Retired generals on news debates are an embarrassment to Indian Army

When military becomes perceived as ideologically partisan, the sacred core of civil-military relations in a democracy crumbles.

In the last few weeks, it has been a regular feature to witness retired generals shouting and screaming in Indian TV debates. Sometimes, even among their fraternity. This Fox News-ified entertainment with retired generals used to be sporadic in India’s TV studios, but after the post-Uri “surgical strike”, it has become a fixed feature.

There is a surge in the number of these “Arnab’s Generals” and this syndrome is spreading fast and engulfing other sections of the media as well.

The raging debate over the surgical strike in India has put most of these retired military officers in support of the government’s version of the story. While doing so, they do not even hesitate to undermine the importance of Army’s similar operations in the past, such as Operation Ginger.

Whatever the facts are behind the Indian Army’s post-Uri surgical strikes, the open posturing of some of the retired generals has thrown their military ranks and influence into India’s partisan politics.

No one questions the right to freedom of speech of the retired generals, but the propriety demands that they should not use their military credentials to support one party or other in a highly volatile partisan political debate. Their fascination for crude publicity is crumbling the sacred wall, which has protected the Indian military for decades for being known as a professional force, not a political one.

Indians in general irrespective of their political ideology or religious beliefs love and respect country’s armed forces. Since independence, the Indian Army has been enjoying huge public trust. Army has earned it hard over the years. Unlike in the neighborhood, it has consistently tried its best to stay politically neutral.

It is true that the political neutrality test for the Indian Army has been passing through a critical phase under the present regime. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to appoint a highly controversial retired Army chief in his council of ministers was a turning point for India’s civil-military relations.

This retired general with his regular foot-in-mouth syndrome keeps complicating this sacred relationship further. Few weeks back, the present Army chief coming out openly in accusing this retired general cum minister of trying to stall his promotion “with mala fide intent” has brought further damage.

The regular flip-flop of the Modi government over the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy has also widened the gulf between the Army and civilian authority. Furthermore, immediately after deciding to go out in open on surgical strikes for political advantage, the reported cut down of Army’s disability pension by the government is not a positive step in arresting the erosion of this relationship.

In this context, it is becoming a serious challenge for the Army to maintain its professional aura when its retired generals consistently exposing their partisan mindset in front of millions of TV viewers or print media every day and night.

The retired generals might be swayed by the “patriotic” appeal, but they unfortunately overlook the danger of political baggage attached to it. This growing trend of retired generals being used as pawns in “patriotic” politics might result in eroding Indian Army’s standing in the eyes of the common populace of the country.

At this point, it is important to recall the remarks of America’s retired air force general Charles Boyd about the propriety of retired military officers: “It is very difficult for a general to take off his uniform – even if he wants to.”

He explains: “While the public knows there is a legal distinction between the active duty and retired officer’s right to speak publicly, when the retired officer does so in what becomes useful to one side in partisan debate, the substance of his argument takes on political taint – and to a degree, the military’s purity as a whole is diminished.”

Even after their retirement, the generals do not become ordinary private citizens. Rather, in the world of public perceptions they still act and speak, and are seen and heard, as respected members of the military profession.

Thus, their participation in partisan political discourse deeply affects the profession by putting at risk the apolitical reputation of the Indian military and by eroding public trust in the military leadership.

By overlooking the ground rule of maintaining this basic propriety, India’s retired generals are, deliberately or not, developing a doubt over the long perceived notion of military as a political neutral institution of the country.

Compounding this perception problem, the retired generals while participating in public debates regularly use their professional titles of rank or operational experiences to stress their partisan points.

TV anchors or print media generally refer to them as “generals”, not often mentioning that they have actually retired. For an average citizen, it is hard to differentiate between a retired officer and a serving one. Moreover, retired generals enjoy a collective reputation earned by having been part of country’s highly respected and trusted profession. Thus, when they speak it is difficult for the public to decipher it as an individual opinion.

Indians adore the image of their military officers as loyal and brave professionals, who sacrifice everything to protect the country from enemy forces. The shouting TV drama every night by the publicity hungry retired generals with TRP hungry anchors is projecting a new but extremely screwed image of the army as an institution to the public.

When military becomes perceived as politically partisan, the sacred core of civil-military relations in a democracy crumbles.

In order to not further strain the long-standing healthy civil-military relationship in the country, it is an absolute necessity for the retired senior officers of the Indian armed forces to desist the lure of being in front of TV cameras for a shouting match or to go around giving inflammatory speeches and exaggerated interviews.

Their action is only contributing to increase TRP of media houses, while it is pulling down the “TRP” of Army’s institutional credibility in front Indian people.