Change and continuity

Former Northern Army Commander

Lord Moran, who wrote the highly acclaimed book The Anatomy of Courage: The Classic WWI Study of the Psychological Effects of War, describes the art of command as “the art of dealing with human nature. The soldier is governed through his heart and not through his head”. For this reason, military leadership is characterised by simple virtues like courage, leading from the front, concern for soldiers, and in the words of Lord Moran, phlegm — a supreme imperturbability in the face of death.

Technology has opened up ethical challenges. The sharp divide in societies raises issues about neutrality.

Even as these core qualities remain indispensable while directly commanding men in battle, when the military leader climbs the hierarchical ladder, he becomes more concerned with leading the institution rather than leading the people. In this role, he must be aware of the country’s strategic culture, adapt to the character of warfare he is engaged in, and be conscious of the political environment in which the military operates to achieve the political objectives of war. In the words of Charles De Gaulle, “The true school of command is, therefore, the general culture… Behind the victories of Alexander, one always finds Aristotle.”

With increasing responsibilities towards shaping the institution, senior military leaders must drive both change and continuity. The change is based on the character of future wars and the nature of civil-military interaction. The continuity is in the principles, values and ethos of the institution.

Today, technological change is transforming the world in ways that had not been witnessed before. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, writes, “The fourth industrial revolution will change the character of security threats while also influencing shifts of power, which are occurring both geographically, and from state to non-state actors.”

The impact of new technologies is strongly felt on the character of warfare. There is a blurring of lines between peace and war as ‘Grey Zone Warfare’ and hybrid conflicts take centre stage. As destructiveness increases, the aim will be to win at the least cost by achieving moral rather than physical domination. An effective way of doing this is by sowing internal discord and exacerbating the existing fault lines in society.

Traditional notions of deterrence are no longer applicable. Weaker nations can now confront their stronger foes with greater impunity through the medium of information warfare, cyber-attacks, and other instruments of proxy war. Moreover, the distinction between civil and military technologies is disappearing with the plethora of dual-use applications, resulting in non-state actors increasingly getting access to lethal weapon systems.

Military leaders must also look beyond the traditional domains of security. India is one of the few countries that face serious conventional threats on its northern and western borders. While keeping these in focus, the military should not isolate itself from national security challenges posed by climate change, demographic pressures, pandemics, technology disruption, and ethnic cleavages. These challenges would become more critical as we peer into the future internal security landscape of India.

In India, the nature of the political-military interface is changing. Traditionally, the military had always kept its distance from politics. This had the downside of poor civil-military relations and the military leadership being kept away from the national security planning structures. However, it did make for a force that could focus on its professional responsibility of the state’s security without being distracted or influenced by the country’s political landscape.

Today, the military is increasingly being dragged into political debates. While these declarations do not automatically translate into the politicisation of the military, some of the enthusiasm displayed by serving officers in defending the government’s political decisions or in praise of political leaders is a worrisome trend.

Military leaders will have to walk a fine line that draws a clear distinction between the instructions of the political leaders and their ideology. It would be unfortunate if a crop of future politicians looks at military leaders with suspicion because of a perceived alignment with a particular ideology.

Civil-military relations are characterised by what Eliot Cohen has called the “unequal dialogue”. Unequal because ultimately, the decisions made by the political leadership will prevail. However, military leaders are obliged to provide their professional advice, and in some cases, respectful dissent to arrive at the best strategic decision for a nation’s security.

While dealing with these changes, military leaders must also ensure continuity in the institutional values and ethos. Technology has opened up new ethical challenges. The use of artificial intelligence and unmanned systems has prompted a debate on how much autonomy can be granted to machines for killing humans. The sharp divide in societies where the Army is engaged in counterinsurgencies raises ethical issues about remaining bipartisan and displaying absolute neutrality without being influenced by the ideological debates on social media. Leaders must set an example by their own moral conduct.

India’s military ethos is based on its rich history and traditions and steadfast adherence to the Indian Constitution. Each member of the military has taken an oath swearing that he will “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established”. The constitutional principles of equality, secularism and fraternity are an essential part of the military’s culture. Military leaders must ensure that their actions are not seen as diluting the institutional ethos.

In his 2018 Republic Day address, President Ram Nath Kovind said, “A disciplined and morally upright nation is built by disciplined and morally upright institutions.” The Indian military is one of the strongest institutions that the nation has relied upon in times of crisis. Therefore, while dealing with the changes in the security environment, our senior military leaders must also ensure that there is continuity in protecting the strengths of the military’s institutional ethos.