It was on Army Day this year that the army chief drew the nation’s attention to this problem. Many believe that this is something that should have been done at least a decade ago.

The army has been unsuccessfully grappling with this problem for close to three decades. It began to hurt from about the mid-eighties — the time it was stretched to the point of snapping. The time when we were on an expeditionary mission in Sri Lanka, concurrently coping with Operation Blue Star and its aftermath, and also dealing with Operation Rhino in Assam. Since then, there has been no let up in the army’s commitments. As a matter of fact, the situation in Kashmir from 1990 onwards has further exacerbated matters.

It is important to know a little about how the army functions to better understand the gravity of the problem. The basic building block of the army is what we call a ‘unit’; also known as battalion or regiment depending on the corps to which the unit belongs. All the ‘action and execution’ in the army is at this level. After this level, the direct command of soldiers ceases.

A unit is expected to have around 600 to 800 soldiers and 18 to 25 officers and is commanded by a colonel. It is at this level that an officer learns soldiering and the operational employment of his unit in battle. This level is also where the officer’s baptism to leadership is initiated. Similarly, soldiers after completing recruit training come to the units to be welded into a fighting force and imbibe values of loyalty, discipline, comradeship and pride in the profession of arms. But all this can only happen if there is good leadership in the unit. Otherwise who will teach, train and lead by example? Who will the soldiers and young officers aspire to emulate? Sufficiency and quality of officers is thus critical to the health of units, the basic building block of any army.

... contd.