hence it was late in the evening when his response came: ‘From Captain to Silly Point: Come and have a glass of beer with me’.

Many others too did not make it mandatory for us to agree with them on all points. One could give one’s point of view without fear or favour, especially at seminars and debriefs. Professional views were countered with professional views and not with pulling rank and seniority. Inter personal relations were as important as today but no one stopped to give too much of thought to them. No one begged to differ but did so boldly. And if once in a while things got out of hand, well, the beer was always kept chilled!

And what do we have now? The other day I sent this coarse, though highly effective, joke to those who matter or mattered:

Many years back a Sub Lieutenant bought a bicycle from the Canteen Stores Department. Noticing that it did not have the rear carrier, he sent his orderly to have one fixed. When the bicycle came back he noticed that whilst the CSD man had fixed the carrier he had removed the stand. Enraged, the young subbie went to CSD and asked the man as to why he had done this. The man in charge there, a grey haired veteran of several decades, told him, “Sir, you appear to be new in the navy. Navy mein ek baat seekh lo: agar career chahiye to kabhi stand na lena (If you want career (to flourish, that is) never take a stand (on anything)).

Sadly, the majority of the lot today has taken this rather seriously. This majority has seen the rise of those who have never ruffled any feathers and reached heights that they aspire to reach. These have, hence, become role models now and have large fan following, golfing partners, and hectic social lives. The race to win the popularity contest is on. Whosoever wins, the navy is the loser!

Our fine navy had many an article and many a poem about the loneliness of command; it is because as a leader of men you were expected to stay apart. Of course, you would do all within your means to ensure the welfare of all those junior to you but that did not interfere with your standing apart. Today, if you stand apart, you are lonelier than ever before.

Here is what I wrote to this C-in-C with whom I was accused of having unsatisfactory IPR: A veteran teacher was preparing a rookie for his first lecture. By way of advice he told him, “As you lecture in the class you will be annoyed with this one student who will nag you with persistent questions. Don’t be put off by him. He may be the only one paying attention.” I was suitably rewarded for having penned this to him and I had my chilled beer alone. But, I was happy that I was not encumbered by the thought of my sea time or promotion.

I remember when Admiral Pereira was the Naval Chief he had written to all Commanding Officers to guard against the trend of yes-man-ship and zero error syndrome. A visionary, that he was, he had seen the early signs of the virus affecting the Navy.

The old-timer never mixed business with pleasure. Many amongst the present lot do not know where one ends and the other begins. We need to set the balance right again.