Indian Defence Review

Playing a ‘soldier’ has always been a very enticing engagement amongst children. Even grown-ups of prominent status like the tag of being a ‘military- man’, as evidenced by their urge to be conferred with honourary or colloquial ranks, secure membership of military clubs, donning military outfits or getting photographed with soldiers. Indeed, these are but harmless manifestations of a latent instinct for adventure and bravado amongst the well-meaning. In fact, they go to uphold the glamour of military service. Soldiers appreciate that. Of late, however, understanding of the ‘soldiery’ seems to have been somewhat warped by misplaced enthusiasm.

“The significant characteristics of the relationship between the armed forces and society is ‘difference’, not comparability”                —Huntington.

Whither Soldiers?

Playing a ‘soldier’ has always been a very enticing engagement amongst children. Even grown-ups of prominent status like the tag of being a ‘military- man’, as evidenced by their urge to be conferred with honorary or colloquial ranks, secure membership of military clubs, donning military outfits or getting photographed with soldiers. Indeed, these are but harmless manifestations of a latent instinct for adventure and bravado amongst the well-meaning.

In fact, they go to uphold the glamour of military service. Soldiers appreciate that. Of late, however, understanding of the ‘soldiery’ seems to have been somewhat warped by misplaced enthusiasm. It is proposed to discuss the misinformed tendency of trivialising the ‘call’ of soldiering which has serious connotations.

Pretentious Tendencies

Certain prominent news magazines have recently published articles on counter-Naxal operations, in which the difficulties faced by the police forces – CRPF, BSF and the State Armed Police – have been very aptly articulated. In these articles, the authors have chosen to describe the policemen as “soldiers”. In similar vein, one often reads about the politicians proclaiming themselves as loyal “soldiers” of their political parties despite their penchant for shifting loyalties. Notwithstanding their professional acumen these enthusiasts are obviously misinformed of the sanctity of a soldier’s ‘calling’. However, before proceeding to delve further into these misconstrued pronouncements, it must be clarified that policemen and politicians are equally responsible servants of the state and deserve to be accorded the appreciation due. But of course, soldiers they cannot be and need not pretend to be.

Generally, such innocent pretentions are allowed to pass. But when viewed in light of the recently manifested developments of the undesired kind wherein the media hypes instances of perceived ‘military misconduct’ with half-facts, and policy makers expose their insensitivity towards their soldier’s concerns it may be the time to set the record straight. Maybe a better understanding of soldiery would save the media from unintended dissemination of misinformation for the good of its credibility. Maybe a better understanding of military ethos would allow the State to rescue itself from the disgrace of watching its soldiers returning their war-medals or being chastised by courts of law for gross insensitivity towards its obligation in upholding the dignity of the military institution, its all-weather saviour.

Most of all, it might shame military officers and men to save themselves from diluting the honourable status of the military institution and stay clear of such indiscretions to which some amongst them might be tempted to indulge in.

Let us see as to why it is necessary to have a distinct view of the military institution and the nation’s soldiery.

Constitutional Definition

The Constitution of India provides for distribution of powers between the Union and the States through lists of subjects dealt with by each in the form of Union List (List I), State List (List-II) and Concurrent List (List–III), as specified in its VIIth Schedule. The Union List (List I), Item 2, envisages two terms, namely, “Naval, Military and Air Force” and “any other Armed Forces of the Union”. The term “Naval, Military & Air Force” connotes the “Defence Forces” whereas the expression “Other Armed Forces of the Union” covers other forces such as Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force and Indo-Tibetan Border Police, which are sometimes referred to, mistakenly as Para-Military Forces, and recently classified under the formal term of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).

The Term “Armed Forces”

Army Act, 1950, does not define the term “Armed Forces” per se but it defines the term “Forces” vide Sec 3 (xi) thereof, which inter-alia means, “the Regular Army, Navy & Air Force or any part of any one or more of them”. Further, Article 53 (2) of the Constitution envisages that the supreme command of the ‘Defence Forces of the Union’ shall be vested in the Rashtrapati. This, inter-alia, means that supreme command of the Army, Navy and the Air Force devolves upon the Rashtrapati, which is not the case with “Other Armed Forces of the Union”, the Para-Military Forces or the CAPF. Indeed, the practice of colloquial usage of the term “armed forces” to refer to the three services – the Army, Navy and Air Force – may be the reason for the laymen mixing up these forces with the ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’.

The Term “Other Armed Forces of the Union”   

The Army, Navy and the Air Force after the advent of air power have been institutions of the State since time immemorial. Other than these, the state has raised certain other armed forces from time to time under various Acts.

The term “Other Armed Forces of the Union” covers these forces, as listed below:-

• The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) by the Act of 1949.
• The Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) by the Act of 1962.
• The Railway Protection Force (RPF) by the Act of 1957.
• The Border Security Forces (BSF) by the Act of 1965.
• The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) by the Act of 1983.
• The Nation Security Guard (NSG) by the Act of 1986.

The Term “Para-Military Forces”

The term ‘Para-Military’ is defined as, “having a military structure although not officially military capable of supplementing a military force of a country”. There is however no statutory categorisation of this term though the Assam Rifles qualifies for this category. Further, Rule 2 (d) of the Ex-Servicemen Re-Employment Rules, 1979, uses this term to refer to the Assam Rifles, CRPF, BSF, ITBP, CISF, Shashatra Seema Bal (SSB) and the RPF. The Indian Coast Guard (ICG) and NSG, raised subsequently, are not formally defined as Para-Military Forces neither do they form part of the ‘Defence Forces’. Therefore, they fall under the category of ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’, on the authority of the ICG and NSG Acts. May be some day the term ‘Para-Military Forces’ will be formally defined when the ICG and NSG are included in its ambit.

The distinction between defence, police and para-military forces thus established, let us now see as to what it means to be a ‘soldier’.

Different Mandates

The ‘Defence Forces’ and the ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’ are mandated distinctly which reflects in terms of entry criteria, service conditions, deployability, commitments and liabilities. ‘Defence Forces’ (Army, Navy and Air Force) are maintained by the Central Government through the Ministry of Defence to protect the nation from external aggression and catastrophic calamities. The latter role is assigned to gain advantage of the ability of the services to function efficiently under adverse conditions. It may also be tasked to preserve the nation’s integrity against any internal insurrection that may have gone beyond the control of the civil administration.

The primary task of the ‘Defence Forces’ is therefore to fight against the enemies of the state, internal or external. The ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’, commonly grouped under the nomenclature of CAPF, have been raised by the Central Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs to maintain law and order and preserve societal peace when the scale of lawlessness goes beyond the State Government’s capabilities. The mandate of the CAPF is, therefore, to assist in smooth governance and civil administration.

The Covenant of the State-Soldier Relationship

The Defence Forces are the ultimate instrument of the State to preserve its integrity through application of constitutionally sanctioned violent force when all other civilised options fail to work. Obviously, the Defence Forces cannot fail else the State would collapse. In order to stand up to such an extraordinary mandate, soldiers have to pledge their life, limb and comforts to the service of the nation and give up many of the democratic rights that are enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry. In return, under the pristine ‘covenant’ between the soldier and the state, the latter accords to the former, certain statutory service privileges. Some of these are as follows:-

• Immunity from attachment by any civil or revenue court (Army Act, Section 28).
• Immunity from arrest for debt by any civil or revenue court (Army Act, Section 29).
• Immunity of persons attending court martial from arrest under any civil or revenue process (Army Act, Section 30).
• Priority in respect of army personnel litigation (Army Act, Section 32 and Indian Soldier Litigation Act, 1925).
• Protection of rights and privileges under other laws, such as the Indian Tolls (Army and Air Force) Act, 1901 and Pensions Act, 1987.
• Statutory provision for allotment of state land, exemption from municipal taxes, reservation in jobs and educational institutions and so on.

Besides such statutory provisions, the state also fulfils its part of the covenant by way of various measures undertaken for welfare, domestic support, bestowal of honour, show of respect and sundry benefits. These service privileges and immunities are exclusive to the burden of soldiering and are not available to ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’ under any Act. However, since the terms, “Armed Forces” and “Other Armed Forces of the Union” appear to be similar, state functionaries while extending compensatory rewards and benefits to the Defence Forces personnel, do sometimes tend to mix up these two distinct terms without actually intending to do so.

Implications of Misinterpretation

Actually, it is a simple, straightforward matter and of common knowledge that members of the ‘Defence Forces’ are referred to as soldiers, sailors and airmen while members of the ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’ fall into the category of ‘policemen’. The matter, however, assumes sensitivity when policy-makers, deliberately or inadvertently attempt to bracket the soldier’s ‘calling’ with policing or civil service – actually, police falls into the category of civil service. This is particularly so since both military and civil services are equally important and honourable professions. Therefore, there is really no need for one to pretend to be the other. Each has, and must have, distinct codes of conduct, culture and ethos as appropriate to its charter. Accordingly, while the ‘state-soldier covenant’ must dictate the manner in which soldiers are compensated for the extraordinary demands placed upon them, the civil services should continue to be covered by the statute of ‘state-citizen relationship’.

It needs to be understood that there is an edge granted to the personnel of the Army, Navy and Air Force over those employed with the ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’. This is primarily in recognition of the former’s severe and exacting conditions of service and denial of certain fundamental rights, which is not the case with the latter. Such understanding is imperative to sustain the motivation and morale of the Armed Forces. Indeed, so has been the established norm of statecraft that is sanctified by the age old ‘state-soldier covenant’. No doubt, the Indian state does its best to compensate the soldier in return for his hard mandate by grant of certain exclusive privileges and dispensations.

Many of these privileges have, over the years, been extended to the civil services also. Thus the state’s exclusive recognition of its soldiery has been somewhat dilated. While it is not the intention to deny any benefits to the CAPF, such dilations of exclusive distinction might weaken the soldier’s extraordinary resolve and commitment to preserve the integrity of the state.

The sensitivity of the matter may be highlighted by two representative examples of the dangerous repercussions of diluting the distinction between a soldier and a constable. Viewed from one angle, members of the Armed Forces may tend to dilute their extremely exacting organisational culture in favour of easier options. For example, they may abrogate themselves from the mandate of ‘duty over death’, or dilute the spirit of ‘implicit obedience regardless’, or expect such conveniences which they have chosen to forego in joining the Armed Forces. What if soldiers, sailors and airmen expect dispensations that are available to members of the ‘Other Armed Forces of the Union’? I

ndeed, given the current socio-democratic dispensation, fear of such distractions loom large. Therefore, allowing such potentially disastrous ideas to take root would be perilous for the State.

Viewed from another angle, it is found that taking cue from repeated misinterpretations, cases of police personnel demanding equal compensations, without being bound by equally exacting commitments, have come to light. These demands have found some support on account of the empathy generated recently by high casualties suffered by police forces in counter-Naxal operations even though these casualties remain but approximately one-fourth of that sustained by the Army almost every year since independence.

Of course, there is no case to prevent right compensations to the police personnel but the issue to keep note of is that the distinction between policing and soldiering must be maintained if the Defence Forces are expected to fulfill their oath of supreme sacrifice.

Dangerous Misconceptions

Innocent misconceptions like these could be but certain visibly preposterous recourses adopted recently by the State on military related issues give rise to dismay among the right thinking people. Mention maybe made of three such instances to illustrate this tendency.

First, when in July 2008, one army and three civilian officers were killed in a suicide attack on the Indian Embassy at Kabul, the Government announced conferment of the highest award of the nation for gallantry ‘not in the face of the enemy’ meaning not in regular war to these officials. Similarly, every political leader, indigenous or foreign, is ceremoniously taken to pay homage to the victims of the butchery by Pakistani terrorists at Mumbai’s Taj Hotel in November 2008.

Here these murdered hotel guests are referred to as ‘martyrs’. Indeed, there is no gain saying that the victims of such violence must be accorded due respect but it is hard to reconcile with the preposterous logic of elevating them to the status of ‘martyrs’ who have to lead a tough life and lay down their lives in gallant fight. The farce is exacerbated by the recent tendency in the media and under their influence, among the people to consider getting killed in the position of a sitting duck, in duty or business, as the same as consciously embracing death while opting to fight offensive action to destroy the nation’s enemies.

Curiously, the sanctity of such ‘martyrdom’ is measured by the socio-financial status of the victims! What message is the society sending to the soldiers who sally out from their secure positions to chase, trap, attack and destroy the enemy – something that the soldiers do by instinct?

Second, it is bad enough for the image of the Army that most civilians, who are generally ill-informed, ascribe the misdeeds in procurement of arms and supplies, defence land deals and construction works to the Army. To them, the various ‘Departments of Defence’ and the ‘Olive Green’ are synonymous. Therefore, the Bofors and subsequent scams are ascribed to the Army not to those white collars who actually dirtied themselves. There could no greater insult to the sense of honour of soldiers.

Third, in recent years, instances have come to light when the two constitutionally distinct terms – the “Armed Forces” and the “Other Armed Forces of the Union”, are sought to be interpreted to mean the same while seeking privileges and benefits for the latter. For example, in a writ petition filed by a constable of the CRPF in the Orissa High Court, praying for allotment of seats reserved for the ‘Defence Forces’ to his ward, the Court, while erring in interpreting the terms “Armed Forces” and “Other Armed Forces of the Union” as having the same meaning, observed that the same benefits could have been granted to the wards of such ‘Para-Military Forces’.

Contrarily, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, in cases U.B.S Teotia vs. Union of India, Abhilesh Prasad vs. Union Territory of Mizoram and the State of West Bengal vs Tarun Kumar Sengupta have clearly ruled in favour of the distinction between the “Armed Forces” and “Other Armed Forces of the Union”. As discussed earlier, we have to be conscious of maintaining the exclusivity of the status of the soldiery for the good of the society. Therefore, by all indications, in future, use of the term “Defence Forces” in place of “Armed Forces” in common parlance maybe more appropriate to obviate misconception.

A Point to Ponder

The state of disorientation in distinguishing the soldiery with other professions would be unthinkable, even ludicrous in any society. It is, therefore, for the state, through its Ministry of Defence, to protect the exclusive status of its soldiers and the image of its Armed Forces. This institutionalised responsibility becomes more important when, for example, petty-political nonsense is perpetrated in demonising the Army with respect to the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) – an Act enforced by the State, abhorred by the Army, and in this instance, having nothing to ascribe to the Army.

Similarly, coming out with a true perspective to explain away the charade of media misinformation in sensationalising certain individual indiscretions as ‘scams’ – that are ludicrously hyphened with fodder scam, urea scam, land scam, food grain scam and so on – is the Ministry’s charter. This charter must not be left to the soldiers to undertake on their own. They are neither competent nor authorised to do so.

The truth regarding exclusivity of profession of arms and its distinction with other walks of life must prevail. And this must be ensured by the initiative of the State, the ultimate beneficiary of the ‘calling’ of soldiering.