The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations was written by Samuel Huntington in the 1950s. In this book, Huntington referred to the role of a soldier vis-a-vis the State by drawing upon events and anecdotes that threw up challenges to a democracy whenever there was tension between the armed forces and the democratically elected leadership. Just as the Americans went through a critical phase of challenges thrown at the elected government by some military leaders, we too will have to learn to live with such episodes. It is often forgotten that India is a very young democracy and that both the government and the military would need to accommodate intrusions in each other’s limited space.
It is axiomatic that the soldier’s performance while practising the skills of management of violence is directly proportional to the support and aspirations of society. When military leaders are isolated from the decision-making structure of governance, the political leadership is bound to be isolated from the factors governing preparedness and morale of the forces. This in turn results in bureaucratic interpretations and increased isolation due to the trust deficit between the political leadership and the military. What are the symptoms of such isolation and what can be done to alleviate the situation?
There is evidence to show that the military is fast being identified with the police forces in the manner in which governments have tended to treat it.
By keeping the Service Chiefs out of the decision-making process, we have removed their accountability to the system, for, ipso facto, they are expected to deliver with what they have. What they should have is outside their prerogative. They follow the laws of Epictetus: “Do not be concerned with things that are beyond your power.”
Samuel Huntington also wrote about how society should treat a soldier.
CMR in India: Changing Face of the Indian Soldier
Maintain Civil-Military-Civil Maryada jealously.
SvipjaCMRChair
Author: Suresh Bangara, a former C-in-C of the Southern Naval Command.
It is axiomatic that the soldier’s performance while practising the skills of management of violence is directly proportional to the support and aspirations of society. When military leaders are isolated from the decision-making structure of governance, the political leadership is bound to be isolated from the factors governing preparedness and morale of the forces. This in turn results in bureaucratic interpretations and increased isolation due to the trust deficit between the political leadership and the military. What are the symptoms of such isolation and what can be done to alleviate the situation?
There is evidence to show that the military is fast being identified with the police forces in the manner in which governments have tended to treat it.
By keeping the Service Chiefs out of the decision-making process, we have removed their accountability to the system, for, ipso facto, they are expected to deliver with what they have. What they should have is outside their prerogative. They follow the laws of Epictetus: “Do not be concerned with things that are beyond your power.”
Samuel Huntington also wrote about how society should treat a soldier.
CMR in India: Changing Face of the Indian Soldier
Maintain Civil-Military-Civil Maryada jealously.
SvipjaCMRChair
Author: Suresh Bangara, a former C-in-C of the Southern Naval Command.
