Jawans clash with officers in army camp in Leh

[pmaitra]

Ray Sir,

Thank you for your explanation. It makes it all the more understandable than the earlier response I got.

Regarding Tovarish, I was refering to the Soviet Army and the transition from the Imperial Tsarist traditions to Soviet Traditions, whence came my reference to the purges of Stalin.

I am no stranger to fragging. It happens in the Russian Army, probably happened in the Soviet Army, and also happens in IITs. That, however, does not take away anything from the point I was trying to make. Keep everyone equal. Yes, hierarchy may exist, but only to that extent that it is required. Not an inch beyond. Therefore, in my humble opinion, this batman system must be laid to rest in the annals of history, and make things more egalitarian.

Let us agree to disagree on this.

 

[lemontree]

Gents this incident has brought out the sorry state of affairs on the quality of officers being inducted.

I find it very difficult to believe that a johnny "mis-behaved" with an officer's wife (most officer's wives do not know how to behave themselves).

Our troops are the easiest to command as long as one is behaves like an officer and a gentleman.

 

[Ray]

Sakal,

There is no "aura" feeling.

It is just a necessity being done.

People in the civil employ people as Secretaries and liftmen.

Are they doing it for aura?

It is only a person who has come from humble beginnings, who is impressed with this 'aura'. Not others who have seen it as a part of normal life!

 

[Ray]

Keep everyone equal.

All men are not born equal.

It is a human impossibility.

 

[Ray]

Gents this incident has brought out the sorry state of affairs on the quality of officers being inducted.

I find it very difficult to believe that a johnny "mis-behaved" with an officer's wife (most officer's wives do not know how to behave themselves).

Our troops are the easiest to command as long as one is behaves like an officer and a gentleman.

Well said.

As I said before, it is those who are from 'humble beginnings' who lose their head and feel that the trappings are their birthright, which in actuality, is not!

No matter what is one's position in life, he must do with with grace and humbleness. Respect begets respect.

 

[pmaitra]

All men are not born equal.

It is a human impossibility.

When officers get beaten by sticks wielded by men that they are supposed to command, I have no reason to disagree with you Ray Sir.

Indeed, all men are not equal - and these officers, did not command enough respect, and fell below the level of their not-too-long-ago subordinates.

 

[Ray]

When officers get beaten by sticks wielded by men that they are supposed to command, I have no reason to disagree with you Ray Sir.

Indeed, all men are not equal - and these officers, did not command enough respect, and fell below the level of their not-too-long-ago subordinates.

That is the bane of the Army.

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!

 

[The Messiah]

A leader should never get too close to his men either...there must be some boundary otherwise if they become friends then it is easier to question decisions of the CO.

There should be bonding but there should be some way to distinguish leader from the rest be it in appearance or the manner he conducts himself in.

 

[Ray]

The rule is friendly but not familiar.

 

[The Messiah]

Ray sir you should see band of brothers and how richard winters conducts himself.

 

[pmaitra]

In the olden days, the rode horse to remind themselves of that difference.

Later, we had brown boots and Sam Browne belts.

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:

Service & Humility - George Washington

[HR][/HR]

Many years ago, a rider came across some soldiers who were trying to move a heavy log of wood without success. The corporal was standing by as the men struggled. The rider asked the corporal why he wasn't helping. The corporal replied: "I am the corporal. I give orders."

The rider dismounted, went up and stood by the soldiers and as they tried to lift the wood, he helped them. With his help, the task was carried out. The rider was George Washington, the Commander-in-chief. He quietly mounted his horse and went to the corporal and said, "The next time your men need help, send for the commander-in-chief."

[HR][/HR]

Once when George Washington was riding near Washington city with a group of friends, their horses leaped over a wall. One steed kicked off a number of stones.

"Better replace them" suggested the General.

"Oh, let the farmer do it," replied the friends.

When the riding party was over, Washington turned his horses back the way they had come. Dismounting at the wall, he carefully replaced the stones.

"Oh General," said a companion, "you are too big to do that."

"On the contrary," answered Washington, "I am the right size."

[HR][/HR]

Source: inspirational stories for personal growth, health and positive change.

 

[Ray]

Pmaitra,

Which all British traditions do you want tossed out and why?

And replace it with what?

Is there no Service and Humility in the British Indian Army annals?

 

[pmaitra]

Pmaitra,

Which all British traditions do you want tossed out and why?

And replace it with what?

• 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.

Is there no Service and Humility in the British Indian Army annals?

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.

 

[Ray]

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?

 

[Ray]

• 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.

Rather superficial. I say this with all humility since I have not understood the crux of the rationale.

How is the US Army with Numbers for Regt doing compared to the British in Helmand or did in Basra in Iraq?

Like it or not elitism is essential.

SF has a greater appeal as a deliverer than say the normal units.

Why?

Elitism that attracts Balidan as routine and that makes it attractive as synonymous for high patriotism, which some realists may term as being downright stupid!

 

[pmaitra]

Rather superficial. I say this with all humility since I have not understood the crux of the rationale.

How is the US Army with Numbers for Regt doing compared to the British in Helmand or did in Basra in Iraq?

Like it or not elitism is essential.

SF has a greater appeal as a deliverer than say the normal units.

Why?

Elitism that attracts Balidan as routine.

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.

I don't think we can agree on this.

We are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Bhadra]

• 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.

yes, Army officer should be allowed casual dress, eitght hours duty after that and beyond that no asking and service in metros with 8000 transport allowance .....

Jaki kabhi na pathe Bivai wo kya jane peer parayi....

Even the communists have batman..... not only one but a truckload of them

Some guys here are bent upon applying theoretical communism on functional systems...
Marshal Zhukov had one hundred batmen though he himself rose to be a marshall from a batman soldier.

 

[Parthy]

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..

 

[Ray]

the army's role regarding refusing to amalgamate the INA didn't come across as particularly admirable to me.

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.

 

[Ray]

I don't find elitism attractive. However, that's me.

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.