There is a time-honoured code of privileged communication in the fraternity of the Armed Forces that mandates honouring the absolute right to privacy of content between the sender and the recipient. Only if the sender consents to its disclosure can the matter be brought out beyond the original recipient. Even behavioural traditions like the hallowed concept of ‘officer like qualities’ (OLQs) obliges the parties in a protected relationship/communication to safeguard that trust. The higher the rank, the higher is the responsibility to behoove and uphold such covenants.

Sadly, the curse of selective ‘leaks’ (from anywhere in the chain) of such privileged communication is now visible in the otherwise disciplined realm of the Armed Forces. This is especially disconcerting as the contents of exchanges in the Forces could be of a strictly professional and restricted matter warranting restraint, secrecy and opining on matters that ultimately impact the kinetic ability of the organisation, policy matters of national security, and ultimately, affecting the sovereignty, integrity and dignity of the nation.

Matters between two responsible (read, senior and influential in hierarchy) officials need to be particularly safeguarded. Regrettably, it was the exact same sort of privileged communication (of professional, command and functional nature) that got ‘leaked’ in the public sphere. On the basis of such a ‘leak’ and essentially an incomplete perspective of the issue of hand, many started commenting (even accusing) on individuals and the content itself.

To reiterate, it wasn’t a case of a conscientious whistleblower but of a salacious ‘leak’ in a do main where exposing professional exchanges between two individuals can be sensitive and very confidential, and is hence disallowed. It served neither the individuals nor any cause and can only have deleterious consequences on the culture of the organisation in the long run. Professional plain-speak without the accompanying dressing of fluff and ambiguities of any bureaucratic, political or even philosophical language is at the heart of military efficiency.

The nature of the military domain is such that if unnecessary guardrails (beyond professional correctness, measure and decency that are always implied) of language are imposed, the timeless culture of actionable, to-the point, precise engagement will get compromised. Military conversations, assessments and opining impose an assumption of a lot of qualified and privileged context on to the recipient. For the uninitiated to comment on these without the contextual knowledge will always be inadequate, incorrect and grossly unfair. It is against this backdrop that a letter written by a senior Army General to his senior in the chain of command on a strictly professional matter, whilst sharing his informed perspective as expected from a responsible and conscientious professional, became a matter of public debate.

Such an assessment is just one of the many that such individuals would have exchanged as part of their mandated duty, and it is up to the institution and its well-established systems to take such feedback on board (along with that from other stakeholders) to then arrive at an optimum assessment for subsequent action, if deemed warranted. The final decision to accept the assessment made partly or fully, or even not at all, goes through the rigour and grind of scientific and data-based validation, before becoming a corrective or perpetuating action or policy.

To decry such an assessment via selective ‘leaks’ and affix aspersions of bias, retrograde or even patriarchal thinking is to jump the gun. Whilst it is easy to comment on and ‘advise’ the institution on various aspects of prospective soldiering by academics, judges, politicians or even bu reaucrats ~ the brutal and often fatal reality of battle necessitates an exposure on to the battleground that is never sought or partaken by many armchair critics. This is not to suggest that the institution is beyond questioning or that well-meant ‘advise’ cannot accrue from div erse quarters ~ but the means for the same is certainly not via leaked letters of privileged communication.

There are properly designated functionaries (usually civilian bureaucrats or political authorities of the Defence Ministry) who need to be engaged and not the professional soldiers themselves, and certainly not through their leaked letters. Importantly, the Indian Armed Forces have been early adopters of many progressive changes that reflects the optimum utilization of the entirety of citizenry, that is certainly not bound by factors like gender, religion, caste or region. Beyond partisanship or peripheral concerns, the top leadership of the Armed Forces is expected to comment, course-correct and improvise all initiatives that it undertakes without a sense of fear, favour or any other topical consideration.

For example, recent issues like the Agniveer scheme too had raised many well-meaning concerns and it is now the duty of the serving Armed Forces leadership on the ground to confirm (or even dismiss) the exact impact of the scheme, without fearing judgement or consequences. There could be financial (read, pension bill), political or even employment-related issues facing the country that may have propelled the lawmakers to devise a scheme like Agniveers, but it is up to the Armed Forces to clearly spell out if recruitment for a longterm soldier or a short-term approach for 75 per cent of intake, makes better soldiers or culture in the barracks.

If the officers start fearing that ‘leaked’ letters of their honest and professional opinion can get exposed, they will start massaging their critical feedback, which would be terrible for blunt and straightforward organisations like the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are called the ‘sword arm of the nation’ for a reason and only the best, ramrod straight, and most efficacious individuals must make the cut, irrespective of any gender, sociological or religious denomination.

Importantly, ensuring meritocracy is not about retaining old stereotypes, traditional biases, or discriminations, but about ensuring a level playing field which disdains any form of discrimination based on gender or societal ‘types’ ~ this requires constant oversight, introspection (like the feedback in the said case) and improvement plans, as it could actually defeat the very sort of discrimination that is getting alluded to.

Armed Forces are neither the playground for fixing societal issues (e.g., pension bills, unemployment or gender issues) and nor ought they to be the bastion of regressive and discriminatory societal anchorages. To ensure that only merit prevails, they must constantly question processes, new initiatives, and even traditions, to deliver the most effective, lethal and progressive moorings. ‘Leaking’ letters written in confidence and with a professional spirit do disservice to an institutional culture of constant improvement, inclusivity, and spirit of camaraderie.

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)