Senior army officers face a revised policy on promotions

Lieutenant generals will soon have an additional hoop to jump through before they get promoted

 

By Ajai Shukla

The Mint, 28th January 2025

 

Amongst the bold reforms that India’s military is embracing, its organizational structure will change from 17 single-service commands to a more functional and operationally responsive network of 3-5 tri-service theatre commands. To ensure that the army-led commands are headed by generals that the government considers suitable, the army is modifying its promotion policy at the highest levels. From 1 April, it will institute a “quantified assessment” that will for the first time grade all lieutenant generals, including its 14 corps commanders, on their performance.

 

So far, the confidential reports of three-star ranked corps commanders, who are one level below the army’s theatre commanders and two levels below the army chief, have not had the “quantitative assessment” that all other reports have. The apparent assumption was that those found fit to command a corps are also competent to command a theatre. In effect, a corps commander could get command of a theatre so long as the officer had at least 18 months of service left before retirement at age 60. 

 

There is sound logic in the assumption that an officer promoted to the rank of lieutenant general, eligible to command an army corps (of 60,000 – 80,000 troops), is also fit to command a theatre. Theatre commanders, like corps commanders, are also lieutenant generals. Further, an officer who has been evaluated for command of a corps would have been comprehensively assessed over the years by four army selection boards – one from lieutenant colonel to colonel; from colonel to brigadier; from brigadier to major general, and from major general to lieutenant general. These selection boards study every annual confidential report written on the officer during his service, especially reports involving combat service; and his performance on every professional course he attended. On average, each army selection board rejects 1-2 officers for every one pronounced fit for promotion. 

 

This rigorous selection process ensures that, of the 1,500 to 1,800 officers commissioned from the army’s training academies each year, less than one per cent – or 12-14 officers – become lieutenant generals, with clearance to command one of the army’s 14 field corps. There are almost a hundred lieutenant generals in the army, including the heads of various directorates, branches and services. Currently, those who command a field corps can expect to head an army command, provided they have 18 months of residual service. However, once the new selection policy is implemented in April, their performance as corps commanders will also be put to scrutiny.

 

Many officers are wondering why this important policy change is being rolled out in a hurry. In the past, when the residual service requirement was reduced from 24 months to 18 months, it seemed obvious that a particular corps commander stood to benefit from that policy change. Now, apprehensions have again arisen that the latest change may be designed for the benefit of some favourites of the establishment. It is likely that the revised policy will be challenged in court by officers who miss out on promotions on its account.

 

Moreover, many in the military community wonder if this additional hoop that the corps commanders must jump through is actually a lever for exercising control over the army’s senior ranks by deterring even legitimate professional dissent. Since a good grading in the corps commanders’ report is essential for an officer’s elevation, this report, it is feared, could become a convenient tool for arm-twisting corps commanders to toe the line laid down by superiors within the large defence establishment.

 

The new policy is also understood to prescribe a new format for lieutenant generals’ reports, which differs substantially from the reporting format that the officers get used to as they ascend the reporting chain over the course of their careers in service.

 

Up to the rank of major general, officers are graded on a scale of 1 to 9, on a range of personality attributes, such as loyalty, honesty, courage and moral fibre. They are similarly graded on a range of “demonstrated performance” attributes, after which each officer is assigned a single-figure “overall grading” and a single paragraph “pen picture”, which sum up the entire report. Lieutenant generals, however, are graded only through the medium of a pen picture, dispensing with the numerical rating of individual attributes.

 

Many of the drawbacks in the system proposed for grading lieutenant generals stem from the fact that all three services – the army, navy and air force – follow different practices and standards in grading their officers. In the army, for example, an average performer would be rated 8, while being rated 7 or even 6 in the navy. A commanding officer in the army would not balk at giving a perfect 9-point report to an officer who had performed well during the year; while a similar performer might be rated 8, or even 7 in the navy or air force. 

 

Therefore, the first change needed for grading officers in the more complex operating environment of a tri-service theatre command is to “equalise” reports by ensuring a common standard for officers. That would avoid many of the resentments that might get in the way of the ambitious tri-service constructs we plan to adopt.