• Home
• /
• Opinion

A plural army for a plural society

The protests became increasingly raucous and political. The BJP sought the president’s intervention in his capacity as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces to stop the PMHC’s "misguided" survey. Former army officers held dharnas against the "divisive" move. And George Fernandes termed the PMHC’s work a "seditious act" aimed at "communalising" the forces, no less!

Following this, the PMO quickly distanced itself from the Committee. And the Defence Ministry, which sought the relevant data from the services, assured them that it won’t forward it to the PMHC. Since then, it has declared there will be no survey, as proposed by the PMHC.

Numerous arguments were advanced by move’s opponents. These hold that the survey will tarnish the armed forces’ image as a professional force unfamiliar with words like "caste", "creed", "religion" and "reservation"; that the army is one of the few reliably secular institutions in India, it’s fully trusted by the religious minorities — unlike the police or paramilitary forces; that it has an enviable record of protecting the lives of the minorities in communally charged situations.

No one can seriously question the Indian army’s secular credentials and its impartial role in protecting the life and property of the minorities when ordered to do so. The Indian army represents a remarkable achievement. It’s one of the few apolitical militaries in the Third World, functioning fully under civilian control. And yet, the army does not reflect the diversity and plurality of Indian society. It suffers from under-representation of certain ethnic-religious and social groups, and from over-representation of some others, notably the so-called martial races, including Sikhs, Gorkhas, Dogras, Jats, Rajputs, etc.

Among the under-represented people are Dalits, OBCs, and Muslims. According to a January 9 note by the army to the Defence Ministry, it had only 29,093 Muslims in 2004 in a total of 11 lakh personnel. This 2.7 per cent ratio compares poorly with the Muslims’ 13 per cent population share. To demand that recruitment of Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis be increased is not to advance an anti-national, communal or divisive agenda, but to ask for balance.

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s greatest prime minister, who cannot even be remotely accused of a communal bias, noted as early as 1953 that "in our Defence Services, there are hardly any Muslims left... What concerns me most is that there is no effort being made to improve this situation, which is likely to grow worse unless checked."

This concern was reiterated by Minister of State for Defence Mahavir Tyagi, who disclosed that "the percentage of Muslims in the armed forces, which was 32 per cent at the time of Partition has come down to two..."

The PMHC wasn’t being wayward in documenting information about the status of Muslims in the army. It’s vital to collect authentic information and establish a data bank. Without it, we won’t know whether there is under-representation, what its extent is, and what its causes might be.

True, such information is relevant not just for Muslims; it is necessary for other groups too. But given the PMHC’s brief, it was legitimate for it to solicit information about Muslims. This is in keeping with the UPA’s National Common Minimum Programme, which promised to promote the welfare of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities.

Muslim under-representation in the defence forces must be situated in its right context. As MIT-based scholar Omar Khalidi argues in his Khaki and the Ethnic Violence in India (Three Essays, 2003), the army embraced the discredited colonial ‘martial races’ theory which favoured certain ‘Fixed Classes’ like Gorkhas and Sikhs in recruitment.

Muslims were excluded from this, except for groups such as the Qaimkhani community, and units like the Grenadiers, Armoured Corps, Bombay Engineers Group and the J&K Light Infantry. It’s only in 1984, after the "revolt" by some soldiers of the Sikh Regiment following "Operation Bluestar," that the army adopted what’s called the "All-India Class".

Yet, the proportion of Muslims in the army remains under 3 per cent. Educational backwardness alone cannot explain it. We need to know whether this is because of a reluctance of Muslims to join the army, skewed distribution of recruitment, or because of unacknowledged barriers to entry, including prejudice. There’s nothing illogical or "divisive" about documenting the status of different communities in national institutions. The United States army, for instance, regularly compiles publicly available data on Muslims, Blacks, and other ethnic groups.

The armed forces cannot be an exception to the general concept of citizenship in a multi-ethnic society. Nor can they be exempt from scrutiny just because they perform a role in defence. All citizens have a role to play in national life. Real security derives not just from military defence, but other things including social justice, social cohesion, rule of law and human rights. The armed forces are not a holy cow.

A data bank on the ethnic-religious composition of all public institutions is a precondition for measures to promote citizens’ welfare, including affirmative action for the underprivileged. This need not take the form of quotas and job reservations. But that’s not an argument against diversifying recruitment or promoting equality of opportunity. There’s no reason why the government cannot unilaterally announce that it will endeavour to recruit more under-represented groups without embracing quotas. A caring-and-sharing society must have adequate room for such measures.

In many countries, promotion of inclusive multi-cultural policies became possible only when they abandoned ostrich-like attitudes and confronted reality. For instance, after the 1980s’ race riots, the British police extensively surveyed its ethnic composition and prevalence of race- and ethnicity-related biases. This prepared the ground for diversity sensitisation programmes, retraining, and positive discrimination. Such examples are worthy of emulation.

Praful Bidwai is a veteran Indian journalist and commentator. He can be reached at bidwai@bol.net.in