Soldiers on leave now govt’s marketing agents, by order of Army HQ!

Telling It Straight

Last week, media reports said that the Indian Army had passed an order to all its soldiers going on leave – soldiers are authorised 60 days of annual leave – to spend time doing “social service” to enhance “nation-building efforts”. What are they supposed to do? The Army HQ’s list of suggestions: Talk to the local community about Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Rashtriya Ucchtar Shiksha Abhiyan, SAKSHAM, Samagra Shiksha, Garib Kalyan Rozgar Abhiyan, Ayushman Bharat Yojana, and Jan Aushadhi Kendra, the benefits of insurance schemes like National Pension Scheme (NPS), Atal Pension Yojana, livestock insurance, Rashtriya Swasth Bima Yojana, Deendayal Gramin Kaushalya Yojana, and Gram Jyoti Yojana.

Army HQ is serious enough to ask for quarterly feedback from all formations about the outcome of this initiative. But it doesn’t stop at that. The already-stretched Army units have been tasked to empower and equip these “soldier-ambassadors” with structured literature and enabling content so they can market government schemes effectively. The Shimla-based Army Training Command, which should be focusing on its core task of keeping the Army trained for future conflicts, is preparing scripts on subjects which soldiers will carry when they are on leave and use in this “social service” exercise!

Ostensibly, the purpose of this exercise is nation-building, though every single scheme mentioned by Army HQ carries the distinct imprint of the Modi government. Else, it would have also listed schemes like the UPA-era NREGS, or those run by Opposition-ruled states like Rajasthan, Kerala or Punjab. Clearly, it is a purely political initiative in which the Army has agreed to let its soldiers act as ambassadors of the Modi government, which faces a tough general election next year. Why else would the nation require building at this stage, when it has been strong and resilient after being painstakingly built in the early years of our independence?

The political motive is transparent. Since 2014, Modi has tried hard to identify himself and his party in the public mind with the Army and the soldiers. It is to take advantage of the respect that soldiers command in society while fostering the BJP’s own brand of nationalism by exploiting the uniform. India’s democratic model, an exception in the developing world, is based on deliberately keeping the military insulated from society but that has been eroded. Now, the new initiative takes it one step further. These soldiers will now be turned into quasi-political workers for the BJP, or more accurately, into Modi’s political ambassadors.

If the initiative was limited to motivating young men and women to join the Army or talk about the valour and glory of fellow soldiers, it would still be somewhat acceptable. (Personally, I would want the soldiers to be left alone on their hard-earned leave. Imagine someone coming from Siachen or Dras to his family after 18 months and being asked to do this!) But the current tasking is misuse of the Army and soldiers for political gains of the ruling party. Plain and simple.

It is not hard to guess that this is not an outlandish brainwave of the Army brass; this is based on directions, whether explicit or implicit, of the country’s top political leadership. Still, the capitulation of the Army brass in issuing these directions is terribly depressing. In the past nine years, particularly after the late General Bipin Rawat became Army chief, the hallowed institution has been a willing accomplice of the ruling dispensation in embarrassing ways.

Many retired service personnel have been publicly vocal about it, others more subtle and subdued in their criticism, but barring those with party affiliations, hardly anyone is comfortable witnessing the Army go down this path. But that has made no difference to those with the heaviest brass on their shoulders. Either they see nothing wrong with such acts, which means they are unfit to hold such high offices, or they know that it is dangerous but are willing to play along because of either their personal ambition, political loyalty, or sheer lack of moral courage.

The malaise is not limited to the Army. It is the same with the Navy and the Air Force. The IAF chose to remain silent when the BJP spokesperson recently made false allegations about IAF operations in Mizoram in 1966. Two former IAF officers were wrongly named and maligned but the IAF did not deem fit to issue a rebuttal. Many would say that the IAF did not wish to be dragged in a political slugfest, but that choice was taken away from its hands when the BJP spokesperson castigated the IAF with innuendo and malicious lies. If the IAF is not going to correct false information, defend its own record, and protect its officers because the mistruths are coming from the ruling party, that doesn’t speak highly of the character of the institution and its leadership.

These are extraordinary times in India, throwing up extraordinary challenges. The military leadership, as with the leadership in many other institutions like the judiciary, bureaucracy and journalism, is being tested to the limit. Not many are matching up. As the respect for the military is the highest, the onus on its leadership is also the highest. After all, it is the final bulwark against the collapse of a country from external aggression.

The military can be in politics if it behaves like its Pakistani counterpart but is equally politicised if it concurs to be used by the political leadership. A politicised military is scarcely professional. At a time when India is faced with grave strategic challenges, the country needs a professional military. The consequences of diverting from that path are unimaginable. It even has domestic consequences, as seen in the Manipur situation, where the Army has been treated with disdain by the BJP state government and the state police. Not much is expected from today’s political leadership, but the military brass must heed these flashing warning signs. And act. It’s their constitutional responsibility and moral duty.