Appointing a General is the Government's Prerogative, but ...

Selecting and appointing a Chief to any country's Army or to any wing of its forces should be the prerogative of the Government. This position can be defended by invoking Chanakya or Machiavelli. But, one could even invoke Rawls' justice. In particular, the first part of the second principle of justice by Rawls conveys that selection of people to positions of power should be based on merit after provisioning for equal opportunities. Hence, India cannot be an exception to that.

One may question my invoking Rawls' principles meant for a democratic polity to the selection of an Army Chief. I agree that a democratic polity by, for and of the people is more about peace and prosperity. Nevertheless, it is a bitter irony that war-preparedness has become an important aspect of statecraft, democratic or not. In fact, in a federal structure like the United States of America with states having a larger say in domestic matters (more than that of India) one of the three most important roles of the American President is on defence (defend sovereignty for America and its allies and also to maintain 'global' order); the other two important roles being external affairs (diplomatic relationship with the committee of nations as also multilateral agencies or one may say to retain one-upmanship) and the treasury (common money unit, dollar, which in some sense also happens to be a 'global' currency). Though, Rawls is cautious and avoids extending his analysis across countries, one has to concede that defence cannot be dealt in isolation in any country and the selection of an Army Chief ought to be considered as an important feature even in a democratic polity and one ought to go by merit.      

The Government of the day has to do the selection of the Army Chief keeping in view its requirement. General Bikram Singh has put it succinctly that "the Chief designate would be well placed to deal with all operational contingencies, even in the worst possible two-front scenario, wherein both China and Pakistan may pose conventional threat to our territorial integrity" and according to the Ministry of Defence "had an edge owing to his vast experience in the asymmetric operations in the Kashmir valley, our north eastern states and the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo." 

The core question that comes into the selection of Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat as the Chief designate of the Indian Army is the supersession of two other contenders (Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi and Lieutenant General PM Hariz) who were senior to him. This becomes a questionmark if the basis of seniority was based on their merit-based selection to their current positions and not because of their date of induction into the Indian Army or by their age or some such criteria. 

It goes without question that a professional organisation like the Indian Army promotes its cadre based on merit at all levels. It is for this that the public ought to know the basis of current seniority and that there was a technical reason that came in the way and Lieutenant General Bipin Rawat could not have been elevated to the position of Lieutenant General before Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi and Lieutenant General PM Hariz.

If there is no technical reason that defines the current seniority then it is necessary to explain the reasons that led to the current hierarchy and the change in requirement between then and now. Even if there has been no change in requirement, it is necessary to know current requirement and the experience details that the three officers or all the contenders (five senior most officers) have had. Unfortunately, there is not much in the public domain that I could lay my hands on. I leave that aside for someone who could lay their hands on those details. Instead, I will read between the lines and raise some possible conjectures on the requirement by the Government.

My first conjecture is as follows. If making Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi as Chief designate would have meant that the person next in succession would have been Lieutenant General PM Hariz, a  Muslim, and the Government wanted to avoid that. Further, preempting that now rather than act on that after Lieutenant General Bakshi's tenure would have raised greater concerns later and the Governent wanted to avoid that.

My second conjecture is as follows. It is quite possible that elevating Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi and Lieutenant General PM Hariz in succession could have led to shorter tenures for two successive Chiefs and the Government wanted to avoid that. 

My third conjecture would on the requirement of the Government today will draw from General Bikarm Singh's above-mentioned post where he mentions that the advantages of the Chief designate will "not only allow the continuity in our counter proxy war and counterinsurgency operations, but also give the government options to up the ante along the Line of Control (LoC), should that be necessary." This has to be read between the lines.

In General Bikran Singh's write-up, a case is being articulated on 'continuity' and also in providing option to 'up the ante'. Are these signs of an impeding war? One is aware of its ramifications on patriotism and its implications on polity when ante are upped close to the elections (for instance Iraq war and its impact on American polity). Will there be a war-like scenario in the near future in India? Is this in anticipation of what our neighbours are likely to plan or will it be necessitated by an electoral calculation? Will there be an implicit unspoken collusion by leaders across the boarder, as it would be to their domestic political advantage? All these need to be answered in due course.

Whether selecting the next Army Chief in India is about facilitating peace and prosperity or it is about a tacit war-like scenario has a thin line differentiating the two and only time will tell. But, let us be forewarned and work towards a peaceful and friendly co-existence with our neighbours and also within the country with ourselves. Let me paraphrase Pope Francis' Christmas message of 2016 to convey that we need to free ourselves from the hostage of materialism and from that of indifference. 

I completely agree and defend the position that appointing a General is the Government's prerogative, but in a democratic-polity by, for and of the people there should be concern and engagement, as in its absence democracy itself will be at bay.

Demon-et-ise: 2K view

Earlier I had shared my one-paise view on demonetisation. Here, I would like to share my 2K view or the demons of 2K. Before you lay any apprehensions, I must take you aside for a moment and say that my concern for these demons does not in any way support other demons - black money, counterfeit money or terror funding money. I reiterate that I am against all these three demons, which I will now refer to as dark matter, an euphemism to avoid being called a racist or anything that is not politically appropriate (not withstanding the fact that dark matter is a cosmological constant attributed to contribute to expansion of universe).

Perceptions matter
Use of image at source.

My concerns for 2K are in some sense related to the Y2K problem. Or, should I say related to the bug problem, which is intertwined with the computational or mathematical logic. For transactional purposes, getting a 2K note is a restriction (given the paucity of 0.5K notes), one would be in need of at least 15 notes of 0.1K from the receiver for transactions below 0.5K. The need of the hour would have been 0.2K notes along with more of 0.5K notes and should have done away with 2K notes. Besides, more of 2K notes will add to the dark matter (all three demons) and lead to an expansion of the universe that will end with a big explosion (unless of course the universe has neither any beginning nor an end).

If you are of the view that the current dispensation is not thought through the dispensing of the 2K and 0.5K notes then you are mistaken. These notes are not going to replace the old notes withdrawn, neither now nor any time in the future. This, as of now, is a given; something akin to a cosmological constant, but without the dark matter. 

To state that the universe is finite with its existence being infinite can be a point of view, subject to verification. However, if one takes a similar position with regard to the economy then my existence (as an economist) will definitely become finite. 

Nevertheless, with trepidation, I assume (not presume, as I want to leave some safety valve for my survival) that the new 2K and 0.5K notes are meant to have a finite existence and are not going to replace the old 1K and 0.5K notes. One strong reason for this assumption being that the 2K notes (along with the new 0.5K notes) will add to the dark matter (the three demons). 

One also feels that one is not going to see the 0.2K notes to come to our rescue any time soon. Given the mammoth task of getting even the limited amount of 2K notes and new 0.5K notes to circulation, this will not be physically possible.

The new normal is that we are moving into a digital world (tending towards cashless). The sooner all of us understand this and plan to adjust to this new normal (whether we agree with it or not) the better for all of us. Now, if the economy (nay, universe) is constant and there are substantive changes in the nature of internal transactions then some will gain and some will lose. 

It is imperative now to know whether those who will gain on account of 'facilitating' the transition into a digital transaction have any checks and balances on their rent-seeking returns. Are our institutions geared towards recognising and addressing these concerns. What would be the cost of internet accessibility and transaction charges? What would be its implication on the poor and the vulnerable? 

We also need to be concerned about dark matter beyond the above-mentioned three demons and have adequate safeguards for card cloning, data theft, phishing, pharming, smising and vishing among others. Do we have human resources to train the entire population and enable them to guard against such incidents? Will there be space for sovereign guarantee under such circumstances?

Further, as we will be moving towards an automated world, as is being globally talked about then what would be the implications. Is it not appropriate that we also start discussing the need for a universal basic income, as the need for that, at least for certain sections like those dependent on agriculture indicated through incidence of higher farmers' suicides (notwithstanding efforts at their underreporting), is already knocking at our doors.