Listen to this article:

Military officers – whether devout monotheists or avowed atheists – have had to deliver on a traditional leadership responsibility, that of leading their outfit in prayer. Apparently, Samuel Kamalesan chose differently and is now out of service without pension or gratuity, a punishment recently upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

What the military lost in the bargain is an officer who appears to have had an independent mind and the courage of conviction. One assumes these are virtues that the military would look for in its members and support. In the event, the military chose to be guided by an anachronistic interpretation of the concept of cohesion.

Cohesion is a necessity in any military body, enabling it to overcome friction in war and combat. It refers to the horizontal and vertical bonding, respectively, between members of military entities and its hierarchical levels. It is of particular interest at the primary group level, where the rubber meets the road. It is a leadership responsibility to foster and sustain cohesion to withstand the test of battle.

A lack or absence of cohesion is a prelude to defeat. When confronted by an implacable enemy or severely challenging circumstances, non-cohesive forces tend to disintegrate. The Vietnam War is considered a classic instance where the defeat of the United States Army was placed on its lack of cohesiveness.

An additional leadership function is also to articulate cohesion in a positive direction – of mandate achievement. Cognisant of its significance, the military has measures aplenty to instil it, such as the endless rounds of competitions and training cycles conducted in peacetime. One such is the periodic gathering at mandir (temple) parades. In operational areas, the upkeep of cohesion is easier, with the environment of risk and challenge spurring individuals as well as the military unit as a whole towards a coherent showing.

Also read: Why the Indian Military Can’t Ignore Questions on Representation Anymore

In Kamalesan’s case, the claim is that his reluctance to participate in the leadership function to foster cohesion – through participation in collective prayer – led to his dismissal. However, by his account, Kamalesan was respectfully present at the collective prayer, just did not lead it. He was not willing to step up to the sanctum sanctorum to preside over the more intimate honours, a privilege reserved for the leader.

His reservation was based on his monotheistic belief. Though counselled by religious preachers in uniform from his own faith – that the act did not detract from his faith – he stood by his own interpretation.

If the military genuinely values officers who think independently and have moral courage, then it is strange – even self-contradictory – that it........

© The Wire