Recently, Indian politics has seen a troubling trend of introducing divisive identity narratives into all areas of public life, including, alarmingly, the armed forces. Rahul Gandhi’s recent remark that “ten percent of the population controls the Indian Army” not only shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the institution works but also poses a dangerous threat to public trust in one of India’s last truly unifying institutions.
Equally concerning is the gradual distortion caused by the political use of military symbols, uniforms, and platforms by civilian leaders, including the head of the government. In a democracy, such imagery blurs the constitutional separation between the armed forces and political authority. When elected politicians wear military uniforms or adopt martial iconography for appearances, it eerily echoes practices seen in authoritarian regimes, where the military becomes a political tool rather than a national defender.
The Apolitical Ethos of India’s Armed Forces
The Indian Armed Forces are founded on the principles of merit, secularism, and service before self. They are the Republic’s most apolitical and merit-based institution, representing unity across caste, religion, and language. Recruitment and selection are transparent and egalitarian: officers are chosen through national-level competitive examinations conducted by the Services Selection Board, while soldiers are recruited regionally but serve under a single code of discipline and honour.
In this structure, every Indian, whether a Rajput from Rajasthan, a Vanniyar from Tamil Nadu, a Meitei from Manipur, or a Mizo from Aizawl, competes on an equal footing, is trained equally, and serves equally. What unites them is not birth but the uniform; not privilege but performance.
Politicising the Barracks: A Dangerous Precedent
Caste, religion, or regional identity have no place in the chain of command. To include them in the military is to invite the disintegration of discipline and cohesion. The political rhetoric of proportional representation or caste quotas in the forces would undermine the very foundation of unity and merit that supports India’s defence capability.
Equally damaging is the symbolic politicisation of military identity when political leaders wear combat fatigues, pose with troops, or preside over military events in uniform. Such theatrics may seem harmless, but they undermine the institutional boundary between the military and politics. The uniform is a sacred trust earned through service, not used for spectacle. In democracies, the armed forces serve under civilian authority, not as political allies.
When political leaders dress as soldiers, it sends a visual message that the state and the ruling party are one, a hallmark of dictatorial rule. India’s democracy must never permit such conflation.
Diversity in Uniform: India’s True Integration
Nowhere else is India’s diversity more genuinely realized than in her armed forces. Even in traditional regiments with historic community roots, cohesion is cultural, not political. Soldiers of every caste, creed, and language serve together in regiments that fight as one.
In Siachen, no one asks what caste your blood belongs to when it freezes. In Kargil, no one checks lineage before charging uphill under fire. The Army’s diversity is experienced daily in the mess, the trenches, and the battlefield.
Undermining the National Fabric
When politicians question the social makeup of the forces or use the uniform as a political tool, they weaken the institution’s moral authority. Once politicized, the military no longer functions as a unifying national force and instead becomes a partisan instrument. The consequences are evident in countries like Pakistan and Myanmar, where political manipulation of the armed forces has resulted in coups, division, and state failure. India’s historic strength lies in maintaining its forces as apolitical. That covenant must remain inviolable.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
Rahul Gandhi’s narrative of caste-based inequality is oddly one-sided, focusing narrowly on Hindu society while ignoring caste divisions in other communities. This selectivity exposes political motives rather than social concern. His rhetoric divides Hindu unity while claiming moral high ground on equality.
In parallel, when ruling or opposition leaders blur civilian-military boundaries for optics, whether by donning uniforms, claiming military symbolism, or politicising defence achievements, they participate in a dangerous erosion of democratic propriety. Both forms of conduct, from different political camps, undermine the same principle: that the armed forces must remain beyond politics.
Secularism in Uniform
The Indian Army’s secularism is demonstrated through actions, not just words. Every festival, including Eid, Diwali, Baisakhi, and Pongal, is celebrated with equal enthusiasm. In remembrance of the fallen, only their name, rank, and regiment are mentioned; their caste or creed is never spoken. The uniform represents the tricolour, not any sectarian identity.
That sacred neutrality is the foundation of India’s national unity. To taint it with political or religious overtones is to betray the spirit of the Constitution and the sacrifices of countless soldiers who gave their lives for a cause beyond politics.
A Call for Political Maturity
India’s political class must exercise restraint and maintain institutional boundaries. The armed forces are not a means for image boosting nor a platform for electoral spectacle. Civilian supremacy over the military is a constitutional requirement, but it should never be exploited politically to dishonour the military. This call for political maturity and respect for institutional boundaries is crucial in upholding the neutrality and integrity of the armed forces.
Citizens also must reject the spectacle of leaders in military attire or the weaponization of caste in military discourse. The Army serves the nation, not its rulers; it wears the tricolour, not party colours.
Conclusion
Rahul Gandhi’s comments about caste dominance in the Army are deeply irresponsible, but they are part of a broader issue a political culture that treats every institution as fair game for ideological or symbolic exploitation. The Indian Armed Forces must remain impartial.
No politician, regardless of seniority, should ever wear a soldier’s uniform. The uniform symbolises duty, discipline, and sacrifice, rather than a political spectacle. In a democracy, the power of the sword lies in its obedience to the Constitution, not in its association with authority.
The Indian Army belongs to India — not to any party, caste, or individual.
Its uniform has no colour but the tricolour.
About the author
Lt Col Manoj K Channan (Retd) served in the Indian Army, Armoured Corps, 65 Armoured Regiment, 27 August 83- 07 April 2007. Operational experience in the Indian Army includes Sri Lanka – OP PAWAN, Nagaland and Manipur – OP HIFAZAT, and Bhalra - Bhaderwah, District Doda Jammu and Kashmir, including setting up of a counter-insurgency school – OP RAKSHAK. He regularly contributes to Defence and Security issues in the Financial Express online, Defence and Strategy, Fauji India Magazine and Salute Magazine.
*Views are personal.
CASA Very aptly and precisely worded. Needs to be propagated and included in text books in educational institutions.
Very aptly and precisely worded. Needs to be propagated and included in text books in educational institutions.