{"id":1954,"date":"2025-10-24T05:35:41","date_gmt":"2025-10-24T05:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rohitagarwal.in\/swordarm\/?p=1954"},"modified":"2025-10-24T05:35:41","modified_gmt":"2025-10-24T05:35:41","slug":"politicisation-of-the-armed-forces-examining-the-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rohitagarwal.in\/swordarm\/2025\/10\/24\/politicisation-of-the-armed-forces-examining-the-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Politicisation of the Armed Forces: Examining the Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A lot has been spoken and written about the politicisation of the Armed Forces in the recent past. The latest is a\u00a0recent article in Deccan Herald<\/a>\u00a0by\u00a0AVS Namboodiri<\/a>\u00a0which claims that in the recent past\u2014presumably during the tenure of the current NDA government\u2014\u201dpoliticisation of the wrong kind, of a party-political or ideological nature, sometimes revolving around a political personality\u201d is now affecting the Armed Forces. This piece aims to dissect the narrative about the politicisation of the Armed Forces in general and specifically examine the veracity of the claims made in this article, since it represents typical arguments given in favour of that narrative<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding Civil-Military Relations in a Democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it is necessary to establish a clear understanding of what constitutes politicisation and the proper relationship between the Armed Forces and the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a democracy, a political party presents a manifesto laying down their intended policies and programmes to the electorate. Each party\u2019s manifesto is based on the party\u2019s ideology and beliefs on what\u2019s the best for the nation. The party elected to form the government then formulates those stated policies and puts them into action. Once in office, it can no longer be viewed merely as a political party and it\u2019s policies can not be viewed merely as political ideology. It is transformed into a legally elected government by the will of the majority of the people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All instruments of the government are mandated by the people to follow the instructions of the government. Needless to say, various functionaries are within their rights to advise the government on the pros and cons of policies and decisions. The final decision, however, rests with the government, as does the accountability for the outcome of those decisions. The ultimate test of that accountability is the next election, when the people decide whether they agree with the policies of the past five years by either re-electing the government or throwing it out of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Armed Forces are one of the organs of the nation through which the government exercises its security policies.<\/strong>It is incumbent on the Armed Forces to implement the policies of the government. Individual commanders who strongly feel that any such policies are inimical to national interest have the option of resigning\u2014as Gen Thimmayya did in 1959 <\/a>when he had a strong disagreement with the then Defence Minister VK Menon regarding the handling of the Chinese situation. Barring resignation, the military leadership in a healthy democracy has no option other than carrying out the orders of the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Has Changed? Examining the Manifestos<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given this framework, let us examine what apparent changes have led to claims of politicisation. To do so, it is necessary to look at the election manifestos regarding stated policies on security and the Armed Forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BJP Manifestos: 2014 and 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 2014 manifesto, three pages were devoted to national security and the Armed Forces. Key points included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Greater participation of Armed Forces in the Ministry of Defence decision-making process<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Implementation of One Rank One Pension for Armed Forces personnel<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Construction of a War Memorial to recognise and honour the gallantry and sacrifice of soldiers<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Bolstering India\u2019s indigenous arms industry and DRDO<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Revision and updation of the country\u2019s nuclear doctrine<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The 2019 manifesto stated that India\u2019s security doctrine would be solely guided by national security interests, with zero tolerance against terrorism and a free hand to security forces in combating terrorism. It emphasised continued focus on operational readiness through induction of equipment and indigenisation of defence production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Congress Manifestos: A Contrast<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In contrast, the 2014 Congress manifesto has almost no clearly stated agenda for national security or the Armed Forces. Their 2019 manifesto spoke about security in generalised terms, the only specifics being the scrapping of the Agnipath scheme and institutionalising the selection process of the CDS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A Clear Policy Difference<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    From the above, it is apparent that the BJP came to power with a clear vision of how they wanted the national security apparatus to function, including greater integration of the Armed Forces in decision-making and a more muscular security doctrine. Most of the points listed have either been carried out or are under implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While erstwhile governments kept the Armed Forces at an arm\u2019s length, the current dispensation has allowed it to become part of the decision-making process and paid closer attention to its functioning. Both of these are well within its prerogative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is this closer interface between the government and the Armed Forces\u2014as opposed to the latter virtually functioning in a silo hitherto\u2014that has likely led to allegations of politicisation.<\/strong> What appears to critics as politicisation may in fact be the implementation of an explicitly stated security policy that differs fundamentally from previous approaches. To examine this theory, let us analyse the specific allegations made by Namboodiri.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Analysing Specific Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Cult of Personality?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Namboodiri argues that \u201cpoliticisation of the wrong kind, of a party-political or ideological nature, sometimes revolving around a political personality\u201d is now affecting the Armed Forces. While he does not specify the personality, it is reasonable to assume he is referring to Prime Minister Modi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the past, Prime Ministers rarely visited forward troops, except in times of war. One of them even used military vessels and resources for a private family vacation. The current Prime Minister changed that trend\u2014visiting more formations, air bases and ships than all the rest put together would have. He has even spent every Diwali since becoming Prime Minister with troops in some distant frontier, including recently on board INS Vikrant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Do such visits serve to bolster the morale of the troops? Or do they contribute to establishing a cult of personality? Or both? Does it give him a political advantage? And if it does, is it legally, ethically or morally wrong for him to do so? That is for the reader to decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Supersession of Senior Officers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Namboodiri\u2019s next point concerns Late Gen Rawat\u2019s appointment as CDS, superseding two officers senior to him. He has a valid point here, since the principle of seniority has generally been followed in appointing the COAS and other senior military officers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, precedence for such supersession exists from the Congress era:<\/p>\n\n\n\n