Armed forces personnel who participated in Operation Sindoor—India’s first high technology war fought with stand-off weapon systems—received a befitting recognition on 14 August. The government announced 127 gallantry awards, 40 distinguished service awards, and 290 mention-in-despatches. Operation Sindoor was indeed the armed forces’ finest hour since 1971, and the awards were richly deserved.
Surprisingly, the citations—cryptic description of the circumstances of the gallantry/distinguished service act—for the awards have not been put in the public domain. This has probably happened for the first time since their institution. Moreover, the casualty list of the personnel killed or wounded in action has not been formally published. The public has been denied the details of the actions of our heroes and the opportunity to stand by and honour the families of the fallen.
In the aftermath of a victorious conflict, such moves only invite speculation, giving the adversaries another chance to seize the narrative. It suggests that failures are being obfuscated or successes exaggerated with awards—an unbecoming practice for which some governments, abetted by the armed forces, have been guilty. As a result, the awards lose value, and the morale of soldiers is adversely affected.
In Operation Sindoor, no borders were crossed, there was no physical contact with the enemy, more civilians were killed than soldiers, and all engagements were at standoff ranges, barring some along the Line of Control. The awards, then, seem to recognise mission accomplishment or technical excellence in handling weapon platforms.
This raises a controversial question: do such actions meet the eligibility conditions for gallantry acts, which require two aspects – “in presence/face of enemy” and “act of self-sacrifice, valour, bravery, gallantry”? By that measure, most of the awardees for Operation Sindoor do not qualify, since the threat of enemy standoff weapons is omnipresent for all personnel in a vast combat zone. How then should exceptional acts of gallantry and mission accomplishment be recognised on the high-technology battlefield? Most armies worldwide are seized of this problem and are bringing about reforms.
Soldiers deserve recognition
Wars are fought to safeguard a nation and its interests, and armed forces are the principal instruments of execution. Soldiers risk their lives in doing so. Since time immemorial, the various facets of the performance of soldiers in battle have been recognised by a grateful nation. Over a period of time, the present-day system of awards was instituted. These awards are a major motivating factor for soldiers and are worn with pride on their chests.
Napoleon said, “You call these medals and ribbons baubles; well, it is with such baubles that men are led.”
All soldiers on the rolls are awarded a campaign medal with an additional star-shaped one for those in the combat zone. Units and formations are awarded theatre honours, which are emblazoned on their flags or colours. The bravest among the brave are awarded various categories of gallantry medals. Those not directly in combat but who excel in planning, command and control, and logistics are awarded with distinguished service awards. Those wounded or killed in action are also recognised with a medal or in some other manner.
Awards play a significant role in professional advancement, and in addition, they also carry a substantial monetary pay benefit for life. Over and above this, the state governments also give a handsome one-time monetary award along with a monthly cash reward for life, thereafter, for gallantry and distinguished service awards.
What ails the awards procedure?
For the detailed procedure for the selection of the awards, read my earlier article. The procedure laid down for deciding awards seems to be foolproof, at least on the face of it. It follows the chain of command to be finally approved by the President. However, like with all systems, the problem lies in execution, with human factors in full play.
The criteria for various awards are too generic, which leads to varied interpretations. There is no procedure laid down for an inquiry in respect of gallant acts with formal evidence. The recommendations, thus, tend to be subjective. In a regimented system like ours, the units and equivalents in the three services strive to get maximum gallantry awards. This leads to exaggeration and false claims. Commanders in the chain do try and strike a balance, but also succumb to formation and regimental loyalties, and personal glory. More personnel under their command getting awards increases their own chances of getting one.
The system does not allow for foreclosure due to negative recommendations. This results in a large number of award recommendations reaching the service headquarters. Units and formations compete with each other in writing highly exaggerated and imaginary citations for the acts of gallantry. At Command and Service Headquarters, an attempt is made to strike a balance, but due to gross exaggeration and large numbers, the system ends up becoming a lottery.
In present-day combat with high technology and standoff weapon systems, close combat has become a rarity. Hence, acts of gallantry are difficult to define and tend to overlap with mission accomplishment or getting killed in action, irrespective of the circumstances. The five pilots and three flight controllers who executed the Balakot Strikes were correctly awarded the Yudh Seva Medal (gallantry)—a distinguished service award—for mission accomplishment in the combat zone. Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was also rightly awarded the Vir Chakra for his gallant action.
Contrast this with nine pilots operating in similar circumstances being awarded the Vir Chakra for gallantry in Operation Sindoor. The present system does not specifically recognise mission accomplishment in combat, which may not qualify for gallantry awards per se. Mission accomplishment gets clubbed with the broader category of distinguished service in combat awards like Sarvottam/Uttam Yudh Seva Medal, Yudh Seva Medal and Sena Medal/Vayu Sena Medal/Nao Sena Medal.
The problem is compounded by military and public sentiment that confuses being killed in action with gallantry, especially in high-profile operations. A classic example is the award of two Vayu Sena Medals (Gallantry) for the pilots, and four Mention-in-Despatches for other personnel of the ill-fated Mi-17 V5 helicopter brought down by ‘friendly fire’ in Kashmir’s Budgam on 27 February, 2019.
Ashok Chakra to Hemant Karkare, who was killed in a chance encounter without firing a shot in response during the 2008 Mumbai attacks, falls in the same category.
At times, to cover up major failures, military commanders present an imaginary account of the battle and back it up with a large number of gallantry and distinguished service awards. Something similar happens when the focus is on a major success without an intense battle or any display of gallantry. Valour becomes a secondary issue. This malady gets magnified when governments politically exploit gallantry and distinguished awards to magnify success or cover up military failures in war or conflict. With respect to Operation Sindoor, this trend is clearly discernible.
Relative to the size of the military, only a small percentage of personnel are killed or wounded in action. While those wounded in battle are recognised with a wound medal but those killed in action do not receive any medal. Those killed in action deserve better recognition.
Most of the awards for distinguished service in war or peacetime are garnered by senior officers. Award of seven Sarvottam Yudh Seva Medal (SYSM)—more than twice the number awarded since their inception 45 years ago—to senior officers for Operation Sindoor only proves the point. Junior officers or personnel below officer rank receive little or no recognition for distinguished service.
Also read: Post-Sindoor, joint doctrine tasks Special Forces with fighting info warfare & countering propaganda
What must be done?
The government and the armed forces must comprehensively review the procedure for selection for all categories of awards.
Gallantry award procedure must be refined and backed by an independent inquiry and considered sacrosanct. Under no circumstances must it be diluted or misinterpreted to reward mission accomplishment, being killed or wounded in battle or battle accidents, to cover up military failures, or enhance success. Any violations must be dealt with under military law.
These parameters equally apply to the distinguished service awards. Political or military narrative control must not be managed at the cost of the sanctity of the gallantry or distinguished service awards.
There should be a separate category of awards for mission accomplishment to cater to the high-technology battlefield where non-contact battle with standoff weapon systems prevail. This category must be placed one rank below the gallantry awards, with appropriate professional recognition and monetary benefits.
A medal must be instituted for all soldiers killed and wounded in action or in battle accidents within the combat zone—marked with an appropriate clasp for distinction. These unsung heroes deserve greater recognition.
Nothing can be hidden from the eyes of soldiers in battle. The worst blow to an Army’s morale is seeing a commander or a colleague wearing a gallantry medal awarded under dubious circumstances. What I have outlined here is merely the tip of the iceberg. Unless we reform and cleanse the award system of the ills, we risk proving the cynical barrack-room dictum true: battles are won by the unsung heroes.
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 Ratan Priya)