Field Marshals: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Warrant of Precedence
Field Marshals vis-à-vis Honorary Field Marshals
Man Aman Singh Chhina, March 3, 2024: The Indian Express
The annals of bureaucracy often throw out interesting information on various momentous events in the nation’s history. Thanks to declassified files now available in national archives, it is now possible to understand the thought process behind many decisions and the rationale given for taking those decisions. There are two interconnected events pertaining to the military, set apart by a decade or so, which make the theme for this week’s column. It deals with the back-and-forth movement of files between the ministries of Defence and Home Affairs regarding the position in the Warrant of Precedence (WoP) for Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw and later for Field Marshal K M Cariappa.
Another interesting facet of these discussions is the question which vexed bureaucrats at the time of Cariappa’s appointment as Field Marshal. Since the government initially declared him to be an Honourary Field Marshal, the officers were anxious to know whether there was a difference between a Field Marshal and an Honorary Field Marshal so that Cariappa’s position in the WoP could be decided. The dilemma was sorted by the government which later clarified that the word ‘Honourary’ had been dropped.
Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw’s case
Let’s first see the discussions which took place regarding Sam Manekshaw. A joint secretary of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) initiated a note on January 9, 1973 stating that with the promotion of General Manekshaw to the rank of Field Marshal with effect from Jan 1, 1973, the question of assigning him a suitable place in the WoP has to be considered.
The note added that the British WoP was of not much help as it had been drawn up in terms of the decorations bestowed on officials, both civil and military. Usually, officers of the rank of Lieutenant General are knighted in the UK and a Field Marshal is usually made a Baron if not a Viscount.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) initiated its own detailed note in this connection and pointed out that the MoD is of the view that it would be most appropriate to include him in Article 14 in which Ministers of State of the Union and Judges of the Supreme Court now figure (in 1973, now amended).
This was the first time that the rank of Field Marshal was being considered in the WoP and therefore examples were sought to be had from other countries where a similar rank or similar Five-star military officers were in service.
The British High Commission in New Delhi was approached by the Chief of Protocol of the Ministry of External Affairs but the British were unable to help. The High Commission pointed out that the British protocol is founded on the court and individuals take precedence according to nobility and Field Marshals are generally Peers and are thus placed as per their Peerage and not as per their Military rank.
However, the Britishers pointed out that their Chief of Defence Staff, who is a Five-Star military officer, is presented to foreign visitors immediately after Cabinet ministers. This aspect was noted by the MHA note which also mentioned that in the USA, a Five-Star General of the Army is ranked after the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Naval Operations and Chiefs of Staff of Army and Air Force.
The MHA note proposed that Field Marshal should rank lower than the Chiefs of Staff once the holder of the rank is no longer the Chief of Staff of his service. This was lower in position in the WoP than what was demanded by the MoD and therefore the suggestion was put up before the WoP committee for examination.
The deliberations in the WoP committee noted that at the time the meeting was being held, Sam Manekshaw had left the office of Chief of Army Staff and therefore the question of ranking the Chief of Amy Staff with the rank of Field Marshal did not arise.
As far as the ranking of Field Marshal is concerned, the foreign secretary’s view was that he may be ranked between Articles 17 and 18. The principal defence secretary was of the view that instead of trying to assign a position to Field Marshal as such, a personal rank might be given to Field Marshal Manekshaw. In his view, this could be even higher than that of cabinet secretary. There need be no entry in the Warrant of Precedence but the decision could be conveyed through executive instructions. He also mentioned that in the Army list, the Field Marshal would be shown even above the serving Chiefs of Staff as they are only of the rank of General. It would, therefore, be odd to rank him below Chiefs of Staff of the rank of General.
Eventually, Field Marshal Manekshaw was placed at Article 17 in the WoP through executive instructions on the approval of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Field Marshal KM Cariappa’s case
Field Marshal Cariappa’s placement in the WoP was made easier in 1986 due to the intensive deliberations carried out 13 years earlier for Sam Manekshaw. However, the announcement making him an Honourary Field Marshal with effect from January 15, 1986 created some hiccups among the bureaucracy.
The MHA desired to know from the MoD whether there was any difference between the two ranks i.e. the formal rank of Field Marshal and the Honourary rank of Field Marshal or whether they stood on the same footing. The MoD clarified that there is no difference between the two.
Field Marshal Cariappa was accordingly placed at Article 12 of the WoP along with Chief of Staff of the services (changed from earlier Article 17 in 1973) and as with Manekshaw, this was done specific to him as an individual through executive instructions.
In May 1987, the MoD clarified to the MHA that the word ‘Honourary’ had been dropped from the rank of Field Marshal K M Cariappa with the approval of the Prime Minister and President in April 1986.
