In his fascinating work of 2012, ‘The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy’, Dr. Edward Luttwak, well-known political scientist and military historian, introduced the concept of what he termed as “great state autism”. The term is used to suggest that a collective national lack of situational awareness and distorted communications reduces a country’s ability to perceive international realities with clarity. Obviously, in this context, one accepts in good faith that the authors’ use of this term is obviously neither meant to stigmatize individuals with this disability, nor reflect in any manner on its complications.

In essence, he points out that leaders and ruling cliques are too fully immersed in dealing with the nitty-gritty of domestic politics, resolving crises and attending to their own ceremonial duties to have the time or mind space to delve deeply into or absorb the complexities of foreign affairs, except in times of crisis. Their decision making is thus driven by their dependency on careerist advisors who largely tend to tell them what they want to hear, lest their careers suffer, and that too in the most simplistic of terms. These inputs, after they are dove-tailed with that leader’s own perceptions, beliefs and priorities invariably result in decisions that tend to be out of synch with ground reality.

He further goes on to elucidate that in the context of China the autism it suffers from is of an “especially virulent” strain. This is because apart from its sheer size and massive population it is also impacted by the fact that through much of its isolationist history it has seen itself as the center of the world, a circumstance that it wishes to recreate. He points out that the change in its foreign policy from “peaceful rise” to hyper-nationalism and assertiveness can be explained as a combination of its complete misunderstanding of the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the United States, the need for President Xi Jinping, who had just assumed power, to assert his authority and the timid response of the Obama Administration to hegemonic actions in the South China Sea.

While Luttwak’s ‘Great State Autism’ hypothesis focuses on the issue of great power interaction through the lens of leadership dynamics, it should be possible to interpolate his hypothesis to understand and analyze leadership behaviors within large organizations, given their relative similarity, like the Indian Army, for instance? After all, in essence the Army is a humungously large organization that has historically been isolated from the general population and remains so, obviously for good reason and marches to its own drum beat. It also sees itself as central to ensuring the well- being of the State, though other instruments of State may have somewhat differing views on the subject. Most importantly, given its highly authoritarian and hierarchical command and control structure and emphasis on unquestioning obedience, their superior officer, especially those at the highest levels, are seen as akin to “God Kings” whose orders are to be implicitly followed.

Being a professional organization in which every individual starts at the very bottom and works his way upwards through time, it would be expected that all senior officers would be conversant and knowledgeable about the lower echelons of command, depending on his specialization and career profile, having been in that position at one time or the other. Yet, over the past few years we have seen a number of patently illogical decisions, verging on the ludicrous, having been initiated by Army Headquarters, obviously on the directions of the Chief. These actions have not only publicly portrayed the Army in extremely poor light, but have also demeaned the officer class as a whole and questioned their integrity and honesty, leading to deep fissures within the hierarchy. This has resulted in a lack of cohesiveness within the organization, an increasing distrust of the motives of the leadership and, as is to be expected, adversely impacting morale.

Some pertinent examples to illustrate the point include the Army Chief’s infamous directions banning officers on temporary duty from staying hotels, as authorized by government regulations, on the specious grounds that “some of them prefer to stay in hotels as they have to exchange briefcases with contractors.” Again in another recent case canteen facilities previously authorized with regard to purchase of cars through the CSD by military personnel have been drastically curtailed because “There were cases of two, three, four cars being purchased by a single person in less than five years. A correction was desperately needed”. Finally, we now have the ongoing controversy over the stoppage of tax deductions to Service personnel receiving disability pension on the grounds that “some veterans feel that the courage and valour displayed by soldiers wounded in battle should be compensated for by mere financial remuneration” and that “over the years broad-banding and compensation awarded for disability with income tax exemption, have led to a rise in personnel seeking disability, even for lifestyle diseases. The trend is worrisome and that too when the security challenges to the nation are on the rise.”

Despite all of this, it is hard to believe and it can be nobody’s case that the Army leadership, in effect the Army Chief, is itself bent on destroying its own credibility, in a sense hacking the very branch they are sitting on. Incidentally, it is pertinent to point out that each of these obnoxious and irrational decisions, of doubtful legality, has been shredded in public forums showing up the military leadership as vacuous, immature, unempathatic and completely out of touch with reality. While undoubtedly much of the blame can be laid on the Army Chief, whose tenure has not been lacking in controversy from the very beginning, those who have been complicit in supporting his decisions or have not objected to them in an effort to protect their career must also share in the blame. Each of us clearly comprehends that every such act only leads to further deterioration of the Service and makes the job of the next Chief that much harder. Yet the only reasonable explanation for their inability or unwillingness to tackle this display of virulent autism clearly points to the relevance of Dr. Edward Luttwak’s hypothesis. Finally, by now Prime Minister Modi must have realized the unnecessary embarrassment that the military leadership has caused his government by its latest foolishness, with regard to the circular on taxing disability pensions. It may not be a bad bet for the Government, and a fillip to his own reputation, to nip the controversy in the bud by nullifying the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the matter and allow a return to the status quo. Clearly the Army Chief would be shown up for his foolishness, but that is of little concern now that his term is soon coming to a rather ignoble end.