DISCIPLINE, MORALITY & PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY IN THE INDIAN ARMY

DISCIPLINE, MORALITY & PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY IN THE  INDIAN ARMY

By

Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)

            Discipline is the most well known characteristic of men in uniform, the hallmark of soldiers all over the World. It is discipline that turns raw recruits into soldiers, and the mortar that binds them together, turning them into an effective fighting force. A body of armed men with the highest motivation, the most potent weapons and the best leaders, but lacking discipline, becomes a rabble, instead of a fighting force.  In fact, discipline is not only the most distinctive attribute but also the most admired quality that soldiers possess, and civilians envy. Another reason why soldiers are held in high regard is that they are usually honest, upright and dependable. Time and again, when the nation has faced a daunting task or a crisis, such as a natural disaster, civil unrest, famine or a major rail accident, it has turned to the Army.  There is only one organisation that the common man trusts today, and that is the Indian Army. This is indeed a rare honour, and the highest accolade any organisation can vie for.

            In recent years, this image of the soldier has lost some its shine. There has been considerable debate on the apparent deterioration in the standards of discipline, morality and professional integrity in the Army. Cases of soldiers shooting their colleagues or superiors on trivial issues such as denial of leave, bad food or unjust treatment are on the increase, causing great concern. A few years ago, the nation was shocked by the rape of a woman by soldiers from the Presidents Body Guard, in the heart of the nation’s capital. The Tehelka expose brought home to millions of television viewers the harsh reality that even soldiers can be corrupted. Recently there was a case of a brigadier selling canteen liquor at a premium to civilians. Another well-publicized case concerns certain officers who faked killings of militants in order to earn decorations. The number of soldiers knocking at the doors of the judiciary in matters concerning promotions is on the rise, leading to a demand for a military tribunal on the lines of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Have the standards of discipline and morality in the Indian Army declined? If so, what are the contributory factors? More important, what is the remedy?

It would be well to spend some time deliberating on the issue before jumping to conclusions. A soldier’s life is hard, with little recompense. The rigours of service; the sense of deprivation and isolation on remote posts; the harsh climate and inhospitable terrain in which he spends most of his service; and the stringent rules that govern a soldier’s life sometimes drive a man to breaking point. This is not a new phenomenon, being a familiar feature of military life since the earliest times. However, it must be remembered that what is commonplace for others – overstaying leave, using strong language with superiors or feigning illness – is treated as indiscipline among soldiers. If one compares statistics, there has been little variation in the state of discipline in the Indian Army since the days of the British Raj, as far as offences of the type mentioned above are concerned. After Independence, there was virtually no change in the state of discipline or the rules governing them. While the incidence of cases of individual indiscipline remained almost the same, those of collective insubordination – mutiny in military parlance – have actually declined. During the years preceding Independence, there were several mutinies, the most well known being the Jhansi Revolt (1940): the Suez Canal Revolt (1943); the Ambala Cantt Revolt (1943) and the STC Mutiny in Jubbulpore (1946), the last one occurring just two weeks after the famous Royal Indian Navy Mutiny in Bombay (1946).  One of the major reasons behind the decision of the British to grant independence to India in 1947 were these mutinies, a fact documented by several historians and the personal papers of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy in India. The only major mutiny after 1947 was the one in affecting the regimental centre and certain units of the Sikh Regiment, after Operation Blue star in 1984.

From the above, it should be clear that there has been no appreciable decline in the standard of discipline of the Indian soldier. There are many reasons for the contrary impressions in the minds of the public. The increasing involvement of troops in counter insurgency operations has brought them into close contact with the civilian population, and under the hawk’s eye of the media and human rights groups that tend to portray every act of the soldier as a misdemeanor. This has proved to be a great handicap to troops employed in operations against terrorist groups and militants. To be fair, one must also remember that in spite of the protection provided by Section 197 (2) of the Cr.P.C, which stipulates that soldiers acting in discharge of their duties cannot be prosecuted, the Army has, on its own, taken action against erring individuals whenever it has been found that they used excessive force or acted with mala fide intent. This point is often ignored or glossed over by the media, which usually concentrates only on news that make headlines.

Another factor that affected perceptions about the Army is the large number of cases filed by soldiers in civil courts. This was virtually unheard of in the pre-Independence Indian Army. The reasons for this state of affairs are many, the chief being the rise in aspirations in the officer cadre, and the sense of deprivation and injustice when compared to civil services, where promotions are not only faster but also easier. Of course, it is impossible for the Army ensure that all good officers are promoted, since the number of vacancies in each rank are fixed and cannot be changed, due to organisational constraints. In a division, commanded by a major general, there are three brigadiers commanding brigades, each having three colonels commanding battalions. This ratio of three cannot be changed. Even if one of the brigadiers is outstanding, he cannot be promoted to the rank of major general in the same appointment. This is a simplistic example, but brings out the compulsions behind the rigidity in the organisational structure of the Army. In actual fact, the ratio is even worse. The army has one general (four stars), 60 lieutenant generals (three stars), 200 major generals (two stars) and 800 brigadiers (one star). As can be seen, only one out of three or four will get a promotion, even if there are more who deserve it. (In the army, this is called the Milkha Singh syndrome, after the famous middle distance runner who broke the Olympic record in the Rome Olympics in 1960 but still did not get a chance to stand on the podium, since it had space only for three, and he was fourth in the race). 

The civil services do not suffer from the Milkha Singh syndrome, and rank is not related to the appointment, span of control or responsibility. Each province or state had only one Inspector General of Police (IGP) till the sixties. Today, the same state has over a dozen DGPs and perhaps 20 or 30 IGPs, even though the size of almost every state in the Union has become smaller, due to creation of several new ones. Before Independence, the Deputy Commissioner (DC) in Kohima was responsible for the administration of what is now the state of Nagaland, with scores of IAS officers doing the job that one man did earlier. The span of control and responsibility of the IAS and IPS officer today is a fraction of what it was in 1947. This has naturally resulted in better promotion prospects, and faster promotion at every level. In the Army, there has been no change in the span of control. The responsibilities have actually increased, with counter insurgency and border security, which are really a police responsibility, being added to its charter. Every IAS officer rises to the rank of joint secretary before he retires. In the Army, the percentage of officers reaching the equivalent rank of major general is less than 10%. Can one blame them for going to court when denied a promotion? Is this indiscipline or injustice?

Let us now turn to the crucial and more disturbing subject of morality among soldiers. While the number of military offences has not changed, there has been a visible increase in offences involving moral turpitude, which is definitely a cause for worry. In the pre-Independence Indian Army, corruption was virtually unknown, except in branches that dealt with contractors and suppliers. Even in those days, officers were court martialled, but rarely for stealing money or taking bribes. The common offences were drunkenness, striking a superior officer, issuing a dud cheque and adultery. Over the years, the nature of offences has changed. Instead of getting drunk, using fisticuffs or having affairs, officers are being caught fudging TA bills, dipping their hands in the regimental kitty, or taking cuts in purchases.  Some resort to unethical means to earn promotions and decorations, something that was never done in the old Army. These instances have been highlighted by the media, and tags such as ‘booze brigadier’ and ‘ketchup colonel’ have been added to the vocabulary of Indians. The Tehelka tapes showed serving officers of senior rank accepting bribes  made every soldier hang his head in shame. It dealt a severe blow to the impeccable reputation of the Indian Army, and was in many ways, the nadir of its image.  People are rarely surprised when they read or hear about police officials, civil servants or politicians taking bribes, but they react with shock when soldiers do the same thing. Of course, one can say that such things happened in the past also and Tehelka has done yeoman service by bringing it to light. Perhaps this is true. Like the debacle in 1962, the Indian Army may benefit from it in the long run. To the credit of the Army, it should be remembered that all officers caught on camera have been given exemplary punishments. Not one of the politician or bureaucrat has been punished, and perhaps never will be.

          Another indicator of deterioration in moral values is the propensity of senior officers to ‘live off the land’, an euphemism for misusing perks. Visiting and inspecting officers today rarely pay for their food, drinks and accommodation. Costly mementoes and gifts are offered and accepted, in spite of clear orders prohibiting the practice. Sometimes, the officer’s family and guests too enjoy such hospitality, without spending a rupee from their pockets. It is interesting to recall some incidents from the past, which bring out the change in ethics of senior officers.  When General Cariappa was the C-in-C of the Indian Army, he visited Fatehgarh, the Centre of the Rajput Regiment, of which he was the Colonel. At the end of the visit, his ADC asked for the mess bill. The Centre Adjutant declined to give a bill, telling the ADC that the Colonel of the Regiment was an honoured guest. The ADC told the Adjutant to consult the Centre Commandant, Colonel Guman Singh, in the matter. Guman knew Cariappa’s views and his temper. He told the Adjutant that if the Old Man did not get a bill, the Centre would soon have a new Commandant. The bill was promptly given, and paid.

          Another aspect that needs to be examined is the gradual erosion of esprit de corps in the Armed Forces. Not very long ago, there was the unfortunate case of the naval Chief being sacked, and his successor flying to Delhi in an aircraft arranged by the Home Ministry, without the knowledge of Naval HQ. Without going into the legal aspects of the case, it brings out the obsessive desire to reach the top, even at the expense of ones colleagues. In stark contrast, one can recall the case of the first Indian C-in-C, General Cariappa, who was the third choice for the appointment. Sardar Baldev Singh, the Defence Minister in the interim cabinet, offered the job to Lieutenant General Nathu Singh, who declined, since he felt that Cariappa, being senior to him, was more deserving. Incidentally, Cariappa and Nathu Singh were both from the Rajput Regiment, but there was no love lost between them. Later, Sardar Patel offered the job to Maharaj Rajendra Sinhji, who also declined, on the same grounds. Can such examples of camaraderie be found today? What a contrast between them and Admiral Isaacs, who, incidentally, went to the same school as Admiral Bhagwat, whose chair he coveted and acquired, soiling for ever the record book of the Indian Navy. 

          Another important aspect of morality is professional integrity. In their desire to reach the top, officers, especially of senior rank, rarely say no to orders or instructions, even when they know that following them would be disastrous. During war, lack of professional integrity can result in the loss of lives, or valuable territory. It is incumbent on an officer to bring to the notice of his superior the implications of the orders issued by him, even if they are unpalatable. Military history is replete with examples that bring out this trait. In April 1971, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asked the Army Chief, General Sam Manekshaw, to undertake operations against East Pakistan at the earliest. Manekshaw refused, telling her that if India went to war at that time, she would face defeat. He advised that the operations be launched in December, by which time the floods would subside, and armour could be used. Also, the mountain passes would be closed, reducing the threat from China. All this happened during a cabinet meeting, and Indira Gandhi was visibly annoyed. After the meeting, when they were alone, Sam offered to resign, but Indira Gandhi agreed to his demands, giving him a free hand in conducting the war the way he wanted. Sam told her that had he been the Chief in 1962 when the Army was asked to throw the Chinese out, he would have said the same thing to her father, and Nehru would not have been shamed the way he was.

          The case of the ‘Ketchup Colonel’ is well known. Units involved in counter insurgency operations are under great pressure to show results, which in simple terms, translates into kills. Every dead militant is a feather in the cap of the commanding officer, leading to rewards such as decorations and unit citations. As a result, Army units have begun to emulate the Police, and started staging ‘encounters’. It may be recalled that KPS Gill used similar tactics to curb militancy in Punjab, when he was the DGP. The Army was often co-opted in these operations, and learned the techniques at close hand. Though these methods often succeed, as they did in Punjab, they cause extensive damage to the ethos and traditions of the Army, based as they on falsehood and fabrication.  The obsessive craving for results also marks a shift in the philosophy not only of the Indian Army but the nation, which traditionally has always placed greater premium on valour than victory. India’s most famous military leaders – Porus, Prithvi Raj Chauhan, Rana Pratap, and Rani Laxmi Bai – lost their battles, but are still revered for their courage and fortitude. When Arjun, the greatest warrior in Indian mythology, was ridden with doubts on the battlefield, Lord Krishna allayed them with the advice ‘do your Karma (duty), do not think of the results.’ These words are the essence of the Gita, and have been the bedrock of Indian philosophy through the ages, and till very recently, the ethos of the Indian Army. This, perhaps, is the most distressing aspect of the occurrences that demonstrate lack of professional integrity among soldiers.

          Professional integrity means being truthful to one’s profession. For soldiers, it means doing everything that would enhance or bring glory to the profession of arms, and avoiding acts that would lower its effectiveness or prestige. An important duty performed by Army officers is selecting subordinates for further promotion, and writing confidential reports. Many years ago, a Sergeant Major who was retiring was asked to speak to cadets passing out from the United States Military Academy at West Point. He told them that a soldier would follow an officer, overlooking all his faults – lack of knowledge, laziness, incompetence, drunkenness, even adultery. But one thing he will not forgive is the officer promoting an incompetent corporal as sergeant. An officer who puts an incompetent man in command of several others is being untrue to his profession, and the men will never respect him after that. Many years ago, I had to preside over the general court martial of a brigadier who had committed several acts of financial impropriety while on a foreign assignment.  It later came to light that the officer’s superiors, in his earlier appointments, in the rank of major, lieutenant colonel and colonel, were aware of his propensity for money. However, none of them took cognizance of this serious flaw in his personality, and continued giving him good grades in his confidential reports. As a result, he became more audacious and began taking bigger risks, until he was caught and dismissed from service. The ignominious end of a career and the blot on the uniform that he wore would not have occurred if his superiors had pondered for a moment on the words of the sergeant major at West Point. In other words, they were untrue to their profession, without probably being aware of it.

          In conclusion, it can be said that the core values of a soldier - discipline, morality and professional integrity – are gradually being eroded. The situation has not gone out of hand yet, but the alarm bells have begun to ring. It is time the nation, and those who control its destiny, give ear to these signals. Pretending not to hear them or muffling the sound will not solve the problem, only worsen it. The soldier is the final savior - let us not weaken him so much that he cannot protect us when the need arises.

19 Aug 2005