By Major General Mrinal Suman
The news of
the initiation of disciplinary action against 168 personnel (4 officers
including the Commanding Officer, 17 Junior Commissioned Officers and 147 Other
Ranks) of 226 Field Regiment was received with a sense of deep anguish by
all the well wishers of the Indian army. Increasing incidents of collective
indiscipline do not portend well for a military; in fact, they are ominous.
In a written
reply on 26 November 2013, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Parliament
that 394 army troops had committed suicide and more than 25,063 personnel had
opted for pre-mature retirement in the preceding three years. In
addition, over 80 soldiers had reportedly lost their lives due
to fratricide during the last decade.
Acts of
collective insubordination, suicides, fratricides, court cases and applications
for pre-mature release are commonly considered as reflective of the health of a military organisation. What are the disquieting reasons that
are compelling Indian soldiers to resort to such desperate acts? Why have
they become so edgy? Where have the things gone wrong?
Significantly,
a recent study on the high suicide rate in the army by the Defence Institute of
Psychological Research held that ‘perceived humiliation and harassment’ at the
hands of superiors often served as the final ‘trigger’ for jawans to resort to
extreme acts.
Humiliation:
a Complex Psychological Trauma
Humiliation
is a vicious psychological experience that impacts a man’s self-esteem,
hurts his ego and abases his sense of pride. It invariably results in the
emotion of shame. Many socio-psychologists consider humiliation to be an
extreme form of psychological abuse. It hits at the core of an individual’s
sense of worth. It generates the feeling of being put down or made to feel less
than one feels oneself to be.
As
humiliation is an intricate and multi-dimensional human perception, different
humans react differently when subjected to humiliation. Some view their
experience rather gravely. They feel emotionally battered, ill-treated, shamed,
dishonored and degraded. For them, it becomes an issue of wounded pride and
dehumanisation.
Others may
take humiliation as a humbling experience. Yet, a small minority may accept
humiliation as a corrective chastisement and consider it to be justified to an
extent. Thus, impact and severity of humiliation is dependent on the
discernment and sensitiveness of the humiliated. Some withdraw into their
shells and suffer from apathy and depression. Others seek revenge by inflicting
injuries on others and themselves.
Perilous effects
of humiliation can manifest themselves through various symptoms – cognitive
(indecisiveness, anxiety, worrying and fearfulness), emotional (moodiness,
irritability, edginess, hypersensitivity, short temper and depression),
physical (headache, muscle tension, nausea and insomnia) and behavioural
(procrastination, excessive use of alcohol, nervousness and overreaction). Both
interpersonal and group dynamics are impacted.
Unlike
shame, humiliation is always public, involving the humiliator, the humiliated
and the viewers. Humiliation meted out in comparative privacy is generally
less upsetting: severity depends on the extent of community exposure. The
worst part of humiliation is that it is almost impossible to retract it. It
leaves an indelible scar on the psyche of the victim. It bruises his ego and
questions his basic worth.
Soldiers and
Humiliation
As seen
above, humiliation by itself is pathogenic enough to cause irreversible damage
to the human psyche. Its toxicity increases multifold when humiliation is
inflicted on a person who is already struggling to weather
stresses. It is an accepted fact that humiliation and stress make a
lethal combination, resulting in a ‘pressure cooker effect’. In the case
of soldiers, it blows the safety valve that unit cohesion and military training
provide, thereby threatening emotional and psychological equilibrium of
soldiers.
Stress is
a euphemism for describing the consequences of the failure of a human being to
respond appropriately to emotional or physical threats to the organism,
whether actual or imagined. Failure to cope up with the challenges results
in extreme pressures which generate stress. When stress surpasses ability to
handle, it becomes a threat to an individual’s well-being and generates a state
of alarm and adrenaline production.
Challenges in
military life are different than those faced by civilians, both in terms of
threat of physical harm and emotional security. In the case of the Indian army,
these stresses acquire heightened severity due to prolonged deployment in
challenging environment. With an increase in the education level
of soldiers’ wives, many are highly qualified and gainfully employed. They
prefer to stay at one place for the sake of their career and children’s
education. Resultantly, soldiers are deprived of family support in times of
emotional disturbances. Resultantly, stress tends to become distress.
In a command
oriented and hierarchical organisation like the army, status-consciousness is
an essential trait of every soldier’s persona. He takes pride in his rank and
appointment. When his sense of pride and dignity are abused through
humiliation, the already over-stressed and distressed soldier loses
his balance and resorts to acts of desperation. The
resultant ‘fight-or-flight’ response results in acts of extreme violence –
a humiliated soldier runs amok, kills innocent comrades and pumps a bullet in
his own head to put an end to the perceived agony.
Humiliation
can be verbal or physical or circumstantial. In the army, it can be
inflicted in a number of ways – demotion (reduction in rank or responsibility),
denial of promotion, public punishment/censure and neglect through the silent
treatment.
Need for
Reforms
Times have
changed. Earlier, rural youth with little education and limited demands joined
the Indian army. They were hardy and accepted the privations of the environment
without questioning them. The army of today is more ubiquitous. It draws
manpower from all segments of the society. The current generation of soldiers
is much better educated. Having being exposed to the electronic media, their
awareness level is of a much higher order. They are quick to spot iniquitous
and deviant conduct of their seniors.
Consequently,
there has been a phenomenal rise in the expectations and aspirations of
soldiers. They have become very conscious of their position and sensitive to
any threat, real or perceived, to their self-respect. Like the rest of the
society, their value system is also undergoing major changes. They question
various policies and practices.
Worse,
regular contact with the families through modern telecom keeps soldiers
embroiled in day to day problems faced by the families – children falling sick
or not studying or ill-health of parents or troubles caused by unruly
neighbours. Earlier joint family system took care of many such
exigencies.
Inability to
be with parents and family in times of domestic emergencies makes many soldiers
suffer from guilt complex. They feel that they have failed their
parents/families. They feel helpless and become fretful. Their threshold of
tolerance goes down. In such a state, humiliation acts a trigger. They lose
their mental balance and act in an irrational manner. In extreme cases,
humiliation generates a feeling of revenge and violent retaliation.
The army can
no longer ignore the realities of the changing environment. It must appreciate
the fact that a modern soldier is highly conscious of his self-esteem and resents
humiliation. Whereas job related stresses cannot be fully eliminated, measures
must be initiated to ensure that a soldier’s sensibilities are not unduly
offended. For that, both the organisation and the leaders have to undertake
reformative steps.
The army as
an organisation must review its work culture. Status of soldiers must be
improved. They should be made to feel wanted and respected. No soldier
should ever be asked to perform jobs which he considers to be ‘unsoldierlike’
and demeaning. To start with, the much discussed institution of sahayaks
(orderlies) should be discarded. No sahayaks should be allowed in the stations
where families are allowed to stay. Most soldiers abhor sahayak duties and
consider them to be degrading. They have to be coerced or threatened. It is a
major issue with most troops and a key cause for much disaffection.
Similarly,
soldiers resent being detailed to cut grass or sweep roads or maintain golf
courses and other facilities. It is a most unbecoming sight for the public to
see soldiers employed on such duties. All tasks related to maintenance of
cantonment facilities should be outsourced to civilian agencies. This single
step will not only spare troops for training but also improve their level of
job satisfaction considerably.
As regards
the leaders, they have to be sensitive to the psychosomatic make-up of their
troops as humiliation is a victim-based phenomenon. Troops from some areas are
more sensitive to the treatment meted out to them than the
others. For example, whereas an inadvertent use of the word ‘bloody’
by an officer can be misconstrued by some soldiers to be highly abusive and
demeaning, others may view it with nonchalance.
In
addition, changed environment demands a change in leadership technique.
Leaders have to learn to handle the soldiers with empathy and due concern for
their sensitivities. At times, even harmless looking episodes may get
misconstrued and feelings of humiliation may arise simply because of
misapprehension or the state of mind of the victim. Close and regular
interaction helps sort out such perceived misunderstandings and grievances. The
leaders should also be trained to read symptoms of stress building up in a
soldier and initiate corrective action in time.
Soldiers are
very sensitive to the way their wives are treated. There is a need to sensitise
the wives of the senior leaders regarding this aspect. Many cases of
indiscipline owe their origin to cases of mistreatment (real or perceived) in
Army Wives Welfare Association (AWWA) meetings. Soldiers’ wives find AWWA meets
to be a humiliating experience and have to be coaxed and cajoled to attend.
AWWA is considered by many to be the breeding ground for dissentions in the
army and a major contributory factor in generating disaffection in many units.
The system of
redressal of grievances must be made more responsive and compassionate. Troops
must be convinced that their genuine concerns would be attended to in a just,
fair and time-bound manner.
Finally
As the above
discussion shows, for soldiers, a clearly defined identity based on
self-esteem is of paramount importance and a key
motivator. Soldiers draw strength from the standing that they enjoy
amongst their peers and the immediate group (sub-unit/unit). They
continuously strive for recognition as it gives them a sense of
accomplishment. Humiliation strikes at the core of their soldierly pride,
makes them feel small and debases their sense of own worth. Humiliation of a
soldier amounts to denting his military honour, the very source of his
sustenance.
Public
reprimand and employment on unsoldierlike duties must be avoided. Punishments
carried out to ‘make an example’ of a person and present a deterrent to others
can prove to be grievous for the psyche of the humiliated soldier. No offence
in day to day unit functioning can be serious enough to warrant such a
treatment.
In the case
of soldiers who are already stressed and are on short fuse, humiliation acts as
a trigger to emotional implosion with disastrous consequences. Evelin Lindner,
the eminent trans-disciplinary scholar in humanities calls humiliation as the
‘nuclear bomb of the emotions’. Military leaders will do well to keep this term
in mind and deal with the soldiers with due compassion and consideration
for their sense of pride.
It must be
clarified here that compassion does not mean dilution of discipline. On the
contrary, a compassionate leader acquires moral authority and psychological
ascendency over his command. Troops respect him and trust him. Willing
obedience and discipline are the natural corollary.
No comments:
Post a Comment