Needed: Conscription in India!

===============================================

Conscription in India: 

For the emancipation of OBCs, SCs and STs.

==============================================

Switzerland is not at war with any nation. But, military service is compulsory there for every Swiss citizen. People who want to study beyond the age of 20 are directed to complete the conscription period and continue their studies thereafter. When a nation is under attack by enemies, it becomes the duty of every citizen to protect the nation. “A Rifle For Every Man” has been the declared principle of the Government of Switzerland. The Swiss Government proudly proclaims to the world that “every soldier …..has his weapon, ammunition and uniform at home. There is no fear of revolutions. The Swiss are proud to have a accurate rifle.” (Switzerland – by Herbert Meier – Information paper published by the Swiss Government – Sixth Edition 4/81).

Germany had conscription for male citizens between 1956 and 2011. Conscription  in  Germany has been kept  in abeyance from 1 July 2011. The constitution, however, retains provisions for reintroduction of conscription.

 Conscription is in force in Israel for Jews.  Even the ultra-orthodox jews are conscripted. But, the Arabs living in Israel are not permitted to conscript.  Military service is compulsory for most Israelis over the age of 18, with men serving three years and women two. The Israeli concept is that “all sectors of society should participate in national service”.

But, the concept of Universal Conscription in the modern sense originated only during the French Revolution, when the Republic needed stronger military forces. Conscription was made a condition of citizenship. The 1798 Jourdan Act stated: "Any Frenchman is a soldier and owes himself to the defence of the nation". This concept resembled the ancient Tamils call for the defence of the nation. Conscription continued in various forms for two hundred years until it was phased out during the period 1996 − 2001.

In Spain, “the end of conscription has spelt recruitment problems for the armed forces.”  The Defence Ministry has acknowledged that there are 10,000 vacancies.

Conscription, part of ancient Tamil Culture

The ancient Tamils did not leave the defence of the nation at  times of war only to the regular armed forces. The literary work Puranaanooru testifies to the fact that every household was sending one man to join the army. The nation could mobilise the might of its citizens at short notice by issuing a proclamation that every household should send one male member to protect the nation (வீட்டுக்கொரு ஆண்மகன் நாட்டைக் காக்கப் புறப்படுக). Those men who did not go for war did nor command respect and were looked down upon by the society.

In Japan, the first conscription law was introduced in the year 1872. Under the system called “nohei”, agriculturists who worked in their fields in peace-time had to take up arms “to fight at the command of the central government in time of war.” The advantage of such conscription was “that such an army of independent yeomen would cost the Treasury very little since they obediently came forward with their own arms at the call of duty and returned to make a living off their fields when the year's campaigning was finished.” (Page 51 - Pacific Affairs - Soldier and peasant in Japan: The origins of conscription - E. Herbert Norman).

Leaders must go to the battlefield

 Daniel Webster said in the House of Representatives of the USA on 09.12.1814 that ‘it is either "the folly or the wickedness of the government" that brings war to a country’. Such a foolish or wicked people in power lead nations to war mainly because these rulers do not care about the importance of the lives of their citizens sent to the battlefield. These rulers ensure only their personal safety by keeping themselves away from the battlefield to avoid facing the enemy there directly. That is why they do not explore , seriously, the other avenues to settle the disputes without resorting to war. This is one main evil of modern governments, including the democratic ones. In the days of yore,  whenever there was war, the Kings and the Princes were leading the soldiers. They were in the battlefield, and that too, in the forefront. 

The days of settling the disputes through demonstration of one’s ‘Might’ is supposed to have been over in the civilised era. But, the rulers of the modern world are not, really, that civilised. That is why the rulers of many nations behave in an irresponsible manner and keep the relationship with neighbouring countries always under tension, by instigating periodically, the people of their own nations against the neighbours and by provoking the people of the neighbouring nations against their own nations. The bureaucracy plays a vital role in this area and it does not allow amity among the leaders who are amiable and want to have a peaceful society. One may recall that recently, the Russian President Mr.Putin said, “It is the court which makes the king”. (The Hindu 15.09.2008).^⁠1 These top-level bureaucrats and the politicians in power do have all authority to create the situations for war and also to declare war without having to face the real consequences of war. This privilege of not facing the enemy at the war-front which is available to the instigating bureaucrats and ill-informed politicians in power in the modern era, had not been available even to monarchs of the ancient and medieval era. The tendency to be imperious is, therefore, more with the modern rulers, ie, the bureaucrats in the Indian context. 

In India, the system is caste-basted

In India, the lower level armed forces consist mainly of the OBCs, SCs and STs only. The people of higher castes do not come forward to work as an ordinary soldier who alone, actually, faces the bayonet of the enemy in the battlefield. Yet, it is these higher castes which decide whether the country must go for war or not by occupying almost all the posts, or at least 95% of the posts, in the decision making Group A and B services in the Ministry of External Affairs, RAW, IB and other departments.  

It is a fact that the higher castes do not like the concept of reservation in public services for the SCs , STs and OBCs and fight against it through so many overt and covert means. It is also a fact that these higher castes want to perpetuate, for ever, the caste system in the society, by opposing the reforms to make the people of SCs, STs and OBCs priests in all the temples in the Hindu fold. These instances testify to the continued existence of the age-old animosity entertained by the higher castes towards the SCs, STs and OBCs. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the war euphoria created always by the higher-caste-dominated bureaucracy, media, etc., in our nation has actually taken into consideration the human cost of such decisions. 

Because, history testifies to the fact that when the USA said it would not be able to send army-men to join the UNPKF for Kosova but would give only money for that purpose, the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao said, the very next day, that India would not be able to pay money but send men. Men are less important than money for the rulers of India.

As India is a democracy, and the Leader of the Opposition is also given the status of the Cabinet Minister of the Government, it is only proper that in the event of war, the Ministers in the Ruling Party, the Leader of the Opposition, the senior officials in the Ministry of External Affairs and Home Affairs and the Members of Parliament go to the battlefield and lead the war. Or, at least, there must send their children or grand children to the war. The law must create a possibility that the children or grandchildren of these politicians and bureaucrats would have to go to the war-front. It is only in such eventuality, the people in power and in opposition would learn to talk in a restrained, considered and responsible manner whenever there is some real crisis. Otherwise, there would be no check on them and they would, merrily, orchestrate the media and manipulate the pubic opinion to create a crisis to lead the nation to war.

No more the cruel Chanakya theories

Keeping aside a section of the people only for fighting the enemies is not  fair and just. The fine phrases like ‘professional’ soldier, ‘trained’ military, etc., are used in the Indian context only to enable the privileged classes, the  higher castes and the rich people to keep themselves away from demonstrating their real patriotism by facing and fighting the enemy in the war-front as a foot-soldier. The days of Chanakya must be buried but not forgotten. Chanakya did not favour the recruitment of Brahmins in the Army. He justified it saying that “the enemy may win over to himself the army of Brahmins by means of prostration.” He, therefore, said that “the army of Kshatriyas trained in the art of wielding weapons is better; or the army of Vaisyas”. He added that the army of “Shudras having great numerical strength is better”. (Page 377 - Kautilya’s Arthasastra - R. Shama Sastry - Mysore Printing and Publishing House - 1967). 

Chanakya, moreover, took care to protect the Brahmins from being sent to the war-front. He reserved the right of recruitment in espionage division to Brahmins - only to Brahmins (Chapter VIII - Page 251- ibid.) and left the soldier-hood that faced the risk of getting injured mortally, to the others. This millennia-old culture of Vedic Cruelty should go, at least, hereafter. 

Conscription the only solution

The soldiers in the armed forces should not to be treated as people who are disposable  just because they are in a paid career. They are not permitted, in India, to have any opinion. They are just directed to believe in the need for war, obey the orders issued (based on the information made available by the Brahmin-dominated espionage networks) and be prepared to lay down their lives. 

But,  defending the nation is much more than that. Every citizen must have the duty as well as the opportunity to defend the nation at times of war. Conscription is needed in the lowest rank of soldier in the Army who faces the enemy eyeball to eyeball. When every citizen faces the situation that he would also be required to work as a soldier in times of war, he would evince keen interest in the decision-making process of the political leaders and bureaucrats, when they lead the nation to war. These leaders and bureaucrats would also exercise restraint and caution in decision-making, as their own siblings would have to be in the war-front. We find only the people who would not have to go to the war-front, indulge in a lot of chest-thumping and bravado to create war climate. If conscription is introduced, they would think twice before opening their mouths to speak of waging a war. 

Besides, the grievance of the authorities in the armed forces is that there are so many vacancies there but people are not coming forward to enlist themselves in spite of glitchy campaigns by the government. Even in the cadre of officers, the vacancies in the fighting element do not get filled.  "Despite a plethora of glossy ads, the armed forces are finding it increasingly difficult to lure youths with requisite officer-like qualities to join the ranks. There is a staggering shortfall of 12544 officers- around one-third of the sanctioned strength- in the army..…..The navy and the air force , much smaller services, fare not better. What makes matters worse is that most of these vacancies are in the fighting element of the armed forces…....The answer lies in making a career in the armed forces- perceived to be hazardous and full of disturbances for family life and children's education- much more attractive" - 5.8.2002 – Times of India. The situation continues to be the same ten years later too. Even in the year 2012, there was shortage of personnel in the Army, Navy and Air Force.Defence Minister A. K. Antony told Lok Sabha said, on 04.03.2013, in a written reply that army faced shortage of 26,433 PBORs (personnel below officer rank) as on Oct 1, 2012. Similarly, there are vacancies in officer level posts also in the ‘fighting elements’. 

Attractive pay packets and absence of any real work during the no-war period attract people only to the commissioned posts in the non-fighting elements of the armed forces. This situation can be remedied easily if conscription is introduced in India too and all the young men, without any exception, are made to serve as field level soldiers in the army for one year after they attained the age of 18. When there was conscription in force in the USA, the affluent section of the population did not want to be conscripted. They adopted variety of tricks to avoid conscription. One method was to remain a student for long,  up to 32 years of age. Even after the initial conscription, the rich and powerful avoided being drafted for war-front. 

When the Vietnam war started in the year 1964, there was total support of the people of the USA to its engagement in the war. Involvement in the Vietnam war was propagated by the US Government as a patriotic venture. 

In February 1965, only 3,000 persons per month were drafted. But, in October that year 33,000 per month  were drafted. Besides, influential people who were rich, or were bureaucrats or were politicians got their children exempted. Only the children from the  poor working class were drafted and sent to war-front. 

The poor people saw through the game of the bureaucrats and politicians. They understood that they were used for war. They started protesting. When Muhammad Ali, the heavyweight boxer, tore away the order for draft, the problem the USA was facing with the system of conscription came to the knowledge of the world.

 Such malpractices should not be allowed to succeed in India. That way all the people including the people who belong to higher castes would be trained for service, before they turn 20,  in armed forces as field level soldiers. 

Conscription ensures peace and prosperity

Moreover, conscription gives the nation an army-in-reserve without much expenditure. The Indian Government should dispense with the caste or region-based regiments in military. They are not relevant any more in a secular democracy, that we claim. And, in the event of war, the regiments of conscripts must be sent to the war-front by drawing  lot. That is the only way to prevent behind-the-chair manipulations by any group to avoid real service to the nation at times of war. When certain groups want to corner the power and pelf only for themselves in a plural society, through conspiratorial actions, this is the only way to ensure proper democracy and social justice. 

Indian democracy will see sea-change, once we introduce Conscription in India. Indian bureaucrats and politicians will behave in a responsible manner and would not indulge in unnecessary bravado in international relations, as they do at present, putting the lives of suppressed classes in non-essential danger. India’s high-caste-dominated bureaucracy will develop a tendency to really work for peaceful co-existence with neighbouring countries only when  there is a situation that their own children would also face the necessity of going to the battle-field. It is a fact that because there is no conscription till date in Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan the religious leaders, i.e., the Buddhist monks, the Hindu clergy and the Muslim clergy of these respective nations act hawkish and instigate the other people of their nations to go for war always. Things would be different if all these religious leaders are made to be present in the war-front compulsorily. Once there is compulsory conscription, all the countries in the region will reduce their defence budgets, the way the European nations have done. There will prevail peace and prosperity. 

While death is a great leveller after the man dies, conscription a great leveller when man lives. That conscription must be to the field level work of soldiers. That will herald a welcome change in the caste-ridden India. Conscription necessitates all Indians to be ready to take on the enemy in the actual war-front, if and when war breaks out.  Conscription alone would prove that the nation does not treat the suppressed classes as dispensable and disposable commodities. Let all of us work, therefore, for introducing conscription in India. 

Art. 23 (2)  of the Indian Constitution already provides for it. It says, “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.”

How Articles 23 and 24 took the present shape we may refer to the Study by B. Shiva Rao is his book "The Framing of India's Constitution". The subject was first considered in the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights and the provisions against exploitation as finally approved by the sub-committee were reproduced as clause 15 in the draft report as follows:- "15.

Conscription for military service or training, or for any work in aid of military operation, is hereby prohibited. But, the Advisory Committee did not accept this proposition and revised the provisions adding an explanation that “Nothing in this sub-clause shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes without any discrimination on the ground of race, religion, caste or class.” (For more, one may refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Of Gujarat And Another vs Hon’ble High Court Of Gujarat on 24 September, 1998)

        Every nation that enforces Conscription becomes a peace-loving country as the hawks in political power and in the media who thrive by instigating the people against neighbours think twice before doing so as they are tempered by the thoughts that their own children will have to be in the war front. 

Tagodias Vs Sankaracharyas

As large majority of the people in India were enslaved in the name of castes and were denied any right in the nation-making process, they did not care whether the land was ruled by this or that ruler. The famous adage “I don’t care whether the land was ruled by Rama or Ravana” was born out of this caste-based slavery in the Hindu fold. In the circumstances, in the absence of any reason for the people of such heterogeneous countries to be patriotic, the rulers who instigated the people to participate in war, motivated them only with two incentives: those who survive the war can indulge in loot in the vanquished nation and take home the valuables; those who die can get the assured placement in heaven.  

Conscription is the first step to make Indians really patriotic. The OBCs, SCs and STs have the right to demand introduction of this concept in India, as the people who orchestrate wars and war cries do not send their wards to war. When the demand for conscription is raised, there will be a calculated propaganda in the media against it and one could easily expose those who come up with peculiar arguments against the concept of conscription. 

We see, even in the social sphere, militancy is inducted by the saffron brigades in a cunning pattern, without any care for the lives of the OBCs, SCs and STs. These suppressed classes are ‘recruited’ for Dals and and are used by the higher castes for violent attacks against the people of other religions and other views. The saffron brigades keep their  control towers dominated by the higher castes while leaving the militant wings for the suppressed classes. Tagodias must know that they are just used - or misused or abused - only for militant activities. They can never aspire to become Sankaracharyas. They are made to believe whatever Sankaracharyas say are right. They live just in order to serve the Sankaracharyas for the benefit of the latter. To stop the continued replication of the same analogy in the defence of the nation, it is time (1) conscription is made mandatory in India and (2) deployment in times of war made perfectly transparent that everyone would be aware that anyone could be called in. 

Otherwise, the OBCs, SCs and STs will continue to be defending the interests of the higher castes but will be made to believe, as was done for millennia, that they are defending the nation.

-Vaeyuru Tholibangan

¹ On the Georgian issue, Mr. Putin suggested  that “the US leader was controlled by his hawkish advisers.” “it is the court which makes the king” he said. “May be the court decided that the king should not intervene”.