Learning from the Indian Army's Ways

A template for exemplary performance through cohesion and mutual respect.

Shyam Ponappa    |   July 2, 2020


Policies and procedures relating to the economy get a lot of attention, even if they are often bypassed. An aspect that is either taken for granted or simply ignored is social harmony and cohesion. The truth is, good policies need coherent implementation based on social consensus and luck for results.

Yet, when it comes to social organisation, we are admittedly slack. By contrast, our armed forces manage the same disorderly inclinations very effectively. While everyone admires their valour, they would be better served by emulating the armed forces’ proven ways for organising and functioning competently. Could elements of their principles and practices be applicable to social organisation and to civil administration?

The Indian Army mirrors Indian society in its regional, ethnic and cultural variations. Yet, it differs significantly from civil society in that it is highly organised, cohesive, disciplined, and purposeful. While on the surface, the focus appears to stem from homogeneity in army units, further scrutiny reveals other complex factors.

Homogeneity begins with recruitment in old line infantry regiments such as the Dogra, Garhwal, Gurkha, Jat, Kumaon, and Sikh regiments from these ethno-religious groups (“single-class” units1), although their officers are from all over the country. This “cultural coherence” has been extended to regional units, such as the Assam, Bihar, or Madras Regiments, for recruits from respective regions. There are “fixed class” units, with regiments or battalions with two or three subunits of single classes; “mixed fixed class” as in the Punjab Regiment, with Punjabis and Dogras in mixed sub units; and the “All India All Class” units with troops from anywhere in the country, such as the Guards. The latter holds for Artillery, Engineers, Signals, Army Service Corps, Medical Corps, Ordnance Corps, and so on. In practice, units with mixed recruits have proven to be equally cohesive and competent, regardless of diversity.

Officers are from all over India, and are expected to familiarise themselves with the language and culture of their troops, and to bond with them at a personal level. This includes the unique practice of shared worship of all religions, with religious teachers in its battalions, on which more later.

Illustration by Binay Sinha

So, what are the Indian Army’s organising principles, and to what extent can they be replicated in civil society? A study between 2009 and 2011 of religion in the Indian Army by Amit Ahuja, associate professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, provides some insights.2 The Indian Army is a multifaith organisation (as are our other armed forces), largely comprising believers in various  

creeds that consciously accommodates religiosity. This involves faith and culturally embedded religious practices, while maintaining the primacy of institutional authority over religious authority. The backdrop is a society that is religious, has many faiths, yet is a constitutionally secular state.

The army employs two noteworthy principles. First, it instills a sense of community through loyalty to the regiment, the army, and to the country, while functioning at the level of one’s unit. Second, it “goes to great lengths to accommodate religion and uses it instrumentally to motivate its ranks”2 to harness the benefits of religion, while limiting its pernicious effects. This is achieved through developing the primacy of honour around regimental identity (community) and national identity, and subordinating religious identity.

Thus, there are two principles. The first is allegiance built up around regimental and national identity, and the second is religious beliefs and practices that are respectful of all religions. There are institutional mechanisms to internalise the practise of interfaith respect, apolitical orientation, organisation around ethnicity, and elite control and management.

The overarching identity and allegiance is national and to the regiment (community), the sense that “the honor of our regiments and our fellow men is at stake”2. Here, the valorous experience in the Indian Army of regimental lore, traditions, honour and awards combined with shared experience in postings provide an immersive crucible, which is not comparable to civilian living. Such creation of a sense of community and commitment to fellow members and to the nation in civil society deserves consideration, for induction in education and training from early school through later life. Activities such as the National Cadet Corps, or the Scouts and Guides, are practised in varying ways at educational institutions, often desultorily. These need to be radically enhanced, and augmented with ideas such as from the Institute of National Integration (more below), and given early and wide dissemination through digital platforms. A stint of compulsory military service for young adults deserves consideration.

After allegiance comes interfaith respect, and the armed forces are trained in this practise. Various religious holidays and regional festivals are celebrated, and officers are required to participate. Religious teachers of all major faiths are recruited to units based on their constituents, and trained by the Institute of National Integration.3 Conceived by General O P Malhotra in 1980 and begun in 1985, the Institute’s courses focus on religious harmony and fostering a spirit of cooperation and unit cohesion. Selected personnel are also trained in behavioural and social sciences.

Are such principles practicable in our democratic society? Such convergence requires a thorough cleansing of sectarian practices, which presupposes leadership and collective will. If it were possible with strong leadership, there could be substantial benefits from sustained exposure and training.

For our economic and social well-being, we need to take steps such as emulating the Indian Army’s ethos. Rediscovering the reality of Bill Clinton’s campaign statement is necessary for India’s revival in the years ahead: “It’s the economy, stupid!” If our leaders grasp this, they may be less hyperbolic and more pragmatic in coming to terms with reality.

Acceptance of ground realities in addressing the economy is a first step. The next is to figure out ways to organise and rebuild. The Indian Army has some pointers.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

1. The recruitment and organization of army units has a complicated legacy. A brief description is given in this article by Lt. General Ata Hasnain (Retd):

https://www.firstpost.com/india/demand-for-new-caste-faith-or-ethnicity-based-regiments-for-indian-army-not-in-consonance-with-policy-or-national-interest-6494681.html

2. “Chapter 7, Religion in the Indian Army,” Religion in the Military Worldwide, ed. Ron E. Hassner, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

http://ahuja.faculty.polsci.ucsb.edu/aa/Research_files/Amit%20Ahuja%20-%20India%20 %20Rligeion%20in%20the%20Military%20Worldwide-2013.pdf

3. https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/civic/army-to-spread-integration-roots/articleshow/49773145.cms

Unlock = Open, not Choked!

Don't let a virus stall initiatives and weaken the economy.

Shyam Ponappa  |  June 4, 2020

A recent column in this newspaper juxtaposed the way smart, experienced people have high expectations, only to be disappointed by our weak state’s predictable failures (Strong expectations from a weak state, May 25). Is there justification for any optimism, or at least hope? Here is an exploration of reasons for persisting in the face of continued odds, and pushing for economic recovery. Why should one persist with constructive efforts? Because a rising tide lifts all boats, and one’s contribution can affect outcomes. And because attempts at partial opening will not suffice.

There could be new economic opportunities by way of capacity, logistics or markets, or a wider array of sustainable consumer choices, whether for manufactured goods, services, or activities. Think back, and surely you have witnessed government action extend beyond the grind of just keeping everything going.

One instance of major change that affected the economy was in 1990, when the secretary of the Department of Electronics N Vittal worked in close consultation with industry. This resulted in path-breaking reforms, such as the setting up of “high-speed” links (of a mere 64 kilobits per second at the time) between Information Technology (IT) companies in Indian software technology parks and their international clients, and various tax incentives that followed much later. The offshore services industry gathered strength, and later expanded to cover IT-enabled services with call centres and business processing, extending to knowledge processing.

Likewise, telecommunications reforms began in 1990, when prime minister Chandra Shekhar led a shaky government for a brief period. The telecommunications ministry was looking for a private sector consultant. Through an invisible network, an investment banker who had been a management consultant in San Francisco was asked to look into telecommunications reforms. This led to the setting up of the Athreya Committee and its recommendations: On separating policy-making from operations, corporatising the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam as an operating company for Delhi and Mumbai, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam for the rest, while recommending access to private sector operators. All this was not smooth and painless, and took years, but did happen eventually, although the separation remains untidy.

By 1998, telecommunications operators were in a situation similar to the predicament some months ago, of weak revenues and a debt overhang, with some differences. There were many operators with heavy debt because of government charges and limited revenue generation capacity, because of smaller networks and less clients. This is the “winners’ curse” of auctions, when exorbitant amounts are paid to government for auctions, with nothing left for building and running networks and enterprises to generate the revenues to justify those payments. There are exceptions, as in the social democrat Nordic states, or state-controlled allocations as in China, or in Japan for a number of years.

Key people in government grasped this. The Prime Minister’s Office consulted with industry and external consultants, and took action. This resulted in the New Telecom Policy 1999 (NTP-99), whereby the major change was converting up-front licence fees to revenue sharing, although the policy was uneven because of cherry-picked recommendations. Initially, the government set the percentage share too high. It took years to reduce and trigger rapid growth. This came about through reduced government charges, calling party pays (which cut call costs), and a price war, brought on by the stealth entry of a new technology (CDMA) network, which the authorities allowed despite incumbent protests. Mobile services then grew exponentially from 2004, until the 2G spectrum scam surfaced in 2011.

A stream of articles advocated extending revenue-sharing to spectrum fees as for licence fees, and for shared infrastructure including spectrum. In 2011, a senior official in the DoT was sufficiently impressed to explore the possibility of evaluating alternatives using simulation models. But the 2G scam broke after the first few meetings of DoT officials, and this process was aborted. Instead of major changes based on simulations, a mere statement of intent about spectrum pooling and sharing made it into NTP-2012.

There were other incredible developments, although with no apparent results (yet). For instance, in 2013, a non-governmental organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru, arranged for the former chief technology officer of the US Federal Communications Commission, Jon Peha, who had pioneered changes in America, to meet with top officials of the DoT, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, and some IIT professors. The latter conducted successful trials using TV White Space spectrum for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The details are many, but the point is that constructive advocacy can have an impact.

Reviving the Economy Now

We are in a difficult situation, with our economy and society battered by the lockdown and much else. We will need to do everything possible to recover, and it will take years. Attempts at partial opening will not suffice. Systemic revival calls for unrestricted flows of money, people, activity, and goods and services.

While reactivating the economy, we will need to be cautious through the pandemic (through “social distancing”, using masks to reduce infection, avoiding close contact with outsiders, and so on). But survivors have to live with this virus, as with other strains of viruses and bacteria, and other threats.

Consider traffic accidents, which average over 145,000 deaths annually (data 2013-2017: https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/chapter-1A-traffic-accidents-2017_0.pdf).  Extrapolating, this means a million fatalities in seven years, yet we don’t shut down all traffic. By comparison, Covid-19 had about 6,000 fatalities since January.

A proportion of the medical fraternity opines that (a) there is community spread of Covid-19, and (b) with many cases milder than the expected severity, that most patients need home care rather than hospitalisation. If these continue, our health systems will not be overwhelmed with severe cases. Also, so far, India has had a relatively low fatality rate of 2.8 per cent (see chart).

Source: Data - https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

As long as these factors hold, our priority has to be unfettered economic activity. Countries with higher fatality rates, including Sweden, China, Japan and Germany in the chart, have open economic activity (with tremendous productivity). We will weaken and our problems will escalate if we are held back.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com