Analysis : Political comment by Army Chief.

On 26th December, 2019; while addressing a Health Summit in

Delhi, merely days before demitting office, General Bipin Rawat made a
rather controversial statement regarding the ongoing CAA-NRC
protests. The General said: “Leaders are not those who lead people in
inappropriate directions, as we are witnessing in a large number of
university and college students, the way they are leading masses of
crowds to carry out arson and violence in our cities and towns. This is
not leadership.”
This comment of the General was against the basic rules of Army,
where they aren’t allowed to take political stands. Being apolitical is an
essence of the Army, which plays an essential role in the working of the
Army. Being non partisan and apolitical is a critical element of the
Army. The military serves the Constitution without regard to the
political parties or partisan positions. A non partisan outlook saves the
Army officials from being treated differently due to their affiliation to
different parties.
The Army Act, 1950 and The Army Rules, 1954 have provisions
restraining Army officials to comment on or address any political issue.
s. 21(2) of the Army Act, 1950 restricts everyone subject to the Act
from attending or addressing any meeting or taking part in any
demonstration organised by any body of persons for any political or
other purpose.
Rule 20(1) of the Army rules, 1954 restricts all army personnel
from attending, addressing or taking part in any meeting or
demonstration held for a party or any political purposes...
 The Armed forces personnel should be politically neutral and it is
important for the very security of the country. It is important that they do
not publically take sides of political parties or the party in power
because they do not owe loyalty to the party in power but the
Constitution of India.
The Constitution of India gives Parliament the power to alter the
fundamental rights of Armed forces for the best interest of the Nation
and National Security.
The s. 21 and Rule 20 are the result of such alteration of
Fundamental Rights of the Army.
If the Army Personnel are given the chance to give out their
political opinion publically, this might end up in a situation where the
people who are getting promoted are the ones who support the ruling
parties and other professionals who are eligible for promotion but do not
support the ruling party would not be promoted. This creates a threat to
the National Security of the country.
There has been a seemingly noticeable increase in politicisation,
which is making it a little difficult for the army to remain apolitical. The
Army should take measures to remain apolitical.
A politicized army would mean that they show allegiance to a
single political party, the ruling party, and advocates and defends every
decision made by the party. As a result in the Army not give
professional advice to the government but blindly follow the decisions
and rules of the political party in power. This might result in the people
assuming that the opposition would not be able to control the Army
hence wouldn’t vote for them. These conditions would result in low
confidence on the army by the public, crippling the functioning of the
government.
 One of the parties in India during elections had used a tactic of
advertising the success of the Army and the forces during their time in
power to showcase that their party being in power is good for the
Nation.
The success of the Army should not be a basis to increase the
voters, because it is a massive deal which outshines the other failures of
the government. The success in URI and Pulwama does not imply
success in the other internal problems of the nation. Hence, using and
advertising the Army’s success for political gains is a very wrong tactic
used by the political party.
General Rawat’s comment gave way to a lot of outrage on the
social media.
Congress leader Digvijay Singh said, “I agree general Saheb, but also
leaders are not those who allow ttheir followers to indulge in genocide
of communal violence.”
Congress Spokesperson Brijesh Kalappa tweeted: “Army Chief speaking
against the #CAAProtests is wholly against constitutional democracy. If
Army Chief is allowed to speak on political issues today, it also permits
him to attempt an army takeover tomorrow.
Rights Activist Yogendra Yadav said: “Yes, leaders should lead (people)
in the appropriate direction, I am absolutely sure, he has the PM of the
country in his mind while talking about that.”
To all this the Army later issued a clarification stating: “he has not
referred to any political event, personality. He was addressing the future
citizens of India who are students. (It is his) righteous duty to guide
students on whom shall depend the future of the nation. In Kashmir
valley, youths were misguided by people whom the trusted as leaders.”
 Soon after all this havoc created by the General’s seemingly
political statement, he assumed office as the 1st Chief of Defence Staff, a
post whose making was opposed by officials for a long time. Are the
General’s promotions due to his political allegiance? Nation would
never know; or does it know already.