MORAL DILEMMA OF PRACTITIONERS OF PROFESSION OF ARMS

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.

{2}       http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/28lanka.htm download dated 28 March 2015.

{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.

{6}       http://isme.tamu.edu/ Website of the International Society for Military Ethics.