This concern for the morale of the Armed Forces is obviously based on the increased incidents of ‘fragging’ and suicides in the past few years. Clubbed with the ‘Kargil allowance’ — enhanced compensations to troops serving in the higher of the high altitudes between 14,000 and 19,000 feet — an attempt is being made for an interim recompense to the military before submissions by the Sixth Pay Commission. Recommendations for these compensations had been made by the Armed Forces many years ago. However, the absence of a mechanism other than the Pay Commission for the consideration of such proposals has subjected them to bureaucratic inertia.

The critical mass attained by incidents of fragging has perhaps acted as a tipping point for action. However, given the euphoria accompanying these marginal measures, the larger question surrounding the proclivity of soldiers towards suicide and fratricide may remain unaddressed. Fragging is far too complex an issue to be linked to monetary sops. While the trigger for such incidents could be public rebukes by seniors or consistently rude and abusive behaviour, the malaise may have deeper roots in increased levels of dehumanisation. In an environment where killing a terrorist is regarded as an act of valour and is justified by a sense of righteousness, the inclination to assault one’s own superior who is perceived to be in the wrong is not difficult to understand. Under the circumstances, increased facilities for leave and recreation are merely peripheral compensations.

The Indian state needs to revisit the very concept of force as a sub-median rather than an ultimate response to combating home grown terrorism and militancy. We are yet to see an in-depth review of cases of fragging in the country. The study by the Defence Institute of Psychological Research does not cover the socio-political roots of violence or its impact on the military mind. Some pointers from the analysis of cases of fratricide in the Vietnam war would indicate insensitivity to violence arising from incessant exposure to death or fear of it and officers placing their command at risk due to sheer incompetence or to seek glory for themselves as possible reasons for fratricide. In 1970 alone, the Pentagon reported over 200 cases of fratricide, while in India in 2006 the figure had reached 23. The issue is still under control, yet it would indicate that the cause of psychological stress arises as much from the perceived immorality of conditions of combat as it does from concern for one’s family at home. Thus, simplifying symptoms to monetary distress or turnaround through leave may provide only temporary relief.

The core issue is to limit the exposure of the uniformed force, particularly the army, to violence unless required by the exceptional circumstances of war. This will help retain a sense of humaneness by avoiding a continuous exposure to blood and gore. Demilitarisation may thus be as much an answer as providing two free tickets home each year. Furthermore, militancy in Kashmir has now reached the classical final 20 per cent zone, wherein the input-output ratio is skewed. This is already evident in the low security forces to terrorist kill ratio of 1: 2.4. Beyond this point, the deployment of Armed Forces will have only marginal results: the solution is political and involves dialogue with militant groups — particularly the Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest indigenous group with grassroots support in the Valley. Channels must open for this. Thus, if negotiations can be held with the ULFA, which does not recognise the Constitution, Kashmiri groups should not be a taboo.

The Indian Armed Forces as an institution will continue to serve the state uncomplainingly in the years ahead. The rumblings will always appear in the form of individual cases of rebellion against the internal chain of command in units. These need to be seen in the overall perspective of rationalising the use of internal violence by the state rather than as external manifestations directed at company and platoon commanders. Without denying the importance of administrative measures undertaken at various levels by the government and the army, the larger issue of the use of force by the state needs consideration, for this is as much a challenge to Indian society as it is to the military.

The writer is a security analyst