Indiscipline in the Indian Army

IS IT THE CHIEF’S BOGEY? INDISCIPLINE IN UNITS, OWING TO SHORTAGE OF OFFICERS

The two recent incidents of indiscipline amongst soldiers in 226 Field Regiment and 16 Cavalry, eked out a statement from the Chief of the Indian Army, General Bikram Singh, which was reported in the print media some days back; “that the shortfall of about 10,000 officers in the authorised strength of the cadre, is a causative and contributory factor for the same”. Hence, the incidents are not aberrations but instead a precursor to more such happenings, as the deficiency of officers is unlikely to be made up in the near and distant future, owing to a cultural, social and economic shift in the priorities, which the youth has identified with and is inspired by. It is understandable to an extent that, deficiencies in the junior officer leadership which torment and afflict unit administration and functioning could be a burden to carry for the Commanding Officer. Who must train his command to evolve systems and methodologies to mitigate the adverse consequences of such a situation? But it defies my rationale and commonsense that it could become a major cause of breakdown in officer – man relationship, culminating in gross insubordination, manhandling, indifference towards the men, fisticuffs galore between officers and men- threatening to  break into a mutiny and engendering a suicide, resulting in loss of a valued life of a soldier. The deficiency argument does not go down as a cogent reason for the aforementioned acts of brazen indiscipline in homogeneous units, such as the ones where these incidents occurred. There is something much more beyond the simplistic explanation of the Chief, which sounds more expedient than analytical in the given circumstances. And is more for the ears of the political leadership, with the one point agenda of leading them to believe that, the terms and conditions of service in the army must be made more attractive for the youth, to be entrapped into and making a choice of a career in the organization, should we want to avoid such occurrences in the future. By doing so, General Bikram  Singh has played his cards well. One, involve the government by raising the bogey of indiscipline linked to officer deficiency and hence induce it to making up the deficiency of officers, by such means as are within the ambit of its control and authority. And, two, shrugging off any institutional blame whatsoever for any breakdown of discipline, bordering on mutiny in units in the future, as the onus of culpability will rest equally with the government; which was sounded about the situation precipitating into a worst case scenario, emanating from the stated deficiency.

To me, it seems more a matter of marginalization of soldierly values, which have spiralled and gripped the officer ship of the army in the wake of the ubiquitous materialism that abounds in the contemporary environment. While the material and fiscal environment is a progressive feature of a nation’s evolution in its history, it is rather unfortunate that we have been bereft of individual and national character in our surge towards prosperity, development and growth. Progress and development is a mutually inclusive algorithm, which factors both material and human growth indices. The political leadership of our country has to a large extent obliquely impacted this reality, which now asserts its presence as a wheel within a wheel phenomenon. Of, money begetting power and resultantly more power and more money. Similarly, the army has in the aftermath of the up gradation in its ranks and diminishing status vis a vis the civil authority, succumbed to the temptation of ‘killing the hen which lays the golden egg’. The analogy is explained in drawing a parallel between the officer who has been inveigled into pushing his privileges beyond what attends upon him by custom, seniority and duty and milking the resources of his command and authority; human, material and intangible; to its limits and not sustained by grace and a humane attitude, ringing in the destruction of the edifice that upholds esprit de corps. The bond between the officer and the soldier is severed permanently and the proverbial ‘hen’ is butchered by the greed of those officers, who are morally and ethically challenged. The absence of character in their personal and official conduct, disgracefully lends itself to exponentially proliferate unbecoming behaviour of their spouses as also themselves in an empowered rank and file, which is aware and informed about its rights and duties.  The few who bring disgrace upon their units by their deeds of infamy and disrepute are enough to sully the pride and reputation of the army, which is ever under the watchful and prying eyes of the vigilant and keen media; given its penchant for sensationalising every bit and piece of news, more so that, coming from the barracks of the military and its hallowed offices. But, it is not a case of shooting the messenger and apportioning blame upon the media for all that gets reported. Instead, it is a clarion call for the army to get its act together and look deep within its own soul and come up with honest answers to the disturbing questions, which beg the attention of its hierarchy.

Regimentation, the sine qua non of soldiering and man management, has most unfortunately been relegated to the background, with dire consequences for the emotional and moral health of its junior leadership. The cohesiveness among officers and the men has taken a very bad beating, in the existing rat race, which has engulfed the army. The grass root learning at the fundamental level and collective grooming, which adorned the careers of many a good officer, is more an exception than a rule and has seriously impinged upon character driven leadership.  There are many exceptions to this assumption, of poor military values among officers, but even the aberrations are threatening to occur with a frightening consistency; assailing the canons of leadership which sustains the pillars of the army’s ethos and culture. It is not for me to reiterate, that the bogey of officer deficiency which has been calibrated to a higher pitch and another level by the Chief, as the most pertinent cause of palpable indiscipline in the army, is a myth and a ploy that circumvents the core issue of absence of character driven leadership amongst its officers.  By this, General Bikram Singh has cleverly ducked the responsibility to reconstruct the human resource of the army; it’s most valuable and prized asset and take upon his shoulders the onus to revitalize the spirit of the soldier, which seems to be disenchanted by its officer ship. Resurrect the inherent dignity and esteem of the officer, by making meaningful work as his sheet anchor and decry the form for the sake of the essential. When worthwhile work is valued and acknowledged, it will throw up its own forces, which spirals into a military culture steeped in values and principles. Traditions owe their genesis to such thinking and legends are born from such a reality. May the army be in the news for the right reasons and its selfless service to an indebted nation; although most of the political leadership which represents the people is not deserving of such sacrifices, owing to its egocentric proclivities in most matters of governance and political expediency.

BRIGADIER (retd) SD DANGWAL

9410900051