Armed forces should answer to Parliament

Chiefs of the armed forces, who had appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Wednesday, to explain the irregularities at the canteens of their units as pointed out in the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report had made curious comments after deposing before the Parliamentary committee.

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, who is also chief of joint chiefs of staff, said, “It was a good meeting. We put forward our viewpoint, they put forward theirs.”. Army chief VK Singh said, “The MPs made some very good suggestions... We will take them into account”. It appears that both Naik and Singh do not understand what the PAC is about, and that the armed forces, with the rest of the government machinery, are answerable to the PAC, and through it to Parliament and people. They went before the PAC not to exchange views but to answer queries about irregularities.

One of the points made by Singh that there is an internal audit and therefore the money spent on armed forces’ supply of rations should not come under CAG scrutiny is simply unacceptable. Every government expenditure is made from the tax-payers’ money and the CAG is the highest auditing authority in the system. There can be no exemption from CAG scrutiny.

It is true that this is the first time that security chiefs have been called before the PAC, and they did not fully grasp the significance of it. As a matter of fact, by now the practice should have been established that service chiefs will appear before the PAC as well as Parliamentary consultative committee to the ministry of defense, and answer queries of the members of Parliament. It is not too late and this practice should be established.

There would be possible objections that the armed forces should not come under too much Parliamentary scrutiny because that might be a temptation for the generals to play the political game, and that it would be better if their interaction is confined to the defence minister, the prime minister and the cabinet committee on security. And that it is for the defence minister and prime minister to speak for the armed forces in Parliament.

While there is need for confidentiality in defense matters, there is a lot of unnecessary secrecy around them as well. The Indian armed forces command both respect and affection for their uprightness and bravery. But Parliamentary scrutiny will not undermine these sterling qualities. It would only improve the standards, and it will also help in nipping trouble in the bud.