A positive interpretation of the Army Chief’’s assertion that the defence budget sufficed to ensure an adequate level of military preparedness would be that it was an effort to reassure the public, and his men, that a re-run of 1962 was not looming on the horizon.

Yet, since that view ran counter to the presentation that the Vice Chief made to the parliamentary standing committee ~ which endorsed apprehensions over low financial allocations ~ an impression is likely to be created that the Army is a house divided.

Maybe not in operational terms but certainly in matters of perception: the quantum of budgetary provisions is often deemed the yardstick against which is assessed the priority the government accords to defence.

And such a basic difference in Army HQ does not augur well, particular in a situation which, as Gen Bipin Rawat has put it, the Army could have to fight on two fronts.

The opposite interpretation, perhaps an extreme one, is that the Chief’s bid at damage-control was politically rather than militarily influenced ~ in tune with government’s thinking that it can do wrong.

The buzz is that within the defence establishment there are concerns over the Chief’s jettisoning the traditionally apolitical posture of the armed services, those concerns would be exacerbated by the divisions over defence spending: a matter on which the otherwise voluble defence minister has said precious little.

It would serve little purpose projecting the glaring differences between the presentation to the standing committee and what the Chief told a newspaper a couple of days back, and to be fair to Gen Rawat he did say, “some more budget, if it is given to us, we will be happy…” However, expert analysts would query the contention “we can balance the budget to meet our operational requirements.”

Adding that “it is possible to reprioritise and readjust the budget within the existing money available by giving operational preparedness a higher priority.

This is not to say the accommodation for families are not needed, but they can take some time….” Does that not bolster the “wasteful expenditure” criticism? Was that not reminiscent of PV Narasimha Rao having spoken of meeting the military’s “minimum requirements”, not quite in harmony with the muscular image this government seeks to project of itself? Defence expenditure has been the focus of several panels ~ obviously no acceptable formula has been evolved.

Time was when such issues would have figured prominently during the “defence debate” in Parliament, but now both Houses are so excessively “political” that key issues of national governance get bypassed.

The Indian soldier was described as the “salt of the earth” by Cariappa ~ today there is need to take a close look at if he gets the leadership ~ military, civil and political ~ that he unquestionably merits.