From the archive, 1 Dec 1998
THE FAUJI
MEMSAHIB : A MORE THAN COSMETIC CHANGE
The army officer is bigamous. He marries the army on commission,
and, later, marries for love, if lucky. Both wives, he finds
have a greedy claim on his time, attention and energy. The first
wife - the army - demands optimum performance, as
contribution
towards enhancing combat efficiency. The
second wife - the lady-
wife - is relegated to a junior partnership, for she
too is
expected to contribute to enhancing the officer's optimum, and,
thereby, to higher combat efficiency. In
effect the army is the
more demanding spouse, its demands being ministered to by
the
couple - one member paid and the other unpaid.
This throws up on
another interpretation of this triangle, it being that the lady-
wife weds not only the officer, but also the army. In effect,
each of the three has a bigamous relationship with the other two,
albeit one mediated by the
officer. However, the army is prone
more to behaving as a mother-in-law, than a jealous co-spouse.
The problem
arises when the officer emphasises one relationship
at the cost of the other.
Neglect of the army by the officer
erodes combat efficiency. Neglect
of the wife also eventually
detracts from combat efficiency by creating dissonance in
his
mind and friction in the house.
Thus, the army, whose primary
purpose of maintaining a relationship with the officer is
the
generation of combat efficiency, has to admit, if grudgingly, the
demands of the junior spouse. The army
must recognise that these
are getting acute and are multiplying. In fact it must facilitate
their articulation and accommodation.
The army
has thus far managed to keep the junior wife happy in
her asymmetric relationship. The
community life on that island
in society - the cantonment- has been self contained. It has
been fulfiling for the wife, in so far, as her expectations
on
joining the fauji extended family were met, and
socialisation
into military mores complete.
Thus, her role was to keep the
hearth warm, while the officer's first wife remained central to
his existence.
This cocoon
of existence is under the threat of change. The
army, being the custodian of security of society, has to manage
the change, so that it furthers its social purpose. A prerequi
site to controlling change is to recognise and understand these
trends, channelise and direct them.
In short, in military par
lance, to `sieze the initiative'.
These
trends are `threats', in so far, as they are directed at
the status-quo. But reinforcing
and reproducing the status-quo
is not a considered reaction.
Their inevitability demands the
army make an ally of `change'. For its part in this triple
alliance, it must change it self, thereby making change benign -
both, desired and for the better.
Reacting to change, on the
other hand, would leave the army with fewer options, less con
trol, and more unstable; while rendering `change' unpredicatable
in its eventual consequence on combat effectiveness.
What then are
these trends? They emanate, firstly, in the chang
ing character of the military as a profession, and, secondly, in
the changing social milieu - of which the army is but a part.
The army
is moving from being and `institution' to acquiring
`occupational' characteristics. There is
now a shift to it being
`just another job'. But the
possibility of a call for laying
down one's life in the line of duty will always ensure that the
army is `more than just a job'.
The increasing
horizontal identification of the army officer with
his peers in society has occasioned this shift. The narrowing of
skill differential between the civil and military - a result of
specialisation; change of locus in organisational authority from
authoritarian to persuasion; cross-fertilisation; and self-defi
nition of the officer from a `war leader' to a technocrat-mana
ger, are indicators of the shift.
The army is achanging, and
this will, of necessity, impact on the family. For instance, the
officer is now
more inclined to identify with a briefcase carry
ing excutive, and, in his winter dress, even sports a tie. The
image of such excutives is completed not by sati-savitri wifes,
but by forward bhartiya naris of the X-generation - at home
in
both jeans and saris, in the bedroom and the boardroom. There
fore, the officer-excutive will likewise prospect for such a wife
- the `new' wife.
But the
impact on the family of the on-going
social change is
more dramatic. Society, particularly the
middle class, in which
officer recruitment is anchored, is in the vortex of this change.
The spouses, and prospective army brides, are subject to
this
trend. They cannot be expected to
be `junior' wives, deriving
fulfillment from a dependent identity - that of an army `wife'.
Individuality now finds self-expression in work. Satisfaction is
no longer in being a `wife' alone, but also in a career
- in
being a `whole woman'. Feminism now at
an ascendent, precludes a
unilateral supportive role of a husband, and expects mutuality in
need-fulfillment. It is moot
therefore, whether, the army's
`cocoon-model' can be hospitable to the
`new' wife.
The
status-quoist would prefer
exclusion of the `new' wife.
Spouse recruitment would be required to confine itself
to an
`adaptable' spouse. This is
evident from the increasing in
cidence of marriage of officers to working women, whose job
is
transferable - officer's commitments assuming precedence. While
working wives are an economic imperative, stereotyping of
the
wives job (eg. teaching at lower grades), makes for a
narrow
social base of bride hunting; disproportion between income levels
and aspiration within the couple; and, possible, saturation
of
the job/spouse market. Thus, it is
likely that, increasingly,
officers will marry women with higher paying, career
oriented
and, therefore, static job. The
influence of media visuals on
choice cannot be understimated. The
lissome lasses, that media-
carted, with the luggage, from one duty station
to another.
Being a `wife' is now only a part of an identity. The future
army will, therefore, no longer be the dominant source of emo
tional sustenance; need gratification; value
orientation and
identification. In short, the army will lose its pre-eminence in
a post-modern conjugal bond.
This would
be a `threat', should it impact adversely on combat
effectiveness, of individuals and of the officer fraternity. In
order to assess the need for change, a look at the status quo is
in order. Does it contribute to
combat efficiency on a modern-
day battle-field?
The
`cocoon-model' was relevent in isolated, cantonmented, commu
nities. Transplantation from one
to another did not then cause
dissonance, far, while the
geography changed, the environment
did not. But the model is
obsolescent. No longer can the can
tonment, itself under pressure from civil intrusion, provide the
ambience of yore. The
environs, and consequent standard of
living, were themselves a result of troop labour, hardly conscie
nable in an egalitarian society. The partimonial, possibly
feudal, and the increasing preception of
a patronising officer-
man, and by extention the lady wife-OR family relationship, is no
longer tenable. Corruption of the system (eg; abuse of the sa
hayak facility and 'pokora-eating binges of memsahibs' at welfare
centres) has further eroded its legitimacy.
Thus, the status-quo
is vulnerable to a bottom-up change.
Since such a deaneument is
unacceptable, it is best that the ineviatable be
ushered in
piecemeal. For this the army must take to the rudder.
Ingredients of
the alternative model would include a less demand
ing army, in so far as the personal life of the
officers is
concerned. Only the professional
input of the officer need be
sought. Even this has to be regulated - especially for the up
wardhy mobile, as the long hours, to keep up with a
workaholic
boss, has
a corresponding impact on family
life. The boss may
be fighting mid-life blues, and his subordinate to assure career
progression, but for both it is at the cost of martial harmoney.
Absentee fatherhood, in an era of nuclear families and
working
mothers, is an unremarked fall out
of the escalator syndrome -
its 'up or out'. Cohesion at the work place,
through family
interaction (as through the `calling-on' procedure or parties),
is at times counter-productive.
Broad-baseing of officer and
spouse recruitment has made these procedures archaic,
if not
problematic. Furthermore, if the
`new' wife is to demonstrate
her commitment to the force, as of now, to what extent would the
army be permissive of a reciprocal commitment by the
officer
husband in the social demands of his spouses job? After all, in
a modern marital adventure both partners are equal.
This
reduction of institutional demands on the spouse
would
permit her personal pursuit of
self-actualisation in demanding
careers. Thus, would the family
unit be happier, and, thereby,
the officer's professional involvement enhanced. A fallout would
be increase in output, owing to the
officer's ego-based need to
keep up with his wife. This contribution
to growth of the offi
cer is the foremost advantage the `new' wife confers on the army.
Contrast
this with the `house-wife' of yore.
While the officer
`grew' as a person and a professional all through his career, the
wife often stagnated. Though these days they hold down
low
paying, minimally satisfying jobs, their attention to the job at
the cost of the home, is compensated by army input in
family
regulation, in terms of diversion of military
resources to
`family welfare'. This is both
rationally and ethically untena
ble. In a liberalised markeplace,
a double-income lifestyle is
facilitated by consumer durables designed for the same. Besides,
these are now affordable, owing to a higher income level, ad
justed for inflation, and, middle-class enticing brand
pricing.
Therefore, the cantonments must be redesigned as self-sustaining
cooperatives - models of which exist in Indian suburbia.
To attract such
co-spouses for its officers, the army would need
to package them attractively.
Today they are at the bottom of
the groom-market. Monetary compensation
for leading `separated-
family' existences is a must. Competitive pay scale is a
self-
evident necessity that has been addressed to a limited extent in
the recent pay Commission. The
likely reduction in spouse par
ticipation in institutional life, can be balanced by the equally
necessary (for other equally compelling reasons) reduction
in
army support of the family (eg.
through provisions of
`sahayaks'). Thus, the army would be
relying more on society for
anchoring families. This in
itself would erode the `institu
tion', for out of olive green, the
officer will be more at ease
with, absorbtive, and linked to civil society.
This
deepening connection with society is in keeping in a demo
cratic military ethic.
Isolation by the British of
military
communities was then a political necessity.
Today it may even be
dangerous, should the isolation from the society, of the mili
tary, lead it to view the social and
political marketplace with
a typically conservative military lens.
Thus, it is not combat
effectiveness alone that is a determinant of a military's com
petence, but also it permeation with the democratic
military
ethic - the latter being enhanced by the social anchoring provid
ed by the `new' wife.
The army, just as
any organism, has to adapt to its
environment.
It does so more
readily to technological advance, but is a
generation behind societal change.
Whereas this may have been a
prudent and professional
requirement earlier, in an era of
telescoped change, the army may end up
as a social anachronism.
That it
is aware of the direction it must
venture is evident
from its pre-Pay Commission campaign, that included allusions to
the officer placement at the
bottom of the groom-ladder.
Its
leadership's present emphasis on proper troop
employment is
another pointer. Clearly,
we have an army sensitive to the
symbolic importance of the impending turn of the
millenium.
However, in its drive to modernise hardware and update software,
it would be prescient for it to reappraise, as done here, a facet
of its humanware - form memsahib to ma'am.
