The case for conscription

The Army Chief recently announced that he intended a force reduction of 50,000 men to make more money available for new equipment. These are emergency measures. What is required it a totally new approach if a sizeable force of over a million is to be maintained. The Army was about 3-lakh strong at independence and remained so until the Chinese war of 1962. That setback saw it grow to about 8 lakh. In the past twenty years it has grown steadily and now stands at about one and a quarter million. Add to that the nearly half-million strong para-military forces and you have a huge manpower to pay, feed, clothe and house.

Fully 60 per cent of the Army8217;s budget of about Rs 16,000 crore is spent on manpower-related costs. Twenty years ago this figure was 40 per cent. There is little chance of reducing this figure unless the Army looks for other means to reduce manpower costs. It needs to look at limited conscription.

Every country expects its young citizens to serve in thearmed forces in war or an emergency. Most western countries, including the United States and Britain, required their young population to serve until recently. Of course, being a dirty word conscription8217; is normally replaced by such euphemisms as draft8217; or national service8217; in these countries which used it not to cut costs but to make up the manpower shortfall during the two world wars, Korea and Vietnam. But the draft always remained unpopular and the US got rid of it after the Vietnam war by downsizing the Army and increasing pay and incentives. Today it is an all-volunteer force.

If India decides on limited conscription it can hardly follow the American way. It should look east for its role model. At the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union had an army of over 3 million. China and Vietnam still have large standing armies. How do these not-so-affluent countries maintain such large forces? By compulsory military service for their youth. In socialist countries it is drummed into every school child8217;shead that he owes three years to the nation. Each citizen is required to serve in the armed forces between the ages of 18 and 21. This well-educated and surprisingly motivated manpower makes up the vast majority of the armed forces of these countries.

During these three years the soldiers are clothed and fed at government expense. They get a petty stipend as 8220;pocket money8221;. They live in barracks. There is no question of leave. Yet a vast majority undergoes the hardship quite willingly and is proud of its little contribution. On completion of their stint they happily resume civilian life. Apart from the saving on pay the state also saves on housing, pension and welfare.

There are, of course, other benefits. A majority of the conscripts are high-school graduates and bring to their job a higher educational level than the ordinary soldier. After their military service they provide the country with disciplined manpower and a well-trained reserve in times of emergency.

The question of limited conscriptionin India has come up from time to time. In the past the Army leadership has shown extreme reluctance to go in for conscription. Asked about this alternative some ten years ago an Army Chief said: 8220;The Indian Army is proud to be an all-volunteer force. The esprit de corps, the elan and the fighting tradition all come from an all-volunteer, in-for-life force. We will never allow the fighting ability of the Army to be diluted by conscription8221;. He conveniently forgot to mention that conscripts, the 90-day wonders, whose gallantry, heroism and determination far outstripped that of professionals, won both world wars. The all-conquering Red Army was mostly made up of conscripts. And so was the vast majority of the American and British armies.

Limited conscription will yield several benefits. India, with its embarrassment of manpower, can be selective. A three-year armed forces tenure can be made a prerequisite for college- and civil-services entry. The services will gain from an educated crop of men.Nearly a million men can be inducted each year for a three-year tenure who will meet the Army goal of keeping the service young. The nation will have a million disciplined and well-trained men each year, bringing to their civilian life self-confidence and maturity. The Army will take youth and give the country men.

Make no mistake, conscription is bound to be unpopular. In most western countries it is invoked only in dire emergency. In India, where people in power see the Army as a public-sector enterprise, open to patronage and nepotism, it will be opposed by all political parties. Populist politicians, unable to take unpopular decisions, are unlikely to support such a move.

There would be other problems. Where selection is involved, corruption cannot be far behind. Selection Boards will no doubt find ways to manipulate selection to make an easy buck. But compared to the enormous savings the process will bring these are pinpricks to be suffered for the overall good.

The Army leadership, used to anall-volunteer force, is also unlikely to support any such idea, at least for the present. But minds can change, especially with political pressure. Eight years ago both the Army and the Air Force opposed the Navy8217;s proposal of inducting women in the armed forces. Today they proudly show off their women recruits.

The day is not far when the Army will find itself in the ridiculous position of spending its entire budget on manpower. However unpalatable it may seem, limited conscription appears to be the only solution.

The writer is retired Chief of Naval Staff