I wonder whether those who employ words like ‘gone rogue’ or ‘loose cannon’ to describe General V K Singh understand the meaning of such terms.
The dictionary describes a loose cannon as: ‘an uncontrolled or unpredictable person who causes damage to his own faction, political party etc.’
Now whereas it is quite apparent that Gen Singh is ‘uncontrolled’, he is unpredictable to only those who lack the most basic understanding of human nature (read A K Antony); and whereas it is arguable if he has caused damage to his own ‘faction or political party’, there is no doubt that his act of taking the government to court over his retirement date has exposed the inner machinations of a succession battle from which the state has not come out smelling of roses.
Any one following the birth date controversy and the shabby way the Defence Ministry treated Gen Singh, could have predicted that he would use his few remaining months in office to craft a role for himself —as a whistleblower.
Humiliate a man publicly, a man of power, position and self-respect and it’s not rocket science to predict that he is going to retaliate.
So, for those following the saga of Gen Singh’s last few days in office, the only surprise in this week’s leaked letter controversy and the bribery allegations has been that the government was surprised by it and did not see it coming.
No, there’s nothing remotely similar to a loose cannon about Gen Singh.
Similarly calling the Army Chief some one who’s ‘gone rogue’ is inaccurate. When some one is said to ‘go rogue’, they ‘behave in an aberrant, faulty, or unpredictable way.’ The term originates from ‘an elephant or a large wild animal driven away or living apart from the herd and having savage or destructive tendencies.’
Thus you have rogue traders (Nick Leeson —who bankrupted Barings Bank — being the most notorious) and rogue programmers, but none of their behavioural symptoms or motives match those of Singh.
There is a method to Gen Singh’s so called ‘madness’, and in this the government’s strategists would do well to desist from using analogies like ‘gone rogue’ and ‘loose cannon’ and look instead to the ‘madman theory’ when trying to cope with Gen Singh.
The madman theory works on a principle of such serious and deadly intent that it is the last thing from being ‘mad’ in the traditional sense.
For it takes into consideration the fact that when two opponents face each other with an equal amount of ammunition and the prospect of mutual self-destruction, they will desist from engaging in conflict. In a nuclear century it was responsible for ensuring that the two superpowers remained frozen in eyeball to eyeball deadly limbo, instead of annihilating the planet in World War Three.
Richard Nixon had his own take on the madman theory when he used it as a form of diplomatic strategy which forced the opponent to avoid challenging you in the belief that you are capable of ‘dangerously irrational action.’
In both cases, as a deterrent against mutual destruction or as discouragement to an opponent, those trying to contain Gen Singh would do well to keep the madman theory in mind.
In fact, the term most applicable to Gen Singh is ‘method to his madness’.
Malavika Sangghvi is a Mumbai-based writer malavikasangghvi@hotmail.com
