Last week saw a spate of video
messages by soldiers across Army, BSF and CRPF complaining and highlighting
what they felt was supply of bad food, lack of good facilities and demeaning treatment
because the leadership in these forces—according to them—is involved in
corruption and has feudal attitude towards the men they command.
While the men may have genuine
grievances and perhaps felt that existing channels of redress are not
sufficient, I am aghast at the extrapolation done by a section of the Indian media
portraying these complaints as catastrophe that has overtaken the Indian
security forces and that the time-tested officer-men relationship—especially in
the Army—is no longer as robust as it used to be.
As someone who’s had an opportunity
to be a media practitioner across web, print and broadcast mediums for over
three decades, I am aware of the pressures of ratings and compulsion to be
‘first with the news,’ that often overtakes sound judgement. And that is what
has happened over the past week. In the mad race to boost circulation and viewer ratings, a section
of the ignorant media has, in one go, sought to tarnish and destroy one of the
last institutions that has stood rock solid in defence of India.
Ill-informed—I would in fact go the extent of saying ‘uneducated’ (in
military matters)-- star anchors and reporters are out to create divide within
the army where none exists. The officer-soldier relationship has certainly
undergone a change over the past couple of decades thanks to the churn in the
Indian society at large but it is still the bedrock of the Indian Army’s day to
day functioning. The bonding between officers and men is evident in the
hundreds of daily counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations carried
out by the Indian Army. Indeed, without that bonding officers will not be able
to lead--and men will not willingly go into--operations that can lead to death
of brothers-in-arms.
It is easy to sit and pontificate from the confines of the studio
and reduce the issues to binaries of good and ugly but the reality is more
complex. Yes, there is a problem. But the
problem is not as disastrous as made out to be. In fact these issues are an
outcome of a combination of factors: erosion in the soldiers’ status in the
society; prolonged deployment in monotonous and thankless counter-insurgency
jobs; crippling shortage of officers in combat units; and, ironically, easier
communication between families and soldiers!
A psychiatric study by Army doctors some
years ago on ‘Evolving Medical Strategies for Low Intensity Conflicts’ revealed
the huge range of issues soldiers in such situations have to confront,
contradictions between war and low-intensity conflict situations, and,
particularly, the concepts of ‘enemy’, ‘objective’ and ‘minimum force’. Some
other findings were:
• In general war, the nation looks upon the soldier
as a saviour, but here he is at the receiving end of public hostility.
• A hostile vernacular press keeps badgering the
security forces, projecting them as perpetrators of oppression.
• Continuous operations affect rest, sleep and body
clocks, leading to mental and physical exhaustion.
• Monotony, the lure of the number game, and low
manning strength of units lead to overuse and fast burnout.
Operating in a tension-ridden
counter-insurgency environment does lead to certain stress among the jawans,
but that is only one of the factors. The main worries are the problems back
home: land disputes; tensions within the family; rising aspirations.
During my travels in
counter-insurgency areas, I have often come across company commanders telling
me how, for many soldiers, tensions at home create unbearable stress. Often, a
land dispute back home or a family feud weighs heavily on the soldier’s mind.
For the ordinary soldier, the smallest patch of land back home is the most
precious property. Again, I have frequently come across a common thread where
soldiers say there is no tension in the actual work of counter-insurgency. The
main problem for the fauji comes from his domestic situation.
Add to it the fact that the society
no longer respects the soldier and his work in protecting the nation. A local
politician, a thanedar, etc., seem to command more clout in the
society today. This has often led to loss of self-esteem among ordinary
soldiers. A recent movie—Paan Singh Tomar—depicted, in some measure, the
humiliation that a soldier faces in the civilian environment, both while
serving and after retirement from the armed forces.
Senior officers point out that most
suicide and fratricide cases take place after soldiers return from a spot of
leave. And yet, the Army must look within too. Fortunately the leadership in the Army is
as acutely aware of the need to change with time and adapt new practices in
daily functioning.
Reforming the Organization
Soldiers these days are better
educated and, consequently, better aware of their rights.
As the armed forces are in themselves
a microcosm of India, the rising education and awareness levels in recruits is
easily perceived. A sea change from yesteryears is now visible in the hordes of
young men who crowd recruitment rallies across the country. Most hopefuls are
the educated unemployed youth who turn towards the military for acquiring early
financial and social security. Their educational qualification is Class XII on
the average, many being graduates too. The stereotype of an innocent, less
educated but hardy soldier is now a thing of the past. The officer base has
also shifted predominantly to the middle class. This has further narrowed the
gap between the ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’.
An acute shortage of officers at the
cutting-edge level is the other big factor contributing to an limited bonding between
soldiers and officers. Against an authorized strength of over 22 officers for a
combat battalion, there are at best eight or nine officers available to the
commanding officer these days.
Very often, young officers with less
than two years of service are commanding companies! Even in the battalion
headquarters, one officer ends up doing the job of three, given the shortage.
There is no time to interact with soldiers. In the old days, a game of football
or hockey was the best way to get to know each other. Not any longer.
What, then, is the way forward?
Embracing
Change
The average Indian soldier remains as
hardy as before but he is certainly confused with the pace of change occurring
all around him. It is here that the leaders—the officers—will have to adapt
themselves to the new reality. The age-old system of regimental traditions and
values is robust, and serves to develop camaraderie and loyalty between the led
and the leader even now. The new fashion to dismiss them as outdated ideas must
be arrested. Military ethos is not developed overnight and is certainly not
imbibed by pandering blindly to the changes in society.
However the leadership needs to take
cognizance of a new challenge: Proliferation of social media. Access to
improved technology and means of communication has meant that soldiers are now tempted
take a short cut to air their grievances—genuine or otherwise. The new Army
chief has done well to issue a legitimate warning that misuse of social media
will lead to consequences while at the same time, providing a new avenue of
grievance redress through his office. However, the top leadership will have to
be careful in not short-circuiting the traditional chain of command.
The change must come from the top.
A former Army Commander, Lt. Gen.
C.S.K. Sabu, had encapsulated the desired change in view of altered
socio-economic conditions at a seminar on ‘Leadership Challenges in an Era of
Turbulence’ at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi, in June
2010. He said: ‘Such a change needs to be top-down, and be backed by the force
of institutional ethics, tradition, peer pressure and group dynamics. While the
Chetwode motto of the Army is everlasting, it loses focus once a soldier is
beyond his CO—it lacks the guiderail required for a codified, value-based
ethical conduct on the part of senior officers, which must be set right.’
Certain changes which can be
considered and deliberated are:
• 360 degree assessments in the
context of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
• Inculcate the warrior ethos in the
Army.
• Embrace the soldier’s code—Veer
Senani must be codified.
• Encourage scholar–warrior ethos for
the officers.
• Promoting ethics and probity in
military life.
• Norms for conducting welfare
activities must change—it is a command function
and must be restored to the same.
Finally, if the led are to believe
the leader, the leader must walk the talk. Officers must believe in themselves
and the system that they work in. They must take pride in the fact that the
military is essentially different in its work culture, ethos, traditions and
values from any other entity. Soldiering is the only profession in which a man
voluntarily chooses to enter into a contract that entails death if the occasion
so demands.
The Indian military, despite its
recent problems, remains a very fine institution. To be relevant and effective,
it must, however, embrace change with discretion. Therein lies the trick in
meeting the increasing challenge posed to the military leadership. However, let
the change be driven by the military itself rather than pesky anchors and
upstart reporters hectoring soldiers on a matter that they have very little
idea about.
