New Chief and Challenges of Parochialism

New Chief and Challenges of Parochialism

Major General Mrinal Suman

Heartiest congratulations to the new Army Chief. As his credentials are commendable, he will surely lead the army with aplomb.

However, this write-up is not about military skills, operational experience and professional expertise for the top job. It concerns a far more critical issue – the malady of regimental parochialism that has been afflicting the army for long. Prejudiced attitude based on regimental and corps affiliations is collectively referred to as regimental parochialism. The virus of regimental parochialism has been gnawing at the vitals of army’s much vaunted organisational cohesion. It has been causing fissures along regimental/arm/service lines and has the potential to degrade army’s fighting potential – a worrisome prospect indeed.

Parochialism is a manifestation of narrow-mindedness and pettiness. It is a manifestation of selfish nature, unprofessional character and unethical disposition. Regrettably, many service officers rise in ranks but fail to outgrow narrow mindsets. They lack professional integrity and fail to treat all subordinates impartially without any bias. Partiality is an anathema to military leadership and no justification can condone it.

Fair and non-discriminatory conduct is an essential component of a commander’s obligations. Every dispensation extended on the basis of parochial disposition has three grave consequences. First, when regimental affiliations replace merit, the army is deprived of the best talent available. There are numerous cases where mediocre officers have risen to higher ranks by latching on to the coattails of their regimental seniors.

Secondly, search for recognition is one of the pursuits which all human beings indulge in and continuously strive for. Promotions and advancement in career are important aspects of their aspirations. When denied their due, the aggrieved are left with no choice except to knock at courts’ doors for their rights. Burgeoning number of court cases shows officers’ utter lack of faith in the fairness of the system.

Thirdly and most importantly, to betray an unquestioning soldier’s trust by playing favourites is the worst kind of impropriety a commander can be guilty of. Trust is the expectancy that the followers can rely on a leader’s impartial and just approach. Trust is a non-substitutable, priceless, intuitive and complex force. It flourishes on credibility that a leader enjoys in his command. Nepotism poses a grave threat to the credibility of the military leadership.

The institution of Colonel Commandant (Col Comdt) is the root cause of growth of parochialism in the army. Col Comdts are not elected because they are mature enough to be the father figure. The only criteria is their potential to wangle maximum benefits for the regiment, mostly undeserved. That is the reason why all prospective Chiefs and Army Commanders are much in demand.  It is a simple equation of quid pro quo. Regiments ‘invest’ in a Col Comdt and expect undue favours in return.

Unit citations and Commendation Cards are awarded on regimental considerations. Even the schedule of turn-over of units is subjected to undue influences. Special dispensation is managed for the regimental officers to facilitate their promotion. Even the ‘line of succession’ is tweaked in their favour.  In short, the institution of Col Comdt is an archaic legacy that is divisive in nature and encourages fissiparous tendencies.

It is essential to curtail the ambit and scope of the institution of Col Comdt. Army Commanders and the Chief should disassociate themselves from the institution. They are too senior to be identified with any regiments/arms. Recently introduced concept of Honorary Col Comdt must be shelved as it is devious in intent. It aims at usurping certain service privileges after retirement.

Perception Management is Exceedingly Important

For the health of any organisation, perceptions are as importance as facts and must be managed diligently. For that, it is essential that senior commanders not only act non-partisan, but also seen to be so. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Shedding of parochial regimental loyalties will be a key step in that direction. It is only then that the environment will develop confidence in the justness of the system.

Most inappropriately, every senior commander opts to choose his regimental officers as his personal staff (MA, AMA, Deputy MS, ADC and so on). Yes, it almost resembles a kitchen cabinet. In addition, they attempt to have maximum officers from their regiments in other key staff appointments. Social scientists consider it to be a manifestation of an acute sense of insecurity. Such unsure commanders prefer to surround themselves with their regimental cronies, lest their incompetence gets exposed to the environment. In return, they feel obliged to promote their protégés’ careers, normally at the cost of more deserving officers.

A few years ago, a Sapper Army Commander tried to set an example by having all his personal staff officers from different arms and services. He wanted to tell his command that he had no favourites. Unfortunately, rather than applauding and emulating him, most egotistical top-brass faulted him for ‘lacking in regimental loyalties’. What a shame! 

It should be a proscriptive norm that commanders should not select their personal staff from their own arm/regiment or community. This norm should be applicable to all – from divisional commanders to the Chief. In addition, there should be a cooling-off period of three years before a personal staff officer is considered for foreign posting. Hopefully, the mentor commander would have retired by then and the selection would be purely merit based.

For all senior ranks, there should be a common uniform with no regimental entrapments/accoutrements to continuously remind them of their regimental affiliations. They should wear khaki beret and no lanyard. This was the standard regulation earlier. As units were commanded by Lieutenant Colonels, regimental identity was limited to that rank. Now the units are commanded by Colonels. Therefore, Brigadier and higher ranks should shed regimental appurtenances and wear identical uniforms.  

No Army Commander should award unit citations or individual awards to his regiments without obtaining prior concurrence of the Army Headquarters. The current trend of ‘managing’ awards for the personal staff officers must also be stopped. No personal staff officer deserves an award. Awards are given for distinguished service to the nation and not for looking after the comforts of the boss diligently.

Finally 

A Chief should never forget that he is the Chief of the Indian army and not of his regiment/arm. Every single soldier of the army has a right to expect fair treatment and justice from the Chief. If he fails them, he forfeits the right to command them. It is as simple as that.

A Chief should also appreciate that it is difficult for the soldiers of other regiments/arms/services to identify themselves with a Chief who flaunts his regimental identity all the time. To them, he appears to be an alien. A Chief has to be above all predispositions, real or perceived.

Fortunately, the new Chief will have a long tenure. He will have adequate time and opportunities to usher changes, provided he is able to stay clear of the regimental morass.

To rid the army of factionalism, smooth ruffled feathers and re-forge cohesion will certainly be a tough challenge. The choice is entirely that of the new Chief. He can take up the challenge and carve a niche for himself in the annals of military reforms. Or else, he can opt to be a ‘passenger’ like his many predecessors whom the army and the country suffered. But then, only the daring are remembered by history for their audacity. Mediocrity leaves no foot-prints.*****