Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History is an award-winning book by B G Burkett. It dwells on the Vietnam veterans, the misuse of the military uniform and its elements in terms of impropriety, disallowance and undeserved adornment. This book has been the inspiration that led to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 in the US. It legislates the provisions relating to the unauthorised wearing, manufacturing or selling of military uniforms to address impersonations, falsification and misuse by way of federal prosecution.
Its purported objectives include “protecting the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals”, which later led to an even more specific, Stolen Valor Act of 2013. Underlying the legislative journey was the spirit of retaining the glint, nobility and sacrifice associated with the military uniform and its accoutrements that are sacrosanct, privileged and earned, and not a matter of casual appropriation. In the UK, this very sentiment has led the Veterans to protest against “Walter Mitty’s” (impersonators), who consciously masquerade as military personnel or don the military decorations when they do not earn the same, legitimately.
Beyond sacred sentiments and emotions that are inherent in the uniform, the disallowance of impersonation or “uniforms” that replicate or proximate an existing military uniform is due to the susceptibility of dangerous misuse. The most functional utility of a military uniform is to visually suggest a constitutional role that allows for automatic recognition, and its accompanying vistas. The terrorists who sneaked into Pathankot’s Air Force base and wrecked havoc in 2016 were said to be wearing military uniforms that would have helped them to disguise their initial identities to dangerous obfuscations.
Post the terror attack, there was a knee-jerk response from the government, asking civilians to desist from wearing, selling or buying military “pattern” clothing and also guidelines making it illegal to sell composite military uniforms to unauthorised persons. Yet only a cursory look at the prevailing “uniforms” of the security guards from the various guarding agencies will confirm, the continuing misuse and mockery of the military uniforms. Even today the civilian markets of any garrison town along the borders (including Pathankot) is littered with shops selling military fatigues / prints that are well within the reach of anyone, who is willing to pay for the same.
However, the recent controversy emanating from the changes in the uniform of the Marshals in the Rajya Sabha, where the traditional Indian attire with a turban has been replaced with a decidedly military-inspired uniform, replete with a peak cap, insignias, aiguillette, lanyard etc., is the regrettable continuation of the lazy appropriation of military sensibilities, without due diligence or care. The optics naturally militated against the emotions of those who have actually put their lives on the line to defend the nation, as indeed sworn undying allegiance and reverence to the elements of the uniform.
The fact that this new Rajya Sabha Marshal uniform was designed, approved and sourced by the civilian bureaucrats shows the total disconnect, disinterest and lack of empathy vis-à-vis the uniformed fraternity, as they had neither the time nor inclination to check with the military brass, before assuming the new look under the pretext of “modernity”. On the contrary, various elements of the military uniform are reposed with specificities and dignities that have been “earned” before these quaint elements got approved for the uniform in the form of colour, design, bearingstyle etc.
That it is only the combatants of 5th Gorkha Rifles who wear their tilted hats with the chinstraps below the lip, while the other Gorkha combatants wear the same under the jaw, is the sort of subtle and unique distinguishing factors. But such proud history and sense of belonging is perhaps beyond the remit of political classes or the bureaucracy that allowed for the latest outreach. Thankfully, better sense has prevailed and a review of the change the same has been ordered. This incident is perhaps symptomatic of the larger narrative at play where the imagery of the Indian soldier has unfortunately been casually assumed, contextualised and deliberately misused for either unrelated purposes or worse, for partisan purposes.
There have been multiple transgressions and liberties afforded onto the “Uniform” that does not augur well for the proudly apolitical Armed Forces, or the nation. The convenient argument “in the name of the soldier” has also been recklessly misused. Sadly, some Veterans too have fallen for these vacuous political invocations and lent “cover fire” to the political parties, while donning their regimental regalia on primetime TV debates and public platforms. This willy-nilly lends non-existing “institutional preference” towards a partisan position, which is wholly avoidable.
The heavy price for the same can be seen by the outlandish bravado and bluster by some “newsroom warriors” that does not behove the traditional template of an Indian soldier. Many veterans and serving officers have slipped on the age-old ethos of restraint, rectitude and distance, especially when their appearance lends an institutional allusion and context. The latest hue and cry is not an “insignificant matter” as claimed, but one that is suggestive of the unaddressed and brewing sensitivities, on matters pertaining to the encroachment of the Indian soldier, beyond the political hyperbole and condescending overtures.
Reducing these concerns to trifles has been a convenient ploy, but care to uphold the dignity of the uniform and its related security concerns, must be impressed upon relentlessly. This is also the juncture for Veterans to reflect and introspect on their own conduct to assess if some have inadvertently allowed the winds of politicisation to intrude their own identity, and affix a partisan slant onto the institution. Today the language of some Veterans in public discourse has been even more politically-strident than Veterans like Major Jaswant Singh, Maj Gen Khanduri or Wg Cdr Rajesh Pilot who were successful politicians individually, but did not try to posit their politics “on behalf of the soldier”. Real “heroes” and “warriors” are indeed in very short supply, and therefore the lust for Stolen Valour, is even more real.
(The writer IS Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry)