Let Parochialism not Afflict the Services

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

Parochialism is a commonly used term with wide-ranging definitions that are pejorative in connotation. Essentially, parochialism denotes narrowness of views both in substance and scope. It implies inability to consider issues in larger and wider perspective. In other words parochialism is a manifestation of narrow-mindedness and pettiness. As human beings are products of their environment, their attitude and disposition get moulded in the formative years, both at home and work place. Although the underlying reason for all types of parochialism is an attitude of insularity, they get manifested differently.

Parochialism is a human weakness. According supremacy to local and immediate interests over larger issues is a common trait and phenomenon. While parochialism remains harmless within acceptable limits, it becomes cancerous when allowed to proliferate to unhealthy intensity. It can afflict body politic of any nation, society or organisation with fatal consequences. History stands testimony that a nation infested with the virus of parochialism has always been an easy prey for subjugation. No one knows this bitter truth better than India, whose centuries-long suffering under foreign rule was the direct fallout of the malaise of parochialism.

Unfortunately, India has learnt nothing from the past and similar trends are raising their vicious heads again all over the country. In this dismal scenario, the armed forces stand as the solitary bulwark against fissiparous forces. Being united India’s only hope, they cannot fail the nation. Therefore, it is vitally important that they be kept scrupulously free of the virus of parochialism lest it destroys organisational cohesion and degrades their fighting potential.

Regrettably, due to lack of progressive exposure, many service officers fail to acquire broader vision even while occupying higher ranks. They grow in career but fail to outgrow narrow mindsets. They remain weighed down with local issues. Their excessive deportment towards immediate affiliations is a result of their inability to grasp and fully appreciate criticality of larger issues.

The armed forces are threatened by three types of parochialism – service, regimental and communal. These have been discussed below.

Service Parochialism

Service parochialism can be defined as excessive and unhealthy concern for one’s own service, even at the cost of national interests. It is most relentless at the top where higher commanders get too encumbered with it. Service parochialism is also a manifestation of acute inferiority complex and accompanying sense of insecurity. Ostensibly, many commanders talk of service interests but their primary concern is to ward off perceived threats to their personal aspirations and safeguard their own turf. They fear loss of their central stage status and dread becoming fringe players. Therefore, they keep harping about service interests and infect the whole organisation with a parochial outlook. Blinkers of service parochialism render self-serving commanders incapable of understanding that their mutual antagonism is detrimental to national interests.

Inter-service parochialism is the primary impediment to the development of jointness amongst the three services. The Army buys helicopters without consulting the Air Force lest the Air Force stalls the whole process. It procures deep sea diving equipment without drawing benefit from Navy’s expertise. As reported by Comptroller and Auditor General in his report, the three services have procured the same equipment (e.g. unmanned aerial vehicles, sniper rifles and underwater diving equipment) from the same foreign vendor at different rates. Their reluctance to join hands resulted in losing benefits of economies of scale and commonality of support infrastructure.

Every step towards jointness is considered anti-service and opposed bitterly. Take the case of the ongoing debate about the need to have a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Not a soul in his wisdom can oppose the measure. It is apparent that the opposition is being whipped up purely for envisioned service (in fact personal) interests. Anyone who opposes CDS on the grounds of national interest is a downright a liar. Worse, he lacks moral courage and nerve to admit that his opposition is based on parochialism and hides behind the façade of overall national defence concerns. When a Service Chief opposes CDS, he is worried that he would become a lesser personage and nothing else. He uses the plank of service interests to hide his own diffidence. There cannot be a more shameful example of parochialism getting the better of national interests.

Regimental Parochialism

Prejudiced attitudes based on regimental, corps and branch affiliations have been collectively referred to herein as regimental parochialism. The services rightly consider regimental spirit to be a battle winning factor as it knits a group together. Up to unit level, regimental spirit is a force-multiplier but it becomes counter-productive at higher levels. As all cohesive groups become inward looking, it gives rise to intolerance for others, thereby generating ‘we versus they’ or ‘regimental versus outsider’ syndromes.

Many commanders, even after rising above unit level, fail to shed their regimental mindset. Non-development of broadmindedness forces them to behave in prejudiced and partisan manner. Some commanders take pride in flaunting their regimental preferences by dispensing undue favours to their regimental officers. For example, when a new Army Chief deploys his parent battalion at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, he reveals his narrow mindset and proves his unsuitability to head the Army. A Chief has to be above all predispositions.

Further, when unit turn-over, citations and other awards are decided under the influence of regimental bias, the environment loses faith in the fairness of the system, thereby encouraging factionalism and dissensions. There have been instances when bigoted Army Commanders have struck mutual deals to promote their regimental protégés on quid pro quo basis. When selection for higher ranks is influenced by regimental affiliations, many deserving officers lose out as vacancies at the top are limited. Thus, merit ceases to be of any consequence. Mediocre and undeserving officers get promoted. The armed forces are deprived of the best talent.

The institution of Colonel Commandants has contributed the maximum to the growth of regimental parochialism. Being an anachronistic institution, it inhibits progressive thinking and breeds unhealthy predisposition. Earlier a Colonel Commandant used to be like a father figure who acted as the ‘conscience keeper’ of the regiment and a guardian of regimental traditions. Now, he functions like the regiment’s representative in top hierarchy whose task is to wangle maximum advantages for his regiment, apparently at the cost of others who may be more deserving.

Communal Parochialism

Indian society has always been plagued by divisive forces. As precedence is given to communal identity (based on region, religion, caste and sub-caste) over nationalism, most people remain embroiled in petty bickering and internal squabbles.

Earlier, community bias was unheard of in the services. It was considered a sacrilege. Indian armed forces had inherited a legacy of keeping religion and region out of its normal functioning. Religion (along with politics and women) was never allowed to be discussed in the officers’ messes. Unfortunately, the spreading virus of communalism in the country appears to be affecting some military leaders as well.

In the recent past, a senior commander was derisively called ‘clan chief’. He was known to surround himself with cronies from his clan and was forever ready to take up cudgels on their behalf. Through his ‘clan contacts’ at the Ministry, he managed extra-ordinary dispensations for his clan mates. Similarly, another senior commander was known to provide unhindered access to soldiers from his state. During his outstation visits, a discreet message used to be passed around. Both the commander and his wife used to receive their state-mates and note down their complaints/requests. Needless to say, both the above mentioned commanders forfeited respect of the services. By their communal acts, they had betrayed the trust of their commands and let them down. Their failure to rise above petty parochialism proved their unfitness to occupy high appointments.

Communal predisposition is the worst and most destructive type of parochialism. It has the potential to split the services on communal lines – a dreadful scenario indeed. Thankfully, communal parochialism is a recent phenomenon and is at a nascent stage at present. It is time cognizance is taken of this threat and suitable measures initiated to nip it in the bud.

Finally, it is time to act

Parochialism is an anathema. It poses a grave threat to the credibility of the military leadership. To be trusted by one’s subordinates is the greatest reward and highest accolade that a leader can earn. Trust is a non-substitutable, priceless, intuitive and complex force. It flourishes on credibility that a leader enjoys in his command. Trust is the expectancy that the followers can rely on a leader’s impartial and just approach. Subordinates feel let down when they witness partisan conduct of their commanders.

Merit is invariably the first casualty of parochialism. No organisation can flourish unless there are strong merit-performance ethical linkages in place. Every dispensation extended on the basis of parochial disposition amounts to depriving a deserving claimant of his lawful rights. As soldiers lose faith in the fairness of the system, a certain degree of despondency sets in, forcing the aggrieved to approach courts for getting their due.

Service parochialism has already done incalculable harm to the development of jointness of the three services. They remain divided and true to character, revel in their disunity. National security is too serious a matter to be allowed to be held hostage by misplaced service parochialism of a few egocentric commanders. Such elements must be identified, shamed and exposed to the public for their failure to assign supremacy to national interests. They should be considered unworthy of the high ranks that they come to occupy.

Abolition of the institution of Colonel Commandant will have a decisive effect in curtailing the growth of regimental parochialism. Another simple measure will be to restrict regimental entrapments to the rank of Colonel. All senior officers should wear a common uniform without any badges that announce their regimental identity.

Militaries swear by norms. Norms are unwritten rules that get evolved due to precedents and conventions set over a period of time. It is for the current military leadership to rise above parochial mindsets to set stringent norms for non-partisan conduct with suitable monitoring mechanism to rectify aberrations. For example, it should be a proscriptive norm that commanders should not select their personal staff from their own arm/regiment or community.

Senior commanders must be apprised and constantly reminded of the true meaning of professional integrity – treating all subordinates impartially without service, regimental and communal bias. To betray an unquestioning soldier’s trust by playing favourites is the worst kind of impropriety a commander can be guilty of. In fact, parochialism is a manifestation of selfish nature, unprofessional character and unethical disposition. Being an act of the worst kind of blasphemy, parochialism must be ruthlessly curbed, lest the services lose their much vaunted cohesion.