Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

No.1, Development Enclave, Rao Tula Ram Marg

Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010

Journal of Defence Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.idsa.in/journalofdefencestudies

Role of Military Culture and Traditions in Building Ethics, Morals

and Combat Effectiveness in Fighting Units
V. Mahalingam

To cite this article: V. Mahalingam (2013): Role of Military Culture and Traditions in Building Ethics, Morals and Combat
Effectiveness in Fighting Units, Journal of Defence Studies, Vol-7, Issue-2. pp- 95-108

URL: http://idsa.in/jds/7_2_2013_RoleofMilitaryCulture_vmahalingam

Please Scroll down for Article

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.idsa.in/termsofuse

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-
distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of
India.
Role of Military Culture and Traditions in
Building Ethics, Morals and Combat Effectiveness
in Fighting Units

V. Mahalingam*

Developing culture and traditions is one of the pragmatic ways of

breeding ethics and moral standards in the military. These moral issues
are profoundly linked to the military’s way of life and ethos, which
includes discipline and esprit de corps. Although issues like developing
a sense of belonging may be the theme while creating cultures, the
ultimate aim is to influence a soldier into becoming an ethical team
player as an instrument for winning wars. The creation and pursuit of
culture establishes common values and a sense of ownership amongst
the troops. The military family thus created prevents individuals from
doing the unethical. The pride in a soldier forces him to protect the
honor of his military family, if need be by making the supreme sacrifice.
This article elucidates military culture and traditions besides explaining
their relevance to ethics.

Introduction
The Indian defence services derive their functional rules from the values
which the society and the country cherish, such as democracy, individual
dignity, civilian control of the military, equality, integrity, fair play and
justice. It takes into account the operational imperatives to fulfil the
raison d’etre of their establishment and existence, namely, war fighting

* Brigadier V. Mahalingam, a defence analyst, is a retired Army Officer commissioned in

the Madras Regiment. His areas of interest include National Security, Defence, Security
Forces, Governance and Politics. He can be contacted at [email protected].

ISSN 0976-1004 print

© 2013 Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, April–June 2013, pp. 95–108
96  Journal of Defence Studies

for protecting the nation from external aggression and internal threats. It
adapts itself to suit the nature of employment under varying situations,
including in insurgency as well as aiding the civil authority in certain
scenarios. It respects various international laws and obligations, such
as the Geneva Convention on the handling of prisoners of war. The
military takes it upon itself the responsibility to manage violence on
behalf of the society and the state. In pursuance of this commitment,
the rules of conduct that it lays down for itself are the military ethos.
As a part of its ethos, it accepts an obligation to kill and to get killed,
if need be, to protect the integrity, dignity, values and objectives of
the nation on behalf of the people. The people and the country need
to recognize such unconditional sacrifice and accept their part of the
obligation towards the defence services. It is an unwritten two way
contract.
To fulfil its part of the contract, the military develops its own ways
of achieving the ultimate by instilling fighting capabilities, both physical
and psychological, by a process of training and motivation. Developing
military culture and traditions is a part of this process. Where the
government falters on its part of the obligations or the society accepts
moral degradation as a way of life, the military cannot be expected to
remain unaffected. Its ethos, traditions, customs and values then come
under tremendous pressure affecting its war-fighting capabilities.

Developing Culture or Teaching Ethics?

Individual soldiers do not fight or risk their lives for the nation or the so-
called national loyalties. It is their self-esteem, pride, sense of belonging
and commitment to the military family, the unit, which motivates them to
make the supreme sacrifice. It is the ego in him that prevents a soldier from
being seen as a coward by his colleagues and leaders with whom he has been
associated with, right through his career. Achievements of an individual
soldier, excepting when he is decorated with an award, seldom get noticed
beyond his colleagues and officers. Like any other human being, a soldier
craves to be recognized. A leader who recognizes this phenomenon and
makes use of it by providing an opportunity to the soldier to participate,
learn and contribute to his immediate environment empowers individual
soldiers to achieve recognition. The process of providing the right kind
of opportunity to the soldiers to achieve recognition, developed over a
period in a military unit, is a culture of their own. Once a soldier achieves
 Role of Military Culture and Traditions ... 97

recognition and establishes himself as a useful member, he is left with no

option but to preserve his own pride, if need be by risking his life, well
beyond the call of duty. A soldier who has been motivated to achieve such
a state of mind is, in fact, the true soldier. Such soldiers cannot but be
ethical. The motive is the same—to preserve their own dignity in the eyes
of their colleagues.
To be ethical or to follow a moral code is a mindset. Lectures and
pamphlets do not change the attitudes of people—least of all the soldier
community. It doesn’t convince people. It, therefore, follows that ethical
training, especially the deliberate bookish ways of preaching ethics and
moral values, may not be the logical way of approaching the issue. It is
traditions and culture developed over a period and followed in units that
ingrain ethical qualities in the soldiers. Cultures are a discreet means of
influencing thinking and habits without sermonizing. To be able to follow
a culture implicitly or make it binding on oneself demands individual
discipline, character, and the willingness to place group interests above
one’s own self. Where a military unit has been able to build that attitude
in the troops by practice and example of their leaders, ethical qualities and
moral values are automatically cultivated. Where such a culture is lacking,
it is for the officer class, and especially the commanding officer (CO), to
institute them.

Understanding Military Culture and Traditions

Theoretically speaking, culture essentially means customs of a particular
civilization or group improved by mental or physical training and practice.
Traditions, on the other hand, are those customs, opinions or beliefs that
are handed down to posterity. Military customs, culture and traditions
are essentially certain practices and methods of functioning or doing
things that have been developed and refined over a period of time and
are followed in a unit. These methods need to be in consonance with the
philosophy and belief of the specific group of troops. These are experiences
which have been practised and gone through under trying conditions, and
been found useful. It helps in managing stressful situations in an external
environment. It is also an approach to developing internal integration.
It is borne out of an experience-based conviction as to what is correct,
ethical, good and suitable to be followed in a military unit to shape it into
an effective fighting machine. Culture needs to be flexible and adapt itself
to be able to cope with changing technologies, advancements and the
98  Journal of Defence Studies

environment. That does not imply acquiescing on values, ethics and the
ultimate goal of withstanding the pressures of war.
The link between ethical values, discipline and the pride of belonging
to a group for developing the war-fighting capabilities of military units
is undisputable. The underlying purpose of evolving certain culture
in military units is to build character in the troops so as to be able to
achieve the ultimate, namely, combat effectiveness. It binds soldiers, their
leadership, and provides a sense of purpose and worth. Such bonding,
to be effective, cannot but be evolved based on shared ethical values.
Discipline provides a platform for practising ethical values and follow
accepted norms and moral standards. In other words, a disciplined way of
life automatically habituates a soldier to accept ethical and moral qualities
as the right way of life.
The regimental system that evolved and is in vogue in the Indian
Army has proved useful and has stood the test of time. It has been a
repository of traditions and culture. It recognizes the fact that lack of
continuity and frequent changes of manpower, especially in a fighting
unit, is not conducive to building the level of group cohesiveness needed
for war fighting.
It, therefore, follows that discourses attempting to tinker with the
regimental system in the Army as well as with the traditions and customs
of the military need to be restrained. Ill-informed discourses may
unwittingly cause critical damage to the organization’s fighting capability.
The fact that numbers alone do not constitute a combat force, or rhetoric
does not produce troops willing to make the supreme sacrifice, needs to
be realized. War fighting and winning wars is the business of the military
and they understand their needs better—based on their experience and
expertise in handling troops. These are matters best left to them.

Building Ethics through Discipline

My first unit had, over a period, developed a culture of questioning and
pointing out shortcomings even though the deficiencies by themselves
were not very important or serious. Apart from being a way of training
and imparting knowledge, such a culture also enabled the recognition of
inadequacies and taking corrective actions. The rules were same for all
ranks. No exceptions existed for the officers or the Junior Commissioned
Officers (JCOs). Where it involved non-implementation, violation
of orders or failure in training standards, the defaulter was sure to be
 Role of Military Culture and Traditions ... 99

reprimanded, not through the medium of the Army Act but through the
unit’s own ways.
It was the second day after the battalion had camped on the side
of a river in preparation for the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War. The day was
abnormally sultry and hot. Water was a scarce commodity as it had to
be transported from an authorized water point established under the
arrangements of the Brigade Headquarters. Orders had been issued
not to use the river for either bathing or drinking purposes as that
would inconvenience the civil population. We were told that a proper
bathing point for troops would be established in the river by next
day.
The Support Company, in which I was a platoon commander, had
five JCOs, all of them exceptional in their own way. After an exciting
basketball game, Subedar Madhavan Nair, a command swimming
champion and a basketball team member, decided to take the company
JCOs out for a swim in the adjacent river. That evening when I went for
the evening roll call (a parade where all the soldiers of the sub-unit are
accounted for, orders for the next day passed, and the troops suggestion
on administrative issues heard and resolved), I found all the four JCOs
in their big packs in the presence of the men who were comfortably
dressed. Subedar David, the senior JCO, though of the same rank as the
other JCOs in the company, had seen the JCOs coming back from their
bathing expedition and had instantaneously ordered the punishment for
violating orders. Nothing could send a clearer message to the troops—the
code of conduct is equally applicable to seniors irrespective of their rank
or seniority. Though the punishment was meted out right in front of the
troops, none contested the punishment and that was an acknowledgement
of their guilt.
Similarly, on induction of our battalion to Arunachal Pradesh, a moun-
tainous area, the CO had ordered that every individual in the battalion
had to pass the Battle Physical Efficiency Test in excellent standards to
be able to cope with the difficult terrain in which we were required to
operate. Troops were given time to practice and were warned that those
who fail to qualify would be required to undergo extra training for two
weeks during the afternoon break before they could be re-tested. The day
arrived and unfortunately, the CO, Lieutenant Colonel A.O. Alexander
himself, known for his uprightness and strictness, failed to qualify the
test by a few seconds. At sharp 2 p.m., the CO was there along with
100  Journal of Defence Studies

the other who had failed the test, in his packs for the extra training. He
continued with his training for a fortnight like any other soldier and
ultimately passed the test. The CO had set a personal example by sending
an unambiguous message across the unit that when it comes to mistakes,
deficiencies and corrective action, the officers were no different from the
troops. A culture had been evolved and a tradition set.
Obeying one’s own orders was a professional ethic which was
inviolable. The leaders cannot be out of the ambit of their own directives
or the unit’s culture. In the Madras Regiment, one could not give blind
orders and expect men to obey. The rationale behind every order had
to be explained and be allowed to be questioned by the soldiers. This
process enabled individual soldiers to own the orders. These traditions
over a period of time enabled the men to see the logic of doing the right
things on their own without being watched or through the threat of
punishment. Discipline and obeying orders became a way of life. None
complained when ticked off or punished for one’s shortcomings or for
failure to follow orders. Over a period, the orderly room procedure
where offenders were marched up to the CO and punished became
redundant.
The spinoffs of discipline are very many. It establishes clear sets of
norms, ethics and moral standards in a unit. It enables the members
of the team in a unit to predict the reaction of the others in any
situation. Once a decision is taken, self-discipline guarantees its faithful
execution. It precludes adoption of unethical means by its members
and minimizes confusion and disintegration in highly intense battle
situations.

Developing a Culture to Create a Sense of Belonging:

An Approach to Maintaining Moral Standards
In regiment-based infantry battalions and armoured regiments, once a
soldier is posted to a battalion after initial training, he remains a part
of it till he retires and walks into the civvy street. Those who go out of
the battalion on Extra Regimental Employment (ERE) or instructional
appointments return to their parent units after their tenure. This provides
continuity in maintaining systems and traditions. Bad apples changing
the basic character of the unit are unlikely to survive and flourish in such
a system. There is a saying in the Army, not without a reason, that a good
unit can carry three bad COs.
 Role of Military Culture and Traditions ... 101

Having left their families at a very young and impressionable age, with
infrequent and short visits to their homes during their career, a battalion
can very well be made to assume the role of a second home for the soldiers.
This is entirely dependent on the unit’s work culture which helps create a
homely environment, a sense of belonging. Providing a decent living and
dining arrangements, seeing off the men at the railway station, visiting
patients in the hospitals, attending and responding to their needs, making
proper reception arrangements at the railway stations when men arrive,
providing due care and respect to the relatives of soldiers when they visit
them, arranging outings, etc., are some of the traditions of a few units.
Once the bonding is created within a military unit, it is not very easy for
any individual to cross the boundaries of ethics and moral values, at least
till he remains a part of it.

Team Influence on Combat Effectiveness

When our unit was ordered to move out of Hyderabad, a peace station,
for the 1971 war, the men were directed to dispose of their families.
Due to the short notice, concerns of children’s education, security of
the family, packing, etc., they took time to decide when and where to
move the family. It was a moment for understanding and support. Time
was needed for planning; completing administrative formalities, such
as handing over the house to the Military Engineering Service (MES),
and other preparations related to the move were constrained. The unit
accordingly established a team to take over the family accommodation
from family members and hand them over to the MES. A help centre
at the railway station was established to assist men and their families to
move out comfortably. Military warrants were prepared at the railway
station, and got exchanged by a team. A second team worked to get rail
reservations or find place for the families in the unreserved compartments.
A third team provided a hot cup of tea and packed meal for the duration
of the journey. Officers were also available to make payment to troops at
the railway station if the need arose. Those who could not make it that
day were brought back to the unit and made comfortable. These were
very small measures but their impact on creating the bond between the
men and the unit was significant. Such gestures build a sense of belonging
and esprit de corps amongst troops.
The self-esteem and the pride of being a member of the battalion
that we were able to build in the men stood us in good stead during
102  Journal of Defence Studies

the Battle of Basantar, one of the fiercest battles fought during the 1971
Indo-Pakistan War. The battalion was tasked to establish a bridgehead
across the Basantar River. Orders for the attack were issued. A minefield
to the depth of about 600 metres was encountered. The first phase went
through successfully with about 8–10 dead bodies and wounded soldiers
with bullet and mine blast injuries lying and groaning in the middle of
the minefield. The second phase had to go through before the enemy
could mount a counter-attack and dislodge us from the foothold that
we had gained after the first phase. There was no time for evacuation of
casualties or removing the dead bodies from the minefield. Immediately
after the success signal was received from both the forward companies,
the CO gave the code word for the second phase to commence. The
two company commanders at the ‘Forming Up Place’ gave their
field signal for the company to get up and commence their assault.
It was a tense moment. Would they go in with all the bodies of their
comrades lying in the minefield right in front of their eyes? What if they
hesitated?
What followed was something that every soldier of the Indian
Army needs to be proud of. The men quietly got up and for some
unknown reason shouted, ‘Ganesh Bhagwan ki jai’, instead of our
usual war cry and moved on to capture their respective objectives. It
was their discipline and their resolve to fight for their honour and self-
esteem which propelled them to fight and win. The battalion suffered
201 casualties, both dead and wounded in the battle. They stood their
ground despite the four counter-attacks that were launched on the
bridgehead between 15 and 17 December 1971. The men had shown
courage of exceptional order to uphold the traditions of the Indian Army
and the prestige of their military family, the battalion. Needless to say,
they were awarded the Battle Honour and a Theatre Honour for the
action.

Delegation of Responsibility: A Tool for Empowerment,

Recognition and Creating a Systems Watchdog
16th Battalion, the Madras Regiment (Travancore), had over a period of
time developed a system of lateral as well as vertical flow of information
within the unit. The institution of the Subedar Major (SM), the senior
most JCO in the unit who had risen from the rank of a sepoy, was
strengthened by giving him the authority, respect and a standing in the
 Role of Military Culture and Traditions ... 103

unit. He monitored and acted independently on all administrative issues

affecting the unit and the troops through the JCOs. He kept an eye on
the discipline of the troops and areas affecting ethical practices. He was
accountable for the conduct of the unit JCOs. This responsibility gave
the SM as well as the JCOs the authority, recognition and a sense of
participation in unit affairs.
Every evening he met all the JCOs in the JCOs’ Mess over a drink
and got a briefing of the day’s happenings in an open forum. He gave
specific directions for dealing with administrative issues in the unit.
Where things had not happened as they ought to have, he did not hesitate
to give a piece of his mind to his fellow JCOs. The JCOs had no option
but to give the correct picture and tell the truth as they were aware of
the other channels of information flow within the unit. Every morning
when the CO came to the office, the SM was the first person to meet him
and brief him on the events of the previous day and the actions he had
instituted on various issues. The SM also had the informal mandate to
meet the company commanders and brief them on anything unusual in
their respective companies. In fact, as company commanders (Coy Cdrs)
we always found it more effective to inform the SM of any JCO not
pulling his weight for an effective remedy than taking it forward through
the CO.

Transparency: The Gateway to Ethical

and Moral Standards

The Company Havildar Major (CHM)–Adjutant channel of com-

munication flow functioned concurrently in the system. Daily, at an
appointed time, the CHMs gave all the information pertaining to their
respective companies to the Subedar Adjutant (SA) again in an open forum
and received the orders for the next day emanating from the Adjutant.
The orders were recorded and communicated to the Coy Cdrs by the
company duty NCO of the day. The Coy Cdrs gave their directions in
addition, and these orders were disseminated to the troops. The CHM
was answerable to the Coy Cdr as well as the SA and he had to deliver in
time.
The Battalion Order Book maintained by the SA was carried to
the CO by the Battalion Duty NCO. The CO thus became aware of
the orders passed to the troops through the respective CHMs, besides
having an opportunity to have a chat with the day’s Duty NCO. The
104  Journal of Defence Studies

Adjutant walked in to the CO’s office immediately after the SM to

brief him on the previous day’s happenings. This is besides the regular
communication that he maintained with the CO throughout the
day on matters relating to day to day functioning of the unit. These
are routine issues but helps one understand how the system brought
about accountability in lower functionaries and established a culture of
transparency.
The third channel that worked its way up to the CO was the troops—
CHM–Senior JCO/Coy Cdrs–CO/Coy Cdr-Senior JCO–SM-CO. The
company commanders, where necessary, walked up to the CO to give
him their inputs.
The fourth channel that worked in the unit was the Quartermaster–
Subedar Quartermaster–Company Quartermaster Havildar–Senior
JCO/Company Commander. This channel, besides providing a flow
of information pertaining to logistic issues, did sometime give certain
valuable inputs into the other areas as well. The Quartermaster briefed the
CO immediately after the Adjutant.
The two-way multichannel communication flows within the unit
kept the machinery ticking besides providing valuable inputs into the
clogs in the machinery, if any. The various functionaries in the system
were made accountable in their own spheres of control and activity. This
system provided total transparency in the running and functioning of
the unit. With so many eyes watching and channels functioning, there
was no chance for any unethical practices setting in, even unobtrusively.
This culture provided the initiative, which empowered the JCOs and
NCOs. The junior ranks automatically became stakeholders in the
system. It paved a way for individuals to maintain a high standard of
ethics and morals within their respective domain. A sense of purpose and
involvement of every single individual in the unit was apparent. The system
acted as the watchdog of ethics and moral standards. Its contribution
towards the effectiveness and war fighting capabilities of the unit were
immeasurable.
When the General Officer Commanding (GOC) the Division
decided to carry out his annual inspection of the unit a day prior to a
battle presentation on Arab–Israeli war to the officers of the entire corps,
it was nothing unusual for the SM to confidently assert that he would take
on the inspection, leaving the officers to concentrate on the presentation.
The annual inspection went off without any glitch.
 Role of Military Culture and Traditions ... 105

Do Soldiers Become Indifferent to Values when

Removed from Culture and Traditions?
The relationship between the culmination of a soldier’s affiliation with
a particular group and the lowering of moral standards and discipline
in him has not been fully studied or established. It has been noticed,
however, that individuals do change depending on the spirit prevailing
in their new environment. It has also been observed that personnel,
especially of the fighting arms, while with the unit, generally maintain a
very high standard of integrity and moral standards. On the other hand,
it is not uncommon to see some of the men who had been transferred out
of a unit to a different unit or officers on promotion to General Officers’
rank switching to the environment and the character of the new settings.
It is quite possible that this change may be the result of the individuals’
association with people of different cultural background and value
systems. It is also possible that increased financial powers, involvement in
bulk and major purchases, and lack of effective supervision and leadership
may be contributing towards the change of values. Even soldiers seem to
change after retirement to adapt to the environment, may be out of the
instinct to survive.
Is this change due to the absence of the restraining effect of the group
and the work culture to which the individual had been bound during his
tenure with the troops? Is it due to an association with an environment
which views gaining riches irrespective of the means more important
than maintaining certain moral standards? The absence of the group
environment to which an individual had been a part and which restrained
him from indulging in unethical practices is perhaps one of the reasons for
the decline in moral standards, professional ethics and even professional
performance of some of the officers as they climb up their career ladder. It
may be the reason why some of the mentally weak acquiesce to unethical
orders, pressures, becoming ‘yes men’, or use unethical means to earn
decorations or favourable Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) in their
quest to climb up the professional ladder. This aspect requires more study
and understanding. The military life caters for an individual’s social needs
and provides a sense of belonging within its own consortium. Perhaps the
fear of early retirement at a time when family commitments are at their
peak, and a realization that it will result in a huge loss of overall lifetime
income, may also be the stimulant inducing some to compromise on their
morals and ethics late in their careers.
106  Journal of Defence Studies

Services Units: Traditions and their Effect on

Ethics and Moral Standards
A comparatively lower value attached to ethics and moral standards by
some of the officers and men belonging to the services units too needs a
mention. Unlike the fighting units, the visibility of military traditions and
culture in services units is relatively diminished. In these units, officers and
men do not have permanent affiliations with specific units but are posted
to units on tenure basis. Owing to their association and the nature of their
dealings, in place of ethical cultural values, at times, certain wrong habits
and practices are formed thus fostering unethical and immoral means and
methods. Frequent changes in troops, besides providing a sense of being
in a job rather than a profession of war fighting, detaches some of them
from the community to which the soldiers are expected to be a part of.
A common approach to making money amongst various ranks and the
hierarchy erases the sense of right and wrong. The hesitation to adopt
unethical means vanishes.

What is the Solution?

Culture and traditions may not be the only solution as a rule. As the
officer class climbs up the military hierarchy, their association with the
troops and transparency in doing things become a casualty. In staff
appointments and at higher headquarters which comprise of a floating
population, customs and traditions or their effects are hardly visible.
These organizations go blindly with the attitude, values and philosophy
of the head. As the head changes, the environment adapts itself to the new
one. Under such circumstances and at that level, an attempt to bring these
officers under the restraining effect of any particular group behaviour or
tradition may not really work. It is here that a leader can make a difference
in instilling values of ethics and morals in his subordinates by personal
example. Unfortunately, in most cases, leaders at that level choose to
remain aloof and deal with their subordinates through the branch heads
rather than allowing the imprint of their personality permeating down
the line. Short command tenure is also a problem because of which the
commanders do not have adequate time to devote to this extremely
important command responsibility.
Under these circumstances, transparency in the working of the offices
dealing with procurement, civilians, contractors, vendors, etc., may be
an answer. The decision-making process in such organizations should
 Role of Military Culture and Traditions ... 107

necessarily be collective and open. Bringing about transparency within

the sections of a branch and within various branches of a headquarters
may also be a part of the solution.
In areas where the effect of a group, customs or traditions may not
work out, effective and quick punishments may be the other remedy to
instill a sense of discipline, ethics and moral values, especially amongst
the senior officer class. At the level of officers of the rank of colonels and
above, there is a need for an effective mechanism to deal with all unethical
and moral issues. Investigations and punishments on wrongdoings need
to be swift, effective and exemplary.
It may be worthwhile examining the possibility of changing the
basic structure of independent services units, especially the static ones
like the supply and ordnance depots, workshops involved in repairs
beyond the second line and units involved in procurement and supply of
medical stores and works services. The present system of administrative
control being exercised by the static formations and technical control by
the Services head at a higher headquarters, in some cases at the level of
Command Headquarters, have not worked well for a number of reasons.
Mechanisms to ensure that individuals do not gather roots or unethical
connections in some of the sensitive appointments may have to be looked
into.

Conclusion
The aim of this article is not to suggest that customs, culture and
traditions alone bring about ethics or moral standards in individuals or
combat effectiveness in military units. These are effective tools available
in the system and can be exploited in conjunction with the other means
available to the institution to bring about improvement and changes.
However, whatever we may do or attempt, the success of the effort hinges
on the professional competence, sincerity and honesty of the leaders in
command. To that end, the system of evaluating officers through the
ACRs, promotions, detailing of officers on career courses and postings,
etc., needs to follow a well thought out and transparent system. It is
the system that should decide such crucial and sensitive issues, and not
individual whims and fancies, irrespective of how high the status or the
rank of the decision-making authority is. The government has no role to
play in these areas which fall entirely within the domain of the defence
services. Individual favourites or preconceiving a succession line, at least
108  Journal of Defence Studies

in the defence services, has no place. If the areas of man management of

the leaders are faulty, corrupt or susceptible to manipulation, one cannot
expect a virtuous system to emerge out of the dirt.