Army and the 'C' word: How to read between the denials

Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defence Minister AK Antony have rubbished The Indian Express report that talked of “non-notified” army unit movements “towards Delhi” on the night of 16 January, which had the defence ministry seriously worried. The problem with their denials is that we don’t know what they are denying. None of the facts are being denied. The Express story has been masterfully written to hint at something without saying it actually. It does not use the word “coup” even once though that is what common logic would lead anyone to think. In fact, it uses the curious technique of suggesting something by trying to deny it. How does the “coup” idea get suggested? The report says: “Nobody is using the “C” word to imply anything other than ‘curious’. All else is considered an impossibility.” But the report all along tries to make “C” sounds more menacing than coup. [caption id=“attachment_266231” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Though the General is absolved of guilt there is something being hinted at . PTI”]  [/caption] This is why when the PM says the report was “alarmist” and shouldn’t have been “taken at face value” we actually need to take note: the report was indeed “alarmist” in an indirect way, and we can’t take the facts purely at face value. There is value in what was left unsaid, and what was said. Antony called the report absolutely "baseless" . From the word go, and especially the headline, the report raises a scare when it says “Two key army units moved towards Delhi without notifying Govt.” No need for the “C” word here. The menace is already inbuilt into it. The words used by the newspaper to describe the incident clearly indicate something tense and suspenseful happened on the night of 16-17 January. The linkage to Gen VK Singh’s Supreme Court petition on the age issue anyway gives the game away. Something is being hinted at here – even though it is being denied. “There is unanimity over Gen VK Singh’s impeccable reputation as a sound, professional soldier, earned over nearly 42 years of distinguished service,” says the Express. So Brutus is an honourable man, indeed? The sense of disquiet and menace comes right at the outset of the copy when the Express says the “establishment” tried to keep the facts under wraps for 11 weeks. It talks of “18 very difficult hours” and an “unusual night when Raisina Hill was spooked as never before in peace time.” Even if the “C” word is not mentioned, it is definitely suggested that the ministry did not mentally rule it out – even if Antony now says the reports are “completely baseless.” How baseless it is, we can make out from the Express report. The ministry viewed the army movements with “curiousity and some confusion”, it says, and then goes on to confuse the reader about it. Thus a “bemused” establishment raises an “alert”. If the ministry is bemused, it should be sending SMS jokes about this to the general, not sounding an “alert” and issuing a terror alarm to slow down traffic. After saying that “over the decades New Delhi has come to be totally relaxed and trustful of the apolitical and professionally correct nature of its military leadership”, the Express goes on to suggest the opposite: that the defence ministry was gripped by suspicion. The report, for example, talks of “lookouts” spotting the movement of an army movement towards the capital, and how the situation “changed rapidly” when reports of “another military movement towards Delhi” were also reported. The army columns were being “tracked” and “watched.” Fear is writ large in the actions of the ministry – as reported by the newspaper. It speaks of the defence ministry calling back its secretary from Malaysia, and he opened his office late at night and called in the Director-General of Military Operations to explain what the army movements were all about. He was asked to call the army units back. The PM himself is informed of the manufactured crisis at “the crack of dawn” on 17 January. The report also talks about the army’s explanations – that they were testing their ability to deploy quickly during a fog - being queried in detail: why did a mechanised unit from Hisar have to come towards Delhi to check out fog preparedness? Why was the IAF not informed of the exercise? And many, many more such questions. In short, the ministry was deeply suspicious – but now says its suspicions were baseless. The underlying tone of the article – which even ends up saying its report could well be “officially denied for now” - is that something serious was afoot, serious enough for the defence ministry to panic. So much for the PM calling the media alarmist. The newspaper concludes that somebody cried wolf too soon, but does not dispel the notion that there may have been a wolf. Again it uses denial to suggest the opposite. Says the Express: “To be fair, the MoD’s considered view now seems to be that it was a false alarm, caused by some non-adherence to Standard Operating Procedures (SoPs) by the army and an alarmist civil/political reaction on a particularly distrustful day. We learn, however, as a consequence, that certain “important correctives” have been put in place. Incidentally, the home ministry has turned down the Army Headquarters’ recommendation (subsequent to the events of January 16/17) to appoint Lt Gen Choudhary as DG Assam Rifles, the paramilitary force it controls.” LT Gen Choudhary was the DGMO who was called to the Defence Ministry for explanations. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark…