Military resisting reforms remains mired in mediocrity

Response to article: Selecting Top Brass
Sir,
I must compliment you for providing a platform for healthy debate on issues of importance to the services. My response to the comments of Lt Gen Sharma is given below. Kindly have it circulated as well.
Warm regards,
Maj Gen Mrinal Suman

This refers to Lt Gen YN Sharma’s response to my article (click here). With due respect to his valued comments, I stand by every word of my article. I wish Gen Sharma had countered my arguments rather than talk of ‘evolution’ and ‘resilience’ of the system.
I agree that empanelment of Lt Gens is based on a ‘multi-level selection process involving Service HQ/MOD/ACC’. But, what happens after that? Lt Gen is the last rung of the merit-based ladder. Thereafter it is one’s date of birth that drives promotions – three years of residual service makes one a Corps Cdr and two years residual service makes one an Army Cdr. One may become the Chief if one was born later than other Army Cdrs. Where is merit?
Gen Sharma has quoted a few cases of alleged supersession which occurred decades ago. I do not know about the others but Lt Gens Balaram and Tuli were granted Army Cdr's status and pension as PSOs because they did not have required residual service to serve as Army Cdrs. That was done as a very special case. They were not superseded on merit or the lack of it. Both would have made outstanding Army Cdrs. On the other hand I can cite numerous cases where rare talent was lost. Lt Gen Narahari was one such person. That was my primary point which unfortunately remains unanswered.
It is a common sight to see senior officers huddled over seniority lists in lunch break in Delhi ticking names of likely Corps and Army Cdrs based on their inter-se age profile. It is a simple case of ‘vacancy vs date-of-birth’ match making. Every Lt Gen stands in a queue awaiting vacancy to occur before his age runs out. Today, everyone knows who the next Chiefs would be as they know the ‘age-queue’. Merit is no criteria at all. It is hard to believe that during the last 30 years (since Lt Gen Sinha’s supersession) every senior- most Army Cdr was the most competent officer to be the Chief.
Interestingly, a capable officer is refused Army Cdr’s appointment on the plea that he cannot provide two years continuous service. Yet, nearly every Army Cdr is shifted after one year in a game of musical chairs. ARTRAC has had 15 Army Cdrs in a span of 19 years – an average tenure of little over a year. What continuity are we talking about? As regards parochialism of some Chiefs, kindly refer to my article “Let Parochialism not Afflict the Services” (circulated by Brig Kamboj).
Finally, I must add that I am a proud Sapper officer and was never in the run for the appointments discussed. Therefore, I cannot be accused of subjectivity and attempting to ‘subvert the system’. With due respect to Gen Sharma’s views, it will be wrong to term suggestions for reforms as ‘growing exuberance/ cynicism/ intemperance’. Reforms help in evolution of institutions rather than ‘hurting the nobility and grace of our ethos’. Any institution that swears by status-quo and resists reforms remains mired in mediocrity. It is certainly a dangerous proposition for our much-admired Army.