From the archives, 7 Jul 1998

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
 

 General Shah's 'approach to motivation training', outlined in his

article of the same name in the Infantry India Dec'96 issue, is that  downsizing

of  the mechanized forces ('white elephant') would be in  keeping

with  the  strategic environment and release the  resources  that

would  help  make of the infantry a privileged elite.  He  favors

nuclearisation as a substitute deterrent, under cover of which an

infantry-heavy army could engage in wars of the future, LICs.  In

this  letter, not only will his thesis be debated, but  also  its

ideological underpinnings.
 

 

Firstly,  he devotes two pages to attacking the ARTRAC  paper  on

'Combat  Motivation',  though the effort is  superfluous  to  his

argument.  The paper is relevant to the army as it  is  presently

configured.  Although the hygiene factors that the General  advo­

cates as necessary are indeed so for motivation, an army based on

the  regimental  system has to emphasize  spiritual  factors  for

motivation. The aim of the present system is to achieve Cohesion.

Cohesion  is facilitated by likeness in background of the  group.

Since  diversity  makes India an amorphous idea (as  the  General

himself observes), the utilization of 'race and caste' to  gener­

ate  the  same is not so defenseless a proposition as to  be  de­

bunked as summarily as has been done in the article.
 

    
 

Secondly,  he  devotes  only three paragraphs  to  enunciate  his

thesis.  Thus his position is based on certain arguable  proposi­

tions. These are tackled below:
 

- The nuclear deterrent would cater for the conventional  threat,

under  cover of which the mechanized forces could be  reduced  to

release  funds for combating insurgency- the form of war  of  the

future. A contending school of thought has it that it is recessed

nuclearisation  that has led to incidence of proxy war. It  draws

analogy  from the experience of the two protagonists of the  cold

war  who  engaged in proxy wars elsewhere so as to  preserve  the

central  strategic  balance. Thus,  nuclearisation  would  ensure

persistence  of externally initiated and sustained internal  con­

flicts.  The General merely furnishes a solution  (in  suggesting

the upgradation of the infantry to combat such interference)  for

the problem his advocacy of nuclearisation gives rise to.
 

 

-  As a motivational measure, he suggests a lateral induction  of

the soldiery into the CPOs after a 7/8 year stint with the infan­

try.  It  is unlikely that the soldiery would appreciate  such  a

mid-career move, for life in the CPOs is not very agreeable given

that  they too are enmeshed in internal security operations.  The

lateral  shift, would in the General's opinion, lead  to  'disci­

pline and an army ethos' CPOs. This would involve a change in the

character  of the CPOs, making them incline more to the  military

end of a police-military continuum, thus belieing their name  and

raison d'etre. Having the entire force available permeated by the

army and the its ethos would be dangerous to civil authority over

the  military,  a matter of central concern  in  a  parliamentary

democracy  as  ours. Needless to add is that  the  suggestion  is
 
virtually  unimplementable,  given that the CPOs  themselves  are

institutions  of some strength. Lastly,  should,  hypothetically,

such a change take place, would not the infantry, for whose bene­

fit the General advances this suggestion, become obsolescent? For

the  CPOs now 'less faction ridden' would be kin to the  infantry

and, therefore, be more capable (by the General's logic- again an

arguable proposition that military force is the antidote for LIC)

of combating insurgency on their own.  
 

 

- The General envisages the creation of 'a privileged elite,  who

like the Roman gladiators will be feted and whose every whim will

be fulfilled'. Does not Gibbon tell us that the 'Decline and Fall

of the Roman Empire' is attributable to the Praetorian Guard?  In

this, albeit well-meaning suggestion, are portents subversive  of

freedom and democracy for India.
 

 

Lastly, it is important that the General's perspective on history

be critiqued. He seems to lament the diversity that characterizes

Indianness.  He deems it to be the dilution of 'purity of  race',

'basic character' and 'racial pride'. These phrases have  hitler­

ian  connotations  and  reflect the ideology of  the  far  right.

Another  illustrative  example of the General's  mindset  is  his

denigration of the foremost libertarian movement of this century-

the  empowerment  of  the underclass-  as  'Mandalisation'.  Such

ideological  polemic is counterproductive and irrelevant  to  the

General's  case.  Lastly, General, who, pray, are  the  'invaders

from whom 'we' have absorbed less desirable traits as racial  and

religious intolerance'? The Aryans!?