By Gen V.P. Malik (Retd)
Carl Von Clausewitz’s “remarkable trinity” is the capstone thesis of his book “On War”. This is interpreted by most theorists as comprising three important elements of the state: the people (“passions that are to be kindled in war must be inherent in the people”), the government (“political aims are the business of government”), and the military (“the scope which the play of courage and talent will enjoy in the realm of probability and chance depends on the particular character of the commander and the army”). These three elements and their relationship are the basis for armed forces’ operations. The trinity theory has highlighted the relationship between the people and the armed forces in the performance of the role by the latter.
Before World War II, despite trinity linkage, the armed forces maintained a certain aloofness (cantonment living) from civil society. There was strong attachment to military values and a clearly defined distance from civil society. With increased democratic polity of the states and ever-increasing transparency, the armed forces have got more and more integrated into the values and interests of democratic society. Wars are no longer fought by the armed forces alone. National security has become a wider, more relevant and acceptable concept. Questions are raised whenever the role and mission of the armed forces come into conflict with civil society.
There has also been self-awareness and a shift in the self-image. The armed forces have become conscious that while remaining capable of deterring and fighting an enemy, they must remain part of a larger community. The weapons of war are to be wielded against armed opponents; not against unarmed civilians, particularly co-citizens. This attitudinal transition is best explained by the neutral stance maintained by the Egyptian armed forces during the recent civil unrest in the country to oust President Hosni Mubarak.
There are some basic differences in fighting an enemy and when engaged in internal security and law and order situations. Serving and defending the nation is a strong conviction among soldiers. There is no such conviction when a soldier is involved in handling internal conflicts. The former is unidimensional in which “attack” is the best form of “defence”. The soldier’s mindset of being able to use unrestricted violence against an enemy goes through confusion when he is ordered to use force against unarmed civilians for a preferred non-violent “conflict resolution”. Public expressions of defiance like hunger-strikes, dharnas, marches and demonstrations by civilians cause acute discomfort because they run contrary to the essence of all that a soldier is taught: respect for civil society and obedience of lawful authority. There is a conflict between the larger civil society and a sub-system of the society whose identity is defined by martial honour. A soldier’s professional and social identities come into conflict. After the Operation Bluestar experience, the Indian Army succeeded in avoiding any role in the Ram Janmabhoomi conflict.
But it must be admitted that the above mentioned military attitudinal transition notwithstanding, there are many instances, including some in close neighbourhood, wherein the armed forces have intervened to take over the nation and governance on the pretext of saving it from political instability and anarchy (“defense of motherland” syndrome!). Such instances have occurred mostly where democratic institutions have not been established or have remained weak; the forces have been politicised, and/or involved repeatedly and for prolonged durations in internal conflicts. Once in power, military rulers have developed vested interests. They have misused military authority for governance and internal conflicts and not allowed democratic forces to flourish. There are several such examples in West Asia, North Africa and, closer home, in Pakistan and Myanmar. Internal conflicts in Sri Lanka and Nepal, too, have had some impact on their armed forces.
India has been fortunate in this respect. Our armed forces have not only fought gallantly on the battlefield but also consistently and impartially upheld India’s integrity and secular democratic traditions even when many other institutions have failed the nation. The armed forces enjoy their unique status in national life because they are uniquely isolated from politics. But such a situation cannot be taken for granted. It can get diluted if the armed forces are misused or deprived of their legitimate rights and status.
Let us focus on some ground realities and consequential adaptations which have been made in the strategy, doctrine, force structures and re-orientation of our armed forces for employment in internal conflicts.
With considerable experience behind us, we usually adopt a holistic strategy wherein political, economic, social, psychological and military aspects are given simultaneous attention. The aim of security operations is to arrest or eliminate hardcore militants and to deter their supporters. The rules of engagement are based on two forms of self-restraint: “discrimination and proportionality”. “Use of minimum force” principle is employed in all such operations. The forces fight militants and anti-social elements but also reassure innocent people feeling insecure or neglected due to the inadequate role of the civil administration. During sustained operations, the forces often form citizens’ committees to learn about their difficulties and hold meetings with them. Along with sustained operations, small and large-scale civic action programmes are undertaken. The Army launches projects like Operation Goodwill and Sadbhavna for this purpose.
No democratic nation can afford to give full licence to the armed forces to operate freely. Their responsibility, authority, legality and accountability have to be defined clearly.
In handling internal conflicts, armed forces have to uphold human rights. Terrorists and insurgents are under no such constraints. I have personally come across instances of terrorists taking shelter in and firing from religious places, hospitals, schools and colleges. There have also been cases where they have used women and children as shields to escape when cornered by security forces. False allegations to implicate security forces personnel in cases of molestations and rape are not uncommon. Then there is also the question of human rights and legal protection of the armed forces, ordered by the state to counter terrorism.
It is a complex situation, contrary to the conventional war-oriented military culture and training of the soldier, which requires constant explaining and asserting that as good citizens of the nation, we cannot afford to compromise on human rights. It needs to be recognised that in such operations where it is impossible to identify the difference between a friend and a foe and its stress, strain, and often deliberate provocations, aberrations cannot be ruled out. These aberrations have to be dealt with legally in a transparent manner as far as possible.
With experience, we have realised the need for specially organised, equipped, area-oriented forces to deal with insurgencies and terrorism. Rashtrya Rifles is one such force wherein Army personnel have been organised to deal with internal conflicts. These forces undertake training for local terrain, people, their language, customs and traditions. It must be admitted, however, that such conversions, orientation and re-conversions of soldiers affects the primary operational role of the Army, which is a substantial cost.
Based on personal experience, I would like to make two essential points on the employment of armed forces in internal conflict situations. First, military pressure alone and cannot resolve matters unless there is good governance and a strong thrust on socio-political and socio-economic issues. Political leadership and civil administration have to govern the states and the country with greater commitment and efficiency. Second, protracted and excessive employment of the armed forces leads to “Law of Diminishing Returns”. The reasons are (a) over-dependence on the Army reflects lack of trust and faith in the capability of the state and the Central armed police and the paramilitary forces; (b) after a while, locals start treating the Army as another police force; (c) such deployments and prolonged duties have an adverse impact on the Army’s discipline, morale and operational effectiveness. Abhorrent incidents of “fake encounters” can also be ascribed to this reason. (d) During a war or war-like situation, the Army needs public support (trinity linkage). It cannot afford to alienate the local population due to public inconveniences that go alongside such deployments.
I would like to state that although constitutionally required to help the states in internal security and maintenance of law and order, excessive and prolonged use of the armed forces in internal conflicts is neither good for the armed forces nor for the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment