All the three services are affected by ‘outsider’ syndrome. Decisions and responses are weighed on a ‘we versus them’ scale. ‘We’ implies a group owing allegiance to a regiment or a branch and all others are branded as ‘outsiders’. Merit becomes irrelevant. A few years back some armoured corps officers were transferred to infantry battalions as there were no command vacancies in the armoured corps at that time. They were highly competent officers and yet were treated with brazen hostility. Almost all infantry battalions resented being commanded by the ‘outsiders’.
The same is true of higher formations. Command of infantry brigades and divisions by artillery and engineers officers is considered a sacrilege by most infantry officers. According to many, only the infantry officers should command these formations. If there is opposition to the command of infantry formations by non-infantry army officers, will putting them under Naval or Air Force officers be readily accepted?
Such an attitude is not limited to infantry alone. ‘Outsiders’ are considered a threat by all. Similar attitude was at display when questions were raised about letting a helicopter pilot, an ‘outsider’; occupy the top appointment which was considered to be the exclusive domain of fighter pilots.
Fear of Loss of Domain and Independent Identity
Services guard their turf with fierce fanaticism. Every proposal that affects a service’s span of command faces strident resistance. Services want jointmanship but with an assurance of protection of their domain, whereas jointness has to result in a reduction of domain of each service to prevent duplication/triplication. Conservation of resources and effort is one of the primary objectives of jointmanship.
The degree of apprehension can be gauged from Air Marshal Jayal’s views, “The army’s case for transferring medium and attack helicopters to it has merely given us a sneak preview of the old mindsets that still prevail in all service headquarters beneath the veneer of jointmanship and bonhomie.” According to Major General Ashok Mehta, the greatest fear of the Air Force is that it will be marginalised under the new dispensation.
Admiral Nadkarni was very frank to admit, “The Army is 20 times the size of the Indian Navy and 10 times the size of the Air Force. The first priority of the Air Force and Navy and their Chiefs in India is to maintain their identities.” He further acknowledged that the two smaller services were wary of too much jointmanship lest they and their achievements got swallowed up by the bigger service.
Lack of Exposure during Formative Years
Human beings are products of their environment. Their ethos, attitudes and disposition are tempered by the environment in which they operate and what they imbibe in their formative years. Many officers never get an opportunity in their formative years to serve in an open environment. Some remain cosseted in highly sheltered appointments throughout their careers, either within their corps or under their regimental superiors.
Due to lack of adequate exposure, they fail to acquire broader vision with advancement in career and remain encumbered with local issues. To them, national or inter-service matters are far too remote to be of immediate concern. Their apathetic deportment towards jointmanship is a result of their inability to grasp and fully appreciate criticality of jointmanship.
Concern for Personal Interests
According to Janowitz, in the civilian image, military officers are the personification of Max Weber’s ideal bureaucrat. They resist change, prefer status-quo. They are also acutely aware of their personal status – both formal and informal, as status provides a sense of fulfillment in the highly hierarchy-conscious services. To them, jointmanship portends uncertainty and role ambiguity; whereas they want to be assured that their status would not be adversely affected. They dread loss of exclusivity and privileged standing.
It is only human to be concerned about individual interests. Promotions are an important aspect of an officer’s aspirations. Vacancies at higher levels are extremely limited. Tri-services environment after the implementation of jointmanship is bound to be highly competitive and challenging. Overall merit and not corps/regimental seniority will determine higher military leadership.
Apprehensions about likely curtailment of promotional avenues and reduction in vacancies under the proposed dispensation weigh heavily on many. This sense of insecurity manifests itself by their being wary of jointmanship.
The Way Forward
A two-track approach needs to be followed. First, concerted efforts should be made to change attitude of military leadership to pave the way for smooth introduction of jointmanship measures. And secondly, the Government should adopt a more pro-active stance and intervene effectively to force the pace of reforms.
Acceptance of jointmanship is contingent to progressive development of broader vision of military leadership. Military commanders have to be groomed to rise above narrow issues to think big. There is, thus an urgent need for a thorough transformation of mindsets and attitudes. But it is not going to be an easy task.
As seen earlier, attitudes in the services are formed by regimental environment (traditions, precedents, norms and conventions), personal beliefs and experience. Manipulation of these seminal factors can facilitate management of attitudes. See Figure 1. Some of the suggested measures have been discussed below.
Common Uniform without Regimental Entrapments
All visually differentiating entrapments should be abolished. Regimental identity should be limited up to the rank of Colonel. For all senior ranks, there should be a common uniform with no regimental badges.
The three services could even have a common rank structure. This is one single step that shall alter the mindset of officers and act as a unifying factor. They will start identifying themselves as Indian defence officers rather than be always reminded of their own service and regimental affiliations.
Abolish the Institution of Colonel Commandant
To start with, a Colonel Commandant was like a father figure who acted as a ‘conscious keeper’ of the regiment and a guardian of regimental traditions. His basic duty was to foster esprit-de-corps. However, over the last few decades the concept has got totally distorted as some over-zealous Colonel Commandants take it upon themselves to obtain undue advantages for their regiments, apparently at the cost of the more deserving. Presently, it has degenerated into an anachronistic institution that inhibits progressive thinking and restricts the focus of senior leadership to petty issues. While heading the ‘whole’ they identify themselves with a ‘part’ and fail to rise to higher plane.
Cross-functional Training in Integrated Setup
All one star (Brigadier and equivalent) and higher officers must serve alternate tenures in inter-services environment. It should be a mandatory requirement. Future promotions must take due cognizance of their performance under officers of the other services. Senior officers must also be imparted transformational skills. They should be competent to lead integrated setups and mould their subordinates into cohesive functional teams. They must understand psyche of officers drawn from different services and interact with them with empathy.
Evolution of Long Term Transparent Policy
Members identify themselves with an organisation only when rules are applied in an impartial, non-arbitrary and transparent manner. No individual is going to subordinate his personal interests to organisational interests unless there are strong merit-performance ethical linkages in place. Transparency in policies, selection criteria and selection process will go a long way in generating confidence in the fairness of the system.
Frequent changes in policies breed uncertainty and uncertainty gives rise to apprehensions. For willing acceptance of jointmanship by all, it is essential that an environment of continuity and permanence be assured. There should be an institutionalised arrangement for collegiate decision making with long term policy. Decisions must not be inconsistent or capricious.