THE FAITH OF A WARRIOR
IN TODAY’S WORLD, WHERE ‘PATRIOTISM’ AND ‘NATIONALISM’ ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY, DEFINING THESE TERMS IS NO LONGER A SIMPLE MATTER
ONE MIGHT THINK THAT EXPLAINING the concept and meaning of patriotism would come easy to a soldier. After all, we are the most visible symbols of a group that displays its commitment towards the country by being forever ready to sacrifice lives for the nation’s honour. However, in today’s world, where ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’ are often used interchangeably—and the subject has acquired an emotive character—defining patriotism is no longer simple. Personal biases may also creep in, and it could be argued that my perception of patriotism could be completely different from another soldier’s.
A possible way around this predicament is to look at the issue of patriotism from an organisational, rather than individual, perspective. The military is not an ad hoc group of people, but a profession with a unique and distinct character. Morris Janowitz, in his classic work, The Professional Soldier, states, ‘[A] profession is more than a group with special skills, acquired through intensive training. A professional group develops a sense of group identity and a system of internal administration. Self administration… implies the growth of a body of ethics and standards of performance.’ In a military, individual inclinations are subordinate to the group identity and professional ethic of the organisation. It is this professional ethic of the Indian military and its link to
patriotism that I will attempt to describe.
In the military, we are completely comfortable with displays of love for our country and our flag. The Indian tricolour flies in every unit and over each post on the border and drapes the coffins of our martyrs. The national anthem plays during all formal and informal events, and we stand tall and proud. We are willing to lay down our lives to defend India’s territorial integrity, both from internal and external threats.
But we also do not see patriotism in merely symbolic or geographic terms; it is also in the promoting and defending of India’s national values.
Walter Berns, in his book, Making Patriots, defines patriotism as devotion not only to a country but also to its principles and, equally importantly, an understanding of these principles. To this, I could add the practice of the principles as enshrined in our Constitution; and this is where the military stands out. Equality, secularism and fraternity are essential parts of the military’s culture, not merely because they are morally desirable, but because they are indispensable to our way of life.
All men in uniform are equal. There are soldiers of all castes, creeds and colour; Jats,
Brahmins, Mahars, Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Marathas and Nagas play together and fight together. Whatever be the caste equations back home, they are left behind when a soldier puts on his uniform.
There are no more or less important jobs among soldiers. In battle, infantry soldiers always lead the attack to rout the enemy from their defensive positions. Behind the infantry is a group of cleaners, barbers, drivers and cooks who constitute the ‘immediate replenishment team’. After the objective is captured, this team carries forward the essential resupplies of ammunition, water and food for the infantry soldiers and brings back the wounded for treatment. Victory depends on each and every person of a unit working together.
Within the military, there is an easy and equal acceptance of all religions. Religious practices are encouraged and, in a single class unit, there is generally a compulsory mandir, church or gurudwara function on Sunday mornings. As officers, we adopt the religion of the soldiers we command, and it never conflicts with our own religious beliefs. In units with a mixed religious composition, there is a common prayer hall called the Sarv Dharam Sthal, in which the statues of Lord Rama and Jesus, the Guru Granth Sahibji and the photograph of Holy Kaaba nestle under the same roof. This concept of the Sarv Dharam Sthal has now found universal acceptance throughout the army.
The Constitution promises each citizen ‘fraternity’ in assuring the dignity of the individual, and the unity and integrity of the nation. Fraternity is a sense of brotherhood among all communities, and this concept has been well known to soldiers throughout history. The military is known as a band of brothers, a term used
EQUALITY, SECULARISM AND FRATERNITY ARE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE MILITARY’S CULTURE, NOT MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE MORALLY DESIRABLE BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE INDISPENSABLE
in Shakespeare’s Henry V, in which the king exhorts his soldiers with these words before the battle of Agnicourt in 1415:
“From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother”
We are all brothers in uniform; status, community, wealth and background have no meaning. When I was attending the Higher Command course, my list of good friends included names like Xerxes Adrianwalla, Azad Sameer, Satya and Chacko Ipe. We were all like one big family, celebrating each other’s successes and sharing moments of grief.
You may well ask why I talk here about the Constitution of India. It is because every officer and soldier, when they enter service, takes an oath swearing that they will “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, as by law established”. We also see the military as a microcosm of India, and we feel that it is our patriotic duty to promote, within our own organisation, the values and principles on which this country was founded.
Walter Berns has defined a patriot as being “more than a citizen or mere inhabitant of a nation; he has to be devoted to his nation and be prepared to defend it”. As soldiers, we are willing to lay down our lives in defence of India and are thus automatically patriots. But we do not flaunt this; in fact, any excessive display or talk of patriotism is actually discouraged. One reason for this is that a debate on patriotism could sometimes acquire a political colour, and politics has generally been taboo as a subject of discussion.
T he second reason is more functional. Patriotism, while always present at the back of your mind, is not considered a major factor with which you can motivate men who are going into battle. As S.L.A. Marshall points out in his well-known book, Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War, ‘It should not be expected that pride in a uniform or belief in a national cause are of themselves sufficient to make a soldier steadfast in danger…it is unworthy of the profession of arms to base any policy upon exaggerated notions of man’s capacity to endure and to sacrifice on behalf of ideals alone.’
There have been many studies on what makes men willing
to walk into a hail of gunfire, fully aware that many of them will not be alive to see the next day. Most of these studies point to unit cohesion and the quality of leadership as key determinants of success in battle. Military values like courage and honour also have a powerful influence on how soldiers act when facing imminent death. ‘When rewards become meaningless and punishment ceases to deter, honour alone retains the power to make men march into the muzzles of cannon trained at them’, writes Martin Van Crevald in his book, Transformation of War.
Therefore, the military focuses on providing good leadership and inculcating the values of courage, loyalty, honour, integrity and unit pride among its officers and men. A unit that can perform competently in war would be best accomplishing the duty that a nation requires of it. This was clearly reflected in the Kargil War, where junior leadership and unit cohesion led to victory against seemingly insurmountable odds.
There is a lot of debate these days on nationalism versus patriotism, on symbolic patriotism versus blind patriotism. The arguments on both sides are well known, and depending on which side of the ideological divide you sit, you could easily defend your viewpoint. However, what is important is that nobody should be forced to adhere to somebody else’s brand of patriotism. As George Orwell wrote in his essay, ‘Notes on Nationalism’, ‘By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.’
For those of us who are or were soldiers, true patriotism lies in defending the integrity of the nation and protecting the principles and values on which our great country was founded. This is demonstrated not only in the Indian military’s performance in battle, but also in the character and professional ethic of our organisation.
Lt. Gen. D.S. Hooda is former General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Indian army’s Northern Command
PATRIOTISM IS NOT CONSIDERED A MAJOR FACTOR BY WHICH ONE CAN MOTIVATE MEN GOING INTO BATTLE; STUDIES ON WHAT MAKES MEN WILLING TO WALK INTO A HAIL OF GUNFIRE POINT TO UNIT COHESION AND LEADERSHIP AS KEY DETERMINANTS