Indian Armed Forces: Sustaining Military Values in the Age of Unreason

Repersentative Image from Wix Media Annotated

Why the Indian military must sustain commitment to professional ethos, avoiding the pitfalls of momentary fame at the cost of the integrity of the institution, ultimately impacting national security interests?

We are in an age of unreason. The Bad Religion album of 2019 explores societal issues that have led the world to become incoherent, fitting the "unreason" concept. This contrasts with the Age of Enlightenment, an 18th-century European movement which focused on logic, science, and individualism. Ironically, in the contemporary world it may not be surprising that the United States and Europe are falling apart.

 But this essay is not about geopolitics but about how the age of unreason is leading to the systematic nullification of professional institutions such as the Indian Armed Forces, particularly the Indian Army.

Today’s society is influenced by social media, journalists have given way to influencers, a shift from accountability and professionalism to the euphoria of hits and subscriptions, which, in turn, dictate revenue for channels mostly owned by profit making corporations. It was unrealistic to expect institutions, including the military, to be unaffected by pursuing fame rather than values.

As one former Army Chief said, most famously during the era of the errant stockbroker Harshad Mehta in 1990, he does not want officers to be fly-by-night operators but to be rooted in the military's basic culture.

The basic feature of this ethos is the Chetwode Motto, "The safety, honour, and welfare of your country come first, always and every time. The honour, welfare, and comfort of the men you command come next. Your own ease, comfort, and safety come last, always and every time," immortalised by Field Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode, then Commander-in-Chief in India, at the Indian Military Academy's inauguration in 1932. In today’s anti-colonial mindset, this could be another credo to be debunked, but fortunately, it remains the primary tenet on which the Army bases its professionalism.

The Chetwode Motto is not unique to the Indian [and should also be for the Pakistan, given common origin] Army. "Duty, Honour, Country" is the core ethos of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, popularised by General Douglas MacArthur in his 1962 speech. It calls for unwavering commitment, integrity, and selfless service to the nation, shaping military character and ideals.

The objective of this somewhat long preamble is to highlight the core values of the military, which the leadership is deemed to follow and which in today’s world may be withering away at least in form as well as deeds.

In practical terms, the Chetwode Motto calls for adherence to professional conduct, be it on and off parade, in battle or out of it, regardless of the pressures of the times, in the face of fire or pressures of sundry commitments of peacetime.

Maintaining professionalism in an exclusive services environment is easy given the common thread of values that binds soldiers, units and officers. However, higher commanders operating in the politico security milieu at the national and state level the challenges are immense demanding high moral courage – the commitment to stand up for military values regardless of the personal consequences for own’s career, “ease, comfort and safety,” of the Chetwode Motto.

Given the discipline, organisational capability, and commitment of the military, there is a tendency to employ the armed forces for all and sundry tasks that can well be handled by civilian counterparts. It is at this stage that leadership is at a premium.

Some recent infringements are distressing, to say the least, particularly those that mar the military's secular credentials. Visiting deities, attired in clothes that representing a religion or visiting gurus, however venerated these may be, is passe for the military professional, more so for higher commanders, as the message that trickles down can wither the very roots of religious neutrality.

The clear principles of faith in the military are that this is to be restricted to the private domain and in the public only obeisance at the unit's religious place, whether a mandir, masjid, or church. Displaying religious photos in barracks is not the norm; individuals can do so in their lockers or boxes, as a soldier's religion is his profession.

In another domain, shaping public perception through the ‘narrative,’ is not the military media establishment's role.  Perception of the military is shaped mainly through deeds be it in war and peace. The glamour of the cameras is not for the military commander; he has enough on his plate to fulfil responsibilities the nation has bestowed upon him. He or she cannot fall for the narrative for in shaping the same there is a clear loss of accountability, an attempt to shield oneself against errors of omission and commission.

At a time of the commercialisation of the Indian media, with big business houses controlling channels and broadsheets, participation in events that contribute to the media house's revenues rather than building the military's professionalism in the public's eyes needs a serious review.

Another common failing is the repetition of homilies of leaders, sometimes almost verbatim. Repetition is the greatest form of flattery. However, in the military, praising the superior officer even in a closed environment is bad form or even impermissible.

Today, senior military commanders seem deliberately to be ignoring this principle, risking the military’s autonomy and distinctive image in the broader socio-political context.

The final concern remains professional advice to the national leadership on the conduct of a war. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw’s advice to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi when asked to consider the launch of operations in March 1971 is immortalised by the words to the effect that,‘I guarantee you 100 per cent defeat’. When launched at the time of military choosing in December, the Indian Armed Forces established a new norm, liberating Bangladesh, and the rest is history. Do today’s commanders have the same courage of convictions and in the same vein the national leadership accept their advice is worth pondering over.

This essay retains a philosophical bias without fleshing out the trends it underlines, the main theme being concerns in deterioration of military values.

The logic is to avoid diversion and deflection from the message that invariably emanates from personalisation. To the perceptive, these could be relatable to contemporary events on the military stage.