From the archives, 12 Apr 2001
AN ANTI-DRILL DIATRIBE
'Drill Discipline ki Buniyaad hai !'
If that be so, then drill serves a purpose in laying the foundation of
discipline among the callow youth who sign up for a fauji-zindagi. If
that be so, drill ought to be confined to training centers and
academies for that is where the foundation is laid. Beyond
these institutions, it is the soldierly superstructure that is built
up. Since the practice of drill
continues even then, the assumption is that drill has continued utility.
Clearly, two suppositions emerge. The first is that there is a
continued linkage between drill and discipline; and secondly, that drill
has a purpose well into service. The aim
is to reveal these as myths.
The requirement of doing so stems from the belief
that drill is part of the traditional military baggage that should be
confined to this century, if an army worthy of the challenge of next millennium
is to be created.
If there be an established
practice, it is only reasonable to assume that it once had a utility
in the conditions then obtaining. Should it be appreciated that these
conditions have since changed, then the utility of the
practise requires re-examination.
The options emerging would be either to modify or to
iscard the practise. This is
the methodology that shall be applied in this review of the utility
of drill. There is a pointed
effort at being controversial, in order to raise the reader response that may
make this reconsideration of drill a constructive exercise.
The Utility of Drill
India has been (some may say-`is') famous
(or infamous) for its mass armies that were (are!) top heavy and lacked
mobility. To wield such formations
on the field of battle required set patterns and procedures. The internalization of these was through the
practice of drill.
The battlefield of the past comprised a
peasant-based soldiery. Given this
social background, drill assumed more than
tactical importance.
It was also to ingrain in this illiterate and simple-minded man
the fact that he was a soldier. Also,
the feudal, patriarchal and patronizing relationships he
was accustomed to, given his social origins, were reinforced by the
symbolism associated with the ceremonial facet of drill. This served both the feudal and colonial
systems of the past well.
The technological revolution, then being
in the future, had not done its miracle.
As a result the soldier's job did not have any skill that set it apart
from, leave alone above, other occupations.
Drill served, at least, to mark the
boundaries of the occupation, if not to set it apart as a profession.
From this historical sketch, it
emerges that once drill had a three fold utility: tactical; for socialization;
and social. It is posited that the military's professional evolution,
in conjunction with societal
evolution, has rendered this three-fold utility obsolete.
The Dysfunctional Nature of Drill
The paintings from the era of massed
formations now hang in museums and messes with good reason: it being that the values and mannerisms of
drill are dangerous on a modern- day battlefield. In drill there are massed bodies of men:
visible, imposing, colorful and numerous.
On the battlefield, there is isolation, boredom, and absence of
movement, dispersion and camouflage.
On the drill square, there is the word of command of a single
commander, tiers removed from the soldier.
On the battlefield, is only the NCO, with words of command having no
resemblance to those the drill square. Battle-field orders are
unpredictable in being situation-specific; do not require to be articulated as
such, for a football coach/captain’s method is initiative; and, any soldier
better positioned by battle-field circumstance, or individual leadership
potential may emerge as the leader of the moment. Moreover by no means does the battlefield
resemble the parade ground, with is pomp, splendor and color. The mannerisms fostered by drill render
the soldier a Fig. 11 target on the battlefield. Lastly, if morale were sought to be built,
displayed or tested on the drill square, then the absence of the drill square
environment on the battlefield would puncture such morale. The rifle that was used to present arms would
now be required to deliver death. The
battlefield will deliver a total
culture shock to the soldier habituated to the drill square.
Now, lets dispense with the socialization
argument as having outlived its utility. The question is: What are the requirements of a modern day battlefield in terms of
characteristics in a soldier? A look at the present-day battlefield scenario
would provide the answer. The extant scenarios are - the LIC, the conventional,
and nuclear environment. In all three, the battle is fought in depth. There is
a premium on uncertainty-tolerance, initiative, small team action, dispersion
and alertness. The emphasis on
infantry characteristic of self - reliance, initiative and adaptability gets
accentuated. The contention here is that
drill militates against all these. Drill
equates discipline with obedience. The discipline of the battlefield is in
initiative. Initiative implies acting
in consonance with the pre-set military objective in the existing battle
situation. Therefore,
drill-fostered discipline is dysfunctional in its present context of obedience
to orders.
Discipline is obedience in the absence of
orders. If that is so, is drill
relevant? The emphasis of drill on
uniformity, standardization and encouragement of `the SOP (set-drill) syndrome'
cripples its relevance to the concept of discipline on the modern-day
battlefield. In fact, even
earlier, it was who’s who were restless with peacetime routine, procedures and
drill, which were the best performers on the battlefield. Thus it may be said
that drill was dysfunctional even then, in terms of socialization, for it
fostered a peacetime mentality.
Repeated exercise is the literal meaning
of drill. This is useful where the IQ or literacy level is limited. If the
situation is no longer as before with regard to this aspect, is there a case to
be made against drill as presently configured? Socialization in military mores
today has to have a different thrust, but reflection on that are beyond the
scope here - the alternatives being left to reader response. A look at the
present-day raw material is in order. Societal advance by the
technology-occasioned telescoping of history has made available a soldier of
higher IQ, aspirations, and corresponding demands. The utility of drill to bludgeon the recruit/
cadet to fit a mould is now questionable, as is the utility of the mould
itself. Professional advance has also now increased the requirement of
expertise, skills and technical ability, enough to dispense with drill as the
boundary-marker of an occupation. The military is now a profession, and
the soldier almost a professional.
A relook at officer mess paintings is
illustrative. Weather- beaten men,
bedecked in brass, embroidery and medals, stare down balefully. Contrast this with the sparse and modest
uniform of the generals of the US and Chinese armies who came visiting South Block recently. The point is that, increasingly, armies do
not need the symbolism of
accoutrements and appendages for underlining their calling. However, while the armies qua armies may not,
the states in the process of nation-state making possibly do require the
sovereignty-indicating nature of military display on parades. The question then is: Does a five millennia
old India, or even its five decade old modern-day state, require the military
to march down the Rajpath for the purpose?
Should our answer to this be a `No', in
that, accepting the maturity, progressiveness, and stability of polity, then
the conclusion is that drill is
wasteful, unsubtle; and, not required to emphasize the aspect of civilian
control of the military, given the Indian military's non-political heritage and
record, If that be so, is it not time for a relook?
Clearly, institutional interest of those
involved e.g. Delhi Area, military
bands, the pro-drill lobby ofinfantry brass and Academy Adjutants, will from
the in-house opposition; while, bureaucrats wanting to keep alive the military
image of foot-stomping automatons; the foreign ministry, eager to host a foregin
dignitary for the Review; the municipality out to make their annual buck etc
will form the external impediments.
Whereas nothing is opposed as much as new
idea, nothing can stand in way of an idea whose time has come. The idea is that `drill must go’.
Pertinent issues, intimately related to drill not discussed here include wastage
of time, money and manpower to maintain brass and spit-polish; the adverse
impact on joints (and the brain!) of foot-stomping; the rude handling of the
weapon; the maintenance of superfluous institutions as the Quarter Guard; and,
the public image of the military as dim-witted martinets who do not know the
difference between `left-right'.
Conclusion
In short, drill is passé, obsolete, kaput,
and finito. What might
the epitaph read? ‘An infinitely
useful practise that finally outlived its utility, circa 1999.’
