Two mails I received got me thinking. The first was a letter written by Lt Gen Harwant Singh of the Indian Army and the other an excerpt from “A Tender Warrior’ written by Gen Hal Moore. The former deals with the loss of honour in the Indian Army and the latter pertains to the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia led by General Lee, to General Grant in the American Civil War and which exemplifies the concept of honour. While the context is different, it is the concept of honour that makes for great nations and great armies.
I do not think anyone in the Army has two views about what has been written by Gen Harwant Singh. These facts are known and have been a consistent sore point so far as our officers and men are concerned. However, I do not feel sorry for the Army. Many years ago, when Indira Gandhi propagated the concept of a committed bureaucracy, it was followed with such alacrity and sincerity, much like the tongawala’s arrest in the example given by Gen Harwant, that the good lady was forced to state ‘I only asked them to bend; they chose to crawl’. In a similar vein, the Indian Army loses in status with every pay commission because its leadership chooses not to fight for what is just and right. Perhaps 30 pieces of silver, in the Biblical vein is considered adequate.
While I do not feel sorry for the army as already stated, I do feel sorry for the country. There is always a price to pay for neglect and I fear that we are fast approaching that point. It is not a question of pay. The Army Chief may tom-tom from the highest roof tops that he has got a good deal for the army but he is fooling himself and he knows it. For, as the Naval Chief so nicely put it, ‘It is a question of parity’. And it has always been a question of parity. Not of pay. By reducing the debate to crumbs of bread we demean ourselves and the uniform we wear.
We are witness today to the police forces getting butchered in Naxalite violence in ‘the red corridor’. It really surprises me that the media which is so vocal on many issues chooses to remain quiet on an issue which will soon become a major national disaster. Now the question to be asked is if the civil administration and the police cannot control the situation, what then? Do you call in the Army to quell the population, like Pakistan is doing to its North West Province? The pay of all Pakistani soldiers fighting in their war against terror has been doubled. And yet they are crawling foot by foot and not really getting anywhere. Is our Army to be reduced to that level?
The Army fights for honour, but when the nation takes away that very honour, deliberately, and with malicious intent, the motivation to fight gets eroded. It is no accident that the United States is a super power. It was no accident which propelled Britain to world leadership for centuries. And it is not going to be an accident when China gets there too. A combination of economic power and military might is what makes for great powers. But no nation can be great when it dishonours and demeans its own Army.
An Army of Occupation: A Bureaucratic View of the Military
Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)
Many defence analysts are of the view that had theKashmir war not started in 1947, in less than a decade the Indian army would have been reduced to a constabulary. When the subject of modernization of the army was raised with Nehru, it is believed that he responded by saying that, if need be, the army should be prepared to fight with 'lathies.'
Kashmir operations notwithstanding, the plan to systematically and persistently downgrade the military was put into operation and by 1962 much had been achieved. The political class had come to believe that they had ascended an era of peace, free of international power politics, strategic power play and the role of military power to protect national interests had become minimal. It was a utopian world where reason and dialogue were believed to be the ultimate tools for the resolution of clash of interests and conflict situations. Though the Chinese did give a severe jolt and tried to shake our leadership out of their world of make belief, it succeeded only partially, because when 1965 came we found ourselves, militarily inferior to Pakistan in many key areas.
There was a pathological dislike of the Indian military by the congress party which came to power at the centre on attaining independence. Herein rests the answer to the military's down-gradation in so systematic and persistent a manner soon after independence! The Bureaucracy exploited this bias of the congress to the hilt and added to it the fear and the possibility of a military take over as had occurred in some of the neighbhouring countries. It also managed to restructure the higher defence set-up to the nation's overall strategic disadvantage.
Gen O P Malhotra as Chief of Defence Staff, in a note to the RM in 1981 raised the issue of down grading of service officers in the warrant of precedence (which bears on pay etc as well ) and that these down-gradations coincided with the termination of every war ( 1948,62,65, and 71. ) and this had seriously effected the morale of armed forces. A committee of three secretaries periodically revise the warrant of precedence, which is rubber stamped by the supreme commander of the armed forces, who is not known to have even once raised a query on this regular assault on the officers of his forces.
In response to Gen OP Malhotra's objection, the committee of secretaries recorded, "military officers were placed unduly high in the old warrant of precedence,presumably as it was considered essential for officers of army of occupation to be given special status and authority." While it appeared to be an independent perception of a few babus, the political class, either had a similar view or were indifferent to bureaucratic machinations. Of all the people of this world, we Indians, who have been under the heels of armies of occupation for more than two thousand years, should know what such armies are like. To call Indian army of the 20th century (1900 to1947) an army of occupation was blasphemous.
Congress resolution of 1942 stated "The present Indian Army is an off-shoot of the British Army and has been maintained to mainly hold India in subjugation. It has been completely segregated from the general population." These were the very years in which the British used police and not the army to ruthlessly crush the 'Quit India movement' and that Lala Lajpat Rai fell to police 'lathies' and not an army bullet. Yet the Congress heaped this ignominy on the military.
From end 1939, the Indian army was out of India and nearer home involved in a desperate fight to keep the Japanese at bay. The congress leadership in 1942 had no experience of state craft or state power and could only accuse, agitate and was scared to name the police and found army a distant and easy target.
Segregation of military from the local population was nothing new. It was an essential requirement for maintaining discipline and professionalism. Even within Indian forts, the soldiers quarters were segregated from the rest. The concept of 'Chawanies' ( cantonments ) in India was first introduced by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Residences and offices of senior civil servants too were located in British cantonments established well away from civil population.
Gen Malhotra pointed out that on the other hand, this committee of babus while expounding the theory of 'army of occupation " failed to realize that a high place was accorded to the civil servants in the colonial bureaucracy, because they were the trusted paladins of the imperial power. It was the British P.M, Lloyd George, who referred to the ICS as the steel frame of the British to control India. It was the civil services and the police who were the instruments of oppression and were the willing and enthusiastic tools employed to crush the nationalist upsurge, fervour and the freedom movement. Recall that incident in Lahore where the police arrested a 'Tongawala' whose only crime was that he urged his lazy horse to move faster: at Hitler's speed. (chal Hitler di chaley). Police and civil services were more loyal than the king.
The Indian Army held NW frontier for a hundred years and prevented those wild tribes from across the Hindu Kush Mountains from making periodic forays into the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Later it fought a savage war in the jungles of Burma and finally stemmed, at Imphal and Kohima, the Japanese assault on India. The Japanese army was barbaric in the extreme and our people in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and POWs, had a taste of its brutality.
It is the mutinies in the Army and Navy which threw a clear signal to the British that it was time to leave. So it is highly malicious for anyone to term Indian Army as army of occupation. Consider this. The Indian government, in the first 50 years of independence, has deployed the Indian army to quell riots, maintain order etc 10 times more than the British did in their last 50 years of their rule in India. So much for the poor governance we have had all these years. A soldier is under oath and fealty to the constitution/ government of the day. There can be no grounds for him to break his oath. That is why the INA troops, and those of the Navy and Army who mutinied, could not be taken back into service after independence.
However, the suspicion injected deep into the political mind of a military take over lingers. Moreover the political class continues to be in the grip of the bureaucracy or as Nirad C Chaudhury puts it so succinctly, "the political leadership is helplessly flapping its wings against the bars of the cage in which the bureaucracy has placed it."
This down gradation of the military officers was even taken into armed forces headquarters, where a civilian officer in the appointment of Director equated with a Lt-Col /Col, was suddenly equated with a brigadier. This completely distorted the working equations at armed forces headquarters and had adverse impact on the working at Sercive Headquarters. Gen Rodriques, as Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee lodged a strong protest with the RM, against this chicanery of the bureaucracy, but the protests fell on deaf ears and political class appeared helpless against continued assault on the military.
Since the down-gradation of the military is continuing to this day: 6th CPC being the latest manifestation of this six decade old policy, presumably the Indian military is still being perceived as an army of occupation. Military service has become so unattractive that few want to join it and those inside want to quit. 15 of the brightest colonels of the army have declined to sign up for the Higher Command Course, which is an essential stepping stone for promotions to higher ranks. In the last two years over 2000 officers have sought release from service, which includes brigs and generals. Is there similar leakage of talent in the civil services!
Indian army has been in, 'no war no peace,' state since independence. Wars apart, army has lost 569 officers and over 9000 JCOs and other ranks in counter insurgency operation during the last ten years. While there is little value for human life in India, the value of soldier's life count for nothing in this country. Therefore, one wonders whose army it is anyway and who will soldier for India!
We have the ambition to be a world economic power, but the vision and will of a third world country when it comes to creating strategic capabilities. Given the geo-strategic environments of the region and India's unwillingness to rise to meet the emerging challenges, the picture is getting fairly grim by the day. To complete that picture one may add the factor of de-motivation of country's armed forces.
Excerpt from ‘A Tender Warrior’,
by General Hal Moore
I pledged my life, my sacred honor, for America many years ago. Millions of men and women have made a similar pledge. Having lived with that pledge my entire adult life, after graduating from West Point, I can speak with great humility that it has been a privilege of the highest order to serve at the pleasure of The Commander-In-Chief.
An unequalled pledge of sacred honor took place on April 9, 1865. Before General Lee surrendered his whole Army to General Grant, all communications between the two leaders leading up to the surrender ended with, "Your obedient servant." It was a closing used by many great American leaders and presidents. But somehow, it became less important to emphasize civility in communications as America became more sophisticated and technology rooted.
America used to be the proud home of civility. We can be again. Seldom does civility stand alone. It is seldom a one-time act. It invites compassion and sacred honor as sister pillars. It serves others and strengthens the bond in relationships.
As Lee rode "Traveller" to surrender to Grant at Appomattox, Grant formed his Union troops in two lines. They stood with their swords at attention as Lee, with great dignity, progressed the final yards to the farmhouse, riding between the "formed lines of respect." With the slow, high-lifting discipline of each hoof, leader was preparing to meet leader at his and America's best - in the worst of times.
During the surrender, a personal movement of appreciated civility occurred. "General Lee removed his sword and handed it to General Grant, and Grant handed it back." After the surrender, as General Lee mounted his horse to depart, General Grant stepped down from the porch, and, moving toward Lee, saluted him by raising his hat. All officers present followed him in this act of civility, compassion and honor. Lee raised his hat respectfully, and rode off in great dignity...loving America still.
Although both were West Point graduates, they had met only briefly once before. During the surrender, from their letters in the beginning through the raising of hats at the end, the "good-bye" was a leadership exhibition in civility for all. It took the two of them to teach the soldiers present why, and how, we should serve one another - even during military surrender.
The surrender had been elevated to a moment of grace. That is what civility, compassion and sacred honor produce when the servant heart leads the best of leaders. They paved the way for future leaders to emerge in history by leading through authentic practices of civility.
Such leadership moments are never lost in history. Whether signing the Declaration of Independence, leading a platoon into battle, or surrendering to one another, there are two duties of a leader at all times: He or she is in that role to serve others first and concurrently to lead them to an objective. A crucial and delicate balance is required. To achieve this, to serve well, he or she must serve with honor and lead with civility.
MAC ANDERSON is the founder of Simple Truths and Successories, Inc., the leader in designing and marketing products for motivation and recognition. These companies, however, are not the first success stories for Mac. He was also the founder and CEO of McCord Travel, the largest travel company in the Midwest, and part owner/VP of sales and marketing for Orval Kent Food Company, the country's largest manufacturer of prepared salads.
His accomplishments in these three unrelated industries provide some insight into his passion and leadership skills. He also brings the same passion to his speaking where he speaks to many corporate audiences on a variety of topics, including leadership, motivation and team building.
Mac has authored or co-authored twelve books, which have sold more than 3 million copies. They include: 212°...The Extra Degree, Change is Good...You Go First, You Can't Send a Duck to Eagle School, The Power of Attitude, The Essence of Leadership, The Nature of Success, The Dash, Charging the Human Battery, Finding Joy, Customer Love, Motivational Quotes and Learning to Dance in the Rain.
For more information about Mac, visit www.simpletruths.com.
