Karnataka campaign trail is witness to politicians hurling corrosive remarks against their opponents regarding treatment of military veterans.
It is prudent for the political class to keep the armed forces out of electoral rhetoric in order to ensure that the institution remains apolitical.
What kicked off the electoral controversy involving defence personals?
PM Modi recently criticised the Congress party for insulting two illustrious generals of the Indian Army.
Both these military icons, Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa and General K.S. Thimayya, are from the local Coorgi community in Karnataka.
Notably, this case of “disrespect” goes back many decades, to the 1947-48 war (Pakistan) and the 1962 war (China).
The PM stated that Gen.Thimayya was insulted by the then Congress government despite having led the Indian forces to victory in 1948 Pak War.
The PM additionally noted that Gen.Thimayya had to resign in order to maintain the sanctity of the position that he held.
He also said that similar inappropriate treatment was met out to Field Marshal Cariappa after his campaign against the Chinese in 1962.
The electoral subtext was to show the congress in bad light in relation to national security by fuelling the perception that Nehru mocked to veterans.
Are the allegations true?
Indian Army had a British chief during the 1947-48 war for Kashmir and the army wasn’t led by Gen. Thimmaya in Kashmir.
Gen. Thimmaya was only a 2 star general in Kashmir operations (under Lt.Gen Cariappa’s command) and he did not resign after the war as stated.
Similarly, the reference to Cariappa was way off the mark, for he had retired in 1953 and was in no way involved with the 1962 war.
Sadly, instead of countering the PM’s assertions with hard facts, the Congress dispensation came with its own bogus claims.
It is true that Krishna Menon had sought to politicise the Army top brass and that Nehru chided Thimmaya in parliament.
But its relevance in the current electoral context and glaring factual distortions made by the PM was a clear overstretch for political gains.
What is the larger picture?
Electoral campaigns in the past few years is becoming increasingly polarising as even frontline leaders getting vocally irresponsible.
To gain electorally, even high constitutional offices (like president, ex-PMs) aren’t being spared by politicians, which is degrading our institutional culture.
The current episode has roped in the defence forces too into the mudslinging, which can potentially wreck havoc for the country’s security apparatus.
Hence, all these merit reflecting upon and frontline leaders should be better advised to keep off comments that could polarise our state institutions.
There have been many institutional blunders since 1948, but these are better off by being discussed in a consensus environment on campaigns.
What is the way ahead?
Indian democracy has ensured sufficient checks to ensure that army remains apolitical, and it has largely been so since independence.
There is indeed resentment that Indian Military as an institution is being badly treated by Delhi’s politico-bureaucratic dispensation for long.
“Non-Functional Upgrade” (NFU) scheme of the UPA government, advantaged the profile of civil servants vis-à-vis military, thereby worsening the bitterness.
While constructive criticism are needed to address these teething troubles, corrosive electioneering will only aggravate the issue in the long run.
The democratic ecosystem is best nurtured by institutions that are “fire-walled from politics” and remain neutral.
