New Delhi: On Thursday, members of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses will finally get to vote on whether the Narendra Modi government was right to bypass the institute’s executive council in naming the think-tank after Manohar Parrikar, the former defence minister who died in March 2019.
This will also be the first time the IDSA’s general body will be meeting since May 2020, when several executive council members spoke out against the name change that was imposed on the institute without any consultation.
But instead of asserting itself in the face of this violation of procedure – the IDSA is a registered society whose name can only be changed by its members and not the government – the executive council decided to pass the buck to the institute’s general body. Thus, at the July 15 AGM, a key item on the agenda for members to consider is approval of the change of name. And they will do so through proxy voting – which has been allowed for the first time.
This may impact the outcome of the vote as the government has been reaching out to members individually and they may not like to be seen as openly opposing the proposal.
‘Don’t name defence institution after a politician’
On February 18, 2020 the Union government announced its decision to name IDSA after Parrikar. “The decision has been taken to honour the commitment and legacy of the late Manohar Parrikar”, the Ministry of Defence said at the time, adding, “It will align the vision and aspiration of the premier defence institute with the contribution of the former Defence Minister and Padma Bhushan awardee.”
On what made Parrikar eligible for this honour, the MoD said, “His biggest contribution was towards the implementation of the long-standing One Rank One Pension (OROP) demand for the Armed Forces”.
Also, it said, he initiated major military reforms during his tenure from November 9, 2014 to March 14, 2017, with the objective of building a better teeth-to-tail ratio by setting up an expert committee for enhancing combat capability and rebalancing defence expenditure.
Also read: The Law of Renaming: The Need for Mandatory Public Consultation
As per the Societies Registration Act, 1860, this decision should have been made by the executive council.
However, the IDSA, which is an independent and autonomous body under the Ministry of Defence whose name had not been tinkered with since it was established as a registered society in New Delhi in 1965, was clearly bypassed in taking the decision.
An executive council member told The Wire that the Union government had also overlooked the fact that IDSA was a globally renowned institute and a name change could confuse those who did not know Parrikar.
The member said, “We all respect Manohar Parrikar, we have nothing against him, but why reduce him to an institute? If at all you want to honour him, honour him with a bigger name like the National Defence University or others.”
The member said that there was another point which had annoyed them.
A stamp to commemorate Y.B. Chavan.
“There had been attempts in the past to change IDSA’s name. In 1984, demands were raised that the institute be named after former deputy prime minister and defence minister Y.B. Chavan, following his death.”
After the resignation of Krishna Menon as defence Minister in 1962, in the wake of India-China conflict, Nehru gave Chavan the defence portfolio.
However, as Professor S.D. Muni, who is also a member of the executive council and professor emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University, told The Wire, this demand was not pursued. The logic that which prevailed was that as a defence establishment and an autonomous academic institution, the institute should not be named after a politician as subsequent governments will have a problem with that.
“Today JNU and Nehru Memorial have been brought under scrutiny because they carry Nehru’s name,” noted Muni. “Tomorrow, if some other government comes in, they may want to change the name of IDSA yet again and name it after their leaders. So, it was felt that we should not add a person’s name to the institution, which is otherwise independent and autonomous.”
IDSA is governed by a charter called the Memorandum of Agreement under the Societies Act which completely empowers the executive council to govern the institute. “Now,” an EC member pointed out, “any change of this dimension – relating to renaming the institute – should have come from the EC and should have had its approval. But the government just issued a fiat and changed the name without ever referring the matter to the EC.”
‘AGM was not held for a full year’
The matter was referred to the EC after the government had already taken the decision and issued a press note. “So, the EC said you neglected us and you did not want our deliberations and therefore we do not want to take any decisions and we also do not want to come in the way. It said, you please pass the matter on to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) which is the yearly gathering of the society’s life members and members,” an EC member said.
The EC then decided to have an emergency special AGM for this purpose within the stipulated period but that meeting was not held last year citing COVID-19.
“But,” the EC member said, “there were many windows in between, as this decision was taken on May 19, 2020. There were periods when things appeared normal and the IDSA could have held the meeting. But for some reason, no meeting was called in a full year and it is only now that the AGM will meet on July 15.”
Also read: Petition Filed Against Construction of Parrikar Memorial on Goa’s Miramar Beach
In the meantime, the member said, “For more than a year the administration has been using the new name, which is not legal. The name continues to be ‘IDSA’ when it comes to Goods and Services Taxes, Income Tax and other requirements and also in all formal communications.”
Even in the annual report for the AGM, to take place on July 15, the institute is called ‘IDSA’ and not ‘MP-IDSA’ because it is not legally correct, said the executive council member.
IDSA’s official Twitter page.
“So in violation of the legal norm and in violation of the charter of IDSA, the administration has been using the name because either some officials in the MoD or some senior functionary in the Union government wants it that way,” he said.
An ‘infringement’
Stating that this is how the institutional structure of the IDSA was bypassed and that this was seen by the EC members as an infringement of the autonomy of the institution, the EC member added, “Even the Director Generals of IDSA are appointed only through the EC and the clause to the effect is there.”
The member added that the Union government had bypassed the EC when it came to appointing former ambassador Sujan Chinoy as the DG of IDSA as well. “And if anyone were to file a PIL in court, Chenoy and the Centre will have a very hard time defending the appointment and the manner in which it was done,” he added.
He said the EC’s contention is that even in changing the name there is infringement of autonomy.
“Without any disrespect, no name should have been given to the institute, since it already has its own identity internationally. This is considered one of the best think-tanks in India and everyone knows it as IDSA. Now prefixing ‘MP’ before IDSA would only confuse the international community because Parrikar was a great man for us but he was not so widely known internationally. That is why, we in the EC recommended taking the matter to the general body,” he said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi with former defence minister Manohar Parrikar. Credit: Reuters/Prakash Singh/Pool/Files
A mistake?
Another member of the IDSA executive council said that now that the Union government has taken the decision to rename the institute after Parrikar, it is difficult to see how it could be reversed.
“The EC was indeed bypassed but they also made a big mistake by simply allowing the general body to take a decision in the matter. The EC members should have taken a stand and decided for or against it on their own. However, one member proposed that the matter be handed to the AGM and they agreed.”
This member said, subsequently, when the administration also announced that an AGM was being called, an EC member, who came from the defence forces, had asked for an air ticket to be able to attejde. When it was conveyed that so many airfares were not possible, he proposed allowing votes by proxy, and this paved the way for this kind of voting for the first time in IDSA.
The EC member said that with the Modi government firmly behind the decision and all the members having been approached by it personally for proxy votes (on which the names of the members are written and which are signed by them) he found it difficult to believe that many would be willing to oppose the name change now.
The ballot “bears a member’s name. Though it is not revealed to others, the administration remains in possession of the votes and knows who voted how,” he said.
K. Subrahmanyam. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
This member also pointed out that in another break from convention, the candidature of several sitting EC members is being opposed as they seek re-election. The convention was that no one opposed a member’s candidature for a second term and such a member did not contest thereafter.
It was only after a break that members could seek re-election. However, this time, he said, the EC posts held by a media professional and a representative of the Air Force are being contested despite this being only the second term for them. Also, the position kept for a retired Army officer has two contestants, which never used to be the case, he claimed, hoping that one would drop out in keeping with tradition.
‘Neutral’
Several members have pointed out that if the IDSA was to be named after anyone, it should have been the noted scholar, journalist and analyst K. Subrahmanyam, who was associated with IDSA since its inception in 1965 and was also its director from 1969 to 1975 and then again from 1980 to 1987.
However, as one of the leading defence analysts and former directors of IDSA, Commodore Uday Bhaskar (retired), who is also considered the institute’s ‘archivist’, told The Wire, “When I was asked about the issue last year, I had referred to how ‘Subbu’ had shared an anecdote with us – that after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984 and the subsequent demise of Y.B. Chavan, there were feelers on whether IDSA should be named after one of them. However, wise people at that time, who were steering the institute as members of the executive council and other members of the strategic community, were very clear that it should not be named after any political figure. Being a defence study institute the name should remain neutral. Just IDSA.”