UNIVERSAL TRADITIONS
OF THE MILITARY
NEED FOR
INTROSPECTION
The recent
sequence of events with respect to the Army and the Government of India (GOI)
that enabled the media to make hay,, perhaps points to the immaturity of a
young nation state. What we have learnt in six decades of democratic governance
cannot offset the experience gained by mature, older democracies. With the well
documented example and experience of other successful democracies available we could
perhaps have compressed the learning curve. But we have not fought a great war
lasting many years and, what is more, one which perforce involved the entire
population, if not in the actual conduct of war, then in mitigating the consequences
of such conflict. In the absence of mature and informed leadership, both political/ bureaucractic as well as military, which has
barely had time to groom officers as a result of long and continuous
involvement in fighting insurgents, we could not have avoided the present situation.
Since the skills
imparted to officers basically relate to the “management of violence”, some
common qualities bind them. They undergo a rigorous process of selection and
training which prepares them for a special career. They are taught to suppress
their own needs and aspirations for the greater cause of their units, academy,
service, and nation-as the case may be. Second, they are systematically trained,
through courses designed to provide “just in time” inputs to shoulder the next
higher assignment. Intellectual and technological inputs are an integral part
of all mid-career courses. Third, no individual, irrespective of his brilliance,
can replace the military officer by lateral induction, whereas the military
officer can within a short span of time step into any other vocation. Hence, a
commercial pilot cannot replace an Air Force fighter or transport pilot, while
the reverse is possible.
Management
of violence is an integral part of the grooming process of Military officers
all over the world. Higher assignments in which strategic and policy requirements
entail control over large forces, can only be handled by those with sufficient
exposure and stature gained through long service. This is axiomatic and hence
universally accepted.
The license
to practise his military profession is granted by a Commissioning Parchment
signed by no less than the President of the country. Just as a Doctor cannot
practise without his license, a Military Officer is not recognised without his
Commissioning Parchment.
Since the
profession is unique and management of violence needs to be well regulated, the
state monopolises the Military. The military, in turn, is expected to perform only
such functions as have a socially approved purpose. It is in this context that
I quote Samuel Huntington, “The employment of his expertise promiscuously for
his own advantage would wreck the fabric of society”.
So, the
military uses a combination of rules, regulations, instructions, etc, to create
a cohesive, disciplined and dependable force. Traditions in particular constitute
a cementing force. Military ethos, discipline and swift punishment to erring
personnel are the hallmark of any well managed force.
While
society expects the highest standards of probity and loyalty to the nation from
a soldier, it has in return to ensure that the soldier is reasonably well paid,
not only whilst in service but cared for after his retirement. The recent
unresolved issues pertaining to one rank-one pay and soldiers returning their
medals on the streets of the capital are symptoms of a deep- rooted sense of
neglect and injustice. Manifestations of this hurt are bound to surface until
the root cause is addressed.
When an
officer joins the forces he willy-nilly surrenders some of his fundamental
rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of association with foreign nationals and
the freedom directly to access the media are but a few examples. If, however,
redressal mechanisms prove inadequate and justice is deemed to be denied, the
best course of action suggested to the Military is to shed the uniform and
resort to legal remedies. This is a tradition and a strong one at that. Gen MacArthur,
arguably the most popular U.S
General at that point in time in 1951 did not seek justice from courts of law
when he was sacked. He merely faded away. So did Gen Michael Dugan, who was
sacked in 1990, during the Gulf War for making irresponsible statement to the
media. Gen Mc Chrystal’s sacking is the most recent case of assertion in the
U.S. of Civilian authority over the Military. They did not seek justice from
courts of law.
We have had
our share of defiance even in our short history. Equally we had a Manekshaw who
handled a very difficult politico-military confrontation with great élan. While
Manekshaw fought for the cause of the armed forces and not for himself or his
promotion, the others who chose to break established and valuable traditions of
the Military, perhaps, did not fight for a socially approved cause.. We can
only hope that it does not confuse young officers and tempt them to take to
legal recourse, in the belief that such actions are lawful and a fundamental
right. Fortunately our courts
are well aware of the executive’s functions and the powers exercised by
superiors in the military hierarchy.
The responsibilities of the soldier to the State and those of
the State to the soldier need to be inculcated in Officers while under training
and parliamentarians and commentators should be more generally groomed to
protect the soldier’s interests.
Civilian control of the military has historically been exercised by Parliament.
This is done through Ministers, constituting as they do, the political
executive, and by bodies such as the Cabinet Committee on Security. Repeatedly complaining that the bureaucracy
has usurped these powers as politicians are reluctant to deal directly with the
military, reflects poorly both on such politicians and Military personnel. This
issue must be resolved at the earliest through well considered processes
already suggested by numerous committees such as the Kargil Review Committee.
Even as we refine and evolve our structures, it is essential
to ensure that the Armed forces remain apolitical, secular and unique as they
are meant to be.
