Manvendra Singh's defence of the army's colonial-era culture of feudal deference completely misses the point.
First, the facts: what happened in Nyoma wasn't, as Mr. Singh asserts, a case of “fisticuffs.” The enlisted men of the 226 did not just attack their officers, responsible for the brutal beating of a sahayak, in a moment of rage. They staged protest marches in Nyoma; organised vigilante squads; occupied the armoury. These are not small things.
Mr. Singh argues that there is a “basic flaw” in my proposition that class tension fired this revolt. “For if that were the case,” he claims, “then the Army would long have been reduced to an institution wrecked by confronting its thousand inbuilt mutinies.”
Really? India's society, from which the army is drawn, also suffers from multiple tensions of class. From time to time, these tensions have exploded. India has not been “wrecked by confronting its thousand inbuilt mutinies.” This does not mean, though, that the mutinies do not exist.
Mr. Singh's defence of the army's deference-based culture is similarly untenable. The very term sahib denotes a relationship based on social deference; a brief glance at the etymology of the term and its usage in Indian armies since the 16th century would settle Mr. Singh's evident confusions on this count. The term itself, though, isn't the issue: the culture which it signifies is.
Even today, the children of enlisted men now clawing their way into the officer cadre are subjects of condescension and worse; senior officers in the military have gone to lengths to conceal the fact that their fathers served as enlisted men. Evidence of a class divide? Mr. Singh might wish to take a closer look at the wedding invitation cards he receives from friends in the military; he will have his answer.
The bottom line is this: the Indian Army is not a band of brothers. Five decades ago, a centuries-old culture of deference provided the glue. Now, as the egalitarian tides set in motion by democracy reshape the values and world-view of enlisted men, that glue is washing away.
Keywords: Ladakh troop revolt, 226 Field Regiment, Indian Army, Armed Forces, Jawans-officers clash, Nyoma incident, Debate at The Hindu
"The bottom line is this: the Indian Army is not a band of brothers"
Is Praveen Swami trying to be facetious or is he risking his
reputation by making such a stupid and ill informed statement!Only a
person who is serving in the Army can to some extent make such an
observation that too on basis of facts! Mr Swamy, even today you will
find in all good units the leadership of the officers is from the
front with the men close behind.It is borne by the statistics of the
officers casualty ratio . You would be surprised to know that in most
cases it is the jawan who still steps forward in front of his officer
volunteering to do what he is actually supposed to do. A fact proven
by Maj Sandeep Unnikrishnan in Mumbai! Getting to the point of the
sahayaks- no one is defending misuse of soldiers on menial duties- but
what the lady above reports seems again a case of poor leadership in
the unit. The bottom line is -role of a sahayak or buddy in a fighting
unit can never be understood by civilian!
I have a little over 20 years of experience in the army. Trained soldiers who are detailed as sahayaks perform a vital part of an officer's routines. There were soldiers who served with me who were of invaluable assistance to me. They had the freedom of telling me what to do and what not to.Few from outside world may know that a sahayak is a buddy who knows his officer's mind, moods and often give valuable suggestions when you can't ask anyone else. For example, he will be the first one to tell you that your lanyard is a bit twisted.Its good to utilise these soldiers in a better way. However, I must admit that the above article stinks of something.
There is no Army in the world without successive hierarchical tiers nomenclatured by
'ranks',,with a clear line of demarcation between Men and Officers.But for the intermediate three tiered JCOs,exclusive to the Indian Army instituted by the British,there is nothing 'colonial' about this.Formal respect for and faithin all higher ranks is not the only sine qua non for Army's vitality- So is the trust and commitment for all the lower ranks,especially from the officers to the men.While 'Sir' ing is exclusive to the first,the 'Saab' is used for either when one side is the Men.This culture is so well permeated and meaningful to the Army that outsiders like us have no business to comment on this.In fact,this is how 'egalitarianism' works in the Army and it has worked well to build and cement effectively the esprit de corps between the officers and the troops. Still,if there are areas of discontent among men,as a class,it is for the Govt and the TopBrass to address and answer them.
Couldn't agree more with Mr.Swami.Being an insider, its a harsh reality which i witness everyday.It came as a shock when the sahayak in our home took out the wipe and started cleaning my dirty dining table, when I first joined my husband after marriage. Though it was the last time he did it at my place, its really poignant to see when they even hang their 'mem- sahib's' clothes out in the sun for drying.
"Ferrying the children" and "shopping" are last and minor things in the list.There are cases of even the sahayak's spouses being made to work at the officer's home.The difference in circumstances and comparative lack of intelligence have made you officers and them your sahayak, and the "mem-sahibs" out there,just because you are married to an officer!.You conveniently forget the fact that they are also trained soldiers who have bravely come forward to serve our country. What about their integrity!!!. (The junior officers are also treated more or less the same way by the seniors!!!)
It is no one'd case that what happened at Nyoma was right or does not deserve condemnation. It appears that Praveen Swami lives in a life of delusion when he says the even now, the children of enlisted men are subjects of condescension or even ridicule. Apparently Mr Swami is living in an era long past and has not bothered to update himself on the current situation. The demographics of the Armed Forces has changed considerably and today the officers are composed of a cross-section of India and the hitherto urbanised set of officers has been replaced by a genuine mix. What appears to have happened seems to be a case of poor officering (which Incidentally even the country itself is suffering from) and an overreaction by the troops. This is not the first time such an incident has happened, but let us hope that they will remain aberrations as they have so far.
Mr Swami's efforts at tarnishing the Army's image on the basis of isolated incident reveals his ulterior motivations. By doing that he exposes his utter disservice to his profession and this country.
The incident of 226 Field Regiment is due to collective failure on part of officers and JCOs holding key appointments in the regiment. There must have been other issues, which apparently remained unreported and unacted upon. Troops taking out processions and occupying armoury are not unprecendented events. It has happened even earlier. Blaming existing institutions for such incident, and drawing conclusions by linking them to changing societal ethos is rather far-fetched. Today's Indian army is not the same as it used to be five decades ago. Army has taken note of changing societal values and has made necessary adjustments. The latest abolition of the institution of Sahayak is one example, which has resulted from an internal organizational introspection, and not as a reaction to Nyoma incident. Weaker command structure results from faulty promotion system in the army, which need to be modified according to the modern human resources management practices.
This discussion still misses a point. Whose opinion about goodness of an institution and the perfection of all relationships that make such institution should count the most ? In any institution, the success of its functioning should be rated by the most disadvantaged section of people within the institution or being served by the institution. From this perspective, Defence establishments appear to be failures. But so do all other institutions in the country. Are there any institution where the people at the antagonising end of the relationships certify its greatness ?
Instead of tackling issues in piecemeal basis, it is more important to see that the official secrets act, which is a tool used by corrupt bureaucracy to sustain corruption and fudging of data to maintain their inefficiency and corruption, be abolished in the age of information era.
Please Email the Editor