Can India's Military Afford the Luxury of Disunity and Corruption?

by Daniel Jones

Father Steven Fuchs wrote in his book entitled, At the Bottom of Indian Society, "It is a general caste rule that the host who offers food to his guests must be of the same or even a higher social rank than his guests." This means a high caste member will not accept food from a lower caste individual. Associating with the proper people, especially when it comes to food, is foundational to the Hindu belief system. This explains why countless thousands of high caste office workers in Mumbai (Bombay) will pay a courier to bring the lunch his wife prepared. There are then no questions regarding whose hands made this food.

Hindu customs put people in specific roles. Traditionally, the Brahmins were the priests and scholars, the Kshatrya were the military personnel and rulers, the Vaishna were the businessmen, and the Shudras performed the menial services. India's caste roles have blurred considerably since their independence from Britain in 1948. Yet caste is still a reality in Hindu society.

This month we shall be focusing primarily on the Kshatrya subcastes, but not limiting this issue to them. Because the Kshatrya subcastes have traditionally been the military personnel, we shall focus this background article on how caste affects India's military. We shall see how by dividing their military along caste lines, Indian armed forces have given their allegiance to their castes rather than their nation state. India has been weakened as a result.

The tendency of the Indian army to divide is nothing new. India's divided military was its own worst enemy when facing the Greek army when Alexander the Great invaded India in 326 BC. He encountered Indian troops under Persian leadership fighting for Persia. He first faced troops in India near Taxila, near present-day Rawalpindi. The tribes of the area did not seek to fight. The Indian rulers offered 20,000 troops to Alexander to add to his 11,000-man army. In return, Alexander granted them as much of the territory bordering on their own as they asked for. One Greek source noted also in the initial invasion across the border, 20,000 troops under the command of Persian general Erix blocked the pass in which they were traveling. After losing the initial battle, Indian troops sought out Alexander, either out of dislike for their commander or to curry Alexander's favor. These Indian troops set upon Erix during his flight and killed him. They brought his head and armor to Alexander.

India's Military Under British Rule
In the late 1700s, after 700 years of Muslim rule, parts of India began to be controlled by the British. After solidifying their hold on India as a colony, the British sought to build an Indian army capable of withstanding foreign and domestic enemies. Britain knew India's weakness lay in her lack of social and military solidarity; this would affect their troops' effectiveness and behavior. Competition and mistrust between various castes is basic to the Indian culture, so the composition of the army and the upward mobility of certain soldiers were liable to produce tensions among the various caste groups. They knew the tendencies for some soldiers to be opportunists and to accept a better deal if available. For example, In World War II, the Japanese surrounded the Indian army near Singapore and then recruited some troops to fight against the British under the banner of the Indian National Army.

The British built the Indian army around the Kshatrya subcastes. They also learned that Punjabis from the Sikh religion also made fine soldiers. The British later formed elite troops from Nepal known as the Gurkhas. They played down the religious aspects of caste but stressed occupational and class characteristics of the soldiers. They wanted peasants who were independent, sturdy, upright, honest, and reliable. In some cases landowners were acceptable and some units drew from remote or nomadic tribal groups, but the favorite was the moderately wealthy farmer who had the right "outlook." Most of the latter are Jats, India's great farmers and soldiers.

India's Military Today
The muscle of the army was and still is heavily Kshatrya. But the composition of today's Indian army is an area of speculation. Throughout the 1960s, Stephen Cohen in The Indian Army: Its Contribution to the Development of a Nation, says the government did not release figures on the actual composition of individual regiments. The Indian government likely considers this classified information. And why not? Their main enemies, Pakistan and China, have both attempted to divide India's army by caste, religion, and ethnic group. Any Indian citizen is free to join the army, but certain regiments are still reserved for certain castes and other groups. The military was and is still largely dominated by north Indian castes and classes, primarily Rajputs, Jats, and Punjabi Sikhs.

The Indian government decided to terminate the creation of new single-caste regiments. India's government took care not to disturb those regiments already established. These regiments had history, some nearly 100 years. Indian military writings say, "regiments composed of particular classes developed a certain kind of cohesion and while steps are taken to broaden their composition, it is essential to ensure that the sentimental attachment arising out of such composition is not suddenly disturbed." These single-caste regiments are still intact. In the 1960s, India organized infantry battalions into the pure, the mixed company, and totally mixed units.

India still needs a strong army to defend a vast nation and to project power abroad. Are India's soldiers and leaders up to the task? As India's government plans for its future, she must resolve this tendency towards disunity. This disunity led to the weakness of the army and its loss in its 1962 war with China. It also leads to weakness in the nation. Alexander the Great capitalized on this disunity; so did the Mugul rulers, and the British. If India plans to be a major player on the world scene, then she must find a way to unify and to organize herself.

In his book, Missionary Conspiracy, Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi documented how British missionaries unified and worked within the British Empire to bless India with a fine infrastructure for her civil service, her educational facilities, and her military. But the military infrastructure is severely weakened by corruption, he says in his May 1, 2001 paper, "Has India Died?…and is a Hindu Nation Coming to Birth?" Mangalwadi cites Tarun Tejpal in his essay, "Sleaze, Greed and Dirty Heroes." Some journalists posed as weapons salesmen and tried to sell a non-existing weapon to members of India's defense establishment. Using bribes, they managed to get into the residence of India's Defense Minister and to the President of the ruling BJP Party. Hidden video cameras documented many high officials taking bribes and bragging about their power. One wonders how India can defend herself with such corruption at the highest levels of her military.

Mangalwadi's answer to this problem is for India to turn to Christian ethics. All institutions, especially the military, need to turn to Christian values in order to face India's threats in the 21st century.

Pray…

• Pray that the Kshatrya subcastes will awaken to the fact that they need to live by biblical values if they are going to defend the great nation of India.
• Pray that God will thrust forth Christians to preach the gospel to the Kshatrya peoples.
• Pray that there will be an ongoing season of prayer for every Kshatrya group until each of them has a Bible-believing church.