Personnel Management: As discussed above, misplaced notions of ‘equivalency’ between the soldiery and the civilian establishment has led to the Army becoming top heavy and aged. Rather than finding better emoluments within the same rank structure and a second career at the middle age, the Army is now required to win wars with bloated staff and personnel-deficient units, with more Colonels than Captains and soldiers past their physical prime.
Young, energetic young men are deterred from joining army. Officers’ training academies remain unfilled and there are rumours of lowering the entry standards, while recruitment of soldiers is confined to those who are unable to find a job. Such men cannot wield complex weapons and equipment worth crores. They would not spiritedly risk lives to ‘hunt’ tanks or over-run the enemy even against mounting causalities. Indeed, such men do not win wars.
The advocates of equality of sexes have thus perpetrated a farce and have targeted the armed forces to impose their social experimentation ““ save their own kith and kin”¦
High pitch rhetoric regarding women joining the armed forces – curiously, only as officers, not in enlisted ranks – celebrates this development as the final “breaching of male bastion”. Though women have been contributing to the armed forces and performing softer assignments, the demand has now been extended to admitting them into the fighting elements under permanent terms of service. The rhetoric goes on to propagate a conditional fact that this will address the dearth of male volunteers, points to the obvious that women are equally intelligent, competent, mature and courageous, and cites half-truths regarding service-women’s combat performance in the Western armies.
The fact that physiological and psychological characteristics of women are not suited to unrestricted violence of combat, that it would be exceptional for them to lead tough and over-charged death-defying troops in engaging equally ferocious adversary in the battle zone, that among them the zeal for combat tapers off with age, and that presence of women adds to the operational and administrative burden of the soldiery, are left unstated in the garb of political correctness. The advocates of equality of sexes have thus perpetrated a farce and have targeted the armed forces to impose their social experimentation – save their own kith and kin – as if fighting under extreme conditions was not enough for the hapless soldiery.
Urgently needed modernisation schemes would be considered, only if, money-making sharks are prevented from abusing the system, interests of the domestic defence industry are promoted and civil obligations of the state are promoted.
In a recent case of imposition of the regime of democratic dispensation on military institution, the courts and the state have obliged the Army to retain physically disadvantaged personnel – nearly eight percent of its overall strength of fighting force – rather than taking it upon themselves to attend to these veterans, as it should have been. Thus in a set up wherein every man counts, one in every ten is a hors-de-combat.
The message reveals a serious mindset. Urgently needed modernisation schemes would be considered, only if, money-making sharks are prevented from abusing the system, interests of the domestic defence industry are promoted and civil obligations of the state are promoted. In effect, as if fighting a war was not enough, the soldiery must also bear the burden of advancing the most complex of the societal goals! Undoubtedly, the connections and the priorities are severely flawed.
Wake-up Call
Under a regime of systemic neglect, ominous cracks on the hallowed military edifice are apparent – cases of suicides, fratricides, malpractices, nepotism, indiscipline, court cases, even subversion, are rising. After all, men unsuited to the soldiers’ calling and who perceive at being accorded short shrift, cannot be expected to remain motivated in upholding the traditional soldierly dignity in the face of marginalisation by those for whom they fight. Of late, a perception of the state’s blatant apathy towards its soldiery was manifested by widespread indignation following the Pay Commission award that is seen to have lowered their status and denied benefits due to them. Thus an unprecedented and potentially dangerous situation has emerged, with veterans returning their service medals to the President and seeking intervention of courts in begging for their dues, while the government remains unmoved. That the adverse fallouts of running the military institution down would haunt the nation sooner than later, is a disturbing thought.
“¦you cannot ask for extraordinary degree of probity, skill-at-arms and commitment to the nations mandate from the soldiery and yet equate them with ordinary professions.
Indian policy makers have to understand that even as it takes many generations to build an army, it does not need more than a few years to undermine it and that the imperatives of war preparedness cannot be addressed with civil- specific norms, nor can the role of the Army be mixed with societal obligations of the state. Yes, the nation needs to understand her military institution if she wishes to prosper in peace. Indeed, the corrective appreciation has to start from the top, notably because the history of democratic military management indicates that the initiatives for energising the armed forces must come from the political leadership.
Nurturing the Military Institution
Political theory defines war as organised use of violent means to protect fundamental interests of a state when all agreeable options fail. Nations therefore maintain armed forces for the extra-ordinary purpose of engaging in deadly fight to preserve their sovereignty and integrity, when necessary. This extreme mandate requires the soldiery to accept such sacrifices which go contrary to the basic human instincts of safety and survival, and which no other constituency of the state is capable of undertaking. But the soldier’s commitment to the cause is not enough to win wars, it needs the best of weaponry and equipment besides corresponding extraordinary provisions for all-out backing from all other arms of the state. Routine rules, procedures and measures as applicable to the rest of the civil society do not work in this matter. It is for this reason that since times immemorial, the military institution is nurtured, administered and provided for in a manner that is quite distinct from the civil sector – the extraordinary cannot be achieved by ordinary means after all. It is on this accord that nations that are gifted with wisdom and foresight take their military institution very seriously.
| Editor’s Pick |
Just as it is the for the civilian leadership to decide as to what kind of armed forces it should have, what is to be expected of it, and accordingly, what kind of affordable and best organisation, weapons and equipment need to be placed at its disposal so that it can fulfill its mandate; it is for the armed forces to see that the political mandate is fulfilled in the most effective manner even if its members have to make the supreme sacrifice. The stipulation of engaging in physical conflict with the adversary for the purpose of preserving national interests determines the fundamental characteristics of warfare, namely: extreme physical exertion, palpable danger and management of uncertainties through a fog of unknown. This mandate calls for services of a class of war-fighters who would stake their lives and limbs to do the society’s bidding much against the natural human instinct of self-preservation, individual freedom and worldly comforts, and yet possess wit, ingenuity and skill to prevail over the more or less equally competent adversary.
The soldier stakes his life for honour, not just for material inducements. The Army Act alone cannot prevent a soldier from letting terrorists escape rather than pouncing on them at risk to his life or to stay behind a bush”¦
The soldier stakes his life for honour, not just for material inducements. The Army Act alone cannot prevent a soldier from letting terrorists escape rather than pouncing on them at risk to his life or to stay behind a bush rather than taking the risk of assaulting an enemy position. It is his sense of honour that drives him to plunge into relief work during a ‘gas disaster’ unmindful of impending death rather than join his civilian counterparts in flight, or be drowned in Kosi floodwaters while rescuing a girl child abandoned by her own parents, or to engage in hopeless fight to death at the Rezang La. Indeed, the profession of arms differs from all others in every aspect.
On its part, the state institutes special provisions for the soldiery to be kept young, painstakingly trained, fully equipped, motivated to set higher standards of morality and efficiency, and tested at every stage in their commitment to be steadfast against all odds before being selectively promoted from the lowest to the highest seat. Special dispensations are also extended by means of exclusive constitutional enactments related to priority in litigation, Penal Code dispensations, various grants, guaranteed rations and emoluments and so on. By far the most remarkable dispensation granted to the soldiery are, firstly, the right to be tested and tried by their own fraternity; and secondly, in convergence of legislative, judicial and executive powers at the hands of the sole commander. In rest of the state apparatus these are exercised by distinct institutions.
Indeed, these are landmarks which distinguish soldiers from the rest. That is why a soldier has to be sacked for misdemeanours which may be routine in the society, for, unlike other undertakings of the state, mistakes in the military have severe and perpetual ramifications. That is why it is a fallacious tendency to seek application of standard societal norms over the military institution; you cannot ask for extraordinary degree of probity, skill-at-arms and commitment to the nation’s mandate from the soldiery and yet equate them with ordinary professions.
Finding Defenders of the Nation
In recent times, societies have progressed in leaps in terms of economy, technology, services and living comforts as never before. Obviously, why would an instinctively peace-loving and self-aggrandising citizen opt for a soldier’s life with all its extraordinary exactions, when safer, remunerative and comfortable alternatives are available? Mature nations have, accordingly, in all seriousness, found new ways to maintain their armies in fine fettle through offer of attractive prospects, good living facilities, medicare and education, care of veterans, best weaponry, equipment and protective gear, transition to second career, and above all, bestowal of honour and status.
Some countries have even gone to the extent of lowering their strategic sights to balance the high expenses of keeping their military motivated. In Indian context too, much has been, and is being, done towards that end. But when it comes to finer points of redressal of problems that are intractable under routine dispensations, there is near-absence of alacrity.
“¦the saga of its (Indian Army) rise and fall is synonymous with the manner it is treated ““ defeated when run down by the state ““ victorious when celebrated in societ”¦
Even if the masses remain firmly supportive of their Army and lack of employment opportunities remains its sole life-line of recruitment, it needs to be appreciated that the nuances of modern war-fighting cannot be addressed by superficial rhetoric or ranks made up of second-rate societal simpletons anymore – more needs to be done to find competent defenders of the nation and empower them with modern hardware.
In Search of of Peace and Prosperity
Army is made up of people drafted from the society. In this respect, all armies of India – of Hindu, Muslim and British periods – are eternal in characteristics. It is that army which deterred Alexander, chased away the Shakas and the Huns, defeated Muhammad Ghori, was in turn defeated by him, then by Khilji and then the first Mughal, later carried the Mughal sword to all over the subcontinent, spread the mastery of the Union Jack over most of Asia, won two World Wars for the Allies, was mauled by China, mauled Pakistan, and lastly, has held the Indian Union from breaking apart. Truly, the saga of its rise and fall is synonymous with the manner it is treated – defeated when run down by the state – victorious when celebrated in society, cared for by the state, manned by “good men” and led by a motivated, competent officer corps.
| Also read: |
The situation is grim. The state is increasingly being seen as weak and helpless. Thus the inimical elements in the neighbourhood, imported terrorists and the lumpen elements among the people are encouraged to strike at will. Assam is boiling on account of illegal migration, tribal have taken to Naxal ways, fanaticism on religious, ethnic and linguistic issues is gaining strength and hooliganism in defiance of state authority manifests in routine acts of destruction of public property. Meanwhile, Chinese loudly claim an integral part of us, as do Pakistanis of another, while some others await opportunity to do so.
Thus harried by inimical forces from within and without, the nation is obliged to commit more than one lakh crore annually on upkeep of its armed forces – obviously at the cost of uplift of its citizenry. It is therefore imperative for those at the helm of decision making – both, in the civilian and military hierarchy – to appreciate the complexities of tangibles (material wherewithal) and intangibles (training, discipline, efficiency, confidence and morale of the soldiery) of the military institution. Only then would accrue a corresponding peace dividend.
It is the time to strengthen our state institutions. In so doing, the state may ponder over its ultimate whip – the Army- to negotiate through the troubled times, while the Army hierarchy would do well to introspect upon its cultural afflictions.
Notes
- “Another Bloody Century”, Colin S Grey, Phoenix, London, 2005.
- “The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation”, Stephen P Cohen, Oxford University Press, 1990.
- Christine Tipping, “Understanding Military Covenant”, RUSI, London, 2008.
- Matthew J Morgan, “Army Recruiting and the Civil-Military Gap”, Parameters, 2001.
- “Geoffrey Regan’s Book of Military Blunders”, Guinness Publication Ltd, GB, 1991.
- “War and Power in the 21st Century”, Paul Hirst, Blackwell Publishers Inc, USA, 2001.
- Kalevi Holsti, “The State, War and The State of War”, Cambridge Study, UK, 2000.
- Lt Gen AF Klimenko, “Globalisation and its Impact on Military Politics and Military Strategy”, Military Thought, 2004.
- “War and Origin of State”, Rudolph Holsti, London, 1913.
Please wait...
