http://kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=93488#
The military’s
ethical imperative in the here and now
The Indian military is noted for
its professionalism. A significant aspect of professionalism is adhering to
military ethics. Military ethics mean sensitivity to and adherence of the
soldierly Dharma. Dharma is not easily translated into English, but can for our
purposes here be taken as social obligation devolving on an institution on
account of its societal mandate. Members of institutions are to abide by the
code, making for a personal duty. The approximation of the military to the
ideal is an indicator of professionalism. Professionalism is itself a product
of expertise of the military in provisioning security for society and the
state; it’s stepping up to fulfill its advisory function on account of its
expertise; and the corporate interest accruing from military needs, in turn
predicated on its mandate.
The reputation of the Indian
military being such it is easy to see that it scores high on adherence to the
military dharma or code of military ethics. The credit for this must go to the
military leadership through earlier generations. The inter-generationally
transmitted traditions, values, attitudes, conduct and behavior have withstood
the test of times, crisis and conflict. Consistently the military has rated
high in societal esteem, both anecdotally and in socio-metric surveys. They
have been sorely tested by the changes in society and political culture of
late. Even so it is taken as one among the few institutions, such as the higher
judiciary, left with reputation and dignity intact, while peer institutions
ranging from the Election Commission, the Central Bureau of Investigation,
national universities etc have succumbed.
With this introductory standard
setting view of the military’s record thus out of the way, it is important to
record that the military too unfortunately appears to be doddering, if not
quite being on its last legs yet. There have been sorry episodes in the past
when its members have not measured up or it has fallen short as an institution,
for instance in the VK Singh ‘date of birth’ case as far as individual
shortfalls are concerned and, institutionally, in privileging corporate
interest (reputation) over military justice, in cases as Machil and Pathribal.
However, lately these ‘aberrations’ are multiplying in frequency and severity, and
therein lies the necessity of this article as reminder on the centrality of professional
military ethics in maintaining the military’s professionalism.
The gravamen of the argument here
is that the military’s dharma referred to cannot countenance a military lying
to its client, the Indian nation, even if put to it by the intermediary
government. The ultimate principal in a democracy are the people. The
government is an agent. An agent cannot ask its instrument, the army, to lie to
the people in a democratic setting. Instances of lying (dealt with below) are
at hand, indicating an unacceptable and costly slippage.
In the military’s eye perhaps
there is a hybrid war on with Pakistan, of which of information war is an
intrinsic part. Information war entails being economic with the truth where
necessary. This is fair enough if the target of mis/disinformation is the
opposite side. It cannot be that the target is the Indian nation itself.
Believing otherwise is to take a step in ending democracy in which the people
preside over an accountable, elected government. The government cannot usurp
more powers than it has been delegated by the principal, the citizen-voter.
Lying upsets the chain of accountability, since the citizen is deprived of the
measure to exact accountability.
Let’s take a stark example. The army
has joined lied to the citizens of this republic only last week. It is by now
self-evident that the military’s take on a heightening of the Pakistani proxy
war at a press conference in which a threat to the Amarnath Yatra was highlighted
was a lie. It completely contradicted the earlier release of statistics that
there were no infiltration attempts and no infiltration this summer. It is
difficult to believe that merely the recovery of a cache of military hardware
could lead to the overreaction of cancellation of the yatra, induction of
several thousand troops and the lock down that followed. Clearly, the military
was playing handmaiden to the government in shaping the environment for its questionable
constitutional initiatives in parliament. The moot question is whether, and to
what extent, a military can play along with a ruling party’s political and
ideological agenda.
It bears reminding that the
shaping of the environment was being done for a blatantly political action of
the government, putting in place the conditions for fulfilling its manifesto
pledge of scrapping of Articles 370 and 35A. This would naturally have had
security implications that the government’s security minders were sensible
enough to apprehend. But for them to have the military play out a charade as
preparatory actions is up for debate. As to whether the military was in the
know as to what was intended is not consequential. In case it was in the know,
it was participant in a political act, losing its apolitical sheen. If not,
then it had no business putting out a lie and should have told off its
political minders.
The security threat levels were
magnified by the corps commander. He lent the authority of his uniform to his
task. There was no duty of obedience that mitigates this. Taking cue, retired
colleagues – mostly his predecessors in the chair he occupies – took his thesis
forward on national television that a national security threat had developed. This
was then justified to clamp down in Kashmir and to undertake illegitimate
constitutional initiatives of questionable legality.
If the corps commander was put to
it by superiors, it implicates the northern army commander. It is well known that
he in turn is in the run for elevation as army chief, for which reports have it
the government has started its scrutiny of potential candidates. The army
commander had in an earlier instance at the end of elections got into an
unnecessary public debate with his retired predecessor on the definition of the
post-Uri ‘surgical strikes’, holding the untenable position that these were
unprecedented. If the army does not stick to the straight and narrow military
ethic, it opens itself up to speculation over personal interest – as brought
out in this paragraph. This damages its corporate interest in maintaining an
apolitical reputation in a democratic setting.
Clearly, there is an
institutional loosening on the ethics front. The tone and tenor on this was set
early in the tenure of the army chief when he tacitly justified the ‘human
shield’ episode. Poetic justice caught up, with his blue-eyed boy caught in a
case of sexual exploitation and abuse. The army chief’s example has not been
lost on the commanding general in Badami Bagh. He has recently made unilateral
doctrinal innovation in promising to ‘eliminate’ those holding the gun, whereas
the doctrinally-compliant term used so far has been ‘neutralise’. The latter
assumes multiple ways, including non-kinetic, for removing a militant from the
fight. The former does not. Threatening citizens is as bad as carrying out the
threat, especially so as the youthful ‘threat’ – by the corps commander’s
account – lasts merely a year on the run.
This is the situation on the
ethical front as the army contemplates the backlash that the constitutional
initiatives are likely to attract. Best-evidenced by the preparations made,
these have been made with full knowledge that the outcome could be bloody. Future
research will reveal the input of the military into the decision. For the
moment it can be conceded that the military was perhaps not asked for an
opinion. This is in keeping with the manner the military is kept out of the
decision loop on national security matters historically. Sensibly, it has kept
out of frontline population control to follow, for which the paramilitary has
been pumped in.
The army must keep watch on the
paramilitary who are likely to trigger happy, particularly since the army
commander appears to have been placed in charge. A photo depicts him chairing
an overview meeting, indicating the pecking order. Where that leaves the
adviser home is moot. In short, the army can yet redeem itself in a sensitive
and empathetic response to the reaction of the people to the mischief being
played with their destiny, for which it must exercise firm control over the
paramilitary. It needs mention that the paramilitary are not known to be imbued
with any ethos of societal obligation. It should not take another information
war – as is playing out on television screens now – to sweep under the carpet what
might unfold after Friday prayers, Eid prayers and on ‘Independence’ Day. Over
the longer term, the army must make its information war and hybrid war thesis
compliant with its role and status in a democratic polity and society.
