Suicides and fratricide: Indian Army takes care of its soldiers, stop maligning it
A recent article in Firstpost.com, authored by Parth Satam, quoted figures of suicides in Army units, from where he deduced that the Army does not care for its soldiers. However, the article, "Menial Jobs, poor rations affect jawans, but army does little to boost morale, says 2007 internal report" was based on half-truths and complete misinterpretation of facts. The author has based his views on outdated and redundant report dating back to 2007, as much water has flowed under the bridge since then.
There are and will continue to be suicides in every security force, the Army being no exception. The reasons could be numerous, problems emanating from home, work pressure, especially in counter-insurgency areas to internal shortcomings. Each case is investigated in detail and actions taken to check such measures for the future. Most common are family problems, which due to distance, any individual finds hard to resolve.
The US army's suicide rate for "active-duty soldiers averaged nearly 11 per 100,000 soldiers from September 11, 2001, until shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2004. It more than doubled over the next five years, and, with the exception of a spike in 2012, has remained largely constant at 24 to 25 per 100,000, roughly 20 per cent to 25 per cent higher than a civilian population of the same age and gender makeup as the military".
There has also been a dramatic increase in suicides amongst their veterans, which India does not have. The British army, much smaller than ours, claims one suicide every two weeks. The same would be the case with all other nations.
For those not having worn the uniform and uninitiated into the system, it is easy to criticise. Hence there is a need to project the correct perspective. A soldier joins at a young age, when his parents hold the family together. In most large armies, across the globe, psychological testing is limited to officers as it is time-consuming and tedious. When individuals with reduced mental robustness join, they find it difficult to bear multiple pressures later in life, despite all training and bonding. Suicide rates amongst officers, who have undergone psychological tests prior to joining, is miniscule. Post a soldier joining, his parents grow old, family property comes up for dispute or is divided, adding to pressures. The soldier after marriage needs to ensure his family adjusts to his parents, which in many cases, does not happen, adds to pressures. At times, when his request is denied or he is restricted from an activity, his internal anger is directed against his superior, resulting in a fratricide.
The author’s claims of guarding at social events then being tasked to patrol is a figment of imagination or possibly inputs of a bygone era. In operational areas, there are no social events as troops are distributed in small numbers and spread across the region. It is only in the Indian Army, that officers and soldiers, in difficult terrain, counter-insurgency deployment and on border posts, share the same facilities, food and comfort. Thus, this ensures high quality and in case of any shortages, both share it together. They have only one another for company, hence the bonding is strong, resulting in higher officer-level casualties in operations.
His claim of soldiers being employed on menial tasks again stems from lack of understanding. The issue of the buddy system has been well-debated in various media forums in recent times, hence I will avoid delving on it in detail. Suffice it to state that this individual is the closest to the officer, his buddy in operations, each depending on the other for securing his back and his life. Therefore, despite all rhetoric on the subject, the government and the Army have stood by together to ensure that this system remains as hithertofore, as it benefits the Army, rather than negating it.
For the uninitiated, it is easy to find fault, but for those who have worked in the system, been a part of it and are aware of the tough working conditions demanding every iota of a man’s skill, determination, mental robustness and courage, it is a different understanding.
A soldier moving out on patrol may never know if this is his last, but his trust in his colleagues, unit and country, gives him the courage to operate.
Figures given in statistics remain figures, never giving the whole truth. They can be interpreted either way, positively or negatively. Those who have served and faced bullets with their men, would view it positively, while those only sitting on armchairs would view it negatively.
However, this is not to imply that suicides are acceptable. No service desires them, they are an aberration, despite every measure taken. Each casualty, irrespective of cause, hurts. Preventive measures are always in place, yet when they occur, they are investigated and further improvements brought into the system. There is and would always be scope for improvement.
Army personnel have been employed in every calamity which the nation faces, in addition to its task of ensuring national security. Never have they been found wanting. Had the conditions been as pathetic as described by the author in that article, the Army would have been failing and authorities would have preferred other services instead of it. The fact that it is the reverse and the most revered organisation is because of its cohesiveness in working and always succeeding.
My earnest request is if you cannot praise the Army, please do not malign it, solely because your knowledge on it is lacking. Writing with limited knowledge is dangerous and can cause more harm than good.