Trauma in the ranks

How we should respond to the episodic fratricides and suicides in the uniformed forces

The Westphalian system created the modern nation state as well as the concept of national armies, thereby providing an institutional model for the control of violence. Within this overall ambit each country evolved a unique model of organisation of uniformed forces, based on its security needs. The Indian Armed Forces has been following the British model of regimentation based on martial races initially and regional affiliation later. Post-independence non-regional regiments have also proved a great success. Non-combat forces, in contrast, have always been regimented at the arm and corps level. Time-tested military wisdom says that the stress of being in the line of fire necessitates an intimacy which is provided by affiliation of close bonding formed through identification with one8217;s primal roots provided by regimentation.

The para-military and central armed police have followed the non-combat model; thereby individuals are rotated from one unit to another. This has been a practice with many forces in the world which do not accept regimentation as a key factor for military socialisation. The pressures of rotation of personnel and units in militancy-affected areas and the asymmetric threats posed by terrorism over the last two decades have led to many organisational innovations in the uniformed forces such as the evolution of the Rashtriya Rifles, deregionalisation of the Assam Rifles and the Shastra Seema Bal, and dependence on an industrial security force, the CISF.

This reorganisation has not been accompanied by a process of socialisation at the unit level which could build an exclusive bond between soldiers operating at the frontline of the country8217;s fight against terror. The spate of episodic fratricides and suicides in the uniformed forces over the past few years needs to be understood in this context. The failure to create a social compact in the form of regimentation or its alternatives has led to the lack of an emotional connection with a peer group and leadership in sub-units and units based on a common set of values.

Remedies suggested include stress reduction, a cut in working hours, psychological support and frequency of leave. What is essential however is a systemic approach to address the deficiency in socialisation of organisations with disparate and heterogeneous composition placed on the edge of omnipresent threats. This will lead to greater identification of the man with his unit, his core group and the leader. It entails a simple process of developing the four C8217;s: care, concern, compassion and commitment, leading to the fifth C, camaraderie. For it is amity within the nucleus which enables a man to withstand stress. Also it is the regular buddy who first notices that something is wrong and stress is building up. A coagulation of this process within the larger organisation develops sub-unit and unit espirit de corps, a unique bond by which men will fight and die for each other.

For inveterate libertarians such regimentation is anathema as it imprisons the soul; however for men in the line of fire it is the most humanising influence in the face of constant prospects of death.