Need for 'Special Army Act 'to cover Training of Cadets at Military Academies

Editor's Note

The hearing of the 500 medically boarded out cadets as 'su moto' case at the SC of India has shown some light at the end of the tunnel for the 500 plus affected cadets . These cadets are only the symptoms or manifestations of the deep-rooted causes for such serious injuries that occur during training of cadets at our military academies, especially at the NDA where the during duration of training of years 3 years is the longest besides the intensity being much higher vis a vis other academies despite the younger age group of raw and unseasoned cadets who are medically more prone to injuries, especially when it's unscientific, unstructured and unofficial ! Hence, there is an imperative and inescapable need to not only give justice and adequate compensation to these 500 cadets but, more importantly, to know about and remove some of the existing deep-rooted

flaws and shortcomings in our officer selection norms that are linked to training systems at our military academies ,especially NDA . Volumes have been written on it and comprehensively covered in the 5 volumes of the Victory India Campaign books published by the Pentagon Press ,New Delhi from 2013 - 2018 about which the serving military fraternity and veterans too are well aware !

The Supreme Court now needs to be appraised about it to enable and facilitate a landmark judgement to all concerned civil and military law and policy makers for recruitment ,selection and training to not only address the just demands of 500 cadets but also pass suitable orders to remove or minimize the deep-rooted causes for the injuries without compromising military training standards . This can easily be done with the incorporation of a suitable Special Army Act as advocated by Nixon Fernando, a former Lecturer and Counselor at NDA ,who has done tremendous work for the Victory India Campaign books .

Col Vinay B Dalvi,

Editor, MVI

---

As the Supreme Court probes into the case regarding the 500 medically boarded-out cadets and asks questions regarding fairness, compensation, insurance and other matters, it seems to lead to the very basic laws under which military training institutes operate.

The point is this: let’s say a Captain from an army tells a college boy to "get down and start rolling". The immediate question that arises is why should he? And the answer for the NDA cadet is " I will roll because I want to be part of the armed forces officer cadre".

And with that aspiration in mind, he or his guardians / parents have signed away an 'indemnity bond' which reads that “The risk is mine and I absolve the trainers of any error on their part if I were to be injured in this attempt of getting into the officialdom of the armed forces.”

Is it not logical then for the system/government to hold up that indemnity bond and say, “See? You have signed this”.?

An 'indemnity bond' is a document used in situations like adventure activity and in medical surgery where there are known risks and the consumer or the client says “I am responsible for the risks inherent in this”.

Fair enough one may say, but that does not absolve the service providers of all responsibility. They are still answerable to the law of the land. As such, even though the NDA cadets have signed the indemnity bond, the entire system continues to operate under the civil law that prevails over the average citizen of India.

But satisfying that law does not call for compensation; does it? The risk was the cadet’s. What right does he have to ask for parity with members of the armed forces? Is it not an open and shut case? That makes it appear as if we must offer just mercy tidbits to these boarded out cadets and it would be good enough!

In comparison the armed forces function in abnormal situations and so the law makers have found the necessity of passing a legislation or an “Act” in order to cover the members of the armed forces. This special law is found necessary since the conditions under which the armed forces operate are not ‘normal’ as applicable to civilians. And such a law, besides setting up guidelines that will facilitate the functioning of the military also sets up special privileges for those who give up some of their ‘rights’ as applicable to normal civilians.

Where does the NDA cadet land up or figure in this? What happens when the service provider (and in this case the trainer) stretches his mandate and goes into the “unstructured activity” zone, which he, in turn, does not dare to take on in broad daylight, which he will do in the sly, and that too in the free-for-all that is available to him in a command-obey situation that is normal in the armed forces?

True that a special command and obey situation is required in the heat of military battle. And the cadet must be trained for it in the academy. But if the law makers of the nation have found it fit to draft a special law for handling battle field situations, then should there not be a different one for 'training situations'? And if the NDA is keen on giving ‘commando’ training to its cadets (they do take it too far sometimes), then should the NDA cadet also not be treated on par? Should the NDA cadet not also have the protections that are offered to a commando trainee when the commando, in turn, is only training and not actually fighting a war ?

Let’s digress a bit: There is a subtle undertone that is unhealthy for the armed forces too when we take training forward in the present situation. In the present context, the cadet obeys because he wants to be part of the 'officer cadre.' He command-obeys not with a knowledge that he belongs, but with the desire that he wants to belong.

Often, command and obey are done at the academy not under the principle of ‘rightness of things’ or ‘righteous obedience’ or ‘dharma’ but rather under the selfish motive of ‘survival’. There is a threat constantly out which reads “obey or you will be thrown out”. Seems right in a way that a person who cannot 'obey-command' would be unfit in a military, but if it is done just under the threat of "else I will ensure that you will not pass out of this academy" ,then it harbors an ‘evil’ system rather than a ‘righteous’ one, and it inculcates a mediocre attitude that is not healthy for the armed forces and that too at the leadership level. A lot is left to the personal kindness and discretion of the participants in the institution to keep the training grounded on what is proper. And this is not a fool proof system. Personal jealousies and character can have huge impact on the success of training and many cadets fall through who could otherwise be deserving.

Therefore, on one side we have the 'civil law' to handle indemnity cases and on the other we have the 'armed forces act' which takes care of military persons who may be subjected to military combat situations. What of the special situations that float somewhere between the combat situation of the armed forces and the normal activity of the civil street, like in the academies?

In Academies there are academy rules. In NDA too there are rules but lesser said about the rules the better!

It is not unusual for a cadet to openly tell you “Sir you know that what is on paper is totally different from what is on ground at the academy”. And as instructor in the academy, you have no words to reply if a cadet accuses you of being party to this. The most blatant ones among the on-paper vs on-ground disparity being that NDA is 70% education and 30% training on paper and the reverse, or worse, is the truth on ground ! And if you probe the traditions in each of the squadron; truth be told, they would rather that you don’t probe them !

The undecided dangling between 'civil' and 'military' laws leaves everything in a flux at the academy. The training institutes must come out clear on this. If only civilian laws apply to cadets, then their signing of indemnity bonds do not allow for a free-for-all of the army act that is normal in a commando training school. And if there are risks beyond the normal that a cadet must undergo then there must be a 'special law' that applies to a cadet. And at least on the benefit side, there must be enough to cover the dangers involved even if the cadet has signed that indemnity bond. You cannot just tell him “sorry, you signed the indemnity, but did not reach the sign post that read ‘army act’ so we can’t do anything for you.” That is both reckless and irresponsible !

The Indian military cannot 'have the cake and eat it too!' in as far as the cadets are concerned. Bring the cadet under the army act and train him like you would train a commando. If, on the other hand, the act does not apply then get rid of the free-for-all that comes under ‘unstructured training’. Don’t try to create a battle field inside the academy to teach the cadet how it will ‘feel’ in a battle field. When he faces a battle field in the future he will handle it. Though he or his parents/ guardians have signed the indemnity bond , know that civilian law applies to him and deal with him like you would a NCC cadet at the most. Or then get a new law drafted that can be called as ‘Military Training Act' . And the required protections can be built into it.

In the present situation don’t stretch the ‘civilian’ into any ‘military’ zone with too much eagerness. If you want to continue with what is happening, surely the army act should apply in a way it applies to the commando school, surely in the domain of medically boarded out personnel/cadets. With it bring in both, proper scrutiny of those who pass orders and proper cover to those who undergo training.

As for those who have already been subjected to the ‘present military training‘, as it exists in the pre-commissioning schools, and have been medically boarded out, please do not raise objections if the judges feel it is fair that they are suitably compensated; especially not on the basis of the indemnity bond signed by an eager aspirant or his parent / guardian .

Endorsements : Maj Gen Raj Mehta

Nixon is sincere and displays and insiders insight of how training academies create and then validate their own Code Red - of informal 'commando' training as Nixon bluntly puts it.

That of course is nowhere near the whole issue.

Take South Asia out and you find foot stamping on tarmac has been out since the 1970s. Does that matter? Perhaps yes. We've had as many as 23 cadets in a term out due stress fractures due formal COSC approved training. Add to that ragda stresses and end of term 'bashing' due 'rite of passage' acceptance norms and you create 500 plus unrecognised (medically boarded out ) would be officers whom the system weeded out brutally.

My point?

The ' whole program' and 'social peer and rite of passage pressure' needs a relook.

How?

By an act of Parliament to be exercised through a Constitutional statute.

I confess I am working on it since 2014 when Col Vinay Dalvi shared his deep concern for these 500 cadets with me.