Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In its chequered history, the Indian Armed forces have largely escaped criticism. More recently, however, in a country which no longer seems as enamored with their sense of duty, discipline and commitment, the shenanigans of Ketchup Colonels and tawdry generals have resulted in increased public inspection. On the National Interest blog it self, Pragmatic along with The Acorn have done an excellent job of critically evaluating the Army and the men who run it.

It is undeniable that Army must be held to the same standards as other public institutions and criticized severely when it fails to upholds the high standards the tax payer has every right to demand from it. Nevertheless, two points must be made.First, the Army is a derivative of the society it has sworn to serve. Its men and officers are first and foremost members of their local communities. In most cases, they utilize the same public services as the rest of their fellow citizens and face essentially the same issues of inefficiency and corruption. Is it surprising that in a country where corruption is a way of life, Army officers are being increasingly found entangled in webs of corruption and deception or caught indulging in acts of moral turpitude? This blog is of the firm belief that public institutions reflect the society they serve; the malfunctioning Indian society must share at least some part of blame for Army’s current ills.

The standard public policy response in India to falling standards has been to repose trust in islands of excellence. If universities don’t equip their students for rigors of professional life, build a few IITs and AIIMS–elite institutions designed to serve the selected few while rest of India drowns in mediocrity and ineptitude. At best, this strategy works only in the short term as a weak society inevitably drags down those seeking to escape its clutches. At worst, it prevents meaningful long term reforms by providing an alternative narrative which seems to work–at least occasionally. Witness the standard response to the educations crisis: creation of more IITs rather than improving the abysmal quality of India’s public universities.

The romantic public discourse has held the Indian Army as one of these islands of excellence which would somehow remain untouched by the malaise which afflicts the society in which it functions. That the Army would fail to meet these expectations is as much a failure of the institution as it is of the society’s absurd demands.Indeed, the Army’s crisis of confidence–the shock and awe at its predicament is at least in part a reflection of it having escaped accountability and censure for much of its history. It is hard to believe that its standards have deteriorated sharply only in the last few years. While Army’s current troubles are indeed worrisome, this historical context must be kept in mind. Indeed, any attempt to preserve Army’s ”infallibility” would result in further deterioration.

Second, Indian politicians must also reflect on the crisis of credibility they face. The average Indian citizen has little hope or trust in his government; its function has been reduced to a Santa Claus giving out useless and costly dollops for short term electoral benefits. Not only is this dangerous for Indian democracy, it has allowed other public institutions, Army and judiciary to give two examples to escape greater public scrutiny. Inevitably, they look better when compared with the Indian politicians.

In conclusion, if the Army’s future has to be secured, two factors must be recognized: First, the larger crisis facing the Indian nation must be addressed. Second, meaningful reforms would only be possible in an environment in which Army’s troubles are addressed promptly while keeping the mind the larger historical context and without recourse to hyperbole.