esamskriti
"A platform to share knowledge and insights to help Indians reconnect
with their heritage and build a glorious future together"

Strategic Defence

Colonel Commandants- An Archaic And Parochial Institution
By Major General Mrinal Suman, May 2011 [[email protected]]

Chapter :

The concept of  Colonel Commandants (Col Comdts) dates back to the 17th century when  Colonels (both in rank and appointment) were the original owners and field  commanders of their units (regiments). With the evolution of the concept of  field formations in the early 18th century, these units lost their  independent entity and were grouped into various tactical formations.  Gradually, the Colonel lost his executive powers and the units came to be  commanded by the duly selected commanding officers with the rank of Lieutenant  Colonel. Subsequently, the Colonel became a mere figurehead with advisory  functions only.

All regiments,  which originated as a single tactical unit (infantry/cavalry), still have a  ‘Colonel’ as head of the family, whatever be the size of that family now. Other  corps/regiments, which originated as groups of tactical units, have Col Comdts.  The number of Col Comdts is determined by the overall strength of the  corps/regiment. Their selection is carried out by the respective regiments through  secret ballot.

A Colonel  Commandant is not involved in the operational affairs of his units. He is considered  a ‘conscience keeper’ of the regiment and a guardian of regimental traditions. He  is like a father figure whose basic duty is to foster esprit-de-corps and  render mature advice when required. As he is expected to look after all aspects  of welfare of his regimental troops, he must be of sufficient seniority to  deliver. In case a regiment does not have any of its regimental officers in  higher ranks, it can request a non-regimental officer to hold the mantle.     

The aim of this  article is to take a look at the relevance of this institution in the present  day environment. With mushrooming of senior appointments, every regiment is  well represented at higher ranks. Therefore, are the crutches of a Col Comdt necessary  for a regiment to get its due? As the issue is of vital importance to the health  and well-being of the army, an open and honest debate is warranted.

Promotes Parochialism
The institution  of Col Comdts is the root cause of growth of parochialism in the army. The  underlying concept of the institution is based on unethical expectations of  gaining undue dispensations for the regiment. Col Comdts are not elected  because they are mature enough to be the father figure. The only criteria is  their potential to contrive maximum benefits for the regiment, both deserved  and undeserved. That is the reason why all prospective Chiefs and Army  Commanders are much in demand.  It is a  simple equation of quid pro quo. Regiments ‘invest’ in a Col Comdt and expect  favours in return.

The moment a  commander is elected as a Col Comdt, he is made conscious of his obligation to  his electors. Through repeated invoking of the regimental spirit, he is  constantly reminded of his moral commitment to dispense favours to his regiment.  Gradually a stage is reached when he loses all inhibitions and openly flaunts his  regimental bias. He has no qualms in awarding unit citations and Commendation  Cards on regimental considerations. Even the schedule of turn-over of units is  subjected to undue influences. Thus, the institution of Col Comdt breeds  parochialism and encourages factionalism; thereby adversely affecting  organisational cohesion.

Merit becomes Irrelevant
It must be  remembered that every act of partisanship by a Col Comdt that results in  unmerited gains for the regiment has to be at the cost of more deserving claimants.  Thus, regimental affiliation replaces merit and many deserving personnel  suffer. Worse, the army is deprived of the best talent available. There are  numerous cases where mediocre officers have risen to higher ranks by latching  on to their Col Comdts and invoking the plea of regimental loyalties. It will  not be incorrect to aver that a significant proportion of top military  leadership owes its promotion to the munificence of their Col Comdts. It is a  largesse they least deserve. No wonder that the army is saddled with  sub-optimal higher leadership at present.

When selection  for higher ranks is influenced by regimental affiliations, undeserving officers  get promoted. Policies are changed, dispensations are given and additional  vacancies allotted to a batch to promote such officers. Even adverse remarks in  their confidential reports are removed. The rot has spread to such abominable  levels that Army Commanders (being Col Comdts) conspire to join hands at the  time of promotion boards to ‘help’ each other’s regimental officers on quid pro  quo basis. Whereas impartiality is an ethical requirement, there cannot be a  more disgraceful travesty of the much trumpeted merit system.

Prevents ‘Growth’ of Senior Leadership
Being an  anachronistic and retrograde institution, it inhibits progressive thinking and  breeds unhealthy predisposition. Col Comdts rise in rank but fail to ‘grow-up’.  They remain mired in narrow mindset of regimental level loyalties and concerns.  They fail to acquire breadth of vision to be able to comprehend larger issues  and remain stuck with trivial matters. When a senior commander spends most of  his time on petty regimental issues, he demonstrates his incompetence to handle  the responsibility that his appointment carries and proves himself to be  unworthy of the high rank that he occupies. 
    
  Many Col Comdts  are known to view every matter with blinkered vision. Their recommendations on  every issue are based more on the basis of regimental interests than what is  good for the organisation as a whole. It is sad to see senior leadership  identifying themselves with a ‘part’ (their regiments) while heading the  ‘whole’ (their commands). Their narrow outlook and prejudiced mindset inhibits  their growth as mature and forward-thinking military leaders.

System Loses Credibility
With a view to  demonstrate their ‘loyalty’ to their regiments, all Col Comdts try to apply  rules in a selective and arbitrary manner to further interests of their  regiments, thereby vitiating the environment. It has been a major cause of  disaffection in the army. The aggrieved  soldiers lose faith in the sense of fair play of military leadership and get  forced to approach courts for justice. No organisation can retain confidence of  its members unless there is credible merit-performance ethical linkage in  place.

An exponential  increase in the number of court cases is indicative of soldiers’ lack of faith  in the fairness of the system. It is reported that over one lakh cases  (pertaining to the armed forces personnel) are pending in various courts with  close to 10,000 cases lying in different High Courts/Armed Forces Tribunals.  Soldiers knock at the doors of courts as a last ditch desperate step – only  when they lose all hopes of getting their rightful due in the organisation. It certainly  reflects poorly on army’s standing as a ‘fair and just’ establishment. Partisanship  practiced by Col Comdts is the primary cause of this loss of credibility.

Conclusion
The most worrisome  fallout of skewed conduct of Col Comdts is that the environment has come to  accept its inevitability. No eyebrows are raised when a Col Comdt is seen to be  bestowing undue favours on his regiment. On the contrary he is eulogized for  his regimental spirit. It is considered to be the ‘done’ thing. Others wait for  their Col Comdts to acquire similar authority to help them. Thus the cycle goes  on at the cost of organisational health. It is quite akin to political parties waiting to come to power to share  the booty.

Regimental  spirit is a battle winning factor at unit/battalion level and acts as a force  multiplier. However, when carried to higher levels by over-zealous Col Comdts,  it becomes counterproductive and affects group cohesion adversely. By giving  precedence to regimental affiliation over merit, the system loses talent as  well as credibility. The institution of Col Comdt is an archaic legacy that is  divisive in nature and encourages fissiparous tendencies. Having lost its  relevance, it has become detrimental to the health of the army and should be  abolished.

Editor – India  needs Innovative, Out of the box thinking at various levels. We need to retain  those institutions and structures, handed over to us by the British Raj, that  are relevant to the needs of the 21st century, others need to go.  For this India needs leaders at various levels whom the Armed Forces can trust and expect to take a balanced unbiased view.

Also read:
Decolonising the Indian Mind

Chapter :

Post A Comment

'The purpose of this feature is to provide a platform for exchange of views.
Please Register with site to post a comment and avoid abuse and getting into personal arguments.


Add Your Comment