ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Bhagwat has become a political football

Now that the cat is officially out of the bag, after Defence Minister George Fernandes's no-holds barred but delayed counteroffensive on former naval chief Vishnu Bhagwat, it is time to address questions which are nagging the public.

Why did Fernandes take so long in responding to Bhagwat's charges? Among the many reasons, the foremost is: He believed he did not need to. According to him, it was a straightforward case of defiance of civilian authority which was dealt with under the Constitution by using the Pleasure Principle. Every soldier, sailor and airman serves at the pleasure of the President. The latter can withdraw the pleasure at any time without assigning reasons or holding an enquiry. That is why in the old days it was referred to as the guillotine or the Raam Baan.

So the questions -- why an enquiry was not held or notice not given to Bhagwat -- are irrelevant under the existing law. It is worth remembering that until four years ago, dismissal under the relevant service act was not justifiable in court. Even now the onus of proving malafide prima facie is on the victim.

Why was Bhagwat not court-martialed? There are two problems. First, a court-martial is a long drawn-out process and would subject the Chief of Naval Staff's office to infinite embarrassment and indignity.

Secondly, the composition and assembly of any court can only be ordered by the commanding order/head of service. The members have to be equal in rank, not senior to the accused. Therefore, holding a court-martial was technically and tactually unfeasible. The CNS can court-martial anyone subject to the Navy Act and under his command. No one can court-martial him.

In any case, once the CNS has been dismissed, the question of court-martialing him doesn't arise although Fernandes has lately hinted at this. Action can now be taken only under provisions of the Official Secret Act.

The silent way to engineer the exit of a senior officer is to drop a hint that he should go. This hint is conveyed sometimes without any subtlety. In the past, many generals and admirals have taken 'voluntary retirement' without attracting media scrutiny or internal gossip. Scores of senior officers demitted office through this route quietly.

Anyone familiar with Bhagwat's litigious mindset would have known that any such offer would have been like a red rag to a bull. The government would have been saddled with a CNS in office with a stay order. Already, you have the bizarre case of the Eastern Army Commander holding office conditional to court adjudication.

The mistake Fernandes made was not going public once Bhagwat's lawyer wife had shut up by the middle of January. The press conference he held last week should have been held three months ago.

As far as the dismissal is concerned, it is a settled matter. There is a new naval chief, new chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee and so on. There is no question of Bhagwat being reinstated. So Jayalalitha's demand is preposterous. Even Bhagwat has sought restoration of his honour, not his office. But unfortunately he has become a political football.

Time and again the question is being asked: Will Bhagwat get his pension? There is a Delhi high court ruling on this: Pension is normally admissible, as the pension is not just for the person in harness but also for his family. A request has to be made to the government for the pension and unless the ground for dismissal included defrauding the State of funds or any other financial irregularity, in which case a percentage amount is deducted from the pension. Bhagwat's pension was awarded to him starting March 1, 1999.

An ex-serviceman's credentials are established through his Pension Paying Office number. This is the talisman to post-retirement benefits. His bonafides are reinforced if he is issued a retired officer's identity card.

What about Bhagwat's rank? The media has created unnecessary confusion on this. Once the matter of pension is settled so is the question of retention of rank and gallantry awards. The President, if he had wished, would have issued a special decree debarring the use of both. This has not happened. Therefore, the designation is Admiral (Retd) Vishnu Bhagwat (together with his decorations), former CNS.

The question no one is asking is: Why didn't Bhagwat go to court? His last crack at courts was the Calcutta high court in December 1998 when as CNS he filed contempt of court proceedings against Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh, Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar and Shri Ajit Kumar. The petition was dismissed.

Bhagwat has let others file public interest litigations on his behalf, two in Delhi and one in Bombay. All were dismissed. The puzzling feature was that one of these was filed by one Lt Gen (Retd) P N Hoon who is allegedly being investigated by the Bombay police. The same Hoon is alleged to have delivered Bhagwat's 51 page affidavit of March 14, 1999 to Sonia Gandhi.

Within days of his dismissal, Niloufer Bhagwat told the press that they would not go to court. Later, she added that the contingency of going to court would arise only if Bhagwat was not given pension. After Bhagwat broke his silence on February 22, 1999 at the Press Club of India, Delhi, came the report he was keeping his options open about going to court. Now that pension has been given to him, does one assume he will not go to court?

It requires no intelligence to figure out the Bhagwat strategy: A multidimensional riposte against Fernandes using the media, Parliament and public. Going to court would have made it sub judice, acting as a guillotine on Bhagwatpuran. Obviously, Vishnu Bhagwat didn't want that.

General Ashok K Mehta