The Indian Army, traditionally grounded in professionalism, discipline, and a clear purpose, finds itself at a crucial juncture today. Subtle but significant changes at the formation level hint at an erosion of its traditional ethos. These new trends, seemingly minor in their inception, threaten the very fabric of an institution that must, by its nature, resist transient winds and political fashions. The situation is urgent, and action is needed now to steer the Army back on course.
Some military leaders have misinterpreted flexibility as a compromise in the pursuit of adaptability. Nature offers a stern warning. The tall and upright eucalyptus tree often falls at the first gust of a storm. In contrast, the Weeping Willow survives with its low-hanging, flexible branches. Yet, once a tree grows in a crooked direction, it rarely straightens. Similarly, once an institution bends unprincipled, it may never again regain its complete integrity.
Recent inclusions in briefing presentations — slogans like “Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas,” “India Vision 2047,” and “Indian Army Vision 2047” — are symptomatic of a dangerous drift. While noble in civilian discourse, these political catchphrases are not in a fighting force’s professional battle doctrine. Soldiers must be loyal to the Constitution, not the government of the day. Loyalty to transient slogans instead of permanent values degrades the clarity of the mission. It compromises the apolitical nature that is the bedrock of any professional military.
Disturbingly, officer mess traditions — integral to fostering regimental pride, dignity, and cohesion — are being diluted. These traditions, far from mere rituals, are the bedrock of discipline, camaraderie, and a shared sense of belonging that translates onto the battlefield. Their significance cannot be overstated, and their preservation is crucial for the Army’s unity and effectiveness.
The rot stems from a deeper malaise: a culture of appeasement. In their zeal to ascend to higher ranks, some military leaders bend backward to align with political narratives, even when no such demands are made. This servility is not only unnecessary but corrosive.
A telling anecdote perfectly captures the dilemma: A young officer, upon commissioning, bought a bicycle without a carrier or stand. His orderly, trying to explain the realities of military life, warned him: “Sir, if you want a career, don’t take a stand. If you want to stand, forget about your career.”
This tragicomic wisdom encapsulates the Army’s persistent struggle: principle versus expedience.
Senior officers participating in religious ceremonies in traditional attire or seeking blessings at ashrams weaken the critical separation between professional duty and personal belief. The Armed Forces must embody secularism not just as a constitutional mandate but as an operational necessity. Religious symbolism in uniformed spaces erodes trust within the ranks and fractures unity.
Public decorum has slipped. A popular meme bluntly states: “Religion is important, like your p**ick. Necessary, but not for public display.” Private beliefs must remain private, especially in an army whose strength lies in diversity.
When a Naval Chief once introduced Kurta Pyjama as formal mess attire, it was symptomatic of misplaced priorities. Thankfully, the tradition was reversed after his retirement (and an unceremonious posting abroad). This should remind all that formality, discipline, and tradition are operational necessities, not mere relics.
The Indian Army’s leadership must urgently learn from global examples
United States Army. After Vietnam, the US Army realized that political interference and a lack of professional standards had degraded combat effectiveness. The 1980s “Be All You Can Be” era focused on professionalizing the force. Officers were expected to challenge wrong orders respectfully but firmly. The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 further solidified the joint, apolitical professionalism concept. Today, political neutrality has been drilled into US officers from Day One at West Point.
British Army. The British Army, with its rich regimental traditions, has always emphasized the officer’s mess as a center of discipline and cohesion. Even today, mess dinners are formal, regimented affairs. Efforts to ‘modernize’ the British Army’s traditions are resisted when they weaken combat effectiveness. A balance is maintained between necessary reforms and maintaining core traditions.
Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). The IDF, often cited for its operational effectiveness, maintains strict secularism within its ranks despite Israel’s profoundly religious society. The IDF understands that a soldier’s religion is personal and must never influence operational decisions or unit cohesion. The IDF emphasizes performance, merit, and mission readiness.
French Foreign Legion. No military unit represents tradition, discipline, and professionalism better than the Legion. Its recruits swear allegiance not to France per se but to the Legion itself. Religious, ethnic, and political affiliations are irrelevant; only discipline, sacrifice, and performance matter.
The common thread across these forces is simple: professionalism, apolitical service, and the sacred maintenance of military traditions directly correlate with combat effectiveness.
The Indian Army must ruthlessly cull trends prioritizing political correctness over operational readiness. Slogans are no substitute for strategies, ceremony is no substitute for training, and faith parades are no substitute for field exercises.
Leadership must remember that soldiers follow orders but are inspired by leadership. If leadership compromises principles for personal gain, it sends shockwaves of cynicism and demoralization down the ranks. If soldiers see their generals playing politics, they will rightly conclude that merit matters less than flattery.
In today’s geopolitical climate, where threats are increasingly complex, hybrid, and unforgiving, India cannot afford an Army weakened from within. The Army’s Vision and Mission must be clear, coherent, and single-minded: to defend the sovereignty and integrity of India against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with honor, discipline, and professionalism.
Decision-makers must understand that the military is not an NGO, a political party’s extended arm, or a religious institution. It is a brutal, necessary instrument of national power. The state commands it but must also respect its need for professional independence.
History is replete with examples of armies that lost their way when professionalism was sacrificed at the altar of politics. The collapse of the Imperial Russian Army during World War I, mainly due to politicization and loss of professional standards, serves as a dire warning. When soldiers lose faith in leadership, the center cannot hold.
Similarly, Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army, despite having superior numbers during the Gulf War, crumbled because of sycophantic leadership and political interference. Loyalty to the ruler replaced loyalty to military professionalism, leading to catastrophic defeat.
Therefore, the Indian Army must fiercely guard its traditions, ethos, and independence. Leadership must internalize the simple truth: Professionalism, secularism, and integrity are non-negotiable.
A storm is gathering. Those who believe that slogans will substitute for steel are dangerously mistaken. Only a military rooted deeply in tradition, professionalism, and ruthless clarity of mission will weather the storms ahead.
Let the Indian Army be that Eucalyptus tree — tall, strong, and unbending—not a Weeping Willow, bending to every passing gust.