Military academies must raise the bar

THE Indian armed forces, apart from contributing to the defence and security of the nation, also form a distinctive strand in India’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious fabric. In the chaos that often prevails, they not only embody order and discipline and uphold our democratic, secular traditions but also set high standards of integrity, professionalism and excellence for their compatriots.

For these reasons, our military leaders were held in high regard by civil society as exemplars of honourable and ethical conduct. But today, we find that the armed forces are slipping in the estimation of their fellow Indians, not only because of occasional misdemeanours but also due to signs of politicisation and public display of religiosity among the higher ranks.

India's social and economic transformation has been accompanied by a steep decline in standards of private and public conduct. Hand in hand with corruption goes the politicisation of every system, including the police, the bureaucracy, the legal framework and the media. Communalism and parochialism are on open display at election time since votes are sought on the basis of region, caste and religion.

The slide in the military’s ethical standards is often justified on the grounds that since soldiers are drawn from society, their conduct is bound to reflect prevailing societal norms. This facile logic must be firmly rejected. Not only does every soldier swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, but also the armed forces have traditionally set their own standards and codes of conduct and are governed by stringent disciplinary regulations. It was their adherence to this self-imposed code — not their place in the Warrant of Precedence —that earned them a high standing in society.

More than just a shield against external threats, the armed forces serve as a fundamental anchor of the country’s social stability and national well-being. In order to maintain the public’s trust as well as its own internal cohesion, our military leadership requires rigorous grounding in key foundational pillars such as upright and ethical conduct, secular principles and apolitical neutrality.

There is an old saying: “Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.” To produce military leaders with a strong moral fibre, fit to occupy leadership positions, the defence forces must groom candidates along the right path from the earliest possible stage.

Apart from the tri-service National Defence Academy (NDA), five key institutions impart ab initio training — ranging from 12 months to four years — before commissioning young men and women as officers. It is the rigorous physical and academic training, along with the mental inculcation imparted in these “cradles of leadership”, that moulds the character of these youth forever.

Having passed out of the NDA’s portals in 1964, I returned 33 years later as its Commandant to find that the institution had seen vast improvement in infrastructure and facilities, the enhanced syllabi and above all, the motivation levels of the young trainees. But what came as a nasty surprise was the advent of a new ethos, which required a cadet to possess a basic “skill set” for survival.

This included cheating, manhandling juniors, minor theft and even impersonation — all against the academy’s rules and unheard of when I was a cadet in the 1960s. Even more dismaying was the benign and tolerant attitude of the training staff towards such misdemeanours. Many of the young staff officers believed that not only was such conduct an “academy tradition,” but that unless a “smart” cadet was resourceful enough to “beg, borrow or steal” a few small things and tough enough to give and take a little manhandling, he would be useless as an officer!

If we were to examine past or recent trespasses by senior officers which have earned the armed forces a bad name, the fundamental cause of misdemeanours is the inability of an individual to distinguish between the “easier wrong” and the “harder right”. It becomes obvious that the instincts that motivate a young cadet to commit minor offences in the academy mutate into serious character flaws in later years and erode the integrity of senior officers, leading them to commit ethical lapses.

A number of disturbing trends have been emerging from our service academies, but they do not seem to evoke the necessary alarm or remedial responses from the military hierarchy. There have been periodic fatalities among cadets and a growing number of withdrawals at early stages of training in academies. These indicate that the selection processes employed by the Union Public Service Commission and the Services Selection Boards, including the medical criteria, may have become outdated and need drastic revision. This is also a reflection not only on the physical training methodology and syllabi being followed but also on the unwarranted liberty granted to senior cadets to conduct “training” (ragging?) of juniors.

The selection of training staff — both military and civilian — needs to be far more stringent and discriminating so that only persons who can provide mature and sensible guidance shape the trainees’ outlook. In this context, the academy’s Commandant exerts an outsized influence on the cadet body — by his personality as well as personal example.

Unfortunately, this post is often treated as a convenient short-term parking slot by service headquarters (HQs) and some “hand-picked” incumbents have even been removed from command for serious misconduct. Finally, many Commandants have taken liberties with the training curriculum and even the customs and traditions of these institutions by making arbitrary changes. Such matters need to be codified in the form of a “Blue Book”, approved by service HQs for implementation in letter and spirit by the Commandant and the staff.

The quality of the nation’s military leadership is an issue important enough for the Chiefs of Staff Committee to take urgent note of. It’s time for them to convene a high-level military commission to review the processes for the selection and induction of officer candidates into the services, evaluate the training syllabi and methodology being followed in our service academies and recommend reforms where required.