inperspective

MilitaryinIndiaandIsrael
polesapart
ByVinayKaura
Reference to Israeli military and the talk of it as an example to
emulatehasbecomeaconversationaltopicinthestrategiccirclesand
academia ever since the comparison between the two countries'
armed forces by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a recent public
eventinHimachalPradesh.
Modi compared Indian Army's targeted action against terrorist
launching pads across the Line of Control (LoC) in the Pakistan
occupiedKashmir(PoK)toIsrael'spolicyoftargetedmilitaryaction
and assassinations beyond its borders. The comparison seems
erroneousduetoavarietyoffactors,includingthehugedifferencein
thecivilmilitaryrelationsprevailinginIndiaandIsrael.
Thereisasymbioticrelationshipbetweenthecitizensandthearmed
forces in Israel with the latter acting as a unifier for the whole of
Israelisociety.
The very foundation of the concept of 'nation in arms' or 'citizens
army' is rooted in almost universal conscription policy which was
implementedduetoIsrael'searlyquantitativeinferiorityrelativetoits
Arab neighbours. This policy continues to foster a strong bond
betweensocietyandthemilitary.
Whileundergoingthecompulsorymilitaryservice,allIsraelislearn
to live together and share a common aim of defending their
homeland.Becauseofthedominanceofthemilitaryestablishmentin
Israel,thedistinctionbetweencivilianandmilitaryleadersishardto
determine. Military leaders, both retired and serving, continue to
exert substantial influence on several aspects of politics, society,
economyandcultureofIsrael.
Upon the conclusion of their military career, military leaders often
seeksecondcareersinciviliansector.AnditisnoaccidentthatEhud
Barak, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin, all top former military
leaders,eventuallyoccupiedthepositionofprimeminister.
Paradoxically, the preponderance of Israel's security establishment
hasoftenmadeiteasierfortopgeneralsandspymasterstochallenge
the inflexible and tough policies of some prime ministers. But the
present Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been gradually
marginalising the security establishment which has been critical of
someofhishawkishpolicies.
The appointment of hardliner politician Avigdor Lieberman as
defence minister in May 2016 is also being seen as an act of reta

liation against Israel's military establishment. It needs to be me

ntioned that with the exception of Menechem Begin (19801981),
Amir Peretz (20062007), and now Avigdor Lieberman, the post of
defence minister has not been held by any politician without
significantsecuritybackground,sinceMosheDayan'sappointmentto
thepostin1967.
Ontheotherhand,India'scivilmilitaryframeworkisheavilytiltedin
favour of the civilian leadership. The military is invariably
discouraged from participating in political process and is largely
isolatedfromthecivilsociety.Themilitaryleadershipusuallyfollows
the'goldenrule'ofnotcommunicatingtothemediaandthepublicits
differencesofopinionwiththepoliticalleadership.
The manner in which India, under the political leadership of
JawaharlalNehruandVKKrishnaMenon,handledtheoperational
planningbeforeandafterthedisastrous1962warwithChinaleftno
doubt that purely operational matters must be left to the military's
discretion.
Since then, a tradition seems to have been established where broad
operational directives are laid down by the political leadership, and
the actual planning of operations is left to the military leadership.
Thus,forexample,themilitaryhascontinuedtoexerciseitsvetoon
operational issues such as withdrawal from Siachen glacier and
revokingoftheArmedForces(SpecialPowers)Act.
Dysfunctionalrelations
RetiredmilitaryleadersinIndiahavebeenappointedasambassadors
and governors of states. But unlike Israel, they have rarely entered
activepolitics.Formerarmychief,GeneralVKSingh,gotelectedto
theLokSabhain2014.Thisisthesecondtimewhenaformerarmy
chiefhasenteredParliamentsincethenominationofGeneralShankar
Roychowdhary to the Rajya Sabha. Even General Singh is holding
thechangeofaMinisterofStateintheModigovernment,and,that
too,notrelatedtohisprofession.
Those advocating the enhanced role for military strongly criticise
India'sdysfunctionalcivilmilitaryrelationsandthelackofinitiative
in reforming defence acquisition processes. They argue that though
theIndiandemocracyhasbeensuccessfulinmaintainingasystem
of strong civil ian control over the military, it has also adversely
affected the quality of its strategic decisionmaking and power
projection.
There is no doubt that only a handful of nations face the kind of
security challenges that confront both India and Israel, but their
response trajectories have moved in contrasting directions. The
assertiveness, with which Israel tackles its threats, perceived and
real, is in total contrast with India's tradition of 'strategic restraint'.
Unlike Israeli military, Indian military has never been viewed as a
centralinstrumentintheattainmentofIndia'snationalgoals.

India's political leadership has always subordinated the military

leadership,downplayingtheimportanceofmilitarypower.Rhetorical
pronouncements notwithstanding, the Modi government is likely to
zealouslyguardpoliticalsupremacyonanyissueconcerningnational
securityormilitarypolicy.
(The writer is Assistant Professor, Centre for Peace and Conflict
Studies,Jaipur)

TheModigovtislikelytozealouslyguardpolitical
supremacyonnationalsecurityormilitarypolicyissues.