Arms & The Man

In an effort at cost-cutting, the Army is considering a Tour of Duty concept to induct young people for three years on a “trial basis”. Critics say this could erode its professional capabilities.

By Col R Hariharan |India Legal | May 23, 2020 |

https://www.indialegallive.com/special/arms-the-man-100292

The Indian Army is facing an unprecedented shortage of manpower. In June 2019, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh informed the Rajya Sabha in a written reply that there were 45,634 vacancies in the Army as on January 1, 2019. This included 7,399 vacancies in the officer cadre. Would they be made up in the near future? Unlikely, if we go by past experience.

Of course, there has been no dearth of volunteers eager to join the Army at recruiting rallies because joining it is a way of life for many. In rural India, it is still considered an honourable profession. But invariably, most of the youths fail to clear the minimum physical fitness and literacy standards set for various branches of the Army.

There are many reasons for this. The Army has uncompromisingly tough physical fitness and medical standards for recruitment. In the case of officers, there are psychological and leadership aptitude tests in which many fail.  Continuous deployment of troops in difficult terrain away from their families for prolonged periods makes it less attractive than a civilian job in an increasingly urbanised setting. Better opportunities for promotion and perks in private undertakings siphon off well-qualified youth from job markets. High achievers are attracted by civilian government jobs which offer better opportunities for quick promotion and perks than offered by the Army.

Manpower deficiencies in the Army are nothing new. It is a hardy, perennial experience in the entire career of many commanding officers. Manpower deficiency is only the tip of the iceberg of problems that the armed forces are trapped in, along with the tangle of political indifference, revamping the national security apparatus and military and civil red tape. Over the years, a number of committees have examined various iss­ues affecting the armed forces. However, implementation of their recommendations had been tardy, subject to lack of the political leadership’s commitment, financial crunch, bureaucratic indifference and the military’s own internal rivalries.

In 2016, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar constituted an 11-member committee of experts under Lt Gen DB Shekatkar (Retd.) to recommend measures to enhance combat capability while re­balancing defence expenditure of the armed forces. The Shekatkar Committee made 99 recommendations in its report submitted in December 2016. These ranged from optimising the defence budget to the need for a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). These recommendations, if implemented, could result in saving up to Rs 25,000 crore in defence expenditure over the next five years. 

A recent news report that the Army was considering a proposal titled “Tour of Duty” (ToD) to induct young men and women as officers and soldiers for three years on a “trial basis” has to be viewed in the overall context of the Army’s structural reforms undertaken to implement the Shekatkar Committee recommendations. The ToD concept was to tap “resurgence of nationalism and pat­riotism” among youth who wish to experience military life for a temporary duration rather than taking it up as a profession. The report added the “game changer” proposal was being examined by top commanders and its main aim was to bring people closer to the force by giving them an opportunity to experience military life. “If approved it will be a voluntary engagement and there will be no dilution in selection criteria. Initially, 100 officers and 1,000 men are being considered for recruitment as part of test bedding of the project,” said Col Aman Anand, PRO, Army.

Not unexpectedly, the ToD news report received both brickbats and bouquets from senior veterans. Lt General Raj Kadyan, Deputy Chief of the Army Staff, has been sharply critical of ToD. He said the ToD officer aspirant’s likely pre-commission training period was three to six months as against three and a half years of an NDA cadet or one and a half years’ training given to cadets through the Indian Military Academy (IMA). So ToD officers are “likely to end up at best as semi-trained leaders”. This is not wholly correct.

After the Army’s 1962 debacle, to meet the manpower needs of sudden expansion of the forces, the Army introduced emergency commission (EC). EC officers were given basic training for six months and inducted into the units. I, as an EC officer, was a witness to their stellar performance on the front lines as young officers in both the 1965 and 1971 wars. Many of them sacrificed their lives in these wars.  It was no less than that of permanent commissioners.

General Kadyan also said that because of the difference in training period, jawans are unlikely to respect a ToD officer the way they do a normal officer. Their faith and confidence in him and his judgement in times of crisis will be a lot less. It is difficult to accept this argument because ToDs will be exposed to a tough training regimen in their units, which is a unit commander’s responsibility. A modern jawan is smart enough not to be impressed by just labels or pedigree. Thirdly, he said that the attitude and commitment of the ToD officer, a “transient”, will not be the same as that of the normal officer. Of course, it will not be the same, but the ToD has a greater urge “to prove himself” as EC commissioned officers would vouch. This can motivate him to perform better.

Lastly, the General said that the im­pact of the ToD concept on the Army will be adverse, eroding its professional capabilities. Fortunately, the Army’s professional capabilities are not dependent upon the performance of a handful of ToD officers but on the units and formations as a whole. The Army has a culture of taking things in its stride and turning them into what it needs.

As against these arguments, exposure to the Army’s training, discipline and management skills under difficult conditions would help the ToDs who would later join civilian occupations. This would be a welcome addition to corporate culture and civil society. But yes, the Army has its own internal elitist crony system based on pedigree—military schools, NDA entries, IMA graduates and short service officers. ToD cadres are likely to end at the base of this pecking order. However, performance usually outweighs this system unlike the caste system we are accustomed to which forms an unenviable part of our socio-political culture.

Shorn of such lofty concept, the ToD seems to be yet another aspect of the current cost-cutting exercise that the armed forces has undertaken, while making up manpower deficiencies. According to an analysis in The Print, the cumulative cost for a three-year ToD service officer, including pre-commission training, pay and allowances, is expected to be Rs 80-85 lakh as against Rs 5.12 crore and Rs 6.83 crore, respectively, for an SSC officer after 10 and 14 years of service, respectively.

Already, General Bipin Rawat, CDS, has taken up a number of cost-cutting initiatives like extending the retiring age of armed forces personnel below the rank of officers to 58 and asking the forces to get rid of their overwhelming dependence on exorbitant foreign weapon systems and support “Make in India”. Commenting on the ToD concept, the CDS said it was at a nascent stage and under the Army chief’s consideration. According to the media report, he said, if it works out, it is good, but added that its viability needs to be studied. He reportedly said: “It will require a year of training. The ToD will be in Kashmir and the Northeast…. One year of training cost… equipping him and doing everything for him and then losing him after four years. Is it going to balance out? It will require a study.” This reflects the CDS’s reservations about this concept.

But the core issue in military manpower is only one: will the soldier be able to meet the emerging battlefield expectations of performance? President Abdul Kalam, during his maiden visit to J&K in June 2004, visualised the “future soldier” when he spoke to the troops: “When I see you, I visualise in a few decades that the configuration of the soldier in the planet will undergo a change, with the focus on him carrying a payload with lighter and high performance weapons, high calorie food and intelligent clothing to meet temperature variance and self-contained networked communication system. These features will assist mobility and survivability in the battlefield. Mobility, lethality and survivability will be provided through the integrated helmet, body protection and weapon instrumentation.” 

Kalam saw the integrated helmet with a computer system, sensor display, night vision instruments, communication systems, video cameras and image intensifier. Body protection was achieved through smart clothing with ballistic protection, reduced weight, smart shoes and NBC suits with mine sensors. He told the soldiers: “I can imagine that a few years from now, you will have intelligence-gathering apparatus and computer and communication systems being made part of your apparel.”

Kalam’s futuristic vision is no fiction. The Indian Army conceptualised the F-INSAS (Future Infantry Soldier As a System), a futuristic modernisation plan, between 2007 and 2012. In 2015, due to high costs, it decided to implement it in two components: one to arm the future infantry soldier with the best available assault rifle, carbines and personal equipment such as helmets and bulletproof vests and the second, battlefield management systems. The Indian soldier’s helmet will be made of a lighter-weight composite material so that it balances out the additions of visor, camera and internal communication system, but still protects him from 9mm carbine rounds and shrapnel. It is possible that armoured clothing could include a shear-thickening capability that not only disperses the impact of a gunshot or blast, but potentially harnesses and transfers that energy for its own internal energy system.

There is no end to modernisation as many countries have realised. It is an expensive process as technology and tactics keep it dynamic. Can the Indian Army upgrade the entry level of its soldier to absorb and deliver the requirements of fighting in the modern battlefield? Only the country, not merely the Army, can answer this question.

—The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Studies Institute

Walking the tightrope

The Centre’s submission to the apex court that troops are not mentally ready to accept women in command may seem sexist, but will they be able to meet the tough physical challenges of the job?

By Col R Hariharan |India Legal | February 19, 2020

https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/women-commanders-armed-forces-walking-tightrope-88805

ALL troops won’t accept women commanders: Government to SC,”  “India’s soldiers not ready for women in combat”…these were some of the media headlines that flayed the government for being sexist in army selections. The centre had submitted to the Supreme Court that troops, mainly from a rural background “with prevailing societal norms” were not “mentally schooled to accept women in command”.

The case related to a few women officers (WOs) of the army challenging alleged gender discrimination in appointments and the army’s reluctance to accept them in combat arms like infantry and armoured corps and in command appointments. The government’s argument was criticised not only by the media and civil society activists but also by veteran army officers. Brigadier Rahul Bhonsle tweeted: “This claim is patently false. I had women officer commanding a signal company with great aplomb way back in 2003. Have things regressed further?”

In damage control mode, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared before the Supreme Court, said that the centre did not intend to advance the arguments that male officers cannot take orders from female officers. Appearing before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, he said that in his opinion “women must not strive to be equal to men. They are in fact above men in all respects and better than men”. He said there was no gender discrimination in matters of commissioning and appointments. None of the rules perpetuated this discrimination.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent’s argument was flawed as empirical data suggested otherwise. WOs were not on a par with male officers, she added. Justice Chandrachud, while questioning why women were not commissioned in the field, observed: “Two things are required to alter empirical data to rid any form of Gender Discrimination—administrative will and a change in mindset.”

Since 1993, the government has progressively opened up the three services for WOs in selected branches. At present, the number of WOs in the three services is—Army: 1,561; Air Force: 1,594 and Navy: 644. It works out to 3.8 percent, 13.09 percent and six percent, respectively. They are commissioned into the Army Service Corps, Ordnance, Army Education Corps, Judge Advocate General, Engineers, Signals, Intelligence, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering branches. The Army doesn’t allow women in combat roles like infantry, armoured, mechanised infantry, aviation and artillery.

In spite of the progress that the government has made so far, two operative paragraphs in its submission before the Supreme Court have drawn the ire of various sections of society. These are:

“x. Command appointments: Command of units entails setting personal example and leading from the front and Commanding Officers must do everything the troops were required to do. However, existing physical fitness standards of WOs are distinctly lower than their male counterparts. Composition of rank and file being male, predominantly from rural background, with prevailing societal norms, were not yet mentally schooled to accept WOs in command of units. Further, they also lack combat exposure in the form of infantry attachment and service with Rashtriya Rifles units.

“xi. Equal opportunity is for equals: It is submitted as apparent from the preceding paragraphs equality of WOs with male SSCOs does not exist. Some important issues are highlighted here:

“(a) Different physical standards: The physical standards for women are considerably different than men viz. in the Battle Physical Efficiency Tests (BPET). Excellent timing for males is 24 minutes 40 seconds while for women the excellent timing is 31 minutes 30 seconds, which is even below the failed standard for males i.e. 27 minutes and 30 seconds.”

It is evident that from the government point of view and presumably the armed forces’ one too, the two issues relating to WOs’ intake in combat arms are: doubts about the acceptance of women in command appointments by troops and their lack of physical standards required to lead men in combat.

Prof Srinath Raghavan, Senior Fellow at Carnegie India, was not far off the mark when he tweeted: “An extraordinary and regressive claim. Reminiscent of British Raj’s claim that Indian soldiers would never accept Indian commanders. Military training is about fundamentally reshaping norms and attitudes that soldiers bring from their social backgrounds.”

For trained soldiers “acceptance” is not an option; they have undergone rigorous regimentation to accept orders from the command. Social background is not such a big issue for the soldier within the unit as long as he is treated fairly. Those of us who have handled discontentment among troops, even bordering on mutiny, succeeded in defusing the situation only by showing them that the orders were fair and just, both in spirit and action. So the argument that women commanders may not be accepted by troops indicates the patriarchal mindset of policymakers, including political leaders, senior bureaucrats and commanders.

However, tough physical standards required in combat arms like infantry, armoured corps and artillery are a challenge. The experience of the US Army in throwing open infantry and other combat arm jobs to women soldiers would be useful to understand the professional complexities in implementing any blanket order on recruiting women. In January 2013, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta ordered all services to open combat arms for women soldiers. The services were given three years till 2016 to make it happen.

The US Army was cautious in implementing the order, although the Marine Corps had already done so. General Robert Cone, commander, Training and Doctrine Command, explained this guarded approach in the November 2013 issue of Army magazine. He wrote: “We must do this right, lest we put women and our institutional credibility at risk…The combat readiness of our well-seasoned Army must remain the first priority.”

By 2013, the Marine Corps had already exposed women recruits to the physically demanding standards required to serve in the male-dominated infantry and special operations units after considerable research. Both the Marine Corps and the Army examined the issue of lowering physical standards required for these jobs before allowing women in combat arms. The Marine Corps maintained that women would have to meet the required performance-based standards if they wanted to serve in the infantry units.

According to General Cone, a survey of 2,500 soldiers revealed that across the Marine Corps and the army, everyone, including female soldiers and leaders, insisted the standards for service in combat units should not be lowered.

The general suggested that the demands of modern combat must be considered while setting recruiting standards. The army looked at the most physically demanding tasks artillerymen, engineers, infantrymen and armoured crews must perform to determine how to measure a soldier’s ability to perform them. The respective branches sent out teams to identify 31 tasks across these “closed” arms to establish performance standards for each task through actual performance of them by trained troops.

Perhaps our armed forces need to undertake such an exercise to determine physical fitness standards required for meeting the minimum operational standards (MOS) required for each arm. It should recruit persons meeting the MOS, regardless of gender. This time-consuming exercise should be undertaken with political and organisational support of the government and the services if they seriously want to lift existing restrictions on women’s entry in all branches of the armed forces.

How do WOs who served in the Army view their experience? Captain Lekshmy Natarajan, a veteran of the Intelligence Corps, firmly believes that man and woman “are not equal and is a point not worth debate or discussion”. She felt that men and women in the organisation should function just as man and woman “by complementing each other’s strengths” as in a family. She said that “women in uniform can no doubt perform any tasks given” with their intelligence and training, “but women officers in combat should be a discussion that shouldn’t be just one for global applause or to showcase that we are at par with the world”. She added that while “femininity may rejoice the bold decision of inducting woman combatants”, only the wearer would know where the shoe pinches. She cautioned that a lot of changes would be required to be made in policies as well as in the minds of men, whom these women are to command “in risky, dangerous and hostile terrain (hostility may not be entirely external)”. The WO induction (in combat arms) should only be initiated when the ground and the elements are thoroughly prepared. She acknowledged that there was a great shortage of officers in supporting arms. It is also a given that the married WO, who is also a mother, finds it extremely difficult to cope with bizarre postings and separation from spouse and children. So it makes sense to apply WO strengths in areas where they complement the system while performing their natural duties as women.

The fact is that sexual misconduct is the real elephant in the room. The US, UK and other countries, which have integrated women in all ranks of the armed forces, have found that the issue has snowballed into a major organisational conundrum not only for the armed forces but governments as well. This issue will loom large when women are inducted in large numbers in all ranks and branches of the armed forces. This will require rigorous re-examination of the Army Rules and Army Act.

In the US, a national group of sexual assault survivors is enlisting public support to convince the presidential candidates to sign “Protect Our Defenders” to commit to military justice reforms in cases of sexual assault and rape. Out of 15 candidates, so far 11 have signed the pledge to eliminate the chain of command prosecution authority in “non-military crimes like rape and murder”. As one would have guessed, President Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Joe Walsh and Mike Bloomberg have not signed the pledge.

While ensuring that women get their rightful place to serve in the armed forces before introducing any measure to improve gender equity, it should not weaken the fighting capabilities of the sword arms of national security. That is the bottom line.