Indian Defence Review

“¦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.

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.