Praveen Swami caught the wrong end of a long stick in his article “Ladakh troop revolt underlines Army class tensions” (The Hindu, May 13, 2012). His interesting analysis of the indiscipline and disorder by personnel of the Ladakh-based 226 Field Regiment was based on two arguments. His main argument was that the Army continued to run on antiquated arrangements which then created the conditions for troops and officers of the Artillery regiment to come to blows. Combustion is inbuilt in the functioning of the Army and the fracas at Nyoma in Leh was waiting to happen. He makes two points to underline this argument.
First, the Army continues to run on “colonial-era institutions” and, second, that it remains “divided rigidly between sahibs and men, which allowed, enabled, or rather created conditions for tempers to boil over in Nyoma. Before responding to his line of reasoning, it is important to firstly condemn the incidents that happened in Nyoma. There are no grounds to justify, or let alone explain, the fisticuffs during the bara khana after the regiment had completed its field firing practice. It must be understood that a bara khana is standard procedure following any field firing, by any unit. That an Army tradition came to be marred by unforeseen incidents is a sad commentary on the calibre of officers who were holding staff and command appointments of the 226 Field Regiment. For they are the principal beneficiaries of what Praveen Swami has called “colonial-era institutions.”
His first line of attack is on the continued practice of employing combat trained soldiers as the personal valets of officers — once called batmen by British Indian Army officers and now known as sewadars, sahayaks, and also buddies in many units. His argument is that this institution is outdated in today's India. It humiliates the soldier detailed for such duties with an officer. And because of its misuse, the Nyoma incident happened. Class tension is inherent in the structure of the Army, hence the fires of revolt in the 226 Field Regiment.
There is a basic flaw in this reasoning. For if that were the case, the Army would long have been reduced to an institution wrecked by confronting its thousand inbuilt mutinies. But that has not happened and neither will the Army go that way. Regiments and battalions under far greater combat stress, and with far higher levels of battle training, would also have been stricken with this ailment. Infantry units, the primary application of force by the Republic of India, would not have been able to perform their basic military tasks if the “colonial-era institutions” remained the prevailing atmosphere in the battalion. The institution of sahayak is certainly an outdated one, and there can be no two views on that score. But it is not responsible, whatever its levels of misuse, for the acts of indiscipline in Nyoma.
The second point raised in the report was about the Army being a house “divided between sahibs and men.” Sahib is an honorific bestowed on those who have attained certain ranks, officers or men. Officers are taught by tradition to address as “Sahib” those who have achieved such ranks even if they are junior in the command structure. Consider this: India's Army achieved one of its greatest military feats 25 years ago during this time of the year. On June 26, 1987, the 8 Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry captured Quaid Post from Pakistan in the battle to dominate Siachen. The success of that operation was because of the extreme bravery of late 2/Lt Rajiv Pande who began the operation, that was completed by then Naib Subedar Bana Singh, for which he was awarded the Param Vir Chakra. To come to the point — even in the midst of the highest combat ever fought, Pande and Bana Singh would only address each other as “Sahib,” despite the vast difference in age and rank. That has been the practice ever since the Indian Army came to be made, and it will remain so. The addressing of someone as “Sahib” doesn't cause divisions in the Army. And neither does the presence of the ‘Sahib culture'. What causes divisions, and which lie at the root of the problems on display in Nyoma, is, in fact, of far more recent origin.
The armed forces of India, unlike other government services, have a sharply pyramidal structure, both within a unit and as institutions as a whole. The competition of ranks is far higher in the armed forces than anywhere else in the country. And this is as true for officers as it is for enlisted men, for the number of junior commissioned ranks are few and far in between. This competition for higher ranks has created a culture of command that revolves around the “zero-error syndrome.” Simply explained, this essentially means the avoidance of risk so as to sail the waters calmly. When no risks are taken, no mistakes are made. So annual confidential reports remain sanitised to the last line and the grading is excellent. Thus, promotions are easier achieved provided the examinations and courses are also graded well. True of men as also of officers. But human life is not so mechanical, and military life less so. The lure of higher ranks, however, requires that the record be spotless, so units do what they know best: brush the mess under the carpet. Lapses are routinely covered up, and command failures remain un-reported, or at best under-reported.
The failings of command, thus, come to be hidden, from platoon level upward. It is plain to the eye who is and is not fit for the higher ranks. But the military bureaucracy only looks at sterilised pieces of paper in the Military Secretary's Branch. Who they select for commanding a combat unit may really not be fit for that appointment, intellectually, physically or even morally. Murphy's Law is the most popular dictum in the armed forces, and it catches up some time or the other. In Nyoma, it caught up with the 226 Field Regiment. It is certain that this regiment has had numerous incidents of indiscipline in the past. None came to be reported, or they were covered up. Indiscipline to the point of revolt does not only affect those in the unit, but even those commanding higher formations. Accountability in the Army is lateral and vertical. So to avoid stains, some in the past have ignored goings on inside the 226 Field Regiment. All that it required was an incapable officer and an incapacitated soldier to come together, and they did in Nyoma. First-rate officers and first-rate soldiers in other units continue to perform commendably by “colonial-era institutions.” It is obvious the first-rate are not in the 226 Field Regiment.
(Manvendra Singh is co-convener of the Bharatiya Janata Party's defence cell. He was a member of the Standing Committee on Defence in the 14th Lok Sabha.)
Keywords: Ladakh troop revolt, 226 Field Regiment, Indian Army, Armed Forces, Jawans-officers clash, Nyoma incident, Debate at The Hindu
Officers of Armed forces,specially Army officers, even now behaves like Britishers and take pleasure in ill treating the men under their command. They cling to the colonial perception ,that the enlisted men are inferior, lazy,dishonest and need to be dealt with severely. The strict army rules and the poverty at home compels the men to suffer silently.
Intoxication of the authority goes to some people's head when they get absolute power to control others and they start behaving like the masters of the universe. Though such people could be seen in every field and more are among Army officers.Such officers ill treat the men under their command and always take shelter behind army rules and the need to enforce discipline, to justify their highhandedness. Most of the army officers ignores the fact the men under their command are not the natives of a colony,but fellow citizens having equal rights. Unless their colonial mind set is changed more such troubles could be expected.
Officers of Armed forces,specially Army officers, even now behave like Britishers and take pleasure in ill treating the men under their command. They cling to the colonial perception ,that the enlisted men are inferior,lazy,dishonest and need to be dealt with severely. The strict army rules and the poverty at home compels the men to suffer silently. Intoxication of the authority goes to some people's head when they get absolute power to control others and they start behaving like masters of the universe. Though such people could be seen in every field.More are among Army officers.Such officers always ill treat the men under their command and take shelter behind army rules and the need to enforce discipline,to justify their highhandedness. Most of the army officers ignore the fact the men under their command are not the natives of a occupied colony,but fellow citizens having equal rights. Unless their colonial mind set is changed more such troubles could be expected
Colonial era culture with higher officials, is a general prevailing
practice.How can one explain junior personnel shooting their higher
ups and try to end their lifes, as we hear from sensitive and terror
sensitive areas. Even in normal police force, junior people may not
like doing household work, guardening and such work. In normal offices
such things do not happen, because of strong unions. In the absence of
which, such things happen. Soldiers should not asked to do such work.
Commanding respect is something,making people do such thing is another
thing. Colonial mentality has not gone from our mind, it is a fact.
But we are practical, in choosing where to use this
Both Mr. Swami and Mr. Singh have written very good articles. Mr. Swami holds "Colonial Era Culture"-Sahib and Sevak- responsible for this unfortunate incident, while Mr. Singh refutes Mr. Swami's argument and holds 'Poor Administration and poor bureaucratic practices' responsible for it.
Mr. Singh argues that "if Mr. Swami's argument is correct, the Army would long have been reduced to an institution wrecked by confronting its thousand inbuilt mutinies". I disagree with Mr. Singh's conclusion as he has provided very weak argument. Just because Army did not have many confrontation in past, it does not mean that 'Colonial Era Culture' is not responsible for it. What if we apply Mr. Singh's logic on his own argument?
I agree that phrase 'Sahib and Sevak' is not correctly used by Mr. Swami. I think that by 'Sahib and Sevak', Mr. Swami means 'Officer and Non-officer'. In my opinion both the reasons presented by Mr. Swami and Mr. Singh are responsible for this unfortunate incident.
In Armed Forces, what actully happens inside is much more different than what appears outside. How many of us really know what happens in their day-to-day lives? We just imagine them as brave soldiers dressed up nicely and undergoing trainings for warlike situations. But there is a bigger false side of armed forces that we are unware of. The point of "Sahibs and men" is quite true. People who join army, navy or air force at a lower rank are treated rudely by the senior officers. Because once they are in, they cannot leave armed forces without completing 15 years. If they leave, they will be termed as "Bhagoda" and will be inspected by Police for the rest of their lives. This one thing leaves them with no hope at all. They have to follow whatever their senior officials say. Sahibs abuse them, torture them mentally and use them like anything. If someone argues then he has to suffer in another way, either occupied with unneccessary donkey work or punishment. But Sahibs live like God.
Crisp and to the point. Mr Manvender Singh ably rebuts the earlier article by Mr Praveen Swami. The reasons for Nyoma like incident, as he points out, lie elsewhere and the Army would do well for itself and the country by reforming in those aspects.
It is not so much the difference between the sahib and the men that is responsible for this situation. The more unfortunate aspect is that despite the efforts at modernisation, enough innovative procurement has not been made to make life in field areas better for all ranks.As a result, the sahayak has to continue with his colonial era duties of digging his and the officers toilets,drawing water over long distances etc. While the majority of officers do not take the services of the sahayak for granted and many units have stringent rules regarding the nature of duties to be performed by a Sahayak - there will always be those who cross the line.It has been rightly brought out by the author that trouble was brewing in the unit and the Nyoma incident was the final straw.It is amply clear that the officers of this unit did not enjoy the confidence of their men.
When General V.K.Singh and others raise issues facing the Armed Forces the Civilian establishment gets angry with them and accuse them of being anti-national. However unless these problems are sorted out quickly they could quickly escalate to bigger problems. The old colonial era mindset needs to be done away with and the Army needs to be modernised. Our Armed Forces are in need of new weaponry, new strategic thinking and a change in the Civilian-Defence relationship. Blind patriotism by ignoring key issues is not the solution and will only serve to weaken our defence preparedness.
Instead of upholding the colonial culture of supporting official secrets act in order to keep details of expenditure and other matters in defence and security establishments from the notice of public to sustain corruption and inefficiency along with nepotism, the political parties should strive better to abolish the colonial act of official secrets act altogether in the age of information era.
Please Email the Editor