Veterans and the Social Media: Civility is not a Sign of Weakness

Veterans and the Social Media: Civility is not a Sign of Weakness

(SAMMAAN January 2018)

Major General Mrinal Suman

Internet and social media have become the most popular means of communication; both for acquiring knowledge and disseminating information. We, the veterans, have been using this facility quite extensively. Most of us are members of more than one yahoo groups. A single click of a key connects us to a vast circle of friends for informed discussion and exchange of viewpoints.

We claim to be a distinct segment of the society and take pride in the fact that we belong to the noblest profession in the world – the profession of arms that ensures security of our country. We consider ourselves to be the conscience-keeper of the highest values of societal rectitude and probity. However, it begs the question – has our conduct been befitting of the high pedestal that we seek for ourselves?

Most disappointingly, general standard of exchanges over the social media has been highly abysmal. Whereas a handful of veterans are working assiduously to disseminate useful information to the environment, most veterans are using the social media either to fault the current dispensation or to voice their personal grievances or to settle old scores. For them, the social media is a convenient tool to give vent to their pent-up frustrations. Some stoop down to calling names and using foul adjectives. 

Faulting the Current Dispensation

Some veterans are convinced that the current army leadership lacks moral courage to stand up to the civilian hierarchy, thereby compromising the soldiers’ dignity and interests. They are ever ready to pronounce the senior brass guilty of every act of omission and commission (whether real or perceived) and have assigned themselves the responsibility of safeguarding the Izzat of the uniform. Without knowing full facts, and with limited information available in the public domain, they base their conclusions on conjectures and unsubstantiated news to deride the serving brass.

Three incidents are recalled here to flag the above malaise. One, at the first official observation of the World Yoga Day on 21 June 2015, a total of 35,985 participants from 84 nationalities had gathered to perform asanas. The whole country was proud of the momentous occasion, with India’s priceless legacy becoming world’s legacy.

As is the wont of some veterans, they appeared to be more obsessed with the spreading of yoga mats rather than the import of the occasion. Deviously, a social-media campaign was started by them, accusing the army leadership of demeaning the soldiers by asking them to lay mats. However, as the truth emerged later on, the mats were laid by civilian workers and the army had provided a few Havildars to oversee the layout and alignment.

Two, when the government allowed construction of a Kruppman bridge over Yamuna for a cultural event, sceptical veterans were quick to condemn it. The Chief and the top brass were censured for allowing the army to be misused and using scarce military equipment for a non-official function. It was forgotten that the military does not exist in a vacuum. It is an instrument of the state and owes its creation to it. It is for the state to employ its resources, as deemed fit. It is for the government to decide whether such support should be provided to a cultural event or not. It is not military’s prerogative to determine its justification. Incidentally, Kruppman equipment is not scarce. It is manufactured in India and every Kumbh Mala sees such bridges.

Three and more recently, government’s advice to the army to oversee cleanliness drive in the remote high altitude areas was intentionally misinterpreted to imply that the trash left by the tourists was to be collected and disposed off by the soldiers. At no stage did the government ask the soldiers to do that. It simply wanted the army, the only agency present in such areas, to keep an eye on the drive. Casually paid local labour was to be employed to carry out the actual cleanliness work. Unfortunately, some hyper-active veterans were quick to condemn the military hierarchy for accepting such a demeaning task.

Most reprehensibly, even the Chief is not spared. Worse, the criticism is becoming more detestable, caustic and unseemly. In some cases, the comments have crossed all limits of propriety – ‘Chief lacks spine’, ‘he is a big letdown’, ‘he is toeing the government line for ambassadorship and gubernatorial assignments’, ‘he has become a sycophant and is neglecting army’s interests’ and so on. Some have stooped down to the level of calling the Chief a dancing girl. It is simply deplorable.

India is a democracy where the real power rests with the political leadership and, rightly or wrongly, it is exercised through the bureaucracy. The top brass has to establish rapport with the political leadership and the bureaucracy; personal equations with give-and-take approach always prove more beneficial in such an environment. An adversarial and threatening deportment achieves nothing.

Further, the Chiefs are bound by the norms of service. They cannot share with the environment the enormity of their struggle to get the soldiers their due and the success achieved by them. One does not know how much we owe to the Chiefs for the grant of OROP, notwithstanding our dissatisfaction with its provisions.

It appears that some veterans want the army top brass to carry their resignation letters in their pockets at all times. As per their expectations, resignations should be tendered whenever the bureaucracy declines to accept any request. A bit of heart-searching is always desirable before condemning others. We all came across challenging situations in our professional lives which we considered to be grossly unfair and unwarranted. How many of us resigned in protest when still rising in career? Most of us become ‘tigers’ after supersession/superannuation, in full knowledge of the fact that we had nothing at stake and that no harm could come our way. That is no chivalry. In fact, it is delinquency of the worst order.

It was sad to see a senior veteran warning the Chiefs that the troops would obey their orders only if ‘the orders are legitimate and legal and not to please your bosses or others’. Ominous words indeed: it implied that it was for the troops to determine whether the orders given by the Chiefs were legitimate and legal before obeying them. What a shame!

The institution of the senior army leadership needs to be protected. It is suffering incalculable damage. By calling them names, we the veterans, most unwittingly, are lowering their status; not only in the eyes of the serving soldiers but also the general public. How can the country hold the services in high esteem if we keep deriding our own leadership?

Use of Discourteous Language

As  army officers, we were seen as paragons of gentlemanly behaviour. While in uniform, we were always gracious in our demeanour, sociable in our speech and courteous in our conduct. It is a mystery as to why retirement negates all the traits imbibed during long military service, causing a major change in our attitude, manners and deportment. All that sheen of being a gentleman-officer disappears with the hanging of the uniform.

A glance at the correspondence amongst veterans on social media reveals darker (and hitherto hidden) side of our character. Exchanges stand out for a total lack of basic courtesies that we normally extend to others. Some emails are so unsavoury  that they degenerate into abusive and vituperative language. It is difficult to believe that veterans can stoop down to such shocking depths.

It appears that the veterans have forgotten how to debate issues in a mature and cultured manner : it 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. It is not necessary to be in agreement with the opposing viewpoint in a debate. Dissent is a healthy and desirable reaction. Dissent improves the quality of debate and helps arrive at well-evolved conclusions. Unfortunately, dissent often degenerates into a slanging match or street-urchin type squabble amongst some veterans.

Whereas a healthy debate should be built on logical consistency, factual accuracy and persuasive presentation of arguments and counter-arguments; many veterans resort to personal attacks by questioning the credentials of other participants. A debate must remain confined to issues under discussion as issues are important, not individuals. Counter arguments should be presented in a convivial and courteous manner, duly supported by cogent reasoning. Resort to harsh and foul language shows impoverishment of cogent rationale and lack of basic intellect to argue intelligently.

Surprisingly, many veterans do not try to understand the opponent’s point of view. Their mindset is so psyched that the very mention of an issue arouses their opinionated reaction. Deposition of medals, role of veterans, addressing of letters to the civilian authorities, lack of facilities at ECHS and many other issues have generated unnecessary bad blood.

Finally

The countrymen admire soldiers’ dedication to the cause of national defence. Even after their retirement, we continue to enjoy public adulation for the services rendered. In fact, we are seen as an extension of the serving soldiers and treated with due deference. Unfortunately, many veterans fail to realise that their conduct impacts the standing of the serving soldiers. Due to their unbecoming demeanour, they let the services and the countrymen down. We have countless complaints and suggestions as regards our own welfare but are totally indifferent towards our obligations.

Regular introspection is the key to continued good health of an organisation. 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.

Social media is a double-edged weapon and has unprecedented reach. It can be cleverly manipulated to tweak the truth to present a distorted version of the facts. As denigration sells, negative projection hogs limelight for days. Worse, Indian print and electronic media thrives on sensationalism. Whatever we write on social media gets known to the non-service environment as well. In the hands of inimical elements, it can be a lethal tool.

Veterans should be careful of their conduct on the social media. We should not be seen by the environment as a bunch of disgruntled, uncouth and ill-mannered individuals. As counselled by author Laurence Sterne, “Respect for ourselves guides our morals, respect for others guides our manners.” We should not forget basic courtesies and manners in our exchanges, lest people lose faith in us. Credibility is a meta-virtue; once lost, it is difficult to be regained. Therefore, we, the veterans, should do nothing to forfeit the respect of our countrymen.*****