Only a few institutions in India command as much public respect as the Indian Army. Its professionalism, sacrifice, and unwavering commitment to national security have earned it a place of honour in the national consciousness. Precisely because of that stature, however, an important question deserves to be asked: can any institution, however respected, choose to disregard binding government guidelines without explaining its reasons to the public?
This question arises from the Indian Army’s position on anonymous and pseudonymous complaints.
For decades, the Government of India, through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), has examined the dangers posed by anonymous complaints. After extensive deliberations, the conclusion was clear: disciplinary or vigilance action should not be initiated on the basis of anonymous or pseudonymous complaints. Such complaints often become tools of personal vendetta, encourage malicious targeting, and create an atmosphere of fear within organisations.
These guidelines have not remained confined to civil departments. They have been accepted and implemented across government institutions, including the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force — organisations that value discipline no less than the Indian Army. Even the Indian Army itself, for a brief period around 2020, appeared to follow and enforce this policy.
Then suddenly the Indian Army chose to retreat from its position, reportedly citing the need for better discipline and internal accountability. Yet no detailed public reasoning, empirical study, or institutional explanation accompanied this departure from the accepted government-wide framework.
That is where the real issue begins. If anonymous complaints are harmful to discipline, as concluded by the CVC and DoPT after decades of administrative experience, how do they suddenly become essential for maintaining discipline in the Indian Army? If the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force can maintain exemplary standards while following these guidelines, what makes the Indian Army fundamentally different?
The answer may well exist. But if such reasons exist, why are they not placed in the public domain?
A mature democracy does not fear questions. Institutions strengthen their legitimacy when they explain their departures from established norms rather than expecting unquestioned acceptance.
The issue is whether a respected institution should be exempted from explaining why it chooses not to follow a policy accepted by virtually every other arm of government, including its own sister services.
If the DoPT-CVC policy is flawed, then the government should reconsider it for everyone. If the policy is sound, then selective compliance requires justification. What cannot be defended in a constitutional democracy is selective silence and arbitrariness.
The Indian Army often speaks of discipline. Fair enough. But discipline is not merely obedience within the ranks; it is also adherence to established norms and procedures. When an institution departs from those norms, the least it owes the public is an explanation.
The question, therefore, is not whether the Indian Army can maintain discipline. It undoubtedly can. The question is whether discipline alone can become a blanket justification for ignoring guidelines that every other disciplined institution in the country has chosen to follow.
Until that question is answered, concerns about arbitrariness will continue to linger within the ranks of Olive Green.
This is a contributed opinion article received from an external author. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Central Post or its editorial team
