Of Matters Military: Debate and Dissent

Of Matters Military: Debate and Dissent

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM

Expectedly, the case of the Chief’s date of birth has evoked strong reactions. There has been an unsavoury exchange of emails amongst the veterans – a totally unnecessary and unfortunate development. Some of the emails degenerate into abusive and vituperative language. One can express one’s opinion against the civilian leadership and bureaucracy without calling them names and using foul adjectives.  

Similarly, deposition of medals, role of veterans, addressing of letters to the civilian authorities and lack of facilities at ECHS and many other issues have generated unnecessary bad blood. When a veteran suggested that a particular political party should be shunned for not supporting OROP, a few respondents called him to be an agent of another political party. He was assigned motives of carrying some hidden agenda. It is a sad and poor commentary of our ability to partake in a healthy debate.

Debate is a technique of interactive argument wherein an issue of common interest is discussed by various participants by taking a stand either in favour of or against a stated perspective. A healthy debate is built on logical consistency, factual accuracy and persuasive presentation of arguments and counter-arguments. It should avoid rhetoric and confine itself to the points under discussion. Introduction of infructuous issues blurs the focus and dilutes the quality of debate. A debate must remain confined to issues under discussion and never personalised for character assassination. Issues are important, not individuals.

It is not necessary to be in agreement with the opposing viewpoint in a debate. Agreeing to disagree is an old axiom. Every participant has a right to contest a proposition, if it is not in conformity with his thinking. But it should be done in a convivial and courteous manner. Resort to harsh and foul language shows impoverishment of cogent rationale and lack of basic intellect to argue intelligently. Dissent is a healthy and desirable reaction. Dissent improves the quality of debate and helps arrive at well-evolved conclusions. However, dissent should not degenerate into a slanging match or street-urchin type squabble.

Whenever a matter of common concern is raised (duly supported by cogent arguments and reasoning) respondents must present well-reasoned counter-arguments to oppose it. Mere use of semantics and adjectives shows hollowness of thoughts. When a well-articulated article stated that the institution of Colonel Commandants promotes parochialism, not one opponent disputed the assertions. Yet, a few critics dismissed the article as ‘lop-sided’ or ‘flawed’ but not a word was written in support of their observations.

Surprisingly, many veterans do not even read full articles to understand as to what is being suggested. Their mindset is so psyched that the very mention of an issue arouses their opinionated reaction. A recent article that cautioned the environment against increasing social stratification amongst the officer cadre and excessive flaunting of ranks evoked immense interest amongst serving and retired officers. Over 800 respondents agreed that corrective measures need to be taken. Two dissenting comments need to be recalled here for their instructive value.

A serving General wrote – “As an ex Cdr JC Wing I am completely empowered to say that 4000 of the greatest offrs of the world went through me… Even today as a Corps Cdr of the most happening Corps of the Indian Army I marvel at their intellect and readiness to sacrifice every comfort... This Army is a couple of notches higher in capability in every field than what it was in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or in 2010.”

The article in question does not contain a word about the quality of the officers, their intellect and readiness for sacrifice. Nor does it question the quality of today’s army. These unrelated issues have been raised by him without reference to the article. On the other hand, he has not said a single word about the issues discussed in the article – social inequities and flaunting of ranks. Apparently, the officer has not read the article. 

A healthy debate should be issue-based and not made personal by questioning the credentials of a proposer. Yet, the General chose to comment – “It has become a habit with people who never commanded on ground and never felt the sound or flurry of a whizzing bullet to comment upon the new generation Army.” It is unfair to claim that bravery is one’s exclusive preserve or one is the sole repository of all wisdom. It is a statement that shows total inability to counter an argument with logic but resorting to ungentlemanly innuendos.    

Worse, his out of context statement, “Even today as a Corps Cdr of most happening Corps of the Indian Army”, is totally gratuitous and uncalled for.

Another respondent feels that the best way to counter a proposition is to attack the credentials of the writer rather than talk of issues. His response tends to become abusive and slanderous. Sample this – “The author talks … as if the forces are now the scum and vermin of the earth...These assumptions by the officer are not just off the mark but themselves hypocritical and hollow and suggest that the motivation may not be to educate the hoi polloi of India and the world how bad and unprofessional the Army is, but some unstated angst against the very Army.” The article in question never called the forces ‘scum and vermin of the earth’. First the respondent wrongfully attributes the statement to the author and thereafter goes on to condemn him for that. Interestingly, the respondent has not said a word about social stratification but termed the article ‘puerile’. 

One is reminded of a story learnt in the school. A budding painter showed his painting to his teacher for opinion. The teacher asked the pupil to hang the painting at the busiest crossroad with a placard reading – “Put a cross where you detect a flaw in the painting”. The next day, the painting was found to be fully covered with crosses put by the viewing public. The pupil was highly upset with the ruination of his effort. The teacher asked him to make a similar painting and hang at the same place with a placard reading – “Rectify flaws that you notice”. The painting remained untouched. Moral of the story – “It is so very easy to find fault with other’s work but difficult to put up something of your own.”

Regular introspection is the key to continued good health of an organisation. Every organisation has to be ready to face newer challenges. Brushing them under the carpet in the fear of offending some can prove very costly in the long run. Complacency breeds degeneration. When an issue that affects the well being of the forces is raised, it should not be construed to be condemnatory or anti-organisation, but considered as a reformative initiative and discussed accordingly. Veterans can help create an environment wherein issues of common interest are discussed in a frank, mature, logical and coherent manner. Even dissent should be well-argued and dignified. Civility is not a sign of weakness.*****