MORAL DILEMMA OF PRACTITIONERS OF
PROFESSION OF ARMS
Notes:-
1.
The
thoughts expressed my me are my own & I undertake sole responsibility for
them. A number of thoughts, ideas, sayings & basic tenets have been
referenced from various sources, which have been given in References.
2.
Wherever
I have used the words ‘he’, ‘him’ or ‘his’ is in a gender neutral sense &
should be read as ‘he/she’, ‘him/her’ or ‘his/her’.
Introduction
1.
The
profession of soldering is probably as old as the advent of human civilization.
As humans gathered together into a semblance of society, having a set of rules
& regulations distinct from other societies, the war waging capability was
required as much for protection of ‘own’ people from ‘others’, as it was
required for punishing renegades amongst ‘own’. The more we ‘civilized’, the
more sophisticated became the methods to wage war & the more blood of
fellow human beings we have shed. Slowly & steadily, soldiering got
transformed from mere means of self-protection & self-preservation to the “Profession of Arms”.
2.
The human
history is as much about the inception & development of paradigms of
civilization – art, aesthetics, culture, science, resources & preservation
thereof, as it is about the famous wars & battles that have been waged to
propagate these very paradigms. Though I agree with the saying “Peace Hath Her Victories No Less Renowned than
War”; ironically, it is the propensity for war mongering, which has brought
to fore – the best & worst in us, the human beings. Once peace has been
established, after a hard fought & cripplingly destructive war, & it
becomes part & parcel of daily life, those who stand to benefit most from
it, become the most ardent votaries of the immorality of the methods by which
the war has been fought & / or won.
3.
For the American
soldiers returning from Vietnam{1} & IPKF soldiers disembarking
in Madras{2} post Op Pawan, the humiliation they suffered at the
hands of their ‘home’ population would have been really disheartening. They
were just following the orders & couldn’t have fought without the belief in
the ‘justness’ of their cause & that of their nation{3}. Barring
exceptions, in both cases, the soldiers conducted themselves creditably &
in a thoroughly professional manner in the field. But the bewilderment &
confusion would have been immediate, & disenchantment with the ‘justness’
of their cause would have had been complete, the moment they came home. Therein
lays the moral dilemma of a professional soldier – should he fight or not, is his
cause just or not, is he being a good human being by killing others or is it
justifiable for the cause, how will his actions in field be viewed & judged
by people back home, etc.
The Profession of Arms
4.
As the term
itself suggests, wielding arm(s) & managing those wielding arm(s) requires
years of study, practice, perseverance & hard work, leading to gaining
expertise in doing so. Effectiveness in this profession is of more importance
than pure efficiency. Apart from extrinsic factors common to all professions,
certain intrinsic factors like the pursuit of expert knowledge, the privilege
and honor of service, camaraderie, and the status of membership in an ancient,
honorable and revered occupation, etc is what makes this profession a ‘calling’,
instead of a mere a job.{4}
5.
With the
assumption that military remains an important instrument of statecraft under
the political direction of civilian leadership of the nation, the ethical application of combat power – manifested
by adherence to the highest ethical & moral standards on the field by its
applicants – is an absolute pre-condition. On the other hand – much of the
law, the custom, the ritual and the training of the profession of arms owes to
the recognition that the military requires certain latitude forbidden to
civilian agencies {5}, in order to discharge its duties effectively.
This, in simple words, means granting ‘legitimacy’ for the ‘morally &
ethically illegitimate’ tasks which the Military of a nation is required to
undertake to preserve what its civilian leaders deem ‘constitutionally right’
for the nation.
6.
The modern
day soldier, thanks to the technology at his disposal & the impact of
media, is intellectually exposed & much more aware about the goings-on
about the national & international affairs. He holds definitive opinion(s)
– moral, legal, political, et al; about the practice of his profession, &
acts in a great measure, according to his opinions. He is not a mercenary, a
revolutionary or a bigoted zealot, willing to take others’ life or lay down his
own, without actually believing the justness of the purpose for doing so. For
him the answer to the questions – Why & for Whom, is an essential
imperative in order to fulfill his duties; basically his moral-ethical
conundrum. This makes managing & motivating the soldiers, a challenge for
leaders in the military & political arena.
Why & For Whom
7.
History is
replete with examples where various books, essays, poems & scripture, &
the philosophy they espouse, have come to the rescue of the embattled mind of a
soldier. A few of them are given below in subsequent paragraphs, along with a
detailed explanation, in order to act as a guide for us to arrive at our own answers
about “Why & for Whom”.
8.
“Horatius at the Bridge”. This is a famous poem composed by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The
poem describes a Roman legend in which Horatius, a guard on the bridge on river
Tiber, which separated the Roman & Etruscan territories, held back an
attack by the Etruscan King, till the time the bridge was demolished; thus
saving Rome, its territory & its way of life, from annihilation.
(a)
Excerpts From the Poem.
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or
late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his
gods.
And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal
flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of
shame?”
(b)
Explanation. In
this case Horatius fights not only for his own home & the safety of his
loved ones, but also because he is convinced about the just nature of his
cause, which is the preservation of the society, the culture & the way of
life of his people & his forefathers. Horatius’ actions may have been seen
to be reckless by some, but he was able to convince his mind & withstand
the entire might of enemy’s army, alone, due to the moral strength he sought to
draw from his ‘cause’. There is a Horatius in all of us, just that we need to
identify the ‘cause’, which is worth living & dying for.
9.
Indian Military Academy Credo. This is credo is the part of the address
delivered by Sir Philip Chetwode in 1932, during the formal inauguration of the
Academy. It states thus – “The Safety, Honour & Welfare of your
Country comes first, Always & Everytime. The Honour, Welfare & Comfort
of the men you command, comes next. Your own ease, comfort & safety comes
last, always & everytime.” The crisp & clear-cut priorities
laid down in the credo – country first, men next & own self at the last
(but surely so); continue to give strength to numerous generations of Army
Officers passing out of the IMA, during best & the worst of the times, during
times of grave moral & ethical crises, during peace & war alike.
10.
Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta (श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता). This scripture requires no introduction.
Before the start of the battle, Arjuna faces a moral dilemma. Realizing that
his enemies are his cousins, relatives, beloved friends & revered teachers,
he turns to Krishna for advice. Responding to Arjuna's confusion and moral
dilemma, Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as per his ‘dharma’. This
scripture has acted as a beacon for generations of Indians for rightful &
dutiful conduct, as per ‘dharma’. Some shlokas (श्लोक) or verses, which are most relevant to the context are given below:-
(a)
Verses 22 & 23, Chapter 2.
वासांसि जिर्णानि यथा विहाय
नवानि गॄह्णाति नरोsपराणि |
तथा शरिराणि विहाय जिर्णानि
अन्यानि संयाति नवानि देहि || 22 ||
नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः |
न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ||
23 ||
Literal Meaning. As a
person puts on new garments, discarding old ones; the soul, similarly, accepts
new material bodies, discarding old & useless ones. The Soul can never be
cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire. It can neither be moistened by
water, nor withered by wind.
Underlying Philosophy. Though the fear of life is natural to all
human beings, what really lies within – is the Soul, the Consciousness; which
has a perpetual existence, even if the physical body gets perished. No natural
forces, which affect our physical body, have a capability to alter the nature
of this soul. Thus, an effort has been made in these verses to lessen the fear
in the mind of the soldier to physical harm during the course of the battle.
(b)
Verse
37, Chapter 2.
हतो वा प्राप्य्ससि स्वर्गं जित्वा वा भोग्यसे महीम् |
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः ||
Literal Meaning. Either
you will get killed on the battlefield & attain (abode in) heaven, else you
will win (the war) & enjoy the world (i.e. worldly pleasures). Therefore, O
son of Kunti, get up with determination & fight.
Underlying Philosophy. This verse has
propounded a sort of ‘Warrior Ethos’. In a way, it has also been subtly hinted
that the decision for waging a war has already been made by somebody else,
whose duty it is to make such a decision in society; while simultaneously
exhorting the warrior to fulfill his / her duty of fighting the enemy, without
unduly worrying about its effect on one self. By introducing the concepts of
heavenly abode or material happiness as aftermaths of a battle for a soldier,
an effort has been made to make the soldier immune from fear of bodily harm.
(c)
Verse 47, Chapter 2.
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन |
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भुर्मा ते सङ्गोSस्त्वकर्मणि ||
47 ||
Literal Meaning. You have a right to perform your karma
(i.e. prescribed duties), but are never entitled to the fruits (of your
action). Never consider yourself the cause of results of your activities, &
never be attached to not doing your duty (i.e. always perform your duties
without attachment).
Underlying Philosophy. A certain
person’s actions are but a small fraction of the propitious circumstances which
have caused the final result. This is definitely not a justification for fatalism,
but a clarion call for performance of one’s ordained duties, without the undue
attachment to the ultimate fruit; which itself is a result of multiple factors,
some of which may be apparent, while others may not be.
Conclusion
11.
The article
was never intended to offer a panacea for the moral & ethical challenges
faced by a soldier, both on & off the battlefield. It was, however,
definitely intended to bring it to the notice of a wider audience, many of whom
may not belong to the profession of arms. It was intended to bring to notice
the dilemma of an Indian soldier on-duty on a traffic check-point in Kashmir,
wherein the decision to shoot a speeding car may make the difference of life
& death for him & many others. If it is indeed a terrorist he
neutralizes, he is showered by accolades & awarded by Bravery Awards. Conversely,
should the things go wrong in spite of his best intentions, wherein an innocent,
albeit errant, person loses his life in the ensuing firing, the same soldier
gets hanged by media trials. The intention was also to bring to fore the ideas,
which have helped me resolve the dilemma in my own mind; if not completely, at
least partially.
12.
The Armed Forces
of every nation is a reflection of society from where it draws its manpower.
The same ethics, morals & codes of conduct are applicable for the personnel
in uniform too. After all they are somebody’s sons / daughters, brothers /
sisters, husbands / wives, back at home, in the same society. However, the Armed
Forces are invariably called upon to undertake a number of tasks for the ‘greater
good’ of the nation, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, which may not fit
exactly into the moral conduct of a civilized society. In Chapter 18, ‘The
Prince’, Machiavelli has said, “(It is useful
for a leader) to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, &
to be so; but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you
may be able & know how to change to the opposite.” This is not to
justify the wrongdoings of those in uniform, but that those in power to judge
his / her actions should also take into account the intention(s) behind such
& such action(s). Unfortunately, ‘intentions’ can never be quantified!!!
References:-
{1} Greene, Bob (1989), “Homecoming: When the Soldier Returned from
Vietnam”, G. P. Putnam's Sons.
{3} Song “Universal Soldier” by Lobo:-
“He's five foot two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty one, and he's only seventeen,
He's been a soldier for a thousand years.
He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
And he knows he shouldn't kill
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me, my friend, and me for you.
And he's fighting for
democracy, he's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him how would
Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone.
He's the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the universal soldier,
and he really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you and me,
And brothers, can't you see,
This is not the way we'll put the end to war.”
{4} “The Profession of Arms”, U.S. Army White Paper, dated 08
December 2010.
{5} “The Necessary Immorality of the Military Profession”, James H.
Toner, 27 January 2010.
