SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

A few good men

Did you know that the Indian army has its share of very cute young things? Two weeks ago, I went to the Veer Savarkar Rifle Club to see an exhibit organised by the army -- of weapons captured from Kashmiri terrorists -- and feasted my eyes on liveried specimens instead. I tell you, some of these guys could easily put our Sunnys and Shah Rukhs in the shade. What to do, I have this thing for uniforms...

But enough lechery. I spoke to a few officers of the 8th Mountain Division. One of them, Captain Athinder Singh, was barely 25 years old; he's been facing the bullets since five years. You know, 20 is an age when we civilians are mostly feeding off our fathers, not defending our Mother. Athinder's grandfather, who was in the British army, influenced him to join the troops. And I thought, would I have the guts to send my child into active warfare...?

Yup, army folks are a different breed. They cherish that dangerous, bloodthirsty, redundant-in-the-pinko-world notion called "patriotism." Unfortunately or not, their numbers are now dwindling: Conscription of officers is decreasing at an alarming rate. I guess, globalisation, free market and commerce has finally caught up with India. Point to ponder: Why didn't this peculiarity present itself to the developed nations...?

Why's it that the American looks up to his Marines? Why do US students think that joining the armed forces is a mark of distinction that sets them a notch above their peers? Is it because their society respects people who would lay down their lives for the country? Point to ponder: Are advanced nations advanced because they have their defence priorities right...?

Here's a bit of fluff from one of the men: His cousin, a major who had finished his term of 7 years on the front, wanted to pursue higher studies. The Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Islamia University refused him a berth, saying he didn't have the qualifications and experience to get in. However, not only did the University of Columbia accept him forthwith, but he also received a request from Steven Cohen to write a paper on Kashmir. Boy, what a difference there is in American and Indian attitudes...

Seeing the terrorists' sophisticated weaponry -- which ran the gamut from Austrian sniper rifles and AK-47s, to G-15 grenade launchers and Chinese anti-aircraft guns -- brought home to me exactly what our defence forces are up against. It's a veritable war going on out there! I thought of Major Avatar Singh who was arrested for his involvement in the custodial death of J&K human rights activist Jalil Andrabi: While indicting him, no one asked why Andrabi had been jailed in the first place... I remembered Senior Superintendent of Police Ajit Singh Sandhu who's credited with stamping out terrorism from Tarn Taran, what was once called the capital of Khalistan: Civil liberty activists gunned for him so hard that he finally committed suicide.

At that time, Mr K P S Gill indicted human rights organisations as an "industry being used for political purposes." And former DGP of Maharashtra D S Soman said, "Civil libertarians have been crying themselves hoarse about the human rights aspect, but I would like to ask them: Do terrorists recognise human rights?"

Last week, the deputy commandant of India Reserve Battalion, Madanjit Singh, charged that members of the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab (which is responsible for setting up the People's Commission to probe rights abuse), have "extraterritorial loyalties." While demanding a ban on the functioning of the People's Commission, Madanjit Singh deposed before the Punjab and Haryana high court: "They are mixed up with terrorists bringing illegal arms and ammunition into the country. They have been collecting funds from foreign countries under the garb of carrying out human rights work."

You see, at least two members of the CCDP, lawyer Daljit Singh Rajput and human rights activist Jaspal Singh Dhillon, are presently facing charges in the sensational Burail jail-break conspiracy by which notorious terrorists escaped from the prison -- with a lot of help from friends...

It set me thinking (this is a month for moral dilemmas in movies). Have you seen A Few Good Men? In this 1992 courtroom drama on the killing of a young soldier during peace time, two privates are accused of killing Pvt Santiago during a code red (a secretive military order to discipline a soldier who isn't behaving by the book). The privates unintentionally kill Santiago when they gag him with a rag they don't know has been poisoned by their commander (Colonel Jessup). Santiago is killed because he's considered to be a substandard soldier and a troublemaker who's trying to get a transfer by writing letters that dishonour and denounce his Marine Corps unit. The military denies having ordered the code red and covers up the evidence.

See the different ethical issues arising from these premises: Santiago joins the Marines voluntarily (it's the only branch of service that doesn't draft), then requests a transfer because he can't comply with its discipline. And he does so by slandering his unit...

Santiago is killed because he doesn't conform to the Marine's code of conduct. His liberty is taken away when his right to free speech (letters he wrote) leads to his death. Besides, since it's a time of peace, his actions didn't actually harm his colleagues...

Colonel Jessup counters that his action of ordering Santiago's death probably saved lives -- as a projected safety measure. Jessup acts in self-interest by performing his job as he believes it to be -- ie, doing what's best for the *most* people in the long run... Is Jessup morally justified on basis of the principles of utility and ethical egoism?

Though something of a zealot, Jessup honestly believes he's doing a service to the greater good of American society and towards the fostering of Democracy. So, does one abandon the respect for one's inherent human value when one chooses to become part of an uniformed military branch...?

The graduation certificate awarded to Marines sets down several of their tenets. One of them is: "Physical fitness is not just a Marine by-word, it is an obligation to myself and my Marine comrades who depend on me." This principle is essential because it's the core of a belief system that Santiago violated; in breaching it, Santiago compromised the unit's wellbeing and tactical ability. So, does any organisation have the right to form its own set of ethical standards because it has such regimented control over its following...?

There are no easy answers. But what clinched it for me was the climax scene: Jessup, under oath, tells the prosecutor (Tom Cruise), "You can't handle the truth, son. We live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have that luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives, and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives... Yes, I ordered the code red."

Jessup intentionally causes the death of a Marine -- but with the end of protecting his country. Morally, the grounds for the suit against him are absolutely correct. In practice, the deeds of the colonel are utterly justified. I'm still not sure if it's just me or that the script was constructed craftily... For no matter how demented Jack Nicholson has played the colonel, the arguments of his character sound rock solid. That's how the West always plays it: Something on the surface, something else lurking beneath...

Yes, the average American heavily endorsed this anti- Establishment film. But look at his robust approval of Clinton's bombarding the innocent and unprepared civilians of Sudan -- at peace time... The American piously sermonises on fundamental and civil rights, and the same man then forgets his libertarian ethical beliefs when a few of his Marines are attacked... For, in practice, he knows what's best for *his* nation: What's good for the goose is not always applicable to the few good men.

The Third World enshrines human rights orgs which, day after day, exhort that soldiers are law-breaking savages; that they mustn't use their judgement and experience in disputable situations; that the country is not greater than its people... We are being indoctrinated by this trash to sacrifice the spirit of our troops on the bloodied altar of our comfortable lives. We forget that without the defence forces, we'd *have* no fundamental rights: The army remains the guarantor of the country's freedom, stability and, consequently, of its economic progress. And yet, when we do think of it at all, we are guilty of not understanding the imperatives of security; of insensitivity to the needs, concerns and psyche of our soldiers. And, above all, of total ignorance about the state of its morale. I tell you, India sucks.

How Readers responded to Varsha Bhosle's last column

Varsha Bhosle