Army caught between religious & constitutional values. Defend secular, apolitical nature

The political winds blowing in India should provide an insight into the military leadership, and the scope and nature of the challenges to its basic values.

LT GENERAL PRAKASH MENON

Since Independence, the Indian Armed Forces – particularly the Indian Army – have had to navigate the socio-cultural minefields thrown up by the vagaries of domestic politics and religions. The Constitution provided the beacon that illuminated the path ahead. A beacon designed on the belief that maintaining an apolitical institutional character and secular outlook would sustain and defend India’s integrity. The foundation of this secular outlook was rooted in the embracement of the encultured notion that the military institution had no religion and the equivalent of its holy book was the Constitution. But such an institutional belief was subject to being shaken by the crosswinds of India’s religious diversity.

Structurally, tensions arise from two important pillars that support the military in retaining its loyalty to the Constitution as well as strengthening its fighting spirit. To maintain loyalty to the Constitution, the institution is expected to transcend the religious identity of its human capital whilederiving the fighting spirit through faith in gods at the same time.

Soldiers’ faith provides them with the courage and strength to withstand the taxing conditions of the battlefield that pose threats to their physical survival and mental stability. Without sustainable faith in their gods, Armed Forces personnel are likely to experience a yawning gap in their fighting capabilities. This is a cultural proclivity that has evolved through our military heritage over millennia.

This cultural proclivity has also been shaped by colonial heritage, wherein the organisational structure of the Army was based on religion, caste, region or ethnicity. It supported the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British. After more than seven decades of independent existence, the Indian Army still retains a similar structural composition in some of its combat and supporting arms such as the Infantry, Armoured Corps, Mechanised Infantry, Artillery and Engineers.

Army in the age of information

Attempts at restructuring to an All-India Class composition, especially since certain Sikh units mutinied during the Army’s attempt to clear the Golden Temple of terrorists in 1984, have largely been stymied in the name of tradition. There also exists the questionable notion that fighting spirit is better realised when unit and regimental cohesion is built on commonalities such as religion, caste, region, and ethnicity. Even if there is some truism here, it ignores to a large measure the winds of religious polarisation and its implications, which have been sweeping the Indian political landscape since the Babri demolition in 1992.

Narratives and stories play an important part in nation-building. Storytelling is crucial to the process of creating communities, societies, and nations. When they achieve significance, these stories are used to inform our values, norms, behavioural patterns and traditions.

The age of information, which has expanded tremendously in terms of reach and speed, has flooded the Indian landscape with stories that spin the Hindu majoritarian agenda.

This has also been viewed as a counter to terrorism anchored in disaffection in the Islamic world. Religious polarisation has deepened across the length and breadth of Indian society. It is, therefore, understandable that the human capital of the Armed Forces could also be infected by the polarising forces that pose a threat to their secular and apolitical character.

Also read: Army promotions must be based on capabilities, not lineage. Turf protection is main mischief

Protecting Army’s secular, apolitical character

Addressing the Investiture Day Parade on 13 January in Chandigarh, Lt Gen MK Katiyar, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command said: “What makes the Indian Army stand out is that we strictly adhere to the two important principles, the first one being our secular approach and second, our apolitical character. It means we respect all religions and stay clear of politics. It is necessary to stick to these principles and recognise the fact that any compromise on these principles will hurt the Army”. Ironically, the video of the speech was taken down from the official website of the Western Army Command. and no explanation was given. Presumably, such voices are not tolerable to the ruling dispensation.

Manifestations of cultural shifts in the institutional character of the military are best identified by the military leadership. These manifestations are reflected in the values, rituals, heroes and symbols that are embraced. Symbols represent the most superficial and values the deepest manifestations of culture. Words, gestures, pictures or objects carrying a particular meaning could all be considered symbols.

The Armed Forces have always prohibited religious articles and marks for personnel in uniform. These include tilak (forehead mark), Vibhuti (sacred ash) and other items of outward manifestation. The only exceptions to this rule are the wearing of turban and kada (thick metal bracelet), and the growing of hair by Sikhs. Sacred threads and chains/lockets around the neck should not be visible. No sacred thread is to be worn on the wrist while in uniform. The only jewellery permitted to be worn is a wedding or engagement band/ring on the left hand. Neck chains are also allowed but should not be visible. Tattoos on visible parts of the body are not permitted except for pre-existing religious ones made before joining the forces. There are specific instructions for women with regard to wearing jewellery or mangalsutras, use of perfumes, nose pins and earrings.

What perhaps requires a specific watch is whether these instructions are being strictly implemented. Admittedly, although my information is based more on hearsay, it seems there is a palpable trend wherein even some elements of the leadership are not following restrictions. Wearing sacred threads around the wrist is supposedly the most common violation finding greater acceptance. It has visibility and can be easily imitated by lower rungs of the military hierarchy. At senior levels, it could be used as a signal to show which side of the religiously polarised political ambience one belongs to. These seemingly innocuous signs could be a reflection of deeper trends impacting cultural values within the Armed Forces.

The political winds blowing in India, as reflected in the ongoing electoral campaign, should provide an insight into the military leadership, and the scope and nature of the challenges to its basic values. Violations of symbolic restrictions are easily curbed through personal examples and strict imposition of orders. Upholding the Army’s secular and apolitical character is the responsibility of the military’s top leadership.

When necessary, if military leaders don’t show a willingness to sacrifice their careers to protect core institutional values, the struggle to withstand the internal political onslaught of religious polarisation may not achieve much. The challenge is to find a path between dealing with the enemies of the gods one worships and protecting the constitutional values that the military has sworn to defend.

Lt Gen (Dr) Prakash Menon (retd) is Director, Strategic Studies Programme, Takshashila Institution; former military adviser, National Security Council Secretariat. He tweets @prakashmenon51. 

Views are personal.