Principle 4: Sanctity of Military Commission and Military Law
Exclusive sublimity of the soldierly ‘call’ is demonstrated in the Head of the State’s bestowal of ‘Commission’ to his military officers – in contrast to ‘appointing’ civil officials of the State. From time immemorial, this act of forging filial relationship between the soldiery and the Sovereign, manifests through the Sovereign’s trust upon each individual military officer, enjoining him to protect the State’s sovereignty, regardless of odds, while conferring upon him the authority to exercise legislative, judicial and executive, all-in-one, powers over their command. In the construct of the State, that indeed is a warrant extraordinary.
Civil as well as military leadership may, therefore, delve deep into the eternally true fourth principle of political management of the military institution – that is Military Exclusivity. In this principle lies the dual essence of military ‘commission’. One essence is that the ranks of close-knit and motivated body of extra-ordinarily spirited, trained and equipped warriors could turn renegade unless they are led and leashed by extraordinarily competent and trusted leadership. Indeed, it is the Officer Corps that carries the burden of fostering discipline, gallantry and humanity among the soldiery even while engaging in constitutionally sanctified violence of ultimate scales. The Ministry may, therefore, see to it that frivolous attempts to categorise military leaders with other officials of the State are nipped. If equally important, the two are different in every respect, as indeed the State requires them to be.
The second essence is that besides sublime leadership, extraordinary laws are also needed to control the extraordinary men and to deploy them on extraordinary roles. Therefore, attempts by the armchair liberals to subvert the exclusivity of military law and military command, with all their severity, are to be repudiated – for the greater good of the nation.
Principle 5: The Concept of ‘Military Necessity’
In the international colosseum, there is no sacrosanct code nor any enforcement mechanism to secure a nation’s sovereignty from ever-lurking predatory forces – indeed, ‘might is right’ in that arena. It is so that when all civilised avenues fail to dissuade adversaries from striking against one’s nationhood, exercise of military might must be the ultimate recourse to impose restraint upon such adversaries and make them to concede. Obviously, that ultimate option leaves no choice but to succeed, whatever the cost – for military failures bring ever-lasting damage to the nationhood. Therefore, in cognisance of over three thousand years of statecraft, societies and their nationalistic manifestations have found wisdom in committing their hard-earned resources to raise and keep, in robust spiritual and physical health, a military institution to preserve the ‘State’ they create and its sovereign dispensation that they seek. That is why many nations who have little to do with war – even Switzerland, Canada and Belgium – go out of their placid routines to nurture the core of their military institutions, whatever little they might have.
As a corollary, when the onus of the extreme option is so fundamental to the preservation of national identity, respect and progress, there is no choice but to uphold the primacy of military imperatives. That indeed is the pristine principle of ‘military necessity’ when all other considerations are jettisoned in order to fulfill military requirements. The Ministry may not, therefore, test military imperatives by the yardsticks, policies, procedures and rules that apply to civil matters of administration, finances and environment. In so doing, the Ministry may find it possible to fructify the three-decade old case of provision of bullet proof jackets – the effective ones, of course – and the little less old demand for the basic weapon – rifle, carbine and light machine gun. Application of extra-ordinary considerations and special dispensations for the military institution is thus the fifth principle of its politically astute management when no sentiments, principles and rules may come in the way of meeting the nation’s military necessity.
Principle 6: The Concept of ‘Military Edge’
When it comes to jostling for hierarchical authority, cadre status, pay and perks, the military hierarchy stands outwitted by the cadre-coalition of civil bureaucracy. Having little time to experience the South Block system at work, they could be excused that innocence – manoeuvre of file notings cannot be a role primary for military officers. It took them over three decades to realise the disparaging effects of the Third Pay Commission of 1973, just as it took two decades to rue the pay and pensionary discrimination that were surreptitiously inflicted upon them! Therefore, as the bureaucratic instinct of garnering cadre-advantage is but a fact of life, it is incumbent upon the political leadership to be the fair arbitrator in fostering a balanced and healthy civil-military equation. Deliberate or not, but in effect, there has been enough of undermining of the soldiery’s status and interests in the recent years – filing false affidavits to downscale the soldiery’s pay bands and issue of crass notifications to undermine their status, all with impunity, are some tricks the Ministry could save itself from. It is time to end the charade!
The Minister, therefore, may not overlook inter-cadre turf manoeuvres and subtle subversions when these impact the military institution and use her authority to protect the soldiery’s sensitivities. Similarly, the Ministry could make the military career, with all its tribulations, still attractive enough to draw out some good candidates from the long queues for police or clerical recruitments, to be assigned the responsibility of defending the nation. These gestures would pay good dividends to the nation’s defence, because while building up war-winning military spirit is a long and tedious process, just some signs of apathetic dispensation are enough to crumple it. The Indian soldiery needs to raise that spirit of ‘nishchaykarapni jeet karun’ (resolve to be victorious) to make up for its modest weaponry, equipment and logistics – as indeed it has been raising so far. Protecting the soldiery’s‘military edge’, and dignity must, therefore, be the sixth principle to administer the nation’s military institution.
Principle 7: Spare the Military from Social Experimentation
Traditionally, the profession of arms has ever been a direct access to social and material status. A key catalyst in the upliftment of American-Africans was through military service just it has been elsewhere, including India. But that access has been open only to the fittest – not just to those who ‘can’ fight, but only to those who can ‘defeat’ an equally robust and cunning enemy. That is why extraordinary physical and psychological robustness remain as the core qualification for recruitment into soldiery. That is why the military institution is spared from societal experimentations, including reservations. The excruciation of war is considered to be a burden large enough to shoulder.
Salience of this aspect manifests in the context of misguided liberals, including few among military brass, who feel that the current bar of physical, cognitive and spiritual standards are ‘unnecessarily’ high, and advocate the lowering of military standards of recruitment as well as easing of hard in-service training. There are enough numbers of men and women who are physically robust and mentally tuned enough to deal with and beat, ‘Han-Pathan’ adversaries in ground, sea, air and cyber combat. But goaded by farcical populism, a trend of compromising with fundamental attributes of soldiering is emerging. Large numbers of less fit, less spirited, less agile and therefore less useful in crunch situations which the military is meant to tackle in the first place, are accommodated in the military ranks thus on the pretext of social justice. Similar is the matter of retaining in service those who have been rendered medically unfit due to military service conditions. These have to be taken care of by the State and that responsibility cannot be left for the combat elements to shoulder. Protecting the soldiery from the imposition of populist burdens of societal uplift programmes, therefore, must be the seventh principle of astute military management.
Certain Contemporary Applications
As stated, the principles listed above are eternal, universal and well known among the political leaders, the bureaucracy and indeed the entire polity. There are however, reasons galore to believe that many a time the understanding fails to manifest in the doings of our Ministries particularly the Defence, Finance and Home Ministries and the mandarins, civilian and military, who run these. It might therefore be an apt ending to this well-intentioned missive if the above-listed principles of military management are tested against some of the issues in current contention. Listed as follows are few considerations; the list is representative in nature and cannot be exhaustive:
Defence procurements, kick-started at the Government’s initiatives to revive the state of defence preparedness, would need a decade or more to make a difference. Similarly, the defence industry, asphyxiated for 70 years, would take time to deliver. It would also need the infusion of best brains, push-funding, much corner-cutting and recues from dead expenditure to pull off by consistent application of the policy of military necessity. Corridor announcements of intent are only a small part of that commitment; the larger part is in execution.
For the next decade or more, India’s military capability must be manifest from the soldiery’s blood, guts and ingenuous exploitation of dated hardware. Therefore, the imperatives of recruiting young, keeping them in high spirits, imbibing them with honour, discipline, professionalism and honourably releasing them once past their optimum efficiency, must be a part of military exclusivity.
Contemporary societal norms are much diversified from the exactions of military character and culture. Military attributes take generations to build and are liable to fall ‘at ease’ at first signs of any slack. Therefore, for the larger sake of our sovereignty, democracy and freedom, it is wise to commit to strict standards of soldierly attributes. It is also wise to attract only the ‘good’ men and women to volunteer to the call of military exactions.
Only when Tehsildars, Thanedars and Collectors respond to soldier’s domestic woes, would the citizen’s respect for the military institution be truly vindicated. Attending soldiers’ funeral cannot be the end of the State-Soldier Covenant. Similarly, asking soldiers to fight with weaponry which do not enjoy their confidence, is contrary to that hoary Covenant. Scientists, bureaucrats and finance managers may, therefore, recuse from deciding as to what weaponry is best for the soldiers to fight with, win and survive.
Defence management cannot pride itself when soldiers have to battle with handicaps of protective gear, low ammunition stocks and tentative logistic back up. It is further seen in poor light when the forces have to attend to their fallen, disabled and retired brethren, or when they have to defend against wild insinuations while the Ministry’s designated welfare and public relations departments hibernate. The nation’s defence management turns into a farce when its soldiers’ military edge is compromised while rewarding civil cadres and law-makers with frequent elevation.
The Indian soldiery is burdened more than enough; they need to be spared from inefficient and inimical management of their affairs.
A Ministry Extraordinaire
The Indian military institution is under stress – not on the call for blood and gore, but on account of inefficient defence management. Thus while the Ministry may continue, as indeed it is, to focus on modernisation of military organisations, equipment, defence infrastructure and industry, its early priority should also be to boost military spirit and foster mutual trust among politicians, civil servants, diplomats and intelligence heads on one hand and the military rank and file on the other.
When powerful and aggressive predators lurk all around and anti-nationals grow within, the principles of military management discussed above, are the foundations over which the nation’s sovereignty, democracy and rule of law would be preserved. The Minister’s challenges are humungous. May she win! Amen!
Please wait...
