THOSE WHO DEMAND DOING AWAY WITH THE SAHAYAKS HAVE LITTLE EXPERIENCING OF SOLDIERING AND THE RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN AN OFFICER AND HIS SAHAYAK
S uicide by Lance Naik Roy Mathew has sent the media, both electronic and print, into a spin. Equating a sahayak with a slave displays total lack of knowledge of military matters. Where the defence minister inspects a ceremonial guard of honour wearing slippers, with hands in his pocket, and the supreme commander is seen chewing a paan during the Republic Day parade, one can hardly hold out against media’s ignorance.
OFFICER’S COMPANION
Those who call sahayak a buddy to his officer, perhaps do not know that the term buddy was brought into play by the American Army during the Vietnam war, where two soldiers were grouped together as companions to overcome the problems of low morale.
Sahayak system (earlier known as orderly) is not a legacy of the colonial era. Normally, a soldier is assigned to an officer to attend to his personal requirements, setting him free to handle other important tasks. He is not called upon to undertake any undignified work. Over the time, a sort of bonding builds up between an officer and his sahayak. The two are comrades in arms with deep mutual respect between the two. In a million-plus military an odd aberration cannot make it abandon an age-old practice.
INSTITUTION OF ORDERLY NOT NEW
The institution of orderly for an officer in the military (since called sahayak) is almost as old as soldiering. In the Indian Army no sahayak is authorised on the establishment of units and formation headquarters. A soldier (one willing to take on the assignment of a sahayak) is made available to an officer to relieve him of some of the mundane tasks. Thus, a sahayak is not a servant to an officer but, and in some manner, a companion and a helper. The latter would go to any extent to make his officer comfortable and free to attend to more important issues.
When General Mussarvy came to attend his old unit’s centenary celebrations, his long-time sahayak was also there. The two went into a long embrace with tears flowing down their old wrinkled cheeks. During World War-2, a sahayak of a Polish officer would bring hot food from the enemy kitchen for his officer, till one day his identity came to be known and he was taken prisoner by the Germans.
When Major Sam Manekshaw (later field marshal) was leading his company in a charge on a Japanese position, he was hit by a light machinegun bust in his stomach (seven bullets in all). It was his sahayak who lifted the unconscious Major on his shoulder and carried him to the nearest medical aid post. The doctor there examined Sam Manekshaw and felt that he was beyond medical help and moved on to attend to another wounded soldier. Manekshaw’s sahayak intervened and insisted that the doctor attend to his officer (he is believed to have threatened the doctor with shooting him if he did not attend to his officer)
Often a sahayak proffers advice to his officer. When working as a staff officer at a brigade headquarters, I was not regular with my morning physical training, thus my sahayak would lecture me on the imperatives of an officer keeping himself in top physical condition.
He continued to lecture me on this issue with uninterrupted regularity till the annual files miles test run, where I beat him by a wide margin. That put an end to his regular lecturing on this subject.
THE UN-SOLDIERLY CONDUCT
There are cases where officers have misused the facility of a sahayak and it is for the military authorities to attend to this aberration. In the recent past, there have been cases where some soldiers have displayed undesirable behaviour and un-soldierly conduct.
Soldiering is a profession apart and not a cup of tea for all and sundry. Unfortunately, it is now being taken as a mere employment avenue and given the state of unemployment in the country, many with no inclination, mental make-up and aptitude for soldiering are finding their way into this service. Some of them cannot live with the iron discipline, rigours of military life and dangers therein and simply breakdown and you have these suicide cases.
Therefore, there is a strong case to look into the quality of intake into the military. The policy of male recruitable population have opened the door to all those with no military tradition and aptitude. The military needs to look into the selection systems for enrolment and should consider some psychological tests for recruitment into the army.
Those who demand doing away with the sahayaks have little experiencing of soldiering and the relationship that exists between an officer and his sahayak.
Taking up a solitary case and blowing it out of proportion, endlessly debating it on TV channels and social media will do no good to the military and would seriously impact its discipline. Indian Army has its own mechanism to attend to such issues and should be left to the military to handle. An odd aberration should not trip us overboard. (The writer, a former deputy chief of army staff, is a commentator on defence and security issues. Views expressed are his personal)
