Caste question confronts Indian Army

NEW DELHI: He may have put a lid on the controversy surrounding the headcount of Muslims in the Indian armed forces, but Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has a bigger problem on his hands.

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Chairman Suraj Bhan has told DNA in an interview that the Indian Army should make provision for the creation of Ambedkar regiments. "These regiments will be exclusively created from scheduled castes [SCs] and scheduled tribes [STs]," he says.

Bhan's demand might sound outrageous, but he has an interesting explanation.

"Why do we have army regiments named after various castes? Isn't that a blatant violation of our secular commitment as a nation? Isn't it wrong?" he asks. "I think all army regiments named after castes and communities should be renamed after national heroes. Why don't we have a Bhagat Singh regiment, a Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose regiment or a Rani Jhansi regiment?"

Bhan says his demand for an Ambedkar regiment should be placed in the context of "secularising" the armed forces. "Recruit SCs and STs into this Ambedkar regiment.  Such dedicated recruitment will improve their representation in the army. Today, when recruitment rallies are held, there are many instances where officers do not accept SC/ST candidates."

When the Justice Rajindra Sachar committee requested data from the armed forces on the number of Muslims in its ranks, it kicked up a storm, leading political and military leaders to defend the secular character of the institution. 

"The armed forces are professional, apolitical, secular and the most disciplined organisation the country has today," Mukherjee told the Rajya Sabha, after backing down on the issue of the Muslim headcount. But is it accurate to describe the Indian Army as truly secular? Can an organisation structured at least in part along communal lines be secular?

What does it mean when you hear of a Rajput, Sikh or Gurkha regiment of the army?

The regimental system on which the army is built reflects the caste divisions prevalent in the country. There are not many audible voices in the force talking against the system, but many admit that colonial concepts need to be dumped to make the army a truly secular force.

"The system came about after a lot of trial and experience," says Major General (retired) Ashok Mehta, a prolific writer on military matters who spent most of his service years with a Gurkha regiment (officers in particular regiments can be from any community).

"It is a good system; why try and tamper with it?" he asks. "The primary motive for a soldier to fight is his paltan ka izzat [platoon's honour], and that comes about from his sense of identity, belonging and honour." This is in keeping with a structure with a vast amount of traditions that most army people believe should not be tampered with.

But Mehta also feels that regimental reform is essential if the army is to evolve into a truly modern force. The Indian Navy and Air Force are good examples. "We recruit on the basis of merit, and there are no problems," says Indian Navy chief Admiral Arun Prakash.

Mehta says there have been attempts in the past to change the army into a truly secular force. "In the early 80s," he says, "some units of Maratha and Rajput regiments were reorganised. But it proved a complete failure."

An officer with the Sikh regiment told DNA that 12 of its units were reorganised in the wake of the limited revolt by Sikh soldiers following Operation Blue Star. "The experiment was given up in the late 90s," he says. There is an overriding desire across the army to retain the system, but that is easier said than done. A senior officer who supports reorganisation says, "Nobody wants to touch such holy cows, nobody wants to take responsibility for such far-reaching changes."