After all, if he were not to get justice from the chief, he could surely have appealed to the Union defence minister. If he did not get justice from the defence minister, the honourable course would have been to resign from service, without approaching the media or the courts. The issue is compounded because every one has ignored the four-page press release issued by Army Headquarters in this regard. They have exposed their ignorance about the procedures in the services. The effort is always to give an opportunityto the affected person to be heard by ordering a court of inquiry. There are established norms for the composition of such courts. There is no reason why an appeal, which is an internal matter, should be publicised. Singh has taken recourse to publicity because his case is either not strong, or he feels that he will not get justice from the Army.

I would like to state here that many of us feel really confounded that Singh did indeed pass on his appeal to the press and that he sent a copy to the chief directly. One does not expect it of an officer of his seniority and experience. The court of inquiry would do well to establish the facts.

Having said that, one should consider that there has always been a feeling in the services that grievances do not get resolved objectively. These pertain not only to personal matters of promotions and postings but to troop deployment and other professional matters. The tendency not to stir the hornets' nest and to let things be has crept into the service. Commanders nolonger want to hear about incursion or ingress. Their general attitude is: I don't care how you do it, it is your business.

The main reason for this state of affairs is that civilian bosses do not listen to the chief. They are busy in appeasing their vote banks and the services certainly do not constitute a vote bank. The Army, consequently, is perpetually lacking in manpower and equipment. Its equipment cannot even match that used by the mujahideen in terms of technology and sophistication. The feeling at the very top, therefore, appears to be one of accepting the situation as it cannot be changed.

Let us take the case of Kargil. It is now known that there were large gaps in the deployment of defences and this has been the case for many years. Why were such large gaps accepted? The incursion certainly did not take place overnight. The so-called mujahideen must have been helped immeasurably by the local people in achieving their objectives. Does this not constitute an intelligence failure even at thelocal commanders' level, leave alone at the national level? Also, does not responsibility devolve on the divisional and higher commanders for the surveillance failures? Apparently not, because the corps commander has already been decorated for distinguished service. Was Singh the first one to make an issue of these deficiencies? The court of inquiry or the Subrahmanyam Committee would surely have been authorised to delve into these aspects as well.

We in the services know that commanders at all levels desire extra troops for their `enhanced threat perception'. Troops are never adequate to meet the perceived threat, whether at the level of the infantry battalion or higher. There are differences of opinion and assessment at all levels. It is incorrect to air these perceptions in public. There is a ceiling on the Forces while there is no ceiling on the threat from hostile countries. The point to consider is whether the civilian authority is competent to overrule the logical assessments of the services, when itcomes to the defence of the country. Do we need a Kargil for the government to accede to the demands of the services? This is especially so because a majority of the decision-makers at the civilian level have no clue of threat perceptions at the tactical or strategic levels.

Since they overrule the services, should they not take the responsibility for the consequences of doing so? Is there not a necessity, in the light of the Singh affair, to constitute some kind of a tribunal for professional grievances? The services have been clamouring for a tribunal of this kind that would redress their grievances because, while the courts are legally sound in their judgments, they miss the essence of service traditions, ethos and requirements. Such a tribunal could comprise retired service and civilian personnel and have the powers of a high court. Service personnel would then have the option of approaching the tribunal in case of perceived injustice from the defence minister. They will not be permitted to approach thecourts, but would be able to appeal against the tribunal's decisions in the Supreme Court.

In the ultimate analysis, where does the buck stop? If Singh is to be hanged for allowing the incursions, should there be no accountability up the chain? Why should the defence minister not be held accountable? The civilian often does not understand or deliberately disregards the ethos of the services. There are misconceptions about regimentation in the services. Regimentation is not a dehumanising process, it is nothing but commanding, managing and organising with discipline. In fact, the freedom given in the services to express one's views fearlessly is much more than in many other professions. This should be so because the decisions taken affect human lives. In the Army, the ethos is ``the desire of the chief is an order''. The chief would not voice a desire unless he has gone into all its pros and cons. Hence, to criticise the chief in public, as has been done by some political parties and newspapers, is todestroy the core values and the ethos of the Army.

The writer is a retired major general