Chandigarh: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s declaration that the epaulettes of all Indian Navy (IN) officers will henceforth bear the imprint of Chhatrapati Shivaji’s maritime legacy, in a bid to further ‘de-colonise’ the service, has not been well received by veterans.
A cross-section of senior retired naval officers were privately critical of the prime minister’s announcement on what they considered to be an ‘exclusively’ internal service matter in his Navy Day address at Sindhudurg on Monday. But collectively, they were all downright terrified of being identified for airing their opinions publicly, and feared being harassed or penalised – or both – by officialdom.
“It is not for the prime minister to make pronouncements like revamping naval epaulettes, which is exclusively the responsibility of the IN’s Controller of Personnel Services,” said a retired naval officer. It is also obvious, he regretfully added, that the IN’s top brass were complicit in this endeavour, and in all likelihood connived and even encouraged it to earn government approval.
Modi’s proclamation is part of a wider agenda of ‘deracinating’ the navy by ditching all association dating back to its founding as the Royal Indian Navy or RIN in 1932, and entails infusing Shivaji’s 17th-century octagonal stamp in place of the ubiquitous Nelson’s ring on uniform epaulettes inherited from the Royal Navy.
“Inspired by the ideals of Shivaji, today’s India is moving forward and abandoning the mentality of slavery,” Modi declared at the Navy Day function in Maharashtra on Monday. “I am happy to announce that the epaulettes donned by the naval officers will now highlight the heritage and legacy of Shivaji and they will be similar to the naval ensign,” he added.
Last September, Shivaji’s octagonal stamp, symbolising India’s hoary maritime heritage, had replaced the Cross of St George on the IN’s ensign or flag as part of ‘the military’s de-colonisation’ launched recently by the BJP-led Union government. Around the same time, the IN had also discontinued – but on instructions issued internally by its Personnel Branch – the Royal Navy’s practice of senior officers carrying batons, on the grounds that it did not suit the country’s ‘transformed navy’ of Amrit Kaal.
On Navy Day, the prime minister also said that the force would additionally discard ‘vestiges of the colonial era’ by ‘Indianising’ ranks for all its personnel below officer rank (PBOR). Official sources said some 65,000 naval PBOR who would imminently be re-designated included Master Chief Petty Officers 1st class, Master Chief Petty Officers 2nd class, Chief Petty Officers, Petty Officers, Leading Seamen, Seamen 1st class and Seamen 2nd class. Their new ranks were yet to be made public.
IN officers, will, for now, continue with their present rank designations.
Furthermore, veterans compared Modi’s public announcement on the naval epaulette change to the subtler 2001 decision by Prime Minister Atal Behari’s BJP-led federal coalition to alter the naval ensign to divest it from its colonial origins. They stated that at the time, the government’s decision was conveyed privately to the IN which, in turn, quietly executed the change in its ensign in which the George’s Cross was substituted by the IN’s crest, featuring an Ashoka lion atop an elaborate anchor at its centre.
But three years later, in 2004, the naval ensign reverted to its original design with the colonial-era George’s Cross, following complaints that its blue colour was indistinguishable from that of the sky and the sea and ocean. The ensign was re-cast once more in great flamboyance by Modi in September 2022 with Shivaji’s maritime imprimatur.
“Such internal service matters are best left to the armed forces themselves to announce, as declarations by politicians concerning them give rise, justifiably to charges of politicising the military,” said a retired one-star IN officer. Yet another veteran, also declining to be named, said the matters of epaulettes and re-naming naval PBOR was too ‘small’ an issue to be so grandiosely publicised by the prime minister. It was best left to the IN itself to make public, he stated.
Similar efforts underway in the army
Other than the IN, the Indian Army (IA), dating back to the era of the East India Company in the 18th and 19th centuries, was similarly undergoing de-colonisation.
Its ethnically specific regiments like Sikh, Gurkha, Jat, Kumaon, Garhwal and Rajput, amongst others, were likely to be done away with, as was the army’s relationship with the Commonwealth War Graves Association that regularly honours 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth who died in World Wars 1 and 2.
An appraisal of granting honorary commissions to junior commissioned officers in the rank of captain and lieutenant, and the continuing display of pre-independence battle honours awarded by the British to certain regiments and units to celebrate their successful campaigns against Sikhs, Marathas and the Gurkhas, were also liable to be scrapped.
Rescinding the long-established British tradition of appointing one-star officers and above as ‘honorary colonels’, or ‘eminence grise’ to their former battalions or regiments, in recognition of their services, too was under consideration, official sources said. And like IN veterans, retired IA officers also believed that all such projected alterations would precipitate an ‘all-round dilution’ in the army’s ethos, as tradition played a vital and dynamic role in military life. Other than providing continuity between generations of soldiers, it also bolstered morale and pride.
“The IA’s regimental histories and traditions are built on the valour and sacrifice of generations of Indian soldiers, irrespective of under whom they served and where they did so,” said defence analyst Major General A.P. Singh (retired). Doing away with all or even some of these and replacing them with something new and untried would be a troubling transition that hits out at the core of the army’s self-esteem, espirit de corps and overall josh (fervour), the former armoured corps officer added.
Other IA veterans said the army lived by the credo of ‘Naam, namak and Nishan’ (honour, loyalty and identity) that was further accentuated by their respective units’ battle cry, all of which were rooted firmly in custom and tradition dating back hundreds of years. “To tamper with these is simply to deny history,” said a retired three-star officer. And, we should not forget, he warned, that today’s IA is the sum of its multiple parts and whether we like it or not, the British were a dominant part of it. “Tampering with history is avoidable, as the prevailing system has worked well through many wars and local insurgencies since 1947,” he suggested, adding that the IA should consult with veterans before initiating organisational changes.
“The so-called colonial legacy did in no way impinge upon military efficiency,” said another three-star officer. Battle honours honoured those who fought shoulder to shoulder for a just cause and were nationalist agnostic, he added.
Alongside, the IA’s eight-odd regulation officer uniforms too were likely to undergo a ‘revision’, with the more fancy and colourful ones with British overtones being done away with. These included the dashing Blue Patrols, the ceremonial winter uniform that comprises a black ‘bandgala’ coat with gleaming silver-coloured buttons, and with each wearer’s rank elaborately embroidered on the shoulder, and similarly coloured trousers.
Soldiers of the Sikh Light Infantry during a Republic Day Parade. Photo: Antônio Milena/Wikimedia Commons CC BY 3.0
Veterans spooked into silence
In conclusion, there is a mounting conspiracy of silence amongst a wide cross-section of retired service officers in speaking to the media on military and security-related issues. And the handful of veterans, who do consent to comment critically on such matters, albeit reluctantly, invariably request anonymity in anticipation of a ‘backlash’ from either their respective service, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) or the overall national security establishment, or all three.
These reactions customarily prompt a ‘solicitous’ call from either a still serving service colleague, a ‘concerned’ MoD official or at times even a common intermediary, all conveying undisguised disapproval of the concerned veterans’ observations. In almost all instances, this was warning enough to spook the individual ex-serviceman from ever interacting with the media again, apprehensive of an ‘adverse impact’ on their pensions.
One retired officer – who recently commented accurately but critically to The Wire by name, on a questionable, but officially celebrated project – faced vituperation, bordering on abuse from his serving seniors, after his comments appeared online.
Expectedly, like scores of other similarly singed victims, he too has since adopted omerta, or the Italian canon of silence, on matters military and remains incommunicado with reporters.
