The modern soldier must characterise intellectual agility, ethical clarity, and a strong sense of purpose
Cdr Shrikumar Sangiah (retd)
In India, and indeed in much of the world, a soldier evokes in people a curious mix of respect, admiration, and misunderstanding. The stereotypical image, in people’s minds, of a soldier is that of a disciplined and authoritarian figure -- stoic, fearless, dedicated to the service of the nation, and living by a rigid set of rules and standards. Portrayed as heroes, soldiers are seen as embodying strength -- physical, mental, and moral.
This stereotype is shaped by a mix of cultural narratives, media portrayals, and the military’s history of selfless service. For instance, literary works such as Rudyard Kipling's The Young British Soldier, excerpted here, serve to reinforce the soldier stereotype (besides other colonial stereotypes):
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
The soldiers, when faced with the most fearful odds, are portrayed as choosing death over dishonour -- embodying the ideals of bravery, fortitude, and unyielding mental and moral strength.
Military Leadership
The military has traditionally enforced adherence to a prescribed ‘model’ of conduct through a hierarchical organisational structure and the threat of punishment. Although this traditional approach to leadership has served the armed forces well in the past, the modern, technology-driven military requires a shift toward a leadership philosophy that leverages intrinsic motivation, personal responsibility, and voluntary adherence to the expected standards rather than one based on an authoritarian, hierarchical organisational structure.
People, everywhere, instinctively oppose authoritarianism and like to be told the whys and wherefores of the instructions that they are expected to act upon.
The hierarchical and authoritarian nature of military organisation arises from the need to exercise effective command over the troops during war. Supporters of authoritarianism in the military, proffer the argument that the need for effective military command precludes any space for tolerance or a more collegial style of management. Work procedures in the military are standardised and career advancement is strongly linked to compliance with the standardised procedures.
The increased reliance on technical skills for success in wars necessitates the softening of the authoritarian approach and a shift towards reliance on teamwork and consultative decision making. This will require military commanders to learn new ways of managing soldiers and maintaining their morale.
While the military has stringent physical and psychological entry requirements, many service members, especially those in specialised roles, may not need to fit the stereotype of the ‘ideal’ soldier. Modern militaries require individuals with specialised skills -- not always aligned with traditional expectations. For instance, the rise of cyber warfare and drone operations demand highly skilled technical personnel. In these roles, intellectual and technical capabilities count for more compared to physical attributes. The induction of technology has led to the rise of a range of newer attributes, related to specialised technical expertise, that differ vastly from the stereotypical military attributes.
The transition from an authoritarian model to one that encourages voluntary compliance with military ideals presents both challenges and opportunities. Creating a culture in which the personnel are intrinsically motivated to uphold the core values of the military, requires a more enlightened approach to leadership -- one that encourages self-discipline and a sense of purpose.
A key component of intrinsic motivation is the ability to see the greater purpose behind one’s actions. The most effective means of inspiring intrinsic motivation is for leaders to model the behaviours they expect from their subordinates. Soldiers are more likely to strive for professional competence and begin valuing discipline, ethical conduct, personal integrity, and physical fitness -- when they see their officers and superiors consistently demonstrating these qualities. The ‘leadership by example’ philosophy creates a culture where soldiers experience a sense of pride and responsibility toward the military’s ideals, rather than simply obeying instructions out of fear.
Further, intrinsic motivation thrives in an environment where individuals are recognised for their contributions and are also, simultaneously, held accountable for their actions. Rewarding achievement -- whether through formal recognition or informal praise -- will encourage soldiers to internalise the values of excellence and discipline. However, this recognition should be tied to actions that align with the military’s larger purpose and ethical code, rather than mere performance-based metrics. At the same time, by being held accountable, soldiers need to internalise that their actions have consequences, not in a punitive sense, but as part of a system that values responsibility.
The Changing Face of Military Leadership
In the early years of the 18th and 19th centuries, the professional soldiers in the west traced their social origins to the feudal nobility of Europe and the southern ‘plantocracy’ of the US. Men were born into the officer class and merit had little or no role in helping them gain entry. The feudal basis of the officer cadre led to the military leadership’s heavy reliance on tradition, custom, and social position in exercising its authority. It also tended to be conservative and given to pomp and ceremony.
During the periods before and immediately after independence in 1947, the Indian military too mirrored this trend with several members of the Indian ‘royalty’ and the local elite serving as officers, before the numbers of the professional soldier began to dominate the officer cadre.
With the nobility monopolising officership in the military, it was only natural for them to strive to protect their social position and their customs and traditions. However, with the steady infusion of technology in the military -- and as a consequence the greater demand for technical talent -- the social base of the military widened and the relative numbers of the nobility gradually began to decline. The infusion of technology also shifted the spotlight from the military leader with the ‘martial spirit’ and personal valour to the military ‘manager’ with the skills to plan and oversee the most effective use of available technology and personnel.
The officer cadre in the military has been experiencing a gradual but steady transformation. The officer cadre, now drawn from a broader social base, is more representative of wider society. While the broadening of the base has been necessitated by the growth in the size of the military and the increased demand for technically trained personnel, it also signals a move away from the monopoly of the elite over the officer corps.
The acts of preparing for and waging war require dealing with uncertainties. Organisational conservatism is the instinctive reaction to uncertainty. The increased adoption of technology and the rise of the military manager has helped weaken organisational conservatism and has spurred the professionalisation of the military. Also, even as the military has become more technology dependent and the role of the military leader as ‘manager’ has gained salience, the role of the heroic leader has not diminished.
The Colonial Legacy
A large proportion of the processes and traditions that keep the Indian military functioning carry a strong colonial imprint. The processes, traditions, ceremonies, rituals, and much of the ostentation and pomp are a legacy handed down from the Raj-era military.
Many colonial-era practices -- anachronisms in the military of any modern, sovereign state -- have been scrapped in the home militaries of the original colonising states. However, the Indian military has made little serious attempt to jettison these outdated practices and continues to retain much of its Raj-era character -- except for some superficial and cosmetic changes to a few processes and uniforms.
This should come as no surprise since many of our military academies and training establishments were set up in pre-independence India and are run based on training manuals designed to turn out brown ‘sahibs' for the ‘Royal’ Indian military. The training philosophy has undergone little, if any, revision to reflect the military’s changed circumstances. Even the training academies established in the initial decades after 1947 were largely modelled on British military academies. The academies of more recent origin have also borrowed significant portions of their training philosophies from the American, western European, and Russian militaries.
The fact that the military, that is meant to fight wars, is concerned at all with protocol, ceremony and etiquette is a paradox. The only plausible explanation for the military’s obsession with ceremony and protocol is that they serve to embed the feeling in the soldiers of somehow being ‘special’.
You must be logged in to view this content.