Lieut-Gen. Pran Pahwa

THE Army is reported to be considering sending a larger number of its senior officers on study leave to cope with the problem of the increasing age of its Commanding Officers (COs). Of all the problems thrown up by the government’s sudden order, the extension of the retirement age has been the most worrisome factor for the Army and brooks no delay.

The average age of a CO is already around 41-42 years, which is about the highest in the world. It is likely to go up by another two years with this age extension. Sending a large number of Colonels, Brigadiers and Major-Generals on study leave is expected to help absorb some of its adverse impact. It would also, incidentally, help in improving the educational standards of senior officers.

On the face of it, the idea appears to be excellent. In practice, however, things may not turn out to be quite that well. The policy of study leave in the Army has been in existence for over 15 years now. When it was introduced, it was hoped that it would give deserving officers a chance to update their knowledge midway through their careers. They would thereby bring fresh ideas to their jobs and contribute towards raising the overall standard of the Army.

It has failed to deliver on all these counts. No facility in the Army has been more cynically misused than that of study leave. Both the management as well as the officers concerned have been guilty of it. The noble aims behind the concept have been forgotten and the Army has not gained any benefit from it. A majority of the officers who have been granted study leave since the inception of the policy have all been those who were already known to have not much future in the Army.

Some of them have used this provision to prepare themselves for a second career outside the Army. Others have used it to avoid being posted to an undesirable station or an unwanted appointment. Still others to enable them to stay on for two more years in the same station, so that their children could finish school or college. Benefit to the Army was farthest from their minds. In effect, over the years, study leave has become the preserve of only such officers as had little or no future in the Army. There are, no doubt, some exceptions, specially in the technical branches. But, by and large, this is true.

The main reason for this is the existing system which has failed to give higher civil education any importance, specially for promotion to higher ranks. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that till today not a single Chief of Army Staff or Army Commander has ever availed of study leave. Probably, no other Lieutenant-General, barring those in the technical branches, has made use of it either.

It is not the fault of these officers. Had they ever taken study leave, they would probably have never reached the positions they ultimately did. Such is the system. An officer on the fast track and destined for higher ranks is required to be exposed to all types of command, staff and instructional appointments as well as attend a couple of long courses within a short span of time. He simply cannot afford to take two years off for higher studies. The system has thus created a paradoxical situation. Senior officers who formulate policies and give advice to the government are mostly without higher education. While their juniors, who will never hold any important appointment, have acquired university degrees.

This anomaly needs to be rectified, and now is the best time to do so. The Army Headquarters has approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for sanctioning additional study leave vacancies for higher ranks. The MoD must insist that before it accepts the request of the Army Headquarters it must first revamp its policy for granting study leave. The policy must primarily be designed to benefit the organisation and not the individual.

The first step is for the Army Headquarters itself to recognise the importance of higher education for its senior officers. Remembering that the Army officers live in a closed world with very little contact with the outside, their horizons remain restricted. As they grow in rank and service, they tend to become contemptuous of civilians and everything non-military. This is not desirable for a democracy where the government as well as the country’s sharpest minds are civilians.

Higher civilian education helps to prevent this ossification of the military mind. It enables it to absorb fresh ideas and inculcate respect for the academic minds. This in turn helps to create a healthy Army-civil relationship. The need for higher education is even more significant from the point of view of the effect of the media and modern communications on the responsibilities of senior defence services officers. A thoughtless statement or an impulsive action on their part can immediately become a news event and can have international repercussions.

This requires the Army to create a suitable system in which all officers aspiring for higher ranks get an opportunity to go on study leave and broaden their vision.

The Army must prepare itself for the next century. Modern warfare will get even more complex in the nuclear and emerging information warfare environment. Senior officers will need more than professional knowledge to do their jobs well. They will also need higher education to increase their overall awareness in the best national interest. — INFA

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Author’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article.

Courtesy: The Tribune: July 31, 1998