Image courtesy newsletterpro.com
I was at a seminar-discussion recently on getting India to kickstart its defence drone R&D and manufacturing programme. Unlike most of these events, this one brought in over ten speakers, with some online and some from the audience. Again, unlike most, the coordinator didn’t allow any time to be wasted on frivolities. Incisive questions were thrown at them with gusto and insistence, until the challenges that each faced came tumbling out. It was the first time I had seen a seminar- discussion actually go deeper than the surface.
But in the end, the conclusion was the same as has been voiced over the six years that I have been closely following the Indian defence industry. The main problem in India, said the coordinator ( I paraphrase here), was that every agency and person bats for himself and refuses to work together with others.
We have all heard this lament, time and again. But despite searching, I haven’t come across any research piece which explains why it exists. Maybe it’s the strong attachment to our individual cultural identities which are spread in the thousands across the country with lines drawn by different religions, different sects and gods within these religions, languages, castes and professional backgrounds. Maybe it’s the fight for survival in times of intense competition, backed by the still existing feudal sentiments, which tells us the false notion that prosperity is a zero sum game – Its either us or the other. Everyone cannot be prosperous. Or it’s the lack of opportunities that we see in the path of our progress that pushes us to fight for ourselves. And unfortunately for us, such sentiments tend to pass on from generation to generation until radical events change them.
In a socialist turned free market economy, it will probably take a lot more development and co-working across dividing lines to help us overcome these insecure sentiments. But what about the agencies? Especially the government and public sector ones? Ones like the armed forces and civil services and public sector factories which have strong professional practices inherited from pre-Independence days? Surely they should work in unison towards common goals that the elected representatives in Parliament set for them? Yes, political ideologies again divide us. But if we have arrived at a common understanding of the Interest of the People of India , which is best articulated by ‘The Development and Well-being of the People’, surely such divisions should get resolved by the common focus?
So, is it possible that this common goal of the well being of the people does not drive the government and its agencies? How is that possible in a democracy which is For the People, By the People and Of the People?
So I looked a little deeper into what really drives the Armed Forces and then a few others. Take a look at these shortened snippets ( adapted without prejudice) :
The Chetwode credo, summarises as the keeping of the safety, honour and welfare of the country first, then that of the men we command and then that of ourselves (officers). Interestingly, it was coined in 1932, much before Independence.
The Ministry of Defence website says – The Govt of India is responsible for ensuring the defence of India and every part of it.
The Army’s motto – Service before Self and mission statement – to ensure national security and unity, defend against external and internal threats, The Air Force’s motto – Touch the Sky with Glory, and mission statement – to secure Indian airspace, The Navy’s motto – Victory without Vanquish and mission statement – to safeguard the nation’s maritime borders
The DRDO’s motto – The source of strength is science, and mission – to make the nation strong and self-reliant in military technologies.
The Civil Services motto – Perfection in action, and mission/focus- to serve the country patriotically.
No doubt my adaptation is wanting, but can you notice a missing aspect in all of these?
Can you see ‘The people/citizens of India’ anywhere? You may say the country translates to the people. But does it really? Country connotes geographical areas and its protection connotes securing its borders. So when Chetwode used the word ‘Country’, what did he mean? The British Empire administered territory? And after Independence, would that translate to British demarcated areas which were brought under India ?
Let’s look at a few instances and judge for ourselves:
The erstwhile State of Hyderabad, Goa and Sikkim weren’t part of our country at Independence. But its people chose to join India, some with a little external persuasion, some entirely voluntarily. The Nagas and Kashmiris on the other hand were apprehensive that their mandate would be overshadowed and therefore resisted. And some, like the Tibetans in Arunachal Pradesh and East Ladakh peacefully merged even though they were paying taxes to Lhasa.
Now, lets take the current situation in East Ladakh. The Chinese threat and salami slicing means the Armed Forces have to protect and even regain lost territory and the honour of the country. But have the people in Chinese occupied East Ladakh really hankered to join India? Autonomy of Tibet, yes. But accession to India?? So, if the Armed Forces were to attack and re-occupy East Ladakh, would the inhabitants really be happy about it? And if they were, then should we not liberate the whole of Tibet? But again, what about the humongous cost of waging such a war? Would it not place a massive opportunity cost on the rest of the people of India – the poverty stricken in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and many others, who need education and housing and health care etc etc and who have no cultural or other affiliations to the Tibetans?
So I observed that a lot hinges on the priorities that we set and the loyalties we have. Let’s look at the situation with the hierarchy that should exist in a democracy.
And see for ourselves if conflicts in priorities and LOYALTY are possible. Take each of the following instances:
- Huge areas of defence land lie unutilised with no foreseeable military value. And are fiercely guarded as property that belongs for the defence of the country.
- Holding lavish parties for organisational pride, using precious resources and in open sight of the poverty stricken.
- Spending exorbitant amounts of public money on street lighting of military administered remote mountain roads which have almost no traffic at night.
- Diverting a road at huge expense to the public exchequer so as to avoid ‘security threats’ in an area where the locals have been benign and friendly for ages.
- Aiming for ‘glory’ by conducting expensive exercises when the threat is near non-existent.
- Rampaging a police station for a misdemeanour with a military person.
What could have driven these actions without a twinge of conscience ? Was it that we are loyal only to our immediate superiors for our self-interest only? But organisational ethos and systems should be able to overcome that. So I searched for the quality of Loyalty in the military appraisal system called Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). And then it hit me! It said :
No mention of ‘People of India’, not even of ‘The President’ who, in a Republic is responsible to the People!! Not even ‘Country’ !!!
How was that possible? Because Chetwode’s credo had ‘country’ in it. How then was it missed out here? Was it possible that the British ACR mentioned ‘The Queen’ and after independence, it was removed, but never replaced by ‘The President’ or ‘The Country’ ?
A fellow officer in a course I attended at Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru in 2021 mentioned that ‘our ACR system is the best’ – even the IAS have shaped theirs on similar lines. So I looked up the IAS system. I found it entirely different, but again, no clear mention of The People. At least, I couldn’t find it.
Is it then possible that all our national defence organisations – the DRDO, the Ordnance Factories, the Ship building yards, the DPSUs etc, do not promote loyalty to ‘The People’ first? Because if they did, they would all have been guided to ways of doing things more economically and cooperating with each other for this common goal. And not proudly building huge warships when the threats to the people do not exist and not demanding costly, state-of-the-art aircraft for gloriously extending reach over far areas which do not matter to the people.
Its now been over a year since I brought up this anomaly in the Takshashila course. And which had attendees from the forces, government, public sector and many others. But it appears that no one finds this needs introspection. Despite the PM and many ministers exhorting the Forces to ‘change’. In the ministers minds, it appears to be the colonial linkages. But, is it really so? Do the linkages prevent us from modifying our organisational values and adopting our supreme loyalty to The People of India?
What are your opinions? Have you had similar conflicts on who we should be loyal to FIRST? Or do you believe we can be equally loyal to everyone? Do share…..
There is no conflict at all.
Nations and organisations are hardly real entities.
They are myths that humanity believes in because it is beneficial to believe in them. Do you find any natural or geographical boundaries demarcating nations?
Is there any particular face to a company or an organisation? Sure, there are people who function in or head organisations but the organisation isn't going to die if that person dissociates from it.
Anyone who has ever led a group of people successfully knows that it is important for the interests of the individual to be aligned with the interest of the organisation to ensure loyalty of the individual to the organisation. If the interest of the organisation cannot be possibly aligned with the interests of the individual - as in a battlefield scenario where a soldier is expected to give up his life for the 'Paltan' or for the flag of her/his nation - the individual has to be infused with the belief that s/he will attain a higher good by making a sacrifice in the present. Further myths - powerful ones - of glory, martyrdom, former heroes looking down upon one - are needed. Maslow's hierarchy of needs has 'self-actualisation' at the pinnacle. A leader who imagines that every one of his followers has automatically attained the level of self-actualisation is being impractical and foolish.
The contrast between the characters of Bluntschli and Sergius in George Bernard Shaw's "The Arms and the man" is telling. Bluntschli puts it as "Nine out of ten soldiers are born fools". I would add that "the tenth one has to be fooled into being loyal" both for his/her own good as well as for the common good.