Indian Defence Review

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.