Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Analysis: Political Comment by Army Chief

    Uploaded by

    Nishant
    The document analyzes a political comment made by the Indian Army Chief about ongoing CAA-NRC protests. The Army Chief's comment violated rules prohibiting the Army from making political statements. His comment sparked controversy and outrage from opposition politicians. The Army later clarified the Chief's statement was meant to guide students and not about political events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Analysis: Political Comment by Army Chief

    Uploaded by

    Nishant
    15 views4 pages
    The document analyzes a political comment made by the Indian Army Chief about ongoing CAA-NRC protests. The Army Chief's comment violated rules prohibiting the Army from making political statements. His comment sparked controversy and outrage from opposition politicians. The Army later clarified the Chief's statement was meant to guide students and not about political events.

    Original Description:

    ABC

    Original Title

    ABC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document analyzes a political comment made by the Indian Army Chief about ongoing CAA-NRC protests. The Army Chief's comment violated rules prohibiting the Army from making political statements. His comment sparked controversy and outrage from opposition politicians. The Army later clarified the Chief's statement was meant to guide students and not about political events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views4 pages

    Analysis: Political Comment by Army Chief

    Uploaded by

    Nishant
    The document analyzes a political comment made by the Indian Army Chief about ongoing CAA-NRC protests. The Army Chief's comment violated rules prohibiting the Army from making political statements. His comment sparked controversy and outrage from opposition politicians. The Army later clarified the Chief's statement was meant to guide students and not about political events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    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.

    You might also like