‘Gen. Singh’s claims cast a shadow on the Army’s loyalty & patriotism’

What do you think of the statement of the former Army Chief Gen. V.K. Singh that the Army transfers money to ministers in Jammu and Kashmir for “stabilising work” in the state

Throughout my career, I have not heard of such payments being made to politicians. For instance, in Nagaland, also an insurgency-affected state, an Army Development Group was formed. It used to utilise funds given by the Union home ministry to the ministry of defence for civic works. No money was paid to politicians. The Army is also carrying out various welfare activities in Jammu and Kashmir as part of its “Sadbhavna” (harmony) operations.

If Gen. Singh has revealed too much, why did he do it What are the implications of a former Army Chief saying such things

Media revelations had put Gen. Singh against the wall. When accusations which you are convinced are false are made against you, the normal reaction is to be angry and hit back. This is what Gen Singh apparently did. Ideally, he should have said that the allegations are baseless, but he does not want to defend himself in public as it would involve disclosure of sensitive information to which he is privy. Such disclosures would be against national interest. He should have instead sought an in-camera inquiry into the whole issue, including the leakage of such sensitive information through a newspaper report. In my view, had the former Army Chief sought an inquiry, he would have come out as a highly responsible citizen and would have gained in stature. The disclosures should have been avoided. I am not saying the government has leaked the report of the Army into the functioning of the Technical Support Division (TSD). But the government failed to prevent the leak. And after the leak happened, the government failed to take prompt action in preventing its adverse fallout. What has come out is bad for the country and for the Army. The revelations have cast a shadow on the Army’s loyalty, patriotism and apolitical nature. These have also embarrassed the Jammu and Kashmir government.

Do you think there should be a public inquiry into the functioning of the TSD, the controversial military intelligence unit set up during Gen. Singh’s tenure The allegations apparently made in the report of the Army’s board of officers into the TSD are serious — that it was involved in attempts to topple the Jammu and Kashmir government.

There should definitely be an in-camera inquiry into the serious allegations against the TSD. It should be conducted by any competent agency mandated by the government. But the various issues involved should not come out into the public domain. Even the fact that the TSD existed should not have been disclosed in the national interest. I think disclosing the contents of the Army report definitely amounts to treason. There should be an inquiry into who leaked it. An in-camera inquiry will reveal everything without compromising national security.

If allegations in the Army’s report were as serious as reported, why, in your view, did the Army not order a court of inquiry into the matter

The board of officers, apparently a fact-finding mission as regards the TSD, has brought certain findings to the government’s notice. It is for the government to take a view on the matter. The issues raised in the report appear very serious and do not fall entirely in the ambit of the Army. An Army court of inquiry has limited scope and would not be comprehensive.

Do you think there should now be tighter audit of military intelligence funds

All intelligence agencies, be it the Intelligence Bureau, Research & Analysis Wing, Defence Intelligence Agency or Military Intelligence, have some discretion in spending funds. This should continue. To have everything under audit will be counter-productive. There are some things that should remain beyond public scrutiny. This is in national interest. People handling such issues are senior and highly responsible, and trust has to be placed in them. We should remember that whatever has happened is an aberration. But it may have its implications on civil-military relations. There are bound to be more restrictions on the Army’s functioning.

Do you think there is a governance deficit in Jammu and Kashmir, which has sucked in the Army There is a perception that in the absence of development work in the state, which has seen stone-throwing agitations, purse strings need to be loosened to “manage” certain situations.

In my view, one cannot call it a governance deficit. There are various problems in all border states affected by insurgency, whether it is Jammu and Kashmir or the north-eastern states. Besides, J&K is in a peculiar situation. Pakistan is openly supporting terrorism and unrest in the state and it backed the stone-throwing agitation. Despite all problems, the state has remained a part of India. It is not a military problem. As far as the Army’s functioning is concerned, we don’t know whether it has crossed any red lines. The Army is part of the country’s democratic framework and will implement policies of the civilian government.

What will be the fallout of these revelations on the Army as an institution

Unfortunately, some of these allegations have hurt the very character and foundation of the Army. It impinges on its apolitical nature. The Army is the country’s last port of call. So far, it has successfully kept the country safe, secure and integrated. However, like any other human organisation it is not perfect. But it has the internal strength and mechanism to tide over any aberrations. My advice to everyone is to leave the Army alone so that it can continue to do its task away from the public glare and intrusive media scrutiny.