The Army’s thoughts on doing away with the rank of Brigadier are worrying and can impact security

The Army’s recent thoughts on doing away with the rank of Brigadier is nothing short of alarming.  Military ranks carry responsibilities and one fools with them at one’s own peril, especially as it is a matter of national security. Granted, measures are needed to curb the angst faced by the Armed Forces — who feel that the bureaucracy, police and even the support staff employed in the Services Headquarters are rising faster than they are. But, to do away with ranks is not a solution.    

The problem is that, over a period of time, due to lack of understanding of military culture, military ranks have constantly been lowered in status since the last cadre review of the Armed Forces was done 35 years ago. At the same time, the designations of the bureaucracy and police have been upgraded after every cadre review. This has naturally led to angst within the Forces.  

The main source of anger within the Army is thanks to ill-advised measures of the pay commissions. Successive pay commissions have done the greatest damage by recommending pay based on ranks for the Armed Forces, but upgraded pay for the bureaucracy and police based on their upgraded designations. Then, there is the issue of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU), which has done great disservice to the Forces. What does this mean? Applying to bureaucrats, NFU means that if a bureaucrat of, say, the 1999 IAS batch gets promoted to the rank of joint secretary, it will result in simultaneous upgradation of all officers of the 1999 batch to joint secretary grade. What this means is that they will all start earning the pay of joint secretary from the said date, even while continuing to perform the functions of a lower grade post. Such anomalies have remained unresolved by the 6th  and 7th Central Pay Commission, and increased resentment. 

The continuous slide in status, pay and perquisites has got the Chief of Army Staff to order a study, which will be conducted under the guidance of the Military Secretary for cadre restructuring to restore parity with the bureaucracy and police rank structure. But, this is a dangerous road to travel upon for many reasons. For one, it will be unfair to do away with the rank of Brigadier when you have a brigade as a basic fighting organisation where integration of all arms and services take place. Will it be fair to have a major general commanding a brigade and a division wearing the same rank? Such a move lacks the basic logic of command relationship. Secondly, the Army is an age-old institution which has barely been tinkered with in terms of structure, deployment and functioning and to do so now is dangerous, as it will create confusion. It will possibly make the problem worse in an era when wars are becoming more complex, multi-domain and multi-dimensional.  

The last point is especially important to note. The military needs to look at how rank restructuring will help in capacity and capability building to fight future wars. So far, a cadre review is only likely to lead to a top-heavy organisation that would reduce the number of working hands. Given the growing challenges the Army faces today, both internal and external, this is disastrous. It also has the potential to create confusion in command which cannot happen in life-and-death scenarios, which the military often finds itself in. Todd Probert, vice-president of Mission Support and Modernisation for Raytheon Company’s Intelligence, Information and Services, wrote that, ‘Tomorrow’s wars will be won by the military that can most quickly develop and field a multi-domain command and control architecture to make decisions faster than their adversary.’ This is why reforms are needed within the Forces, but not those that compromise decision-making.  

The Army also needs to realise that reforms cannot be carried out by itself, and it has to incorporate the Joint Forces. This is because a drop or increase in rank within the Army affects the Navy and Air Force. This is because if the Army were to drop the rank of Brigadier, the equivalent would remain in the other two Forces. This will cause confusion when it comes to military protocol and at times when joint commands are needed more than ever. Another aspect of rank structuring is the need to maintain parity with contemporary military commanders of adversaries and allies. Inter-operability with friendly nations against a common adversary cannot be ruled out in an era of hybrid war and grey zone conflicts. Thus, inequality of ranks with friends and foes will be inappropriate. 

Military ranks are sacrosanct and there is tradition, history and elitism attached with it. If political leadership and bureaucracy connive to destroy the elitism by creating conditions for degeneration of military rank structure, the nation will be rendered insecure. It will be the greatest disservice if the military is forced to fight for the status of ranks, especially at a time when the nation is surrounded by inimical forces — both state and non-state actors. Distraction or lack of faith with the political leadership and bureaucracy does not augur well for the security of the nation. 

The author is Distinguished Fellow at the USI of India. Views are personal.