Divided army battles to bridge the gap
20 Nov 2012 4:03 AM IST
A recent news about the corrective steps taken by the army on the Officer-Jawan relationship, based on a new human resource development policy called ‘Professional Military Education’, hardly did the rounds. There has been a series of disciplinary cases wherein, soldiers have acted in an unprofessional manner and taken the law into their own hands. Of the four incidents, three have been from the armoured corps to which the author belonged, and one from the artillery.
Let me assure the reader that sense of disciple is highest in the army, but these incidents point to some issues that need to be speedily addressed and the army seems to be doing that. All four incidents are generally seen as one-off cases or aberrations but set a clear tone that there is an underlying deeper malaise that affects the army in general. Troops have, in short, mutinied against their officers, refused to accept orders and seeing the trend and the manner in which clerks have stated that they had to do a menial task, Battle Physical Efficiency Test (BPET) followed by cleaning of weapons, and reported by a section of the media without analysing, which is certainly a soldierly duty, such acts need firm handling. Unlike popular belief the level of regimentation is very high in the Armoured Corps. Thus these events come as a shock to most of us, troops generally would not take such extreme steps in the regiment.
One of the first acts that the Army generally does is to order a court of inquiry (C of I). It seems the men have got the message, considering the way the first few cases have been handled, that they can get away with such acts, blame the officers, aptly reported by the media, and that the system will ultimately work in their favor, their perceived grievances addressed, or else why would such repeated instances take place. This system of ordering C of I and the time lag for the wheels of justice to churn, have sent a message of soft approach which may not be the case, for an army where summary powers are the order of the day. Agreed the wheels of justice may churn in a slow but sure manner, but in a couple of months the issue seems to be getting out of hand with repeated acts of indiscipline.
The administrative steps on a war footing by the army seem to be in the right direction, however, certain issues do need to be highlighted. Such instances need to be handled transparently so that everyone gets to know through the medium of case studies what exactly is going wrong. Merely putting the lid has not worked, in fact it has led to greater indiscipline, and this problem is not of a commanding officer alone, but of the entire army. The system of accountability is such that the COs (commanding officers) have to face the music alone, such is the ethos of forces. The British followed a tight leash policy, but these men are our kith and kin, and thus there needs to be transparency.
One of the biggest causes is that the social difference between the officers and the men has vastly shrunk, whereas the army has an old traditional mind set. The men no longer hold their officers in social and professional awe and feel they are as good as them. In fact, all over India the socio-economic gap has narrowed. This gap will continue to be bridged further, which is a healthy sign for a democracy and this trend will continue nationally. The men see themselves as close to the officer-class socially as possible and becoming an officer they feel entitles them to privileges. On the other hand, officers have not risen professionally due to acute shortage, as once the social barrier is shortened, leadership distinguishes them apart from the men. A couple of scams, media bashing of the forces are all curtailing the respect and admiration that the men had for officers.
The acute shortage of officers has resulted in stunted growth for them, less exposure to regimental soldering which has led to associated problems which were not anticipated owing to paucity of officers. The army no longer gets the best youths, thus the social gap has narrowed and the system of sahayaks needs a speedy end. It is the bone of many contentious issues and requires a rethink to be replaced by another workable system.
The forces today are not seen as traditional services but are gradually being seen as another job. The profile of the men is no longer rural stock. They are from urban areas, have rising hopes and expectations with short fuses.
The shortage of officers and the young age of COs, around fifteen-sixteen years of service, too has affected unit cohesion. There can be no dispute on the youth profile of the CO, but he must carry the necessary richness of experience also.
Most COs are graduates from Defence Services Staff College and thus spend two tenures after staff college outside the regiment, which hardly leaves them very adept at regimental matters. The CO needs to be a genuine boss compared to the over-worked gentlemen now who literally have to even oversee allotment of vehicles for ladies during raising days.
The army needs to get back to basics, and staff its regiments with maximum number of officers. The officers need to play games, do drill, reassert their leadership roles, drop the system of sahayaks, interact professionally, more often, get real, do troop, squadron and field firing training with the men. Officers need to do simple things like gun cleaning, take active part in technical inspections and not just sit around on a chair. The exposure of officers outside units need to be maximum of two as regiment soldiering is great fun.
CS Thapa is a retired brigadier
Let me assure the reader that sense of disciple is highest in the army, but these incidents point to some issues that need to be speedily addressed and the army seems to be doing that. All four incidents are generally seen as one-off cases or aberrations but set a clear tone that there is an underlying deeper malaise that affects the army in general. Troops have, in short, mutinied against their officers, refused to accept orders and seeing the trend and the manner in which clerks have stated that they had to do a menial task, Battle Physical Efficiency Test (BPET) followed by cleaning of weapons, and reported by a section of the media without analysing, which is certainly a soldierly duty, such acts need firm handling. Unlike popular belief the level of regimentation is very high in the Armoured Corps. Thus these events come as a shock to most of us, troops generally would not take such extreme steps in the regiment.
One of the first acts that the Army generally does is to order a court of inquiry (C of I). It seems the men have got the message, considering the way the first few cases have been handled, that they can get away with such acts, blame the officers, aptly reported by the media, and that the system will ultimately work in their favor, their perceived grievances addressed, or else why would such repeated instances take place. This system of ordering C of I and the time lag for the wheels of justice to churn, have sent a message of soft approach which may not be the case, for an army where summary powers are the order of the day. Agreed the wheels of justice may churn in a slow but sure manner, but in a couple of months the issue seems to be getting out of hand with repeated acts of indiscipline.
The administrative steps on a war footing by the army seem to be in the right direction, however, certain issues do need to be highlighted. Such instances need to be handled transparently so that everyone gets to know through the medium of case studies what exactly is going wrong. Merely putting the lid has not worked, in fact it has led to greater indiscipline, and this problem is not of a commanding officer alone, but of the entire army. The system of accountability is such that the COs (commanding officers) have to face the music alone, such is the ethos of forces. The British followed a tight leash policy, but these men are our kith and kin, and thus there needs to be transparency.
One of the biggest causes is that the social difference between the officers and the men has vastly shrunk, whereas the army has an old traditional mind set. The men no longer hold their officers in social and professional awe and feel they are as good as them. In fact, all over India the socio-economic gap has narrowed. This gap will continue to be bridged further, which is a healthy sign for a democracy and this trend will continue nationally. The men see themselves as close to the officer-class socially as possible and becoming an officer they feel entitles them to privileges. On the other hand, officers have not risen professionally due to acute shortage, as once the social barrier is shortened, leadership distinguishes them apart from the men. A couple of scams, media bashing of the forces are all curtailing the respect and admiration that the men had for officers.
The acute shortage of officers has resulted in stunted growth for them, less exposure to regimental soldering which has led to associated problems which were not anticipated owing to paucity of officers. The army no longer gets the best youths, thus the social gap has narrowed and the system of sahayaks needs a speedy end. It is the bone of many contentious issues and requires a rethink to be replaced by another workable system.
The forces today are not seen as traditional services but are gradually being seen as another job. The profile of the men is no longer rural stock. They are from urban areas, have rising hopes and expectations with short fuses.
The shortage of officers and the young age of COs, around fifteen-sixteen years of service, too has affected unit cohesion. There can be no dispute on the youth profile of the CO, but he must carry the necessary richness of experience also.
Most COs are graduates from Defence Services Staff College and thus spend two tenures after staff college outside the regiment, which hardly leaves them very adept at regimental matters. The CO needs to be a genuine boss compared to the over-worked gentlemen now who literally have to even oversee allotment of vehicles for ladies during raising days.
The army needs to get back to basics, and staff its regiments with maximum number of officers. The officers need to play games, do drill, reassert their leadership roles, drop the system of sahayaks, interact professionally, more often, get real, do troop, squadron and field firing training with the men. Officers need to do simple things like gun cleaning, take active part in technical inspections and not just sit around on a chair. The exposure of officers outside units need to be maximum of two as regiment soldiering is great fun.
CS Thapa is a retired brigadier
Next Story
