Arrogance of Seniority

Major General Mrinal Suman

Search for recognition is one of the pursuits which all human beings indulge in and continuously strive for. For professionals, promotions and advancement in career are important aspects of their aspirations. In the services, rank achieved is a conspicuous and well-recognised measure of a soldier’s professional competence and an indicator of his progression. As rank fixes one’s place in the services hierarchy, senior officers have every reason to be proud of their achievement. They are justified in deriving a sense of justification from the heavy brass they carry on their shoulders. In a steep pyramid-like organisation, promotions do not come easily.

However, it is equally important that they carry their rank with due dignity and composure. They should neither carry them to ridiculous limits nor flaunt them in an unbecoming manner. Increasing arrogance of seniority is clearly discernible in stratification of social events and indiscriminate flaunting of flags and stars, as discussed below.

Social Discrimination

There was a time when senior officers and their wives made use of social occasions to interact with junior officers and their wives to get a feel of their morale and establish informal rapport with them. On the other hand, junior officers and their wives learnt a great deal by watching the way the senior officers and their wives conducted themselves. Thus, social functions were considered to be excellent occasions to build cohesion in an informal manner. Additionally, military norms, ethics and values were passed on to the new-inductees.

Unfortunately, social functions have become highly stratified events. There is no interaction between the seniors and the juniors. Separate areas are earmarked for them. Exclusive seating for VIPs has become a standard practice. Senior commanders and their wives remain surrounded by their staff officers and cronies. They make no effort to walk up to the juniors to exchange pleasantries. At times one gets an impression that the senior brass considers it below their dignity to mix with subordinate officers. 

There are three reasons for this obsession for exclusivity. One, senior officers get special treatment in terms of quality of liquor and food. Two, they get hospitality free whereas they should be paying for their drinks and food like the other officers. Finally, the current top brass is so self-seeking that it has no concern for others’ sensitivities and social niceties. 

Earlier, all guests were treated at par and served the same food and drinks, irrespective of rank. The only privilege that a senior officer enjoyed was that he was served his drink by the waiter and did not have to walk up to the bar like others. Today, not only the type of whisky but also the goblet – crystal for seniors and Borosil for others – are rank based. 

A few months ago, an Air Force Station had organised a social evening after an event and invited a large number of officers from the services. Prior to the serving of dinner, an announcement was made requesting all officers of one-star rank and their wives to have dinner in the hall while the others were asked to move to the tents on the side. It was such an insulting move that many officers and their wives walked out without dinner. One fails to understand how such petty mindedness has crept in the services’ culture. If a Brigadier or a General has dinner along with others, will it lower his dignity? 

At a post-tournament dinner at an officers’ institute, the Army Commander, after showing his face for a few minutes, withdrew to an exclusive chamber along with his ‘Nav Ratnas’ (Major Generals) to enjoy the evening and exclusive hospitality. Others were left outside to interact with each other – a reminder of the grand old Mughal tradition of ‘Diwane Khaas’ and ‘Diwane Aam’. 

Protocol golf is another innovative measure that displays haughtiness of seniority. In case senior commanders want to play golf after a conference, the golf course is declared off limits for others. It is a disgraceful sight to see 4 to 5 commanders playing golf on an 18-hole golf course with staff officers who are detailed to accompany them. It shows arrogance of the poorest order. Do the senior commanders find it demeaning if Colonels and Majors are also playing at the same time? Arrogance of rank cannot be carried to such limits.

Flaunting of Ranks

It must never be forgotten that badges of ranks worn by the soldiers represent national symbols – the Ashoka Lion and the five-pointed Indian Star. The nation has bestowed its greatest honour on its soldiers. Every officer understandably takes pride in his rank by displaying the stars and flying the flag that he is entitled to. However, it must be done with due decorum and as per the laid down norms. Their sanctity should never be demeaned. Of late, a tendency has been discernible amongst the senior officers to flaunt their stars and flags in most unbecoming manner.

Although display of star plates and flags on private cars is forbidden, many officers feel insecure without their use and openly flout the orders. There are many commanders who insist that the mules that they ride in mountainous terrain must be duly embellished with stars and flags – a ridiculous sight indeed. Similarly, it was a shocking sight to see a Chief flying his flag and displaying four stars on his golf cart in New Delhi. 

Recently, a photograph was circulated on the internet that showed golf caddies wearing jackets with stars prominently displayed on their backs to indicate ranks of the players they were assisting. Can there be a more ludicrous demonstration of disgraceful obsession with ranks?

 

Illustration 1: Starrred Golf - Caddie on the Left is Displaying Three Stars while the Middle One Shows Two Stars

Another absurd practice that has gained currency in the recent past is to present golf caps and tee-shirts to all participants with their ranks duly indicated through embossed/embroidered stars. It is a comical sight to see officers playing golf with their ranks duly advertised. It appears that senior officers are unable to swing their clubs unless adequately supported by the trappings of their ranks.

 

Illustration 2: Golf Cap with Stars Indicating Rank of the Player

In another case, a garden umbrella at a divisional tennis court had two stars prominently displayed on it to indicate that it was exclusively reserved for the Divisional Commander and his wife. As human ingenuity has no limits, there are numerous such examples wherein display of rank has been carried to preposterous extent.

Many senior officers complain that they never demand such displays and that some over-enthusiastic juniors take initiative of their own accord. This explanation holds no water at all. Unless the junior officers are convinced that their initiative would fetch them a pat, they would never take the risk. Additionally, senior commanders can always order stoppage of such practices if they so desire. The fact is that they relish such treatment as it boosts their ego, gives them a ‘kick’ and makes them feel special.

Finally

Informal interaction between officers of different ranks should always be governed by the dictum that ‘a good senior does not flaunt his seniority all the time while a good junior does not forget his juniority at any time’. That should be the basis of healthy social equilibrium. 

It must never be forgotten that the officers who fail to make to higher ranks are not incompetent. It is just that the steep pyramid-like structure provides limited promotional avenues. Many brilliant officers suffer due to the shortage of vacancies and retire as Colonels. Supersession impacts their psyche and they show signs of social withdrawal. Instead of reassuring them, social discrimination adds to their discomfort through shameless display of inequities. Worse, ‘social apartheid’ is widening the gulf between the top brass and the others.

 

Senior commanders would do well to remember that humility is the hall mark of a good leader and a meta-virtue. A self-effacing demeanour indicates maturity and not meekness or timidity. Humility is all about maintaining one’s pride about one’s worth and achievements, but without arrogance. It is an old saying that ‘those who achieve the most flaunt the least’.

Army Officers and Seven Golden Norms

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

Of late, the Army has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Apart from coining highly outrageous and derogatory terms like 'Ketchup Colonel,' 'Booze Brigadier' and 'Frisky General', media has covered delinquent activities like unauthorised sale of weapons and corrupt practices in sufficient detail. Consequently, the public image of a military officer has been indescribably dented.

The edifice of the Indian Army is built on the twin pillars of committed leadership and motivated soldiers. Both are intrinsically linked and mutually contingent. Distortions in one cause shock waves in the other as well. Whereas our soldierly stock continues to be excellent, it is the fall in the quality of the leadership that is a cause for concern.

Militaries by nature are conservative and thrive on well-evolved traditions, precedents and conventions, which over a period of time get translated into norms. Norms are unwritten rules which need to be followed diligently for the continued sustenance of a military. Norms can be descriptive (what to do or ‘Dos’) and proscriptive (what not to do or ‘Don’ts’). A norm gives a rule of thumb for conduct. The Indian Army finds itself in the current mess primarily due to the dilution/neglect of seven golden norms by the officer cadre.

1. “Impartiality – an ethical requirement”

Fair and unprejudiced deportment is an essential component of an officer’s morality. Impartiality means treating everyone as equal and rewarding them on their merit alone. Any commander who acts in a discriminatory manner to grant favours to his regimental mates, community members or protégé is guilty of breach of trust and faith. Partisanship is impropriety of the worst kind, erodes credibility of leaders and encourages parochialism. Humans identify themselves with an organisation only when visible merit-performance ethical linkage in place. A system should be put in place to weed out all officers who display biases of any nature.

2. “Prompt redressal of grievances – every soldier’s right”

Close to one lakh cases involving service personnel are pending in various courts. It reflects poorly on the Army’s grievance redressal mechanism. Soldiers knock at courts’ doors only when driven to it as a last resort, after losing faith in the sense of justice and the fairness of the system. They feel aggrieved and deprived of their rightful dues, giving rise to dissentions and litigations. Although an elaborate mechanism (from ‘arzi report’ at unit level to statutory complaints at the Government level) is in place, inadequate attention is being paid to this critical aspect of man-management. Many grievances are misplaced due to lack of information and can be resolved at the unit level itself. Soldiers’ faith in the credibility of the system must never be allowed to wane.

3. “Empathy for men under command – a moral obligation”

The Indian Army has been rocked by a large number of suicide and fratricide cases. In most cases, officers’ had failed to handle the reckless soldiers with due compassion. Unlike other organisations, relationship between a military leader and his men is based on the twin pillars of commander’s empathy for his men and unflinching loyalty of the subordinates. Soldiers willingly repose faith in a leader in the belief that he would safeguard their interests. Exhorting men in the name of the regimental spirit, some self-seeking leaders drive their men unduly hard to fulfill their own aspirations. With shortened command tenures, commanders are hard pressed to prove their worth for further promotions. Resultantly, welfare of troops is totally neglected. Men are quick to gauge true disposition of their leaders. Any leader who lacks empathy for his men and uses them purely for his personal advancement loses their trust.

4. “Safeguarding predecessor’s honour – every officer’s sacrosanct responsibility”

It is a proscriptive norm not to let down one’s predecessor. There are understandable reasons for this norm. One, decisions are always taken as per the prevailing circumstances and with inputs available at that time. It is very easy to find fault with them in retrospect with the benefit of the hindsight. Two, a predecessor is never present to defend his actions. Thus, vilifying him amounts to his trial in absentia. Three, military as an institution, is highly sensitive to the reputation of its leadership. When leaders try to malign each other, troops’ wonder if such officers are worthy of their confidence.

5. “Ostentatious living – an anathema to soldiering”

Soldiering stands for honorable but simple living. Undoubtedly, an officer must live comfortably and should be financially secure to fulfill his obligations to his family and save enough for his old age. However, pompous lifestyle is most unbecoming of a soldier. Strength of an army officer’s character lies in moderation exercised by him. Rising ostentatious extravagance, both in personal and organisational matters, is a cause for concern. Worse, over the last few years, five-star culture has given way to seven-star culture and an unhealthy competition has set in. For unit functions, all activities from catering and decoration to entertainment are being outsourced at huge costs. Costliest whisky is served. Even, ‘Barakhanas’ are being outsourced. Many cases of misuse of official funds are a direct outcome of ostentatious profligacy. Therefore, there is an urgent need to put an end to excessive extravagance.

6. “Segregation in social gatherings – an affront to junior officers”

When a proposal to have segregated seating arrangement for officers of different ranks for a social function was put up to the Late Field Martial Cariappa, he shot it down with remarks that stratification in social functions will damage cohesion of the officer cadre. Today, it is one’s rank that determines one’s seat and even the type of drink offered – scotch for seniors and cheaper whisky for others. It is reprehensible to see separate areas earmarked for different ranks, even with different décor and menus. It has become a common practice for the senior brass to huddle together and there is little mixing with the junior officers and their wives. Instead of promoting camaraderie amongst officers, such occasions become a highly humiliating experience for the juniors, thereby breeding dissatisfaction and dissentions. Worse, seniors miss an opportunity to ‘feel the pulse’ of their commands and establish rapport with their subordinates.

7. “Ladies have no role in official functioning”

Immense respect is accorded to the ladies in the services. However, they can never be allowed to meddle in official matters. Unfortunately, to satisfy the ego of commanders’ wives, a parallel command hierarchy has proliferated under the garb of family welfare activities. They move around in army vehicles with staff officers in toe. They contribute little to the genuine welfare of troops but get a façade to interfere in organisational affairs. Most soldiers consider such activities to be wasteful and irksome as they divert attention from the essential to the non-essential. Worse, undue interference by ladies in unit functioning invariably results in creating dissentions and causing fissures in unit cohesion.

Finally

Claudia Kennedy rightly remarked that an army damages itself when it doesn’t live up to its own values. The present mess that the Indian Army finds itself in is entirely due to the dilution of values that have sustained it for decades. As attitudes undergo changes, value system is understandably impacted. Attitudes are affected both by implicit and explicit influences. In addition to personal beliefs and experience, attitudes in the services are influenced by the organisational environment (traditions, precedents and conventions). The Army must ensure that organisational norms that mould attitudes are nurtured carefully and corrective measures taken expeditiously, lest the situation drifts beyond redemption.