The Indian Army has decided to adopt a common uniform for officers of the rank of Brigadier and above, irrespective of the parent regiment/arm/corps/service in which they served up to the rank of Colonel, with effect from 1 August. As per defence sources quoted in the media, the move is aimed at promoting and strengthening a common approach in service matters among the senior leadership, moving beyond the boundaries of regimentation. The decision cannot be faulted in intent, but fails to address the underlying causes that have led to the revival of common uniform for senior officers, which was prevalent up to the 1970s. It was the Generals, notably Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw, who then began to flout this regulation before its cascading effect made it redundant.
Indirectly, the decision also acknowledges the prevalence of regimental/arm/corps/service driven parochialism in the Army. This malice reflects poorly on the character of the officer corps in general and senior leadership in particular. It also puts a question mark on the checks and balances of the appraisal system.
Another recent decision to increase the tenure of senior commanders in operational/counter-insurgency areas from 12-15 months to 18 months also brings out the flaws of the appraisal system. It produces too many “meritorious officers” for command appointments than the number of vacancies available.
Also read: Education, language, politics — Xi Jinping wants Central Asia to depend on China, not Russia
The malice of parochialism
Cohesion or the emotional bond between soldiers is the primary motivating factor in combat. Simply put, soldiers do not want to let down their comrades or appear cowardly. Social cohesion among soldiers strengthens the unit, which finally translates into mission cohesion in a battle. Indian Army follows the regimental system to promote cohesion. Regimentation, apart from organising and training to fight, also gives an identity and a family to soldiers to which they remain bonded for their entire service, except for two to three tenures outside the unit. This system is followed with a few variations in the infantry, armoured corps, artillery, air defence and the corps of engineers. Where the units are not organised on the basis of regiment, the Army provides regimentation through the corps ‘spirit/ethos’. Even the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy use the ‘service ethos’ in lieu of regimentation.
I must clarify that while it is easier to build cohesion with a regimental system, it can also be built in a “tour of duty” system with tenure–based cross–unit movement by good leadership and by living, training and fighting together. Cohesion is built faster with shared experience of battle or the rigours of operational/field/high-altitude/counter-insurgency areas.
Regimentation begins and ends at the unit level. Beyond this level, a broader fighting formation cohesion becomes relevant, which is built by formation training and shared mission. This particularly applies to officers who after command of units, function as staff officers, instructors and in due course command combined arms formations.
Unfortunately, there has been a trend in the Army of senior officers hanging on to regimental ties and old bonds to unfairly promote the interests of their regimental officers. This reflects in the appraisal system and thereby promotions and prized appointments/postings. In a pyramidal system, it even gets extended to arm/corps loyalties. At times, past associations in service and regional, caste and religious identity also lead to parochialism.
Even a cursory examination of the profile of the military hierarchy in terms of whom they served with to earn the critical reports that matter in selection for higher ranks, prestigious courses and foreign postings will reflect this trend of favoritism. Senior officers once in positions of authority do the same for their “extended family”. Sadly, this weakness of character prevails across the board and reflects in the functioning of the highest collegium comprising Chief of the Army Staff, Vice Chief of the Army Staff and the Army Commanders, responsible for selection boards and grant of redressal beyond the rank of Brigadier.
In order to promote the interests of certain arms, vacancy based promotions were introduced to the rank of Brigadier in the general cadre based on the strength of Colonels authorised. Not only this decision was anti merit, it primarily benefitted infantry and artillery which had the maximum strength of Colonels. This happened when the Army had four successive Chiefs from infantry and artillery. This also adversely affected the interests of other arms to subsequent promotions to higher ranks. An attempt was also made to do the same for promotion to the rank of Major General in 2008. The proposal was scuttled when in the Army Commander’s Conference, one of the Army Commanders said, “Why only upto Major Generals, why not right upto very top with the Chief of Army Staff being appointed by turn from various arms.”
Also read: India should declare that AI will not be used to autonomously launch nuclear weapons
Character of the officer corps
Military leaders are not born but developed by educating and training till they self actualise and conform to requirements. Fundamentals of military leadership are idealistic and expressed in absolute terms. However, all individuals have their share of human failings. The military bridges the gap between the ideals of military character and individual shortcomings through codified and enforceable rules, regulations and law.
Prevalence of parochialism in any form indicates that the integrity, impartiality, moral courage and loyalty to the organisation and subordinates of the officer corps is suspect. This is part of the larger problem of dilution of the character of the officers. Leaders, particularly at higher level “cannot walk the talk” with respect to the character qualities and the value system of the Army. Their duplicitous conduct leads to mistrust between the leaders and the led. If these fundamental qualities have been compromised even among senior officers, then there is a need to re-look at the prevailing standards of leadership, particularly with respect to character traits and the enforcement mechanism to bridge the gap between ideals and failings. There is an urgent need for an ethical assessment of the prevailing leadership standards and bring about reforms to the military leadership development programme and rules/regulations to enforce them.
Also read: Pakistan Army won’t bounce back easily this time. Imran Khan shattering its illusion of power
Appraisal system
Meritocracy is a universal principle for the pursuit of excellence, and in the nation’s instrument of last resort, the armed forces, it must prevail. The Army has a fairly modern and pragmatic three tier appraisal system for officers. There is inbuilt mechanism to cater for human failings of the initiating and reviewing officers who are closely associated with the officer being assessed, by the superior reviewing officer. There is also and overall review carried out by the Military Secretary’s Branch.
Any appraisal system is contingent upon the prevailing standards of character and ethics. The system of appraisal within the Army has become flawed due to lack of objectivity, the prevalence of regimental and arm parochialism, and weakness in the character of the assessing officers. There is no formal system of validation of sub units/units/formations to assess the performance of the leadership. Lack of integrity and moral courage, and duplicitous conduct of the assessors, leads to inflation of confidential reports. Genuine merit is the casualty and there is a deluge of “meritorious officers” at all levels of command. This is the primary reason for the short command tenures.
Common uniform for officers of the rank of Brigadiers and above is certainly a laudatory step to make them rise above the regimental obsession and embrace the Army ethos. It would be prudent to extend it to Colonels after they finish command of units. However, with respect to ending parochialism, it is only a cosmetic change.
At the root of parochialism is the diluted character of officer corps that negatively impacts the appraisal system. The military hierarchy needs a straight spine more than a new uniform.
Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)