Illustration 2: Evolution and Modulation of Attitude towards Jointmanship
Just and Impartial Environment
For leaders, impartiality is an ethical requirement and an essential component of their functioning. Trust is the expectancy that the followers can rely on a leader’s impartial and just approach. Trust is valuable, visceral, complex and intuitive. It is an incredibly potent force and virtually non-substitutable. It flourishes on credibility that a leader enjoys in his command.
Jointmanship can thrive only if the environment has implicit faith in the fairness of the system. Impartiality means treating everyone as equal and rewarding them purely on their merit – free of service or regimental bias.
Stringent standards for non-partisan conduct have to be laid down with a suitable monitoring mechanism to rectify aberrations.
The armed forces lay a lot of stress on ‘integrity’. Of late, integrity has come to be identified solely with financial propriety, whereas integrity also entails just and impartial conduct.
Evolve Healthy Norms
Social scientists consider military as a highly structured and dynamic society which needs to follow well laid down norms for its continued sustenance. Norms are unwritten rules. Norms can be descriptive (what to do or Dos) and proscriptive (what not to do or Don’ts). Norms get evolved due to precedents and conventions set over a period of time.
Organisational researchers have concluded that precedents and organisational norms have profound effect on moulding attitude. Jointmanship is characterised by trust and confidence, mutual respect for each other’s capability and cooperation, rather than competition. A culture of synergistic relationships and mutually accommodative demeanor will contribute immensely towards jointmanship.
Governmental Responsibility
If the services continue their quibbling and jointmanship remains stalled, it is time the Government intervenes to fulfill its mandated duty. It cannot let the drift continue and force introduction of jointmanship in a time-bound schedule. The role of the Government could be in three incremental stages, as shown in Illustration 3.
Illustration 3: Government’s Incremental Role in Jointmanship
Notes:
1. The stages are neither exclusive in terms of time frame nor necessarily sequential in nature. They may and should overlap. It is for the Government to initiate simultaneous measures to keep the process on track.
2. The time mentioned for each stage is indicative in nature and is based on the normal tenures of senior military leaders.
(a) Facilitative Stage
Decision by consensus is always the most preferred option as it creates synergy in an organisation and facilitates smooth implementation. All conflicts of interest – real or perceived – must be resolved in a spirit of mutual accommodation.
As the term indicates, initially the Government should act a facilitator. However, it should make its determination to introduce jointmanship in a time-bound schedule be known to the three services in no uncertain terms. They should be prompted to adopt collaborative conflict resolution methodology and reach consensus.
(b) Persuasive Stage
Should the facilitative approach fail to yield the desired consensus, the Government should adopt a more pro-active approach. The services must be told in categorical terms that the Government would intervene compellingly in case the services fail to respond positively.
Generally, consensus building gets stalled due to the apprehensions in the minds of a few dominant personalities. When some leaders get rooted in a denial mode, they fail to acknowledge existence of any logic. It is also a well established fact that changing attitudes through persuasion is considerably difficult if the target group is intelligent and possesses high self-esteem.
It is for the Government to handle the skeptics in a more persuasive manner to put their reservations at rest and convince them of criticality of a jointmanship proposal. If handled with firmness, finesse and empathy, all military leaders will come on board as their commitment to the cause of national security remains unquestionable.
(c) Decree Stage
In case even persuasion fails, the Government should fulfill its obligation to the nation by issuing clear-cut orders to enforce jointmanship. No disagreement thereafter should be tolerated. Even the US Congress had to enact Goldwater-Nichols Act to force implementation of jointmanship. National interests cannot be permitted to be held hostage to the intransigence of a few dissenting military leaders.
Conclusion
All military commanders are professedly staunch proponents of the concept of jointmanship. In other words, jointmanship has no opponents. Additionally, jointmanship has been universally accepted as the engine that drives revolution in military affairs. Yet, the reality on ground is diametrically opposite. All rhetoric in favour of jointmanship does not get translated into ground action. Every step towards jointmanship has been painstaking and protracted. This dichotomy has been the bane of the Indian Armed Forces.
The search for recognition is one of the pursuits which all human beings indulge in and continuously strive for. As regards military leaders, their affiliation to their regiments and services generates a sense of brotherhood and intense group loyalty, thereby fulfilling their need for identity. However, it adversely affects their growth as leaders who need to articulate a much broader vision.
All soldiers are sworn to be prepared to make supreme sacrifice for national security. For them, national interests remain absolute and all other considerations become non-existent. If that be so, there should never be any opposition to jointmanship from any quarter whatsoever. But soldiers are also human. They have aspirations and apprehensions. An endeavour should be made to provide assurance to the environment that the new dispensation will be fair, just and equitable to all.
Attitudes are molded by environment. Acceptance or resistance of any change is totally dependent on the attitudinal approach of the target group. Attitudes can, however, be changed by changing environmental influences and persuasion. As seen earlier, this can be achieved through implicit and explicit measures. But it requires mature and concerted effort.
There are times in the life of every nation when hard decisions are required to be taken by the leadership. Delay or wavering can cause irreparable damage to national security imperatives. As regards jointmanship, enough time has already been lost for specious reasons. Immediate and resolute implementation is absolutely inescapable.
National security is too serious a matter to be permitted to drift. Regimental and service loyalties cannot be permitted to take precedence over national interests. If the Government and the military leadership are convinced that jointmanship is central to India’s defence prowess, they should force its implementation without wavering. Genuine concerns of all must be addressed but unjustified obduracy should not be tolerated.
Shortage of Officers in the Services
As on 01 January 2019, the Indian Army was facing a shortage of 7399 officers. The other two services face similar problem. The current state of affairs is certainly a cause for major concern both for the government and the services. A number of studies have been carried out to identify reasons for under-subscription of the available vacancies. Unfortunately, most studies have concentrated on establishing linkages between tough service life and inadequate financial packages. They have concluded