Boys do cry

The general’s remembrance of an incident in which he chose to place the human needs of a young Kashmiri militant’s wife at a level higher than those of the military, demonstrates the military’s ethos of dealing with the society it protects. He was narrating the instance at his first press conference after being designated as the future army chief. The general’s response was both emotional and humane. I have since been asked if a general seen to be overcome by emotion in public is a good thing. The question has also been phrased in terms of whether men in uniform should ever be seen in tears — not much different from being told that ‘‘boys don’t cry’’.

That soldiers and generals should not display emotions is believed to be a standard to be lived up to. If and when such a person is unafraid to acknowledge the strength of his emotions, it does not make him a lesser human being. In fact, it shows the deeply held conviction that human lives are of great value to a military person. Military leaders from Caesar to Shivaji and from Stonewall Jackson to Marshal Zhukov are known to have been tearful when face to face with heroism or the human side of soldiering. Field Marshal Montgomery opined that generalship is basically a human problem and that a general must never forget that the raw material of his trade is manpower. Even in the age of war through the awe and shock of technology, and embedded journalists, the general who forgets the human face of war loses credibility with his army. War is neither a pleasure to conduct nor a joy to win. The Duke of Wellington’s comment at Waterloo that next to losing a battle winning it is the saddest part of a general’s life conveys the human tragedy of conflict. He was referring to the slaughter and casualties and the pain of losing trusted men in battle. The lives of his men should be precious to every commander and they are not to be risked without cause, nor used when other means will serve. If generals are without these human traits, they would be wanton killers like Attila the Hun or Nadir Shah.

General J.J. Singh’s combat record is a fine one in different sectors. As a battalion commander, he led his men in extremely difficult forested mountains to destroy a major insurgent camp in the north eastern region. As a brigade commander he led his men from the front in J&K and was seriously wounded. His intellectual contribution to the future operational concepts and doctrine of the Indian Army is acknowledged as a definitive one. These qualities of head and heart would make any general sensitive to the human side of operations. The Indian Army has been in intense security operations in J&K and the Northeast since the last three decades. Such operations are conducted in the awareness that citizens of our country are not to be harmed or summarily treated. Military leaders are always operating with the knowledge that operations being conducted against terrorists and anti national elements must not harm the well being of law-abiding citizens. The need to harmonise the human rights needs with operational requirements places an immense moral and ethical responsibility on operational commanders. They are constantly alert to the imperative of avoiding harm to innocent civilians. The burden which innocent citizens carry during military operations being conducted in their midst are well understood by Indian commanders. That awareness can be seen in the emotions that welled up in Gen J.J. Singh when he recalled the plight of a militant’s young bride. If soldierly and manly qualities are to be judged by an absence of sensitivity to human conditions in combat zone, it would be a travesty of the values dear to Indian Army. It would also be a sad reflection on the Indian ethos of tolerance and help to those caught in a conflict zone.

Human rights activists and civil society leaders have rightly pointed out the aberrations to this rule from time to time. The recent incidents of soldiers’ alleged excesses in Manipur and the public reaction to them are fine examples of this healthy tension between the army’s operational role and its responsibilities towards its citizens. That a general of the Indian Army can, in a rare departure from the accepted norm of insouciant military attitude, show his human sentiments, should give confidence rather than send signals of lack of self-control.

Soldiers are moved by valour and sacrifice in the line of duty. It may not be fashionable in some circles, but soldiers and officers work on bonds made in blood. That is why parades, investitures, remembrance days evoke emotions in soldiers. Soldiers prefer not to talk of their deeds, but are overcome when they describe the sacrifices of their dead colleagues. The nonchalant stiff upper lip was alright in another age of warfare. That was the age when generals ordered the charge of the light brigade and covered up the folly by highlighting the valour of their loyal men. A similar mindset drove tens of thousands of brave and unquestioning soldiers to futile deaths in Flanders. A different set of military values drive today’s military leader. A general who can be humane even as he professionally plans for today’s warfare is the requirement of modern warfare. He is a phenomenon to be welcomed.

The writer, a former lieutenant general, is the director of Delhi Policy Group