in the armed forces. They are too well known to be recounted and re-emphasised. For decades military strategists of all countries have been writing about the criticality of jointmanship. It is also undisputedly agreed that Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) precludes segregated service-wise operations. It is common knowledge that in contemporary RMA-oriented warfare, joint operations constitute the key to battlefield dominance and military superiority. RMA pre-supposes total tri-service integration in thought and execution.
Jointmanship means conducting integrated military operations with common strategy, methodology and conduct. A country is said to have attained jointmanship of its armed forces, if it institutionalises the following:-
According to the famous dictum of Field Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode, “The safety, honour and welfare of your country come first, always and every time.” If that be so, there should never be any opposition to jointmanship as all military leaders recognise that jointmanship is central to national security and swear by it. True jointmanship entails assigning supremacy to national interests, with all other considerations becoming inconsequential.
As regards India, it fares dismally when judged against the standard parameters of jointmanship. It will not be incorrect to state that jointmanship in India is non-existent. Ex-Naval Chief Admiral J G Nadkarni put it candidly when he said, “Jointmanship in India exists to the extent of the three Chiefs routinely being photographed backslapping each other, but not much more beyond that.’’
Implementation of jointmanship on ground has been excruciatingly difficult and slow. All jointmanship proposals get opposed fiercely on specious grounds. How can measures which are considered indispensable to national security concerns be opposed by the very military leaders entrusted with ensuring national security? It is a highly intriguing and paradoxical situation.
Attitudes, Responses and Reactions
Whenever jointmanship is talked about in India, National Defence Academy (NDA) is cited as an example. There is no denying the fact that a three-year course at NDA is exceedingly useful especially during the formative years. However, its value is limited in the long run as service prejudices tend to overwhelm camaraderie of cadet days. Most of the senior appointments in the armed forces are held by ex-NDA officers. Yet they fail to rise above service bias and only pay lip service to jointmanship. Admiral Nadkarni acknowledges, “Jointmanship is not playing golf together and stating that they all belong to one course in the NDA”.
Besides NDA, a number of other inter-services courses are also conducted. They have also contributed little to generate genuine jointmanship except promoting social interaction during the course. Likewise, affiliation of a few naval warships with army regiments can at best be termed as a display of ceremonial interfacing.
Although importance and need for jointmanship remain undisputed, the concept evokes wide-ranging reaction amongst Indian military leaders. On one extreme we have fervent proponents of jointmanship whereas on the other extreme there is a small minority which is intransigently opposed. The majority lies somewhere between the two extremes.
Illustration 1: Jointmanship and Reactions
Table 1 shows broad categorization of reactions. The percentages are approximate estimates, based on informal interaction with a large and varied cross-section of the defence officers. The sampling is indicative in nature. The table has been compiled to highlight the fact that most military leaders do not oppose jointmanship. Only a small minority (about 10 percent) resists introduction of all jointmanship measures.
True jointmanship assigns absolute importance to national interests. Therefore, there have to be very compelling reasons for dissonance. In order to understand why something is, it is essential to understand how it came to be.
Response to jointmanship is an attribute of underlying attitudes and to appreciate reasons for opposition to jointmanship, it is essential to identify attitudinal traits of military leadership. It is only through the modulation of attitudes that willing acceptance of jointmanship can be facilitated.
Attitude is defined as a disposition or inclination in respect of something or someone. Attitudes are affected both by implicit and explicit influences. Attitudes can be positive, negative, neutral and even ambivalent (possessing both positive and negative hues at the same time). Even the degree or severity can vary.
Attitudes are formed by observational learning from the environment, individual judgment, personal beliefs and peer influences. As regards military, it is the most hierarchy based organisation where attitudes and behaviour are influenced by precedents as well. Attitudes do change with experience but it is normally a slow, unpredictable and spasmodic process.
What makes some segments of the Indian military leadership wary of jointmanship and adopt a negative attitude towards it? Major attitudinal reasons have been discussed below.
Lack of Effective Inter-Services Communication
Despite all public bonhomie, there is limited interaction, dialogue and communication between the three services. This results in non-development of mutual trust, which is essential for joint functioning. This lack of trust can be gauged from the fact that the Indian Army prepared General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) for helicopters without consulting the Air Force. Similarly, it prepared GSQR for deep sea diving equipment without seeking inputs from the Navy.
Even Comptroller and Auditor General of India has faulted the three services for separately buying the same equipment from the same source at different cost, thereby losing benefits of economies of scale. It found that items (like Unmanned Arial Vehicles, Sniper Rifles and Underwater Diving Equipment), which were common to the three services, were procured by them independently without reference to each other. It resulted in failure to obtain best value for money for the country.
Regimental Affiliations Promote Close-mindedness
The services accord immense importance to the concept of ‘regimental/ corps/branch affiliations’. Undoubtedly, regimental spirit acts as a force multiplier at unit/battalion level but becomes counterproductive at higher levels. The psychology and mental outlook of senior leaders become insular, resulting in three major harmful fallouts.
First, some senior commanders tend to develop unhealthy prejudices and partisan attitude. Many find it prudent to display their predisposition for their affiliations openly. Secondly, it damages organisational cohesion and gives rise to factionalism. Strong regimental loyalties result in social stratification and dissentions. And finally, affiliations encourage ‘protégé syndrome’ and displace merit as the primary measure of competence in the organisation.
Excessive adherence to affiliations inhibits development of broad mindedness. If some military leaders fail to rise above petty regimental level thinking, they can barely be expected to have an attitude necessary for inter-services integration.
The ‘Outsider’ Syndrome
Over-cohesiveness has both positive and negative effects. It may knit a group together but it also generates inter-group friction as highly cohesive groups tend to