"Think about your own welfare and safety last".
That is the solemn oath made by gentlemen officers as they graduate from the Indian Military Academy and the Officer's Training Academy. Most of them live by that
promise and abide by it throughout their selfless service to the nation. Some have even laid down their lives in the process.
However, a few do distinguish themselves by doing exactly the opposite. They earn neither respect nor honor from either civilian or soldier.
They pose a grave threat to the common citizen as well as to the men under their command - whose lives and welfare lie directly under their power.
But there is nothing much anyone can do about it.
Our state gives them the unreserved right to arrest, abuse, torture and shoot for the cause of a supposed greater good. There would have been no problems with
any or all of the above, except for the fact that the ones arrested, abused, tortured and shot are most often the most innocent ones.
They did nothing to deserve any or all of it. And there was nothing they could do about it. Except be broken further. And all because of the command given by one
altruistic, all-violating, almighty officer.
KPI(Kangpokpi) has been in the news recently because of the actions of the 14th AR. Or to be precise, because of the actions of the officer commanding its post here.
It is to the credit of the KPI women that they took a united stand and secured the release of an innocent man. Another man in nearby Kalapahar was not so lucky.
He led from the front and entered a firefight without so much as an officer's commission. And unfortunately, without body armor or weaponry as well.
With their ability to unleash war, officers in command are expected to exercise extreme judgement when dealing with various affairs.
Their entire training and experience during their careers, and during the various courses, are designed to equip them in logical thinking and mature judgement.
So the question is, how could officers show such utter lack of judgement in the above cases? Conversely, how could an officer lacking in this particular
quality come to occupy command of this sensitive post?
Is there a flaw in the selection process, which allows such officers to rise to positions for which they are not qualified?
India's armed forces have some of the most severe selection procedures in the country. To start with, more than 50,000 young men apply to enter the services
as officers each year. After a written test and a selection process, only about 300 of these are selected to enter the portals of the prestigious National Defence Academy.
At every step in the ladder of promotion, the unfit and unworthy are weeded out. Out of a batch of 100, only 50 will make it past the first selection,
to the rank of lieutenant colonel. More drop out as they reach higher. Just 25 will become colonels and 10 brigadiers. At every stage a board consisting of
many senior officers sifts through the reports of officers being considered, eliminating those who do not make the grade.
The final list is then further scrutinized at the chief's and then the ministry's level. At very senior levels the ACC has the final say.
It seems inconceivable that an undeserving candidate will slip through this iron-tight system.
The flaw lies in the system itself. In all services the criterion for any promotions is performance and in the absence of any periodic written examination,
the only way of judging performance is through the annual confidential reports. In any system where one officer is reporting on another, there is bound
to be subjectivity.
Junior officers cultivate seniors, become favorites and eventually get outstanding reports. The system expects to beat this by rotating officers so that they
are reported upon by different officers. But the seniors have been known to keep the same officer with them for a number of years, eventually making sure
he is promoted as a result of five or six reports written by a single officer.
Each service has its own flaws and faults. If the criterion for the job of chief minister depended on skilful driving then possibly a Moreh line Sumo driver may
be the best suited. The army also has its problem of regimental loyalties. Some of these traditions have persisted for years. The services seriously need to
introspect to determine whether these time-honored systems have produced the desired results.
By now each service has had its quota of problematic and undeserving officers. A detailed scrutiny, preferably by an outside agency, is necessary to
put the entire system under a microscope and remove what is indeed rotten.
It is a fact that a major stressor in many officers' lives is the knowledge that they are repeatedly involved in job-related situations they know they can't win,
i.e., they have learned that they are helpless. So how does this fit with the officer(s) we've seen who 'go bad?'
Consider: Virtually, none of these officer's started out bad. What you see when you look at the clinical history of these individuals is interesting.
There is, often, a learned helplessness at work in these cases. Moreover, any investigator who takes the time to look will discover a progressive symptomology,
i.e., small problems, over time, turning into big problems.
Frequently, the only way an officer can make his or her problem clear to their agency is to complain in a way that is sure to get attention, i.e.,
you're in law enforcement--break the law. This conduct does not have to be conscious or intentional on the part of the officer.
This being said, however, in treating officer's with problems problematic behavior is not condoned--I believe we are all accountable for our actions.
If an officer wants respect, he has to earn it. If he doesn't earn it, his men can make him wish he had. But no matter how a man manages to make officer,
it's important that he treat all men well if he wants to win their loyalty.
* Thathang Lunghang , a resident of Kangpokpi - Manipur, writes regularly to e-pao.net
This article was written on 19th February 2005
and was webcasted on 25th February 2005
|