Egalitarianism and trying to have this all men being equal at least in mindset.
There must be some difference between leaders and led to remind them that they are leaders and must conform to a higher set of ideals so as to be an example.
In the olden days, the rode horse to remind themselves of that difference.
Later, we had brown boots and Sam Browne belts.
Today, there is no difference except the badges of rank.
So, why should not a jawan feel that he is as good as an officer and that the officer is getting privileges that they don't deserve? This feeling is more pronounced when an officer does not behave like an officer and set an example for his troops!
I am against families being allowed in operational areas. It ruins the sanctity and professionalism.
But then, the Defence Scientists feel that the more we have our families with us, the lesser is the stress.
Well, this incident proves that these bookish chaps are but bookish idiots and the condemned 'British ways' are what kept the Army a whole! Remember, their ways were not all that bad. If it were, then they would not have been able to keep themselves in one piece because the Indians would have made mincemeat of them!
No, there is has to be a difference between a leader and the led.
But then the leader should behave as a leader.
One old advice that we were always told - "When you are outside your room, remember there are 1600 eyes watching you (it was taken that 800 men were in the unit).. Never forget that!"
And we applied the same maxim to our family, wife and children, to follow!
Ray Sir, I gave you an example from a communist country. Now comes an example from a capitalist country.
But before that, let me state, that these so called British traditions, which are essentially imperial in nature, should be tossed out the window, unless there are any compelling reasons to retain them otherwise.
For that man on the horse trying to show off his 'superiority,' I have a thing to share with everyone, that I had posted earlier:
Batman system. Replace with nothing. Just get rid of it.
Ethnicity based nomenclature. Replace with armies referred to by numbers.
I am not in the army, but if I were, I'd probably find a few more.
Here is what I have to say about the British Indian Army.
Service = zero, make no mistake, zero. Bootlickers of British Imperialists, along with those vassal collaborators, can go to hell. Not only that, the army's role regarding refusing to amalgamate the INA didn't come across as particularly admirable to me.
Humility = to whom? The Crown. Vauable to those that matter, not to me.
To the layman the word ‘ethics’ suggests a set of standards by which a particular group or community decides to regulate its behaviour and to distinguish what is legitimate or acceptable in pursuit of their aims from what is not.
First, each culture has its own traditions as to how ethical demands come to be. Many, though not all theistic traditions associate rightness with divine commands. Today, however, where scientific ideals also predominate the field of ethics, it has become an area for scientific investigation. There are some problems with which we as ethicists are concerned: What are rightness, rights, duty, obligation, ought-ness, responsibility, justice, punishment, conscience, virtue, and wisdom? What role do intentions play in determining rightness? Can obligations be standardized and, if so, how? How are customs, public opinion, laws, contracts, authority, selfrealization, and God related to morality? Can practical moral problems be solved generally, or do specific problems in business, marriage, politics, education, race relations, war, and religion require separate treatment? Although ethicists may differ regarding which problems should be considered to be most fundamental, all agree that each of the problems is involved in ethics in one way or another. Since some will include still other problems and since the precise boundaries between ethics and other fields have not been agreed upon, the question: What is ethics? is itself not completely answered. The very same kind of action which is right in one country and period may be wrong in another.
Second, should rightness, for example, be defined in terms of ought-ness (as Immanuel Kant seems to do) or ought-ness in terms of rightness? One’s answer to this question will determine which ought to be considered first.
Third, rightness, intentions, responsibility, freedom, rights, justice, punishment, virtue, ideals and wisdom are questions of ethics that can be answered by taking into account the cultural ethos of a particular society. For example, wisdom is not synonymous with knowledge, and a man may be a ‘walking encyclopedia’ and yet be a moral fool.
How do you like the above?
And what is your guide that you want all to follow?
I don't find elitism attractive. However, that's me.
If anyone wants my loyalty, he has to convince me of the cause.
One good example is how civilians of Nagorno-Karabakh repulsed well trained ex-Soviet Army of Azerbaijan. For the latter, it was ambition, but for the former, it was a matter of survival.
Another example is Jaliwanwalabagh. If those Gurkhas and Baloch had some sense of ethics, they'd have turned around and executed Gen. Dyer then and there. They lacked both. Then there is this silly maine-uska-namak-khaya-hai concept. Heck, even the Tsarist Russian Cossacks had more humanity than these bootlickers of the British.
The mentality of slavery is what kept us down - and one big problem was elitism that is so ingrained in Indian mindset.
Its not good for the men in a class of National Army to hit the Headlines for an Ugly spat (This one is big).. not only they're groomed for warfare but also taught discipline in first place... This would definitely have an impact on other troops too..
Those who claim to be Nationalists are correct in their opinion that the INA is a patriotic force.
I am no quibbles on that.
However, let us look at it analytically.
I take your namak and then I go against you. Is that in consonance with ancient Indian custom of spurning your namak when it is beneficial to do so for getting out from being a Prisoner of War and facing brutality?
Now, if I hated the the one's namak that I was taking, I would not take it, come what may.
Were the leaders of the Sikh units who rebelled against the Union of India after Bluestar taken back into the Army?
Should they also not have been taken back? They, after all, thought their 'mission' perfectly legitimate.
It is the only thing that makes one walk into the Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell and Into the Valley of Death while Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them Volley and thunder and they are Stormed at with shot and shell.