Privileged Communication

Professional plain-speak without the accompanying dressing of fluff and ambiguities of any bureaucratic, political or even philosophical language is at the heart of military efficiency. The nature of the military domain is such that if unnecessary guardrails of language are imposed, the timeless culture of actionable, to-the-point, precise engagement will get compromised. Military conversations, assessments and opining impose an assumption of qualified and privileged context on to the recipient. For the uninitiated to comment on these without the contextual knowledge will always be inadequate, incorrect and grossly unfair

- BHOPINDER SINGH The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry

There is a time-honoured code of privileged communication in the fraternity of the Armed Forces that mandates honouring the absolute right to privacy of content between the sender and the recipient.

Only if the sender consents to its disclosure can the matter be brought out beyond the original recipient. Even behavioural traditions like the hallowed concept of 'officer like qualities' (OLQs) obliges the parties in a protected relationship/communication to safeguard that trust.

The higher the rank, the higher is the responsibility to behoove and uphold such covenants. Sadly, the curse of selective 'leaks' (from anywhere in the chain) of such privileged communication is now visible in the otherwise disciplined realm of the Armed Forces.

This is especially disconcerting as the contents of exchanges in the Forces could be of a strictly professional and restricted matter warranting restraint, secrecy and opining on matters that ultimately impact the kinetic ability of the organisation, policy matters of national security, and ultimately, affecting the sovereignty, integrity and dignity of the nation.

Matters between two responsible (read, senior and influential in hierarchy) officials need to be particularly safeguarded. Regrettably, it was the exact same sort of privileged communication (of professional, command and functional nature) that got 'leaked' in the public sphere.

On the basis of such a 'leak' and essentially an incomplete perspective of the issue at hand, many started commenting (even accusing) on individuals and the content itself.

To reiterate, it wasn't a case of a conscientious whistleblower but of a salacious 'leak' in a domain where exposing professional exchanges between two individuals can be sensitive and very confidential, and is hence disallowed. It served neither the individuals nor any cause and can only have deleterious consequences on the culture of the organisation in the long run.