Where are our heroes?

(A reflection by Rohan Chand Thakur)

In an article titled “Where are their heroes?” (Tribune, 10^th December), Colonel PS Randhawa raised an interesting point about why unlike the army, the bureaucracy (the IAS mainly) does not talk about its heroes. He contrasts his visits to LBSNAA, the National training centre of IAS officers with that to the IMA, the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun. Post this he says there are quite a few career bureaucrats who are potential role models or heroes but yet, why is it that they are “not looked up to or known as heroes”?

This question was deeply thought provoking for me. To begin, we need to understand that every act of heroism requires sacrifice. Sacrifice of something that is dear to the individual but has to be given up for the mission/ job at hand for the larger public good. Acts of sacrifice are of different types. At the apex are those acts which involve sacrifice of life. So selfless and pure is this act, that nobody can raise any question on it. In the army such examples are many. Such acts put the hero in such a space that any other questionable/debateable act by him or any negative trait is completely eclipsed by his sacrifice. Hence, the war hero remains the most undisputed one. 

In the bureaucracy, there are many examples of sacrifice as well but mostly, they are of a different nature. Many an upright officer have taken strong stands for protection of public good and have faced tremendous harassment while doing so. They have faced multiple transfers, court cases and various vicious forms of harassment. The job of an IAS officer involves intense public dealing and stakeholder management at all levels. Hence, the act of sacrifice is often seen by different stakeholders as it suits them. Fair decisions are often viewed as harsh through a pre conceived lens.  Life goes on for the officer and most such acts are seen from a grey lens and not an undisputed white one. This can be best explained by analysing whether there is unanimity on accepting a particular act as heroism.

In the armed forces, the act of martyrdom in battlefield or losing a limb in action is universally accepted as an act of sacrifice. In the bureaucracy, very few acts are universally accepted as a sacrifice. Lip service might be paid to them but there usually is always a ‘contrarian’ view. An officer might end up taking a strong stand on a particular issue for the larger public good, say taking on illegal mining or something as basic as ensuring that development funds are efficiently utilised. He might end up paying a price in form of a transfer. There is high likelihood that his successor would revert back to the status quo ante. So we enter a grey zone of whether the officer is a ‘hero’ or simply ‘impractical and stubborn’?  In the armed forces, every act of heroism is collectively owned and perpetuated by the larger collective i.e. the regiment and the institution itself. My grandfather was a decorated war soldier from the 9 Dogras. He died in 1957. Even now, 62 years after his death and 71 years after his act of heroism, my father still gets invited to their regiment get-togethers to commemorate their heroes. The emotion makes my hair stand. In the bureaucracy, unfortunately, there is no such institutional arrangement to treasure heroic acts. We can rue this lack of fraternity in the IAS as one of the main reasons why we hear a lot less of our heroes than we should. This role of projecting heroes cannot be left to media and social media for that relationship is usually one of give and take.

Sacrifice of life or limb is something not substitutable. Nobody can challenge such a sacrifice by claiming that he/she would give his/her life and limb if given the same chance. Such a claim has no credibility. Also nobody can say, ‘I would have done things differently’. It sounds hollow. However, one always has scope for such discussion in many of our actions as bureaucrats. An act may be heroic for some, but not necessarily for all.

Unanimity in recognizing people as heroes also derives from who is the ‘other”? In the case of army heroes, in all cases it is an external enemy - somebody against whom everybody unites (armed forces, political class, media, judiciary, legal fraternity, bureaucracy) under the all-encompassing umbrella of the nation. For upright IAS officers, stands are often taken for this amorphous passive entity called ‘public interest’ or ‘public good’ against a well-entrenched vociferous pressure group with vested interests.  Institutional Support for such acts from within and outside is rarely uniform. Once the sacrifice is made, there might be few isolated voices of support. Public memory is short and with no institutional mechanisms like Regimental reunions to celebrate such acts, the potential hero and his contribution is soon, quietly and conveniently, forgotten. The new entrants watch this, experience it and over time realise that the most awarding position is that of the status quo. Thus recognising heroes takes a complete back seat. 

A hero is a hero because he or she is recognised as that. Also who recognises the hero is very important. It is 
often argued that bureaucrats are to be faceless and in the background. However, there is no reason why IAS officers cannot have role models from whom they can draw inspiration for the upholding the constitution and the rule of law. There are numerous heroic acts of IAS officers recognised by the media and even the political class! However, the real recognition has to come from the IAS itself – which comes with its own unique challenges and complications.