For an Army with national sinews

In the past few months the demand for a greater share for their state has been raised mainly by the chief ministers of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Defence Minister George Fernan-des has reportedly told them that their demand will be considered sympathetically. Their plea is that since historically the armed forces have been a major source of employment for people from their states, the policy is unjust. Reducing their share is causing frustration among their people, they argue, adding that instead of taking reluctant recruits from other states, thegovernment should encourage intake from amongst people who look to the forces with a sense of pride.

The plea of states adversely affected by the policy is understandable, but vital questions need answering before a final decision. Perhaps a realistic assessment of the war scenario we envisage in this part of the world will be in place while deciding on the kind of troops we need. Is the introduction of nuclear weapons in South Asia a prelude to other hi-tech weapons, which will require more brain than brawn as in the Gulf War? What will be the relevance of hand-to-hand combat in future wars in this region?

Some defence experts feel that with greater reliance on high technology, what is required is a higher level of education and training of troops irrespective of where they come from. They also quote the socio-economic and political climate to underline the need for a more "representative Army".

Others argue that when called upon to make the supreme sacrifice, the background and commitment of the manbehind the machine will still matter.

The proposed role of the armed forces in coming years, which needs to be spelt out in clear terms, could also help not only in preparing proper training doctrines but also in framing a clear recruitment policy. If the Army is to be used mainly for external aggression then, instead of ensuring equitable distribution of the fishes and loaves, the fighting capability of the troops should take priority.

However, if the Army is to continue to be used for curbing sectarian disturbances, then a mixed force is required. Significantly, a paper prepared by the Army a few years ago had stated that "growing violence, increasing communal divide and sectarian pulls leading to secessionist movements underline the need for an Army of truly national character." In fact, in-house changes in the composition of units in the Army have already been introduced in order to have an Army of an "all-India, all-class" mix in the next 25 years.

Given the volatile situation in South Asia — anda low-intensity war aided from abroad raging on the borders — it may be difficult to make clear-cut projections about how the Army will be used, unless we can think of proper alternatives like strengthening of the para-military forces.

But even if we aim for a "nationalist Army," recruitment on the basis of the RMP is not desirable. Under this system we ignore people who are keen to contribute to the national-security apparatus in favour of people who may be uninterested and who may barely meet the recruitment standards. Pragmatic steps, including the prudent deployment of troops, could ensure that "imbalances", if any, do not affect the functioning of the defence services when used locally.

Besides, bringing about equity in recruitment alone is not enough. Instilling a sense of national pride among the countrymen would automatically help remove the imbalances. This could be done by involving all organs of the state in issues relating to security, as suggested by the Army Training Command in a recentdoctrinal paper. As of now when soldiers go to battle, they draw upon the izzat (honour) of their units based on religious and class ethos to draw inspiration. Even 50 years after independence, we still grope for a credible nationalist credo to inspire the soldier to make the supreme sacrifice.