Religious rigidity can hurt military ethos

ON November 25, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the Army’s dismissal of Lt Samuel Kamalesan for refusing to enter the unit temple or gurdwara for mandatory functions. Kamalesan objected that as a Protestant Christian committed to monotheism, he could not enter the inner sanctum and perform puja, havan or aarti without violating his conscience.

The case has attracted significant media attention in recent days, with sharply divided opinions. Critics of the court decision argue that it violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to religious freedom. They say the judgment ignores the true strength of Indian secularism, which should protect both religious observance and conscientious abstention. In their view, individuals should not be forced to cross the line from secular inclusivity to coerced religiosity.

Unfortunately, the case also took on a ‘minority persecution’ hue because the dismissed officer is a Christian. In a thoughtful piece, Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate at the Supreme Court, wrote in The Hindu, “India’s military unity has never been built on majoritarian comfort… Soldiers from minority faiths should never have reason to wonder whether they will be asked to cross a line that their beliefs prohibit.”

There were critiques of a broader ‘saffronisation’ of India’s military, citing examples of Hindu religious symbolism in unit names, ceremonies and leadership statements. This was seen as part of a larger pattern of shrinking space for minorities in India’s public institutions, especially when claims of conscience clash with majoritarian religious practices.

Some of this criticism would appear logical to the public. However, the veteran community has universally supported the court’s ruling. Having served for four decades in uniform, let me attempt to explain why Kamalesan’s actions are institutionally unacceptable.

The military is unlike any other profession. And there are two fundamental reasons for this distinction. First, militaries are entrusted with the exercise of ultimate violence on behalf of a nation and have the means of mass annihilation and power grab at their disposal. Irresponsible behaviour on their part could wreck society. Second, no profession demands the level of sacrifice from its members as the military does.

Within this distinctive professional milieu, the military requires a coherent set of formal and informal norms and values to anchor its conduct. These values cannot be borrowed indiscriminately from the broader society but must possess intrinsic relevance to the institution and be internalised by those who serve within it.

A report by the US Army Research Institute for Behavioural and Social Sciences puts it this way, “When the chips are down, there is no rational calculation in the world capable of causing an individual to lay down his life. On both the individual and collective levels, war is therefore primarily an affair of the heart. It is dominated by such irrational factors as resolution and courage, honour and duty and loyalty and sacrifice of self.” These “irrational factors” are the soul of the military’s values.

Qualities such as honour, courage, loyalty, discipline and brotherhood are not incidental to military life, but are consciously cultivated, repeated and reinforced until they become second nature. They are instilled not because they possess abstract moral worth, but because the very effectiveness of a fighting force depends on them. Without these virtues, hundreds of soldiers would not unhesitatingly assault Tiger Hill during the Kargil War, knowing it would lead to the inevitable death of some of them.

At the top of the military’s ethical hierarchy sits the officer corps. For questions of military professionalism, the ‘sociology of the military’ has historically been, in essence, a sociology of the officer corps. It is their attitudes, behaviour and the standards they set that define the military ethos and how efficiently the military performs its role.

One enduring element of the Indian Army has been the relationship and trust between officers and soldiers. Stephen P Cohen, who wrote an excellent book on the Indian Army, states that the professional ethic of the Indian Army stems from the “unique mystique of the relationship of the officer to the other ranks.” Anything that could potentially weaken a soldier’s relationship and trust in the officer must be discouraged entirely.

It is in this context that we must examine Kamalesan’s case. Not from the point of religious identity and religious freedoms, but of its impact on the military’s ethos and values, and the relationship between the officer and his soldiers. Some might ask if this issue is being exaggerated and that the actions of an individual officer are unlikely to have army-wide repercussions. I honestly cannot answer this with any conviction, but should we open a Pandora’s box?

Today, thousands of officers in the Indian Army serve in units where their soldiers belong to a different faith. If religious rigidity spreads and officers refuse to participate in religious functions with their soldiers, it would have a devastating effect on the military ethos and character. For those who express concern about the rise of majoritarian religious practices, it must be pointed out that Kamalesan's dismissal is a clear signal that, in the military, an officer’s personal faith must remain just that — personal.

Hegde has also stated that when duty meets conscience, the real test is not choosing one over the other but finding a way for both to coexist. But there is a real danger here. If conscience, which has a strong moral component of right and wrong, is equated with religious dogmas, we risk bracketing military professionals with sectarian actors, who forcefully seek to impose their personal religious interpretation.

The military, as an institution, must also engage in deep introspection. There is no restriction on senior officers visiting religious institutions, but there is absolutely no reason for pictures of this private practice to be officially posted on social media, as is being increasingly seen. For a force that asks its members to subsume their identity in the service of the nation, even the appearance of endorsing any one faith can wound the quiet trust that binds a diverse military together.