In recent years, the Indian Army and its senior personnel have found themselves under increasing scrutiny from social and print media. This level of attention and criticism is often not seen as directed towards other ministries or organizations. Several reasons contribute to this phenomenon and understanding them is crucial to finding a balanced approach that respects the Armed Forces while ensuring accountability.

A notable recent controversy involved the Indian Army Chief’s decision to move the iconic painting of the Pakistan Army’s surrender from his official lounge. This action sparked a significant reaction on social media, with debates centered on historical representation and military pride. Some individuals applauded the decision as a reflection of current priorities, while others criticized it as an erasure of a significant moment in India’s military history. This incident highlights the complex interplay between historical commemoration and evolving perspectives within the Indian armed forces.

A new controversy arose when Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi attended the Kumbh Mela, a significant Hindu pilgrimage and festival. The media reacted strongly when he was seen praying at a temple near Mhow alongside Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. Previously, former Army Chief General Manoj Pande faced media criticism for allegedly promoting a Hindu agenda and undermining the ethos of the Indian armed forces through his initiative called ‘Project Udbhav.’ This project explored the epic battles of the Mahabharata and the strategic genius displayed during the reigns of the Maurya, Gupta, and Maratha empires, showcasing India’s rich military heritage. Journalists, including Sushant Singh, have drawn parallels between these temple visits and the study of ancient texts by army chiefs, comparing it to the Islamization of Pakistan under dictator General Zia Ul Haq.

Reasons for Media Scrutiny

The Indian armed forces are one of the most visible and respected institutions in the country, with its operations—both domestic and international—drawing significant public interest. This high visibility inevitably leads to greater scrutiny. The rise of social media has democratized the dissemination of information, allowing opinions, often unverified, to gain traction quickly and result in widespread criticism.

The perks and privileges enjoyed by armed forces personnel, such as ration allowances, often come under public scrutiny. However, comparisons with other public servants, like ministers, judges, and IAS/IPS officers, are rarely made, raising questions of fairness and equity. Judges and civil servants receive competitive salaries and are entitled to well-furnished official residences, medical services for themselves and their families, personal staff—including clerks, peons, and drivers—access to government vehicles, and enhanced security arrangements.

When comparing judges and civil servants with armed forces officers, it becomes clear that print and electronic media, along with social media, can exhibit bias. Since the armed forces do not directly affect the day-to-day lives of civilians, they often become a soft target. In contrast, judges and civil servants, especially the police force, have the authority to impact individuals or organizations adversely if their reporting is unfavorable.

Unfortunately, retired and disgruntled military personnel often contribute to this misinformation. These veterans, who faced limited career advancement due to the steep promotional structure, may lend their perspectives to the media influenced by their political alignments post-retirement. Such biased narratives can amplify negative perceptions and contribute to overall scrutiny of the armed forces.

The procurement of military equipment is another area that receives excessive attention on various platforms. Over the years, several high-profile scandals have emerged in this context. One of the most infamous is the Bofors scandal of the 1980s, which involved allegations of kickbacks in purchasing howitzer guns from Sweden. This controversy had far-reaching political ramifications and significantly affected public trust in the procurement process.

In recent years, the procurement of various military systems has continued to generate controversy in Indian media. Notable cases include the acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, the purchase of the S-400 missile defense system from Russia, and the construction and commissioning of India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant.

While media scrutiny is vital for transparency, it also presents challenges. Sensationalism and a lack of expertise can lead to misinformation, negatively affecting public perception and the morale of those within the armed forces. The media must strive to balance its accountability role with a responsible approach to reporting, while social media experts should keep their opinions within their areas of expertise.

Impact of Media Scrutiny

Constant media criticism can negatively affect the morale of serving personnel. It can create a sense of being undervalued and unappreciated, which may impact their performance and commitment. Negative media coverage can shape public perception, leading to a lack of trust and respect for the Armed Forces. This can have long-term implications for recruitment and public support.

The frequent relocations and challenging conditions faced by armed forces personnel also put a strain on their family life. Often, families do not move with military personnel due to a lack of schooling, job opportunities, and other resources in remote areas. Media scrutiny adds another layer of stress, affecting the well-being of their families.

Indian armed forces personnel are governed by the Army, Navy, and Air Force Act, which restricts them from publicly explaining their side of the story in forums and the media. This limitation puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to countering negative narratives and misinformation. Unlike other public servants, who can freely engage with the media to defend themselves or clarify their actions, military personnel often face a one-sided portrayal of events and decisions. This leaves the public with an incomplete

or skewed understanding of issues related to national security and defence. The lack of direct communication channels for military personnel further exacerbates the challenge of maintaining a balanced perspective on these matters.

Solutions and Media Behavior

The media should strive for balanced reporting that highlights both achievements and concerns. This approach ensures a fair representation of the Armed Forces while acknowledging their contributions and sacrifices. Journalists and social media experts must prioritize fact-checking and verification, especially when dealing with sensitive information related to national security. This practice helps prevent the spread of misinformation and protects the integrity of the Armed Forces.

Veterans should play a constructive role in enhancing the public image of the Armed Forces, rather than seeking to settle scores or garner attention. Criticism should be aimed at improving the institution, not tearing it down. The media should also help by highlighting systemic issues, offering solutions, and recognizing efforts to address them.

In conclusion, while media scrutiny is an inevitable part of a democratic society, this scrutiny must remain balanced, responsible, and constructive. By adopting these practices, the media can play a crucial role in supporting the Armed Forces while ensuring accountability and transparency.