Winning hearts & minds vital for Army
ON April 21, the Defence Ministry’s Public Relations Officer (PRO) tweeted: “Keeping alive the traditions of secularism, an Iftaar was organised by the Indian Army at Arnora in Doda district.” The photographs accompanying the tweet showed Army officers and soldiers sharing a meal and interacting with the local Muslim community.
A few hours later, Sudarshan News editor-in-chief Suresh Chavhanke tweeted: “Ab yeh bimari Bhartiya Sena mein bhi ghuss gayi hai? Dukhad” (Now this disease has also spread in the Indian Army? Sad). These comments generated a great deal of debate on social media, with many people coming out in support of Chavhanke’s views. Another controversy erupted later when the PRO, Jammu, deleted his tweet, prompting questions about whether the Army had succumbed to pressure from trolls.
The purpose of this article is not to weigh in on the actions of Chavhanke or the PRO in the instant case. It is intended to explain the Indian Army’s operational principles in internal security duties and the ethos and values that define the military institution. Perhaps, a greater understanding of these issues would sensitise those citizens who attempt to drag the Army into divisive debates.
The practice of the Army celebrating religious functions with the local community is not new, particularly in areas where the Army is deployed on internal security duties. As a general practice, the Army lives in self-contained cantonments, with minimal contact with the civilian population. However, in counterinsurgency operations in the Northeast and Jammu and Kashmir, Army posts are dotted throughout the countryside, co-located with local population centres.
These conflicts are fought amidst the people, and the primary military approach has to be people-centric. While terrorists have to be killed, the conflict will only be won when the population exhibits faith and confidence in the government. And for a majority of the local people, the most visible face of the government is the group of Army soldiers located near their village.
The US Army counterinsurgency manual states that “some of the best weapons for counterinsurgents do not shoot.” Therefore, ‘Winning Hearts and Minds’ is not an empty slogan but an operational imperative. The local population must develop trust and confidence that the Army soldiers will act professionally and without bias. In this context, the Army has launched various welfare projects for the locals under the Sadbhavana programme. This is a strategy for bringing peace to India’s decades-old conflicts, not a bimari.
What is also essential to understand is that the nature of the military profession demands a unique ethic. There are many elements to this ethic that promotes values like honour, integrity, courage, and loyalty, but a key feature of the military ethic is brotherhood. When men or women put on the uniform, they join a fraternity where they are all equal. They develop trust among each other, not because they belong to a particular community but because they are fiercely bound together by the call of duty and military ideals.
Let me give an example to drive home the bond between military members. On January 26, 2016, Lance Naik MN Goswami’s wife received the Ashok Chakra from President Pranab Mukherjee during the Republic Day Parade. The first part of Goswami’s citation reads: “On the intervening night of 02/03 September 2015, Lance Naik Mohan Nath Goswami was part of an ambush in Haphruda forest at Kupwara district of Jammu and Kashmir. At about 20:15hrs, there was a fierce encounter with four terrorists wherein two of his comrades were injured and pinned down. Lance Naik Mohan, along with his buddy, dashed forward to rescue their injured colleagues, knowing well the risks to their own lives.”
The injured colleagues were saved in this operation, but Goswami lost his life in the rescue attempt. When he rushed in to save his comrades, Goswami did not pause to consider their caste or religion, only that his ‘brothers’ were in danger. This level of brotherhood and trust in each other makes soldiers suppress their own instinct for survival and go on to do heroic acts.
The military profession requires the subordination of personal ideologies to the requirements of the organisation. While officers and soldiers are free to practise their faith, they must also participate in the religious functions of their comrades. The Sarva Dharma Sthal in many Army units is a powerful reminder that all religions can co-exist peacefully under one umbrella. The Army is proud to be the epitome of this reality.
It is sometimes stated that the military cannot be shielded from what is happening in society at large as it draws its manpower from the population. The opposing view is that the military should be guided solely by the need to achieve organisational goals and should protect itself from those influences of society that run counter to this goal. The Indian military has believed in the latter viewpoint, and for a good reason.
General Sir John Hackett, in his classic The Profession of Arms, writes that military virtues “include such qualities as courage, fortitude and loyalty. What is important about such qualities… is that they acquire in the military context, in addition to their moral significance, a functional significance as well… The program, the group organisations, the whole pattern of life of the professional man-at-arms is designed in a deliberate effort to foster them, not just because they are morally desirable in themselves, but because they are essential to military efficiency.” It is indisputable that militaries cannot function if they do not adhere to institutional values.
A 2019 survey by Azim Premji University and Lokniti found that the Indian Army was the most trusted institution, with an effective trust rate of 88 per cent. This trust has been built up because the Indian military is a highly professional force whose effectiveness results from its traditions, ethos, values, and operational practices. Anyone promoting a dilution of these values is treading a dangerous path that could only weaken both the military and the nation.
