ETHICAL ISSUES OF INDIAN Armed Forces

MHROD, 1ST SEMESTER

SUBMITTED BY:
Varun Chowdhary
Vidur Chopra
Vijay Luxmi
Kim Geon Young
Mridul Gautam
 INDEX

1. Index
2. Certificate
3. Acknowledgement
4. Indian national army
5. The three Os
6. The three Ds
7. Ethical issues of personnel
8. Ethical issues of peace time
9. Ethical issues of wartime
10. Bibliography
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work embodied in this thesis entitled “Ethical
Issues of Indian Armed Forces” has been satisfactorily completed by
Varun Chowdhary, Vidur Chopra, Vijay Luxmi, Kim Geon Young and
Mridul Gautam, students of first year. It is a bona fide piece of work,
carried out under my supervision and guidance in the Department of
Commerce ,Delhi School of Economics, for partial fulfillment of the Master
of Human Resource and Organisational Development during the academic
year 2009-2010.

Under the
Supervision of

Dr. Gauri Shankar

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are sincerely thankful to Dr. Gauri Shankar for

giving us the opportunity to perform and work
together. It has been his patience that helped us to
complete the assignment with a good learning
experience. And in future, we are confident that his
guidance will serve as the light to show the path
ahead.

Group 4
Varun Chowdhary
Vidur Chopra
Vijay Luxmi
Kim Geon Young
Mridul Gautam
INDIAN NATIONAL ARMY

The Indian National Army is the land based branch and the largest component of
the Indian Armed Forces. Its primary mission is to ensure the national
security and defence of the Republic of India from external aggression and threats, and
maintaining peace and security within its borders. It also conducts humanitarian rescue
operations during natural calamities and other disturbances.

The Indian national army came into being when India gained independence in 1947,
and inherited most of the infrastructure of the British Indian Army that were located in
post-partition India. It is a voluntary service and although a provision for
army conscription exists in the Indian constitution, it has never been imposed.

Since independence, the Army has been involved in four wars with neighboring
Pakistan and one with the People's Republic of China. Other major operations
undertaken by the Army include Operation Vijay, Operation Meghdoot and Operation
Cactus. Apart from conflicts, the Army has been an active participant in United Nations
peacekeeping missions.

The President of India serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The Chief of
Army Staff (COAS), a General, is a four star commander and commands the Army.
There is never more than one serving general at any given time in the Army. Two
officers have been conferred the rank of Field Marshal, a 5-star rank and the officer
serves as the ceremonial chief.

With about 1,414,000 soldiers in active service and about 1,800,000 reserve troops,
the Indian national army is the world's second largest active standing army and the
largest in terms of army populace. By 2020, the Indian national army plans to upgrade
2,000 T-72s, over 1,500 T-90s, and few thousand other tanks.
The Three Os
Army ethics is rooted in three Os: owing, ordering, and oughting

Army ethics based upon "me-ism" or "egotism" cannot function. Army ethics is
about knowing whom and what we owe. Army ethics cannot properly exist
without the concept of owing. If we know why we owe what we do, we are able
to recognize the obligation, responsibility, and duty which give rise to moral
thinking and ethical reasoning.

Neither can army ethics properly exist without the concept of ordering.
By ordering, it does not mean telling subordinates what to do, instead to moral
structuring and ethical priorities.

Before getting to the third O, the way to think about the Os is in the context of
three Ps: principle (truth-telling and honor) first; purpose (mission
accomplishment and duty) second; and people (countrymen, airmen, and
soldiers) third. We know that army ethics demands that we look out for more
than ourselves. As mentioned, the third O stands for oughting, by which I mean
an understanding of what airmen or soldiers should do or ought to do.

It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders
unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary
sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

Every time we act, we become what we have done. In a sense, I become what I
do, and then I do what I have become. Sensible people do not want to think of
themselves as liars even though they may have lied at one time or another. If
we think that, by telling a lie, we are becoming liars (not just committing an
act), we are much more unlikely to do what we should not do, lest we become
what we do not want to be. In this process of moral reasoning, we are, in
effect, thinking about owing, ordering, and oughting.
The Three Ds
The three Os work in conjunction with the three Ds: We must try to discern the
truth; at appropriate times, we declare the truth, as we have discerned it; and
then we do what we have discerned and declared (fig. 2).

Persons of strong character are the

ultimate resource for any army
organization, and they are by definition
persons of integrity-- individuals whose
actions are consistent with their beliefs.
- Col Anthony E. Hartle, USA
- Moral Issues in Army Decision Making

The three Ds tell us that we have a moral charge to educate ourselves as best
we can in light of the truth, to speak up for truth, and then to act in truth. One
more D actually comes into play here, for this is a process of moral decision, a
word that the dictionary tells us means "the idea of coming to a conclusion
after some question, talk, or thinking over." In fact, the word decide comes to
us from the Latin meaning to "cut off," for we cut ourselves off from
alternatives that we reject as unworthy of what we should do or of who we are.

We "cut ourselves off" from deception and distortion, from prejudice and self-
promotion, from lies and lunacies, and we seek truth. For we cannot act as we
should or be what we ought to unless we are grounded in what is true. There
are standards and authorities against which one ought to measure his or her
life. Without such authorities, one has only the impetus of one’s ego as a moral
criterion. By the same token, if the armed services have no ultimate standards
by which to judge their actions and orders, we court moral and army disaster.

If we do not confront the soft

relativism that is now disguised
as virtue, we will find ourselves
morally and intellectually
disarmed.
- William Bennett
- The Death of Outrage
ETHICAL ISSUES OF PERSONNEL
a. Professionals and non-professionals: Army doctors, engineers etc. are
considered to be professionals and they are the people who have no issues in
getting a career settled outside army whereas the sweeper, cook etc are
considered to be non-professionals. So there might be discrimination on the
basis of activities one performs.

b. Recruitment: Army selection has the maximum number of rounds and it

requires attention, maturity and medical fitness.

c. Recommendations: During certain stages the army personnel might

have to look into the recommendations given by government that might not be
feasible or in favour of the army.
ETHICAL ISSUES OF PEACE TIME

a. The costs and benefits of standing army: There is always a debate on

the issue that the money spend on Indian National Army during peace time for
buying ammunitions and other trainings etc forms a major chunk of our Gross
Domestic Product. And this money could be used to satisfy human needs for
food, clothing, medicine etc.

b. The moral issue: It is one of the fundamental contentions of army that

their costs can be morally justified if they are related to benefits for individual
human beings. The main reason has been that the money borne to the army is
from these individuals.

c. The pacifists’ challenge: Since self defence against an attack is

considered to be justified whereas when there is no attack how the self
defence is justifiable.

d. Individual and social defence: Sometimes the question might arise ‘Why
am I putting my life at stake for others?’

e. The problem of security

ETHICAL ISSUES OF WARTIME
Human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times, and
people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as long.

Here are some of the arguments that have been put forward:

a. All war is unjust and has no place in any ethical theory morality must
always oppose deliberate violence.

b. The overriding aim of war should be to achieve victory as quickly and

cheaply as possible. If the cause is just, then no restrictions should be
placed on achieving it.

c. Terrorists are inherently uninterested in morality, so following any

ethical theory of war handicaps those whom terrorists attack.

d. Is it right to start a war, is war cannot be prevented?

The usual solution is non violence. Non-violence doesn't just mean not doing
violence; it's also a way of taking positive action to resist oppression or bring
about change. The aim of non-violent conflict is to convert your opponent; to
win over their mind and heart and persuade them that your point of view is
right. An important element is often to make sure that the opponent is given a
face-saving way of changing their mind. Non-violent protest seeks a 'win-win'
solution whenever possible.

e. War must be the last resort

There are differing views as to what the term 'last resort' actually means in the
context of an ethical war.

1. The traditional view: A state should only go to war if it has tried

every sensible, non-violent alternative first. This is because a state
should not put lives at risk unless it's tried other remedies first. The
alternatives might include diplomacy, economic sanctions, political
pressure from other nations, withdrawal of financial aid,
condemnation in the United Nations, and so on. These alternatives
should be tried exhaustively and sincerely before violence is used.

2. Another view: Some people don't think that 'last' in last resort refers
to the sequence of time. They argue that last resort means that the
use of force is ethical only when it is really necessary and when no
reasonable alternative is left. They argue that sometimes it will be
morally better to go to war sooner rather than later.This might be
because waiting too long would allow the enemy to do much more
damage, or kill more people than an early war would have done; or
may allow the enemy to become so established in another country's
 territory than far greater force will have to be used to remove him
than would have been needed earlier.

f. Is aggressive countries lead to a war? Who is the aggressor?

The aggressor is the country that starts the war. But the United Nations
definition which is quoted below defines the aggressor more narrowly, as the
country that first uses armed force. This definition poses a problem when one
country takes 'aggressive action' against another without using military force.
If the victim country uses military force in response it appears to be the
aggressor and so to be in the wrong according to international law, but morally
it may be in the right.

g. Pre-emptive strikes: A pre-emptive strike is military action taken by a

country in response to a threat from another country - the purpose of it
is to stop the threatening country from carrying out its threat. It is
carried out before the other side attacks with military force, and so
appears to make the side carrying out the strike the aggressor it is
usually carried out before a formal declaration of war.

h. The war must be in proportion. There are two ways of looking at this:

1. The goal of the war should be in proportion to the offence.

Thus a state should not set itself a goal that is out of scale to
the wrong to be righted. So if country A invades part of country
B, it is ethical for B to go to war to get the captured territory
back, but it would not be ethical for B to go to war to conquer
country A and take over all of it.

2. The benefits of waging the war must be in proportion to the

costs, so it must prevent more evil than it causes, it must
prevent more human suffering than it causes

i. The conduct of war.

This is the issue of how a war should be fought, rather than why or if it should
be fought. For a war to be a just war it must be fought according to certain
rules - a war which is just in cause can be unjust in the way it is fought, or the
other way around.

j. Good intention.

A war is only a Just War if it is waged from the right motives. Good intentions
could include:
 1. Creating, restoring or keeping a just peace

2. Righting a wrong

3. Assisting the innocent

4. Bad intentions could include:

5. Seeking power

6. Demonstrating the power of a state

7. Grabbing land or goods, or enslaving people

8. Hatred of the enemy

9. Genocide

10.Personal or national glory

11.Revenge

12.Preserving colonial power

k. Lawfully declared war.

.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://books.google.co.in/books?
id=cxoOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=ethical+moral+issues+in
+military&source=bl&ots=9m8-
jl2XJC&sig=lMcAqKZMHK0epTGKaoaP3cs9Hfk&hl=en&ei=UiicSvSVMYm
QkQXJpoG4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepag
e&q=&f=false

2. Military ethics by N. Fotion, Gerard Elfstrom

3. Military Ethics: Reflections on Principles-The Profession of Arms,

Military edited by Malham M. Waki

4. Conversations with Gentleman Cadet Pranav Seth, Retd. Col. S. Yadav

and Lt. Gen R. Yadava