Duty, Honour, Courage!

The Indian Naval Academy (INA) at Ezhimala, Kerala, functions with the primary aim of developing world class naval leaders capable of leading men and women into battle. The hallowed portals of this great institution subject cadets to an intense grind to weed out the chaff and mould future naval officers. The very structure of the academy, with its rank hierarchy between various semesters and the growing responsibilities of cadets as they move to senior terms, prepares them for leadership. The academy seeks to imbibe the very best of Service values, duty, honour and courage, in the cadets. The most important part of training is character development and essentially, this is to empower him/her with a framework for figuring out for oneself what is right. The criticality of the human element, despite technology’s growing significance, shall remain central to war and warfare.

Can a Military Value System Rest on an “All is Fair” Approach?

Every military force around the world lays stress on ethical and intellectual development of its personnel as a core war fighting factor. Ab-initio academies are the most apt places for character development since young men and women are impressionable and have an innate inclination towards at least a degree of idealism in wanting to answer to a higher calling. The cadets have reached the gates through one of the toughest selection processes possible. Consequently, the responsibility on Divisional Officers and Instructors is immense, as the keel laid in the academy helps to build the superstructure of professional ethics as a cadet develops into an officer and rises through the ranks.

During my tenure as a Divisional Officer at the INA, I came across several instances where I myself grappled with difficult questions and views of my cadets about ethics and morality. Academies do teach cadets the need to be winners, that there is no second place or a consolation prize in combat; and rightly so. This is repeatedly driven through inter-squadron competitions, which are seen as a reflection of the prestige of the squadron, and doing well enough to win, becomes quite important. The tribal sense of belongingness pushes cadets to perform above and beyond what they otherwise might have. Competitions are treated as war and often it is assumed that “everything is fair in love and war.” But, then are fellow cadets, albeit from a different squadron, enemies or just competition? Does doing what is right lead to failure, and thus, make us poor future leaders? Does following rules take away the killer spirit? As a young officer, I had the privilege of having a role model, who despite being very senior walked me through the development of a strong sense of what’s right and wrong. Therefore, as a divisional officer, I wanted to emulate my mentor and encouraged my cadets to discuss what seemed at first brush, a morally ambiguous problem.

The More You Sweat in Peace…?

Our squadron was performing exceedingly well in the championship tally for the term. The flagship event for the term is of course the X-country, which is hotly contested by all squadrons. The race in the sweltering humidity of coastal Kerala is extremely demanding and requires grit and determination. Cadets in almost any military academy around the world can relate to the long practice runs and intense workout sessions to build one’s body, all in the hope of shaving off a few seconds from the next timed run. In a cadet’s mind, a X-country final is nothing short of war.

My squadrons’ cadet appointment, a talented and hardworking lad and a good leader, drove himself and his juniors equally hard. A few days before the mythical Kurukshetra war, he came to me with a proposition. He proposed conducting additional practice sessions for weak runners in the middle of the night. Though my first instinct was to snub him for even coming to me with such a preposterous idea, I thought it would be better to understand where the idea was coming from. Here is the gist of our conversation:

I asked him if he did not consider it wrong to carry out illegal practice sessions at night?

Pat came the reply “But sir we wouldn’t be able to win otherwise!” “So, does that make it right?”

“No, Sir!”

“Does that justify cheating?”

“Sir, but following the rules won’t help us win!”

My initial thought was that the cadets he had in mind for a bit of ‘night-life’ might be doing something unwarlike like sleeping! Whilst I had put my foot down to the severe disappointment of this cadet appointment, the discussion set me pondering. Why were cadets thinking through this framework even when the Cadets’ prayer enjoined them to play fairly? It also took me back to my own academy days, when as a below average hockey player, I had decided if I could not get the ball, I would definitely get the other players’ shins! Whilst fortunately, my attempts at both getting the ball or the opponents shins failed spectacularly, I still had succumbed to the temptation of doing whatever I “thought” was necessary to win. It is important to highlight that it is often what we personally believe to be the sine qua non for winning, rather than what is borne of a logical and impassioned analysis, tends to win in one’s own mind. A rationally thought through process would have led me to focus on improving my skills at the game rather than attempting to injure a fellow comrade.

Winner Takes All

Ethics or rules sometimes appear incompatible with winning at any or all costs; and anything incompatible with winning seems to have no place in the profession of arms. In our conversation, I recognised that it was not an ethical dilemma-the grey zone between determining right and wrong. Rather, it was more of an over-rider that perhaps the environment seems to influence: we need to do whatever is necessary to win. Perhaps in our excessive emphasis on winning, we had not stressed enough on the importance of winning in the right way. It goes to the root of ethics: does using wrong means justify the right ends?

My side of the conversation to convince him otherwise was perhaps difficult for him to see at that point. Not only here, but also in many issues of our professional lives, I have found it helpful to question the motive behind seeking to win. More often than not, the motivation is self-furtherance rather than a selfless desire to see the team win. Individual ambition is not a bad thing per se, but when it pushes us to do the wrong thing, we are merely trying to convince ourselves that what we are doing is for the greater good. In this case, whilst it would be the squadron winning, he as a leader had much at stake having personally overseen the training. His desire to win exceeded the pitfalls of injuring a fellow cadet during unmonitored practice sessions or of breaking rules that governed a cadet’s routine. For one, running without supervision at night is dangerous, which he acknowledged, but yet thought he was justified in taking these risks. His peers apparently applauded his courage to take the risk, not just of injury but also of punishment in the form of relegation, if he were to be caught. A heady mix of plaudits from his peers and the likelihood of glory had pushed him to believe that this was the only possible way of winning.

It is difficult to form one’s standard of ethical behaviour from peers or society in general; much ink has flowed with people lamenting the decadent nature of our times with humanity giving in to immorality. It may not be factually right perhaps to infer or accept an older generation’s view that people were more ethical in yesteryears compared to today. It would also be incorrect to blame our shortcomings on the declining ethical standards of society because it externalises the problem. Either way, a leader is respected and admired for his personal convictions and ability to stand apart from the crowd. Trust in our leaders flows from the innate belief that he or she will do what is right; his decisions won’t be self-serving. Leading men into combat requires trust. It is difficult to trust a leader who you know often decides on aspects based on self-interest rather than the organisational good, even if his voiced argument says otherwise.

“Even to the peril of my life” (From the INA Prayer)

In a brilliant article in the USNI Proceedings, “Moral Reasoning in Seven Questions” Captain Roger G. Herbert Jr., USN (Retd) talks about the “integrity test.”1 He talks about how passing a test of integrity requires strength of character. Greater the stakes, greater is the strength required to do what is right. This “test” is best exemplified by the story of Lieutenant Michael Murphy.2 Lt Murphy a US Navy SEAL, was leading a team on a reconnaissance mission in Afghanistan. His team was compromised in its position by three goat herdsmen, including a 14 year old boy. The overbearing sentiment in the SEAL team was to execute the civilians to avoid the possibility of them alerting the nearby Taliban. Despite the obvious risks, Lt Murphy took the conscious decision of letting them go, correctly identifying the goat herdsmen as non-combatants. However, within a short time of letting them go, the team came under heavy fire from the Taliban. Despite their valour, all but one of the SEALs perished. Perhaps the goat herdsmen did warn the Taliban and consequently, Lt Murphy paid for his decision with his life and those of some of his compatriots. There could have been no greater trial of integrity than what Lt Murphy passed that day.

Does being an ethical warrior stop you from being cunning in battle? Perhaps not. The recourse to being cunning in combat is not a violation of laws of war in a general sense, but adherence to the Laws of Armed Conflict is a soldier’s obligation. The Indian Armed Forces have an excellent record in ethical behavior that combines chivalry and a code of conduct that is clearly understood, expected and enforced. If that were not the case, we would not have celebrated stories of chivalry and the highest ethical conduct by the Indian Army in the Kargil war. Chivalry was demonstrated despite the obvious provocation of the Pakistan Army choosing to mutilate, torture and kill Capt Saurabh Kalia and his patrol.3 The Indian Army chose to conduct the final rites of fallen Pakistan soldiers.4 Treating Prisoners of War right or refusing to harm innocent civilians has not prevented armies from winning. At the same time, armies that conduct themselves improperly, and violate the laws of armed conflict do not necessarily do better in war. Another example is the infamous My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war.5 A group of more than 20 American soldiers murdered and raped wantonly resulting in the death of 504 civilians, mostly old men, women and children. The breaking of the news story in America shattered the confidence and respect that the American public had in its troops.6

The reader may argue that it is an extreme stretch to connect innocuous “smart acts” in the academy to horrifying war crimes such as My Lai. But what starts as an innocuous smart act slowly may erode the ethical foundation needed to deal with the tougher moral challenges we are bound to face in our careers. It is not necessary that every moral decision leads to a My Lai. But our decisions will ultimately reflect on how effective we are as leaders in combat. The greatest advantage that being right lends is moral ascendancy and the courage of conviction that helps us when the situation seems bleak.

Sometimes doing what is right may result in a setback. This may manifest itself in some ways during a cadet’s time in an academy and thereafter, at any stage in a naval officer’s career. But the will to resist wrongs, to adhere to the honour code, to point our life in the direction the moral compass shows, can give a young officer the strength of character to cope with greater dilemmas or greater ethical challenges, as he rises in rank. Living an ethical life has never been easy: temptation is human; our decisions are influenced by our peers; by our past experiences and also by the consequences of our actions. Doing “right” in itself is not hard. What may seem hard is the acceptance of the consequences of our actions. However, if we teach ourselves and others to develop strength of character, the harder right may seem just a little easier and give us the strength to face tests in our day-to-day life. Small tests of integrity will go on to build one’s ability to deal with tougher tests. That is when we transform the “harder right to the easier right.”

The reader might wonder, what happened in the cross country. Well, we did not win it! I reveal this to drive home the point that doing the right thing may not always lead to gratification. If the choice of doing right or wrong is governed merely by the stakes involved, innumerable shall be our failures. Academies ought to try harder to build resilience of character as much as physical resilience and use every opportunity to build the former. Unless we build resilience, we may be found wanting; when peer pressure eggs us on in a wrong direction and life’s cross country itself may claim us in the end!

Endnotes

  1. Roger G Herbert Jr., “Moral Reasoning in Several Questions,” U S Naval Institute Proceedings (2021, May). https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/may/moral-reasoning-seven-questions, accessed 23 August 2021.

  2. Marcus Luttrell, Loan Survivor (New York: Little Brown and Co., 2007).

  3. “Capt Saurabh Kalia: Story of first Kargil martyr,” India Today, 26 July 2019. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/capt-saurabh-kalia-story-of-first-kargil-martyr-1573838-2019-07-26, accessed 25 August 2021.

  4. Barry Bearak, “India Buries Soldiers that Pakistan Won't Claim,” New York Times, 17 July 1999. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/17/world/india-buries-soldiers-that-pakistan-won-t-claim.html, accessed 25 August 2021.

  5. Ben Cosgrove, “American Atrocity: Remembering My Lai,” The Life Magazine, 05 December 1969. https://www.life.com/history/american-atrocity-remembering-my-lai/, accessed 25 August 2021.

  6. “My Lai Massacre,” 09 November 2009. https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre-1, accessed 25 August 2021.