Military cohesion and leadership has been the driving factor behind military effectiveness since ancient times. Armed forces in democracies are Janus faced organizations that exist not for themselves or by themselves.
John H. Johns defined military cohesion as “the bonding of members of an organization or unit in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, their unit, and their mission.” The Indian Army has divisions of Corps, Divisions, Brigades, Battalions, Rifle Companies, Platoons, and Sections. Based on the 1980s Standard Model, the primary group refers to the section/platoon, while rifle company and battalion are the complementary secondary groups. Stronger cohesion in the primary group is related to greater military operational effectiveness. The secondary groups are essential in developing primary group cohesion by maintaining traditions like honor days, parades, and NCO clubs.
The organizational structure of the Indian Army and its traditions and customs contribute to military identity in officials. For example, the infantry regiments of the Indian Army are rooted in an identity based on ethnicity and geographical grouping, with soldiers from similar backgrounds being put together. This grouping aims to get a workable system and improved cohesion in a multicultural country like India. The regiment system in India is instrumental in motivating young army officials and imbibing a sense of organizational identity in them. The uniqueness of regimental badges, lanyards, and shoulder flashes leads to developing the most essential traits in a soldier – Espirit de Corps, bonding, cohesion, motivation, and izzat.
Teamwork and dynamics are essential aspects of military environments because military settings tend to be demanding and consequentially deadly. Research has shown that teams working in extreme environments tend to have higher levels of teamwork than those working in non-extreme environments. Military leadership also plays a critical role with aims to accomplish the mission with political and social repercussions, sacrificing others’ lives while caring for their subordinates and preferably getting a low casualty count. Teamwork and high military cohesion reflect a climate of trust, support, and confidence in team members and help armed forces face challenging situations with more resilience.
India has fought five wars since its independence through the obsolete “offensive doctrine.” The Kargil War of 1999 remains significant as one of India’s most prominent combat situations. One of the most notable displays of leadership, military cohesion, and strategic thinking was shown by Col. Balwan Singh and his team in the successful capture of the Tiger Hill Top. He led the team for twelve hours along a challenging route and faced an intense barrage of bullets from the enemies that wounded Col. Singh himself. Still he encircled the enemy and engaged in close combat, successfully killing four enemy soldiers. The determination and high level of task cohesion in achieving the objective led to the successful capture of Tiger Hill.
However, since the last Indian war in 1999, India’s strategic environment has fundamentally changed. Military coercion exists even though direct combat threats have gone down. India lacks a national-level strategic assessment and policy analysis, which leads to a lower identification of threats, and its army services remain resistant to change. Air and maritime forces remain as support functions and not independent strategic resources.
To enhance the military’s capabilities, the role of the military psychologist is paramount – to developing troops cognitively and emotionally. Additionally, military psychology is essential in choosing and training the leaders for a mission, providing them with necessary psychological weaponry and understanding what leadership styles would be appropriate for greater cohesiveness by studying group dynamics.
With India’s longstanding tensions with Pakistan and emerging tensions with a superpower like China, enhanced strategic thinking and advanced technological adaptations are necessary. India u needs to assess whether the older power structure in defense is empowering enough and how well military cohesion can be developed, keeping new strategies in mind. With technology integration in defense – a more nuanced approach to military leadership and team building is necessary for successful change management.
About the Author
