I’m not a particularly unpatriotic person. I love India – not just because I’m born into it, but because it has so much potential. There are plenty of flaws, but I believe that things will get better. I love its democracyand I more or less like the direction its taking.
But would I give up my life for it? After some thought, I’ve decided the answer is…No.
A “nation” is too vague an idea for me sacrifice something so precious. I can imagine giving my life to protect someone close to me – someone, or some people I love. Such as a family for instance if the threat is serious enough. But I can’t imagine dying to protect man made borders to which I have no real close connection.
In short, I would make a poor soldier.
It’s because I’m unable to blindly follow anything. I can never fully submerge myself in a larger entity, a larger cause, and will myself to shut my eyes to everything else. My core individualism simply doesn’t allow that to happen. I’m glad there are some people who can do that – put their lives at risk in unquestioning obedience to their superior officers. But there shouldn’t be too many. After all, that’s what fanatics are made of.
I view my life as too precious a gift to squander away without a tangible benefit. I get one shot at living and will dissolve into nothingness when I die. It’s so brief a spark after all. We’re all born alone, essentially die alone – and that’s the end.
Sometimes tactical sacrifices are needed in war. Maybe a contingent to delay the enemy for a while. They’re expected to fail. And often, only the superior officers know the expected outcome. Only they know the overall strategy. The rest of the soldiers are pawns. Pawns who don’t question why they’re asked to do whatever they’re asked to do. I could never be that pawn. To relinquish my grip on life just to serve a higher cause under someone else for purposes I don’t fully understand…not for me.
What does this mean as an Indian? I know it’s patriotic to say that you’ll give your life for your country. I know there’s no law saying that you must want to give up your life. And that’s one of the reasons why I love India. But how much is it expected informally? Are Indians expected to lay down their lives to protect their borders?
How many people are like me? Would you give up your life for your country in the manner outlined above?
Second Post:
The unthinking, blindly following Soldier
I think your thinking is extremely muddled in this area, maybe in an effort to be provocative. You confuse hierarchies, you transpose postmortems with a priori decisions, you smear anyone who follows orders with the fanatic brush implicitly, and you do not understand the incentives for the professional soldier.
First, let me take this bit about “following orders blindly” – I run an investment business. I employ investment decision makers, analysts, finance support functions and office boys. I would be extremely put out if my office boy or finance support function guys or analyst would come to me and seek to question the tasks that I give them as part of my office “hierarchical” process functioning. In this case, it is their job to execute the orders given, not analyse and question my motives or the outcome. It may lead to my finance manager getting an earful from say, the bank branch manager – but, he still has to go and meet and talk to the branch manager. He has no choice in this matter.
So, the bigger point is that Following “Normal or Routine” Orders Blindly is part of everyone’s job , including the guy at the top, who gives you your orders, but in turn reports to some one else.
Now, let us look at the Soldier, whom you call unthinking or an idiot. I read a fair bit of war history, including short biographies of different regiments and their actions and specific commanders – I find it fascinating, and it has sometimes yielded me some good insights into investing and business.
IMO, there are three categories of soldiers (I am not distinguishing between officers and NCOs or jawans in this debate):
1. Those who are truly excited by the armed services and find it their true calling – this is the only job that they would ever want to take up. In MBA placement parlance, the Dream Company or the Dream Job.
2. Career Families – Families that have traditionally contributed soldiers to the Armed forces – just as families have only doctors or lawyers. Son following Father/Uncle/Cousin following Grandfather following Great Grandfather, etc (No implied gender bias here)
3. Those for whom the Armed Services offers the best possible job option among the choices that they have.
Remember, we have a volunteer army – no compulsory service. So, let us now look at the incentive structures for these 3 groups.
Group 1- they clearly understand all the risks, including mortality, of their dream job, wouldn’t you agree?
Group 2 – May be less clear on a cogent analysis but family experience would have given them all the data that they would want to evaluate the job, right?
Group 3 – is the one that gets my outright sympathy and most respect – they may be choosing to serve the nation as a soldier, with all the risks entailed in the business, but they may not have chosen this if they had better options. Yet, having chosen the job, they do not run away from it when the going gets tough. They do not have the option of “fighting or fleeing” as we non-soldiers have – that is the reason for the respect.
I hope you are not going to say that a nation state does not need an army at all – because that would be very specious, indeed.
Moving on to the following orders blindly for the Soldier in Combat (I am only discussing combat here, because I would imagine that you would have no problems with non-combat orders, unless it is flying the Mig-21s in peacetime) – we need to classify these orders further into two categories – evil orders and normal orders. Evil orders are any and all orders that violate the Geneva Convention or in any harms the life and rights of civilians or surrendered enemy soldiers. Any soldier has to and must resist evil orders – he can not hide behind the “I was following orders” cover. The Nuremberg Trials established this code of conduct post WWII and the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague will prosecute each indvidual soldier for lapses.
Then, we come to the normal orders in the field of combat – it is the job description of the Soldier to follow his commander’s order on the field of combat. There is no thinking or no optionality in this part of his behaviour. First, one can easily imagine the chaos if each individual solder were to reinterpret his commander’s instructions with differing levels of analytical ability. Second, you have the whole business of information asymmetricity – no soldier, no platoon, no division and maybe even no brigade or regiment can ever have all the information about the entire theatre of combat. So, where is the question of disobeying orders?
Finally, we come to your taking postmortem analysis and presenting them as a priori decision – a commander sending his men to certain death. How many commanders in how many wars have you actually seen doing this? Or read about? Which commander would foolishly send his platoon, his division, his brigade or his regiment to a certain death? As an active manoeuvre? This is a naive, theoretical position. Oh, for tactical advantage, a brigadier will let his whole command perish – this is not Chess. The whole underlying basis of this argument is not sound.
So, in conclusion, yes, soldiers face the threat of death in protecting the boundaries of our nation state in active warfare and they do it out of their own choice and free actions. It is the price we, as a group, pay because we, humans, are not civilised enough. And, the state allows a large group of citizens to pay for this service in money, instead of blood. If you read feudal history, you would come to know how recent this phenomenon is – this outsourcing of individual protection. Even 200 years back, in many countries that are considered civilised today, you would be significantly responsible for your own safety at times of war or conflicts – and you had to be physically prepared to defend your home and hearth and pay in blood, if you could not.
So, let us NOT disrespect the Soldiers who do the jobs that we are not prepared or unable to do and hope for the day when they are no longer required.
Cheers
Supratim
In reply to Supratim
Ok, let’s roll up our sleeves :)
I think there’s a fundamental difference between your finance manager blindly following your orders and a soldier following orders because of the consequences. In first case, your finance manager gets an earful. In the latter, the soldier gets killed. There are limits to obedience and I genuinely doubt if your manager would still carry out your orders if his/her life were at stake.
Life is after all, the highest price. And I freely admit that I put an extremely high price on mine.
I like your segregation of soldiers into three categories – pretty good.
Now we get to the interesting bits.
Many countries have either not fully ratified the Geneval convention or not ratified all the additional provisions (regarding torture for example. India has not ratified the convention against torture.) So there’s no uniformity in this. In many cases, a soldier has only his/her conscience to go by.
Second, how many soldiers are actively briefed on the geneva convention and will refuse to carry out a particular action based on their orders? It doesn’t happen. The tortures exposed during the US war in Afghanistan and Iraq shows that when it comes to practical boots on the ground situations, the Geneva convention is very far from anyone’s mind.
Additionally, a soldier is often not privy to whether or not an order is “evil”. Perhaps they’re being ordered to attack a friendly army as a betrayal? The soldier on the ground knows nothing of the motivations of the orders passed to them.
And finally, to the most interesting bit.
My blog post is an expostulation of the problems inherent from my side. I’m not blind to the fact that every soldier cannot question their commander – otherwise there will be chaos. I just said that people like me are incapable of that. I will always question. I’m not presenting a solution here. I’m just laying down my side of the equation.
On balance, you have to say Supratim’s argument is more convincing.
India’s is a volunteer army (the categorisation of motivation is excellent) and for the system to work, you need to have people following orders from people qualified to make good decisions. (That places an onus on ensuring a meritocracy.)
The rest of us (non-soldiers) are the social equivalent of free riders, in the matter of the defense of the realm. Of course we have to do their bit, too, to sustain the army and the family members of the armymen and armywomen. That’s why the Adarsh Housing Society scam was so detestable. Congress politicians stealing the flats of Kargil martyrs.
The much-maligned caste system and other forms of social stratification recognise the differing motivations of individuals. In an era where social mobility was limited (no printing press, online universities), it was a practical solution. Division of labour, right?
Let the soldiers do the soldiering, putting their lives on the line. Let the farmers keep feeding the armies and the rest of the people. You keep up with the..uh….blogging, I guess, and using your earnings to pay your taxes.
In reply to Anon
I think one shouldn’t forget that without a civilian population, the soldiers would be irrelevant. So if it’s a question of importance, I think civilians are far more important than soldiers though such statements are almost meaningless.
Patriotism is largely an unthinking, unquestioning devotion. It is a devotion that often clouds peoples judgements into making unethical decisions, valuing the lives of certain people more than others based on their birth place etc…
Socrates is quoted to have said ‘I am a citizen, not of Athens or Greece, but of the world’.
Dear Bhagwad,
Let me strike a dissenting note in this discussion. On the face of it your logic is sound; why die for a social contract that you never signed, especially if all such a contract means is a way to collect taxes, build roads, educate children etc. Something that would happen one way or another under a different flag anyway so why bother?
Before I answer let us take the concept of defense and it’s origins.
Let us assume that you and a bunch of friends inhabit the earth in it’s infancy. There is no republic no nation, just a bunch of barely clothed homo sapiens in a valley, raising young ones. Close by live a pack of wild wolves, eager to pounce upon any defenseless toddler or an injured/old adult.
Now you have two choices, either hang out separately trusting your luck to stay alive or organize a primitive militia, (let us call it liberal militia) to guard the families/food etc. while other members hunt and forage.
Now the liberal militia is made up of members who commit to fight as a pack, with a complete understanding that although sometimes they risk their lives a little more by standing and fighting in a skirmish, they maximize the overall long term chance of survival, by fighting a pack with a pack. Notice that this arrangement can only work as long as each member is certain that the militia will fight as one unit (notice where unquestioned obedience becomes a necessity) and thus enhance a chance of survival for each of it’s members.
This way each pledges to risk his/her life in a crunch in return for the steady longterm protection the group provides against ever present risk. Put another way, each member buys a life insurance by pledging ones own life but at a smaller risk; increasing the overall odds of survival several fold in the process!
Sure, you may say, I would fight against blood thirsty wolves but what about other men?
I guess it depends what ‘other men’ are planning to do with you. For example if they plan to eradicate you like say the Nazis it is no different than fighting wolves, and most people would fight.
How about if they merely enslave you and sell your women and children as slaves? There may be some who may value life over liberty and decide not to resist.
If the victors didn’t enslave, merely take away your land and huts etc. Some more may opt to not resist.
Maybe, the victors would merely take away your produce, or better still only ask to to pray to a certain diety a few times a day and no questions asked. By now most of the liberal militia members may feel that the cost of resistance outweighs the risks and may consider looking for a white rag to raise over their heads in a hurry. It woulld sound a reasonable option.
But is it?
If there is one lesson that history has taught, it is this; that in the affairs of men, there are no certainties when dealing with victors and no guarantees for the vanquished.
Like the barbarian chief once yelled at the vanquished Romans, Woe to the vanished; in other words, a victor is a victor and gets to make the rules.
Fortunately, India has many kinds of people.
Sure, there are many warm, fuzzy and the trusting kind who think of the Taliban are just dudes with ill fitting turbans. Yet there are a whole lot others who are rather cynical and feel that the funny turbans would be the least of our problems in case of a Taliban victory. And I thank God for the later kind!!
In reply to Gorki
Well put Gorki. I think you make a lot of valid points.
In your example, I would certainly fight alongside the “pack.” But I think it’s different from fighting for your country in the following ways:
1. A small community is tangible and the threat is directly visible. I’ve already mentioned that I might well die protecting my family and a close village type of set up is just an extended family.
A country on the other hand is too large for me to feel personal over. It’s borders are far away from my home and I have no connection to them. Not enough emotional investment if you know what I mean.
2. The initial assumption of that group being the only group on earth is of course not valid in today’s world so…
3. I logically know that my presence doesn’t make a difference. I’m aware that if everyone thought like this, the whole system would fall apart. But I’m just relating the problem – I don’t pretend to give a solution. The prisoner’s dilemma has me by the throat.
But overall I agree with your analysis of the origins of defense. I just feel that today’s world calls for a different kind of approach to what defense and borders imply.
Dear Bhagwad,
You say you would not die in part because you think your individual death would make no meaning yet you agree you would die to protect your family.
Fair enough.
So let me ask you:
1. would you die protecting your family even if you knew that your death would be wasted; that is your family had no chance of survival, your death postponed theirs by a few minutes only? (A choice many have actually faced during riots; during partition etc.)
2. Would you die if your death made a big difference? (martyrs who prevented the parliament attack)?
3. Would you die for an idea; any idea (like Socrates above or Teg Bahadur)?
In reply to Gorki
1. I might still die because I wouldn’t want to betray my family members by leaving them provided they themselves can’t escape. Having said that, if I have time to think about it and there’s no way every family member can leave and the chance of everyone dying with or without me is almost certain, I might very well leave after making sure they understand my reasons for doing so.
But I might still die…depending on how mature the family members are and whether or not they’ll think of it as a betrayal. I would actually urge them all to commit suicide beforehand.
2. Yes, if my death made a big difference to something I cared about. Since I personally don’t care for the parliamentarians, I would not die for them.
3. Again – depends on whether my death is achieving something or not.
“To be, or not to be–that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep–
No more–and by a sleep to say we end……”
(Hamlet)
Dear Bhagwat,
Thanks for indulging me.
I believe that within your responses lie the key to understanding why men choose to fight and die for anything, be it an idea, a family member or an abstract idea; country, cause, whatever. While you wrote you may understand the futility of dying for a family member whom you could not save you wrote that you may still consider dying if the family member was not mature enough to understand.
Now think about it; how does it matter whether the family member was mature and understanding or not since the member would soon be dead anyway?
The only way it makes sense would be your own beliefs after the fact-your conscience. And that is the crux of the matter. I take a bad conscience to be the deepest sickness that a man may fall into, wrote Nietzsche.
Indeed it is our conscience that makes our living or dying worthwhile. Once we identify ourselves with anything closely enough; an idea, a person, a cause, we would rather be annihilated first than see the destruction of that thing otherwise we may remain physically alive but with a dead conscience; a death in itself, if you believe Nietzsche.
I do.
I may be able to live without my wife but not with the knowledge that I let her die to save my own skin. The fact that I believe that gives my life meaning today and everyday that I live. If I act contrary to my belief, it would not be a betrayal of my wife as it would be a betrayal of my own self.
If the above argument makes sense to you, you will understand that no one dies for another; (whether an idea, country or person).
One dies voluntarily but only for oneself.
Like the poet said:
‘Saare jhagare to iss zindagi ke hain, kaon maarta hai phir kissi ke leye..’
(All struggle are for one self, who would die for another..)
Regards.
In reply to Gorki
Brilliantly put Gorki! That really puts it in perspective.
I do think though that one should be capable of reevaluating what they identify with as their understanding of life in general improves. What a person thinks they identify with at one point of time need not be what they identify with later on.
Does this mean that conscience itself changes, or that conscience is just a force flexible enough to identify with anything at a given point of time. Because if so, then a lot of evil can also be done in the name of conscience.
What’s that saying? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions…”
That is exactly true.
Look at Ajmal Kasab!
“They’re expected to fail. And often, only the superior officers know the expected outcome. Only they know the overall strategy. The rest of the soldiers are pawns. Pawns who don’t question why they’re asked to do whatever they’re asked to do. I could never be that pawn. To relinquish my grip on life just to serve a higher cause under someone else for purposes I don’t fully understand…not for me.”
Incidentally, the above quote summarizes how so many people think of ‘God’ as the one determining their fate, and seemingly so are so happy to be mere pawns!!
Again, on a different note, Ayn Rand’s writing also talks of such individualism and heaps contempt over groupthink. But I also know you’ve not liked her writing nor philosophy. :)
I end up asking myself if I’d even give up my life for the person I’d love the most, and I get a bit of a self-doubt, which makes me feel very guilty. Even if I were to choose death for myself to save her life, it’s more likely to be cuz of fear of having to live without her, which is selfish. I’d of course never give up my life to borders or even real people whose lives I wouldn’t value than my own. But yes, if a situation might come, wherein my death could somehow save lives of many people, and somehow if I were sure that these would be nice people (worthy of my sacrifice), I just **might** think about it.
In reply to Ketan
I think it’s perfectly natural to have second thoughts about giving up your life even for those close to you – nothing to feel sorry about. The circumstances would have to be grave indeed for me to take such a step.
As for God, so many people want to be pawns. It frees them from responsibility and the job of searching for meaning in their own lives :)
bhagwad …..
if u civilians hate army so much then from next time dnt call them when there r blasts in “”YOUR”” city ,,, dnt call them when there are communal riots in “”YOUR”” city ,,,,,,,,, dnt call them when a calamity strikes n”” YOU “” and “”YOUR”‘ family “”AND UR DOG”” are SUFFER without food and water,,,,,,,,,, dnt call them when law and order fail in “”YOUR”” locality and rapes and murders are common ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, JUST DIE A PAINFUL MEANINGLESS DEATH !!!!!
BECAUSE IT WILL BE D SAME “”PAWN”” WHO WILL COME, READY TO GIVE UP HIS LIFE AND SAVE UR LIFE!!!!
,,,,,,,,,,,
“”SERVING THE NATION IS NOT A SACRIFICE ,,,,,, ITS A PRIVILEGE ,,, AN HONOR “”
perhaps u won’t understand…….
KETAN- dnt bother …… there are plenty others who will lay down their lives before u even start thinking !!!!
LONG LIVE MARTYRS ,,,,,,,,,,,, LONG LIVE INDIAN ARMY,,,,,,,,,,JAI HIND
In reply to aman
Dude, chill. What’s with the caps and all the commas?
Just like in ancient days,army of a state follow the order of their general and die for their country and king just because the king/state provide him food,name,shelter,identity,cause to survive and protection to his family and closed ones. Just like that at present country provides us everything. Liberty,best constitution in world,human rights,religion,beliefs,every liberty to do anythng,shelter to liue,identity as an indian to say and many other things. And in return it only asks just stand for her whenever there is a war or invasion and its our duty to save her as after all we only have to live here.
For me,i can easily risk my life for my country. Its the duty every person to stand for his mother country.