THE AIR FORCE GOLF COURSE EPISODE: A MOMENT FOR MILITARY INTROSPECTION

The recent Air Force Golf Course episode has generated a sense of disquiet within the military fraternity far beyond the immediate issue at hand. To many serving personnel and veterans, it was not merely about a golf course or a sporting facility. It was about symbolism. It was about whether institutions that once occupied a place of pride in the national consciousness still enjoy the same standing today.

The intensity of the reaction reveals a deeper anxiety. It reflects a growing concern that the Indian military may no longer command the same prestige, influence, and moral authority that it once did. The episode has forced many within the uniformed community to confront an uncomfortable question: has the halo surrounding the profession of arms begun to fade?

For decades after Independence, the Armed Forces occupied a unique position in Indian society. They were seen not merely as instruments of national power but as embodiments of discipline, integrity, sacrifice, and selfless service. Their voice carried weight, their traditions inspired respect, and their concerns often received sympathetic consideration across political and bureaucratic circles. Few institutions enjoyed such widespread goodwill and public trust.

That goodwill has not vanished. The military remains one of the most respected institutions in the country. Yet respect today is different from what it was a generation ago. It is no longer unquestioned. It is no longer accompanied by the deference that once came naturally. The military continues to be admired, but it no longer occupies the elevated pedestal it once did in public life.

Political leaders and bureaucrats appear to have recognised this shift. Their decisions increasingly reflect the understanding that actions affecting the military may not generate the same public response that they once would have. Many within the military community view this development with resentment. However, before blaming politicians, bureaucrats, or society at large, it may be useful to pause and ask a more difficult question: have we contributed to this situation ourselves?

The answer, uncomfortable as it may be, is yes.

The Inevitability of Civilian Supremacy

The first reality that must be acknowledged is that the Armed Forces operate within a democratic framework. In every mature democracy, the military remains subordinate to elected civilian authority. As democratic institutions evolve and civilian leadership becomes more assertive, the military must adapt to this reality.

There is often a tendency within military circles to interpret the erosion of institutional influence as a sign of disrespect. In reality, civilian supremacy is not an insult to the military; it is the cornerstone of constitutional governance. The challenge for the Armed Forces is to protect professional autonomy without confusing it with institutional privilege.

A Changing Nation, A Changing Society

India today is vastly different from the India that existed in the decades immediately after Independence. It is younger, more urban, more aspirational, and increasingly driven by economic concerns.

For most citizens, issues such as employment, healthcare, education, inflation, housing, and economic growth occupy a far more prominent place in daily life than military affairs. As nations become economically stronger and socially more diverse, the military inevitably occupies a smaller space in the public imagination.

This phenomenon is not unique to India. Across much of the democratic world, economic and social development tends to shift public focus away from military institutions toward issues that directly affect citizens' everyday lives.

The Demographic Reality

The military community today represents a much smaller proportion of India's population than it once did. Despite the large numbers of serving personnel, veterans, and their families, the overall military constituency forms only a tiny fraction of a nation of more than a billion people.

The introduction of the Agnipath scheme is likely to reduce the proportion of long-term military retirees even further. As a result, military concerns no longer automatically translate into political influence or public pressure.

The nation continues to respect the soldier, but respect alone does not guarantee relevance.

The Damage We Have Done to Ourselves

Perhaps the more significant reasons for the decline in influence are internal.

Over time, a perception has emerged that military personnel and veterans are increasingly preoccupied with pay, pensions, allowances, status, and entitlements. Whether this perception is entirely fair is beside the point. In public life, perception often matters as much as reality.

The military traditionally drew its moral authority from the belief that it represented values higher than narrow self-interest. Whenever public discourse becomes dominated by financial grievances and service-related benefits, that moral advantage inevitably weakens.

This does not mean that military personnel should abandon legitimate demands. Fair compensation and proper welfare are important. However, when every issue becomes a public campaign, the institution risks appearing no different from any other pressure group lobbying for its interests.

The OROP Lesson

The One Rank One Pension movement illustrates this challenge.

The demand itself was rooted in a legitimate concern. However, the prolonged public agitation inadvertently created an impression among many citizens that veterans were primarily concerned with their own financial interests.

The larger principles behind the demand, namely fairness, military service conditions, and institutional equity, often got lost amid the noise. The lesson is clear: even just causes can damage public perception if they are not communicated effectively.

The NFU Contradiction

Perhaps nothing illustrates the problem more starkly than the continuing litigation relating to Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU).

For decades, the Armed Forces argued that military service is unique and should not be equated with civilian services. Officers proudly asserted that military leadership, command responsibility and operational risk distinguished them from the bureaucracy.

Yet when NFU was granted to civilian services, a substantial section of the military establishment began demanding the same benefit through litigation. This creates a contradiction that is difficult for the public to understand.

One cannot simultaneously claim to be fundamentally different from the civil services while demanding complete parity whenever a financial benefit is involved. The average citizen including soldiers see only one thing: senior military officers fighting for higher pay and status.

Whether the claim is legally justified becomes almost irrelevant. Public perception is shaped by appearances, and appearances matter.

The Pursuit of Petty Privileges

An even greater concern is our tendency to fiercely defend relatively minor benefits and concessions.

Whether it is subsidised liquor, CSD facilities, specialised institutes, club memberships, golf courses, or other perks, many of these benefits undoubtedly have historical and welfare justifications. Yet, when the military community appears willing to expend enormous energy defending such privileges, it sends the wrong message.

An institution that prides itself on sacrifice should not define its dignity through concessions.

Our status should derive from our contribution to national security, not from the facilities we are able to retain. Indeed, voluntarily surrendering some privileges might do more for our public image than winning endless battles to preserve them.

The Example Set by Senior Leadership

Leadership shapes institutional culture.

Consider the spectacle of senior retired officers, including those who have reached the highest ranks, pursuing litigation over relatively modest financial claims. Every individual has a legal right to seek what is legitimately due. That is not the issue.

The issue is perception.

What does the average citizen think when retired generals, former army commanders, and senior officers appear before armed forces tribunals over promotions, arrears and entitlements? How does society reconcile this image with the ideals of selfless service and sacrifice that the military seeks to embody?

Institutions are judged not merely by their legal rights but by the example set by their leaders.

The Public Face of the Military

In the age of 24-hour television and social media, public perception is shaped in real time.

Unfortunately, some serving and retired officers who appear on television debates or social media platforms, dressed up in military insignia have done little to enhance the dignity of the institution. Loud exchanges, partisan positions, and intemperate remarks may attract attention, but they rarely generate respect.

The uniform commands admiration only when accompanied by restraint, wisdom, and professionalism.

The Leadership Deficit

Many veterans today believe that military leadership has become increasingly reluctant to publicly defend institutional concerns.

Whether this perception is accurate or not, it exists. Internal correspondence and closed-door discussions have their place, but institutions cannot preserve their standing solely through private communication. Leadership is ultimately measured by the willingness to articulate and defend professional concerns with courage and clarity.

The End of an Important Connection

For decades, one of the strongest bonds between the military and the public was forged during natural disasters and national emergencies. Floods, earthquakes, cyclones, and other crises routinely brought soldiers into direct contact with citizens.

These operations showcased the military at its best: disciplined, efficient, selfless, and apolitical.

Today, organisations such as the NDRF and SDRF are increasingly performing many of these functions. Their success is welcome and necessary. However, it has also reduced one of the military's most visible avenues for public engagement.

The result is a gradual weakening of a connection that once reinforced public admiration.

Losing Touch with Society

Perhaps the most important issue is the growing distance between the military community and the society it serves.

Veterans' organisations often focus almost exclusively on pensions, healthcare, and service-related matters. While these concerns are important, they are rarely connected to broader societal issues.

How often do veterans' groups lead national debates on governance, education, public accountability, national resilience, or social reform? How often do they engage with the concerns of ordinary citizens? If we expect society to support us, we must remain connected to society.

Relevance cannot be demanded. It must be cultivated.

The Way Forward

The central lesson is simple: past glory does not guarantee future relevance.

No institution, however distinguished its history, can expect permanent public esteem. Respect must be continuously earned through competence, integrity, credibility, and service to the larger national interest.

The answer does not lie in confrontation with the political establishment. Nor does it lie in demanding the restoration of privileges associated with an earlier era.

It lies in rebuilding trust, strengthening professional excellence, reconnecting with society, and demonstrating through action why a respected and empowered military remains indispensable to India's future.

The wisdom of Iqbal's immortal verse remains relevant:

"Khudi ko kar buland itna ki har taqdeer se pehle,

Khudabandese khudpoochhe, bataterirazakyahai."

The Armed Forces must elevate their institutional character to such a level that respect becomes a natural consequence of their conduct rather than something that must be sought or defended.

The Air Force Golf Course episode should not be viewed merely as a dispute over a piece of land or a sporting facility. It should be seen as a warning signal. A wake-up call. An opportunity for introspection.

The real question is not whether society has stopped placing the military on a pedestal.

The real question is whether the military has done enough to remain deserving of a special place in the hearts and minds of a changing India.

---

NOTE - The contents of this article contains the author's personal views based on his study ,research and experience of the subject and linked issues .The pictures are for symbolic representation only .