Troop movements of the curious kind

Understanding the unusual movement of two army units towards New Delhi

The byline of the report shows its seriousness. It could not have been filed without the approval of the highest levels of the Indian government. It is deeply worrisome. In January 2012, almost 60 years after the Indian republic was established, some people in the government were concerned about a military c-, well, curiosity.

The report presents a set of facts saying “(it) is too early to answer all the ‘hows, whys and the what-nexts’ of this.” It is not even clear if all the relevant facts are out in the open. Even so, at this time, what should we make of these disturbing revelations?

The two most important questions at this time are the following. First, why were the two military formations moved in an ostensibly unusual manner? Second, why did the government permit this report to be published at all, and why now?

The first question has three broad explanations. The most innocent is that this was a tragedy of errors brought about due to the atmosphere of mistrust between the army chief and civilian government officials. Triggered by the timing—General V K Singh’s petition to the Supreme Court—the civilian establishment panicked and overreacted to the unusual but unthreatening events. A crucial point is the allegation that the army headquarters did not notify the defence ministry of the movements of the two units towards New Delhi, which is the required protocol. Army commanders do not need authorisation to move troops on exercises, but need to notify the ministry when the geography of the National Capital Region is involved.

A less innocent explanation is that the movement of units was deliberate designed to unsettle the civilian establishment and nothing more. The third, and the least palatable explanation is that some people in the army thought they could pull off a political stunt, much like the dharnas, gheraos and public protests that you see in the capital on a daily basis. (No, there is no fourth explanation, this is India.)

While we do not know if any of these reflect what actually happened, the odds are heavily stacked in favour of the innocent explanation. That’s already cause for deep concern. It remains to be seen if the defence ministry will investigate the unusual troop movements further. Ideally, it ought to. At this time, however, it is unclear if this can take place without exacerbating the atmosphere of mistrust that has been created.

The second question is this: why is it that the government allowed this report to be published? On a matter as sensitive as this, it is highly likely that the Indian Express would have accepted a request not to publish such a report if the government would have made it. So why wasn’t such a request made? The honourable reason is that it is just as well that the public is kept informed of the slightest risks to our democratic setup. The political reason might be to get back at General V K Singh.

Again, we do not know the answer to this question either. What we do know is that the situation has been allowed to reach to such a point that the banana flavour is palpable. Things have gone far enough. We need a new Defence Minister. Considering what might come next under this government, it is just as well that he stays on.


Update: Framing the debate

Since this post was published earlier this morning public discourse has gravitated around two issues: on the motives and propriety of the Indian Express in publishing this story and on whether or not a military coup was attempted.

Let’s get the first out of the way—unpalatable, unsavoury and unbelievable as it may well be, the newspaper acted in the public interest by publishing it. You might quibble about the size of the headline or the sensationalisation, but unless you think bad news and potential risks ought to be hidden from public view, it is hard to justify an argument against its publishing. (Full disclosure: I occasionally write op-eds for the paper, including one last week on restructuring the armed forces)

Next, while the article alleges that the army undertook unusual movements without notifying—and notification is different from authorization, a point that many commentators have missed—the defence ministry as it was required to, it does not suggest a military coup. This is a very important distinction. Presuming that a coup could be the only motive behind the alleged mobilisation precludes us from considering other possibilities.

The report is not only about what the army did or didn’t do. It is also about what the civilian establishment did. It should be quite easy to establish whether a terror alert was sounded in New Delhi on January 16-17th, and whether the defence secretary flew back from Malaysia to meet the DGMO and send the troops back. The Indian Express cannot be fabricating these easily verifiable facts. If indeed these events occurred, then the objective reality is that of severe mistrust between the uniformed and civilian leadership in the defence ministry that had serious consequences on the ground.

What is of public interest, then, is what caused civil-military trust to break down? What mistakes did the civilian establishment make in the days and hours leading up to January 16/17? What mistakes did the army make? These questions need to be examined dispassionately in order for us to be able to attempt to restore that trust.

The defence minister dismissed the report as baseless. The prime minister uttered two brief non-committal sentences, warning us of “alarmist reports which should not be taken on its face value” and reminding us of the obligation to “do nothing to lower its dignity and respect in the public”. This is no trifling matter. It behoves on the UPA government and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to spell out—both in parliament and in public—what it intends to do to restore trust between the armed forces, the civilian establishment and the people of India.

, , , , , , ,

12 Responses to Troop movements of the curious kind

  1. Sparsh 4th April 2012 at 08:09 #

    Nitin,

    Lt Gen A K Singh is the GOC-in-C of Southern Command and not the GOC of I Corps (which falls under Southwestern Command). For all its preening talk of facts, the Indian Express can not seem to get such simple facts straight.

  2. Pankaj 4th April 2012 at 10:58 #

    Somebody within this government…probably a handler to this dubious IE editor ordered this. The IE report is a load of bull.

  3. Hitendra 4th April 2012 at 11:29 #

    For last 5-6 years, I never doubted that Shekhar Gupta was being used bu the Congress. But this time, it this he has not only sold his services, he has sold his soul.

    Fans of Indian Express, must be crying today, crying in solidarity with them would be the holy soul of Late Shri Ram Nath Goenka.

    • Delta Victor 4th April 2012 at 18:47 #

      Well said.

    • Ravindra Joshi 6th April 2012 at 12:49 #

      Hitendra, I couldn’t agree with you more!

      Shri Ram Nath Goenkaji must be hiding his face in shame, wherever he is.

      I tend to think Shekhar Gupta’s so-called scoop was ‘paid news’ of sorts. Needless to say, payment doesn’t, necessarily, have to be in money, if you get what I mean.

      Noticed the way he ‘explained too much’ his reasons for the speculative scoop? (And the explanations continue to come thick and fast to this dayt!) Speaks of a guilty conscience. That makes it even worse. Here is a man who knows he is doing wrong and yet does it. Here is a man who can tell right from wrong and chooses wrong.

  4. shamanth 4th April 2012 at 17:46 #

    The Army Chief would have done a Greater deal of service to the Country had he organised a Coup to get rid of this Pathetic,Useless and Corrupt Govt.I would have Welcomed it.Gen VK SIngh is a Gem of a Person,Govt framed him because he was eradicating Corruption? in the Defense Sector.

  5. sager 4th April 2012 at 18:14 #

    Doesn’t this rediff report from March 13 explains it.

  6. Pierre 4th April 2012 at 18:31 #

    Nitin, I would love to agree with you and assume this piece was published in the national interest. I don’t.

    A story as important as this – splashed across a whole front page – does not *attribute* a single core fact to even anonymous sources.

    This lack of attribution raises many questions:
    QUESTION 1:
    The authors make two contradictory assertions.
    1. “The Army’s explanation that it was all a simple fog-time exercise was then viewed with scepticism at the highest level”.

    2. “The Indian Express has had detailed conversations with key people and sources at the very top of the political, civil and military leadership. There is unanimity over General V K Singh’s impeccable reputation as a sound, professional soldier, earned over nearly 42 years of distinguished service to the Army. Nobody is using the “C” word to imply anything other than “curious”.”

    Is the “highest level” of government divorced from the “very top”? If the “very top” of the political and civil leadership was convinced of Gen. Singh’s professionalism, who is this “highest level” that is skeptical of the army’s explanations?

    QUESTION 2:
    Why should we believe this piece when it claims there was an alert raised within the establishment, when the same movements were reported by other outlets three weeks ago as routine. Again, no authority and no attribution to convince me of IE’s claim.

    QUESTION 3:
    On whose authority should we believe that Shashikant Sharma was recalled from his visit to Malaysia over these movements? All other reports of his recall attribute it to Gen VK Singh’s unexpected petition in the Supreme Court?

    QUESTION 4:
    Another self-contradiction: Either the government was ‘bemused’ by the ‘curiosity” of these movements or it was convinced a mutiny was afoot and put in place “contingencies”. Which is it?

    The complete lack of attribution, contradictions introduced by the authors themselves and contradictory reports in other media outlets raise enough questions about the veracity of this story and the intention with which it was written. I can’t believe therefore, that the intention was the national interest.

    • Ravindra Joshi 6th April 2012 at 13:19 #

      Pierre, your analysis is absolutely perfect. My compliments.

      In my view, national interest was farthest from the minds of those who published the story.

      But then, mistaking personal interest for national interest is not such an uncommon thing among journalists, particularly the senior ones, is it?

  7. Sparsh 5th April 2012 at 03:36 #

    Nitin,

    Another thing: There are two infantry brigades (belonging to 22 Division) that are stationed in Delhi cantonment. These alone are sufficient to launch any hypothetical coup. You would not need to bring in formations from outside of Delhi.

    The whole IE story reeks of a character assasination campaign against the COAS.

    • Ravindra Joshi 6th April 2012 at 13:13 #

      Sparsh, I would be very happy if it were just an attempt at character assassination.

      I fear it was more diabolical than that.To my mind, It was an attempt to further the interests of the triad of crooked arms dealers, corrupt bureaucrats – civil and military – and power hungry politicians.

      But Shekhar Gupta underestimated the intelligence of the people at large and their deep faith in the Army. Looks like he started taking all too seriously the praise juniors sometimes lavished on him as an old, wise and savvy journalist who knows the pulse of the people and politicians alike!

      What an awful faux pas the whole thing has been! Clutching at the twitters of Lt. Gen. Panag and the like are all the straws that old Shekhar can now clutch at. And what miserable straws those!

  8. Saket Ranjan 5th April 2012 at 13:27 #

    Around 6,000 troops were stationed in New Delhi at that time and for the Republic day tens of thousands were pouring in. The Unit COAS commanded is stationed in Delhi. Enough munition for hi,, if he wanted a coup. And Biggest blasphemy of all… What use would a mechanised unit have been who would have had negligible mobility on the busy roads of delhi, while the infantry units would have moved faster and acted swifter!

More in Public Policy, Security (58 of 1646 articles)


More of the same gives you more of the same One of the positive outcomes of the controversies sparked by ...