Unlike most countries in the developing world, despite myriad problems, India has an extraordinary record in terms of maintaining firm civilian control over the military. Even otherwise somnolent Defense Ministers (the equivalent of the American Secretary of Defense) have been known to sharply upbraid senior military officers who have made controversial public remarks on matters of politics and policy. This tradition of civil-military relations is unique in the post-colonial world and contrary to popular belief not a British legacy. If the British had bequeathed this legacy surely Pakistan, the other successor state to the British Indian empire, would not have been so coup-prone. India's superb record of civilian control over the military is rooted in the structure, organization and leadership of the nationalist movement and the signal role of Jawaharlal Nehru.

In this regard it is worth mentioning that Nehru while defending the officers and men of the Bengali leader, Subhas Bose's the Indian National Army (composed of men from the British Indian Army who had been captured by the Japanese), nevertheless categorically refused to reinstate them in the post-independence Indian Army. Quite correctly, Nehru had argued that these men while no doubt imbued with patriotic fervor had nevertheless broken the sacred oath of office when they made common cause with the Japanese. Having once violated such a contract they hade become politicized. Now they could again question civilian authority and sow discord in the ranks of the military.

Given this exemplary track record, General Padmanabhan's feckless remarks about India's willingness to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, made at a press conference this week are deeply distressing. Even the normally outspoken Minister of Defense, George Fernandes, has already felt compelled to state that General Padmanabhan's remarks have caused "uncalled for concerns". The Defense Minister's oblique criticism of the General's expansive and ill-considered remarks is a clear sign of the unhappiness of political leadership about what transpired at the press conference.

That said, Fernandes' comments do not go far enough. He needs to privately inform General Padmanabhan that remarks about India's nuclear posture and doctrine should not be casually aired at press conferences especially at a time when the Indian and Pakistani armies are standing within cannot-shot distance of each other along a volatile border. Even at the cost of embarrassing General Padmanabhan the minister needs to publicly reiterate that matters of nuclear policy are the preserve of the political establishment and not that of the uniformed services. Their only task proffer both tactical and strategic advice and to carry out directions should the most unlikely but utterly grim and horrific eventuality ever arise.

Minister Fernandes, no stranger to controversy, is clearly up to the task of disciplining the Chief of Army Staff . He dismissed a senior naval officer when this otherwise upstanding individual made a series of intemperate remarks about the defense minister. On another occasion he sent several mid-level officials from the Ministry of Defense to the frozen wastes of the Siachen Glacier because they had failed to heed repeated requests from the military brass for proper high-altitude equipment and clothing. A failure on his part to rein in General Padmanabhan may not only have adverse diplomatic consequences for India but may corrode an important edifice of India's democracy.