Bhopinder Singh | Don’t Misuse The ‘Prestige’ Of The Military To Further Partisan Politics

In the United States of America, military service commands immense respect. Equally revered, however, is the principle that the Armed Forces must remain above partisan politics. This is why retired veterans are generally expected to separate the symbols of military service -- such as the uniform, medals and insignia -- from political campaigns, debates and party contests. The purpose is not to diminish their rights as citizens, but to preserve a more important democratic compact: that the authority of the armed forces belongs to the Constitution and the nation, not to any political faction or partisan ideology.

This distinction is so deeply embedded in American political culture that some of the country’s most celebrated military figures have warned against weakening it.

Republicans such as John McCain and James Mattis have expressed concern about attempts to blur the boundary between military prestige and partisan politics, particularly when certain political leaders (such as incumbent President Donald Trump) seek to portray senior officers as personal extensions of their own movements. The concern is not about the political opinions of individuals who have served in uniform; it is about preventing the institution itself from appearing to take sides.

India, on the other hand, presents a more complicated picture. The country’s retired military officers enjoy the same democratic freedoms as all other citizens, yet the conventions separating military symbolism from political advocacy are less firmly established. Increasingly, retired officers have appeared in political settings and toxic television debates wearing regimental attire, medals or other visible markers of military identity. Such appearances have triggered a debate over whether the stature earned by military service is being transferred, intentionally or otherwise, into partisan political contests.

The attraction for political actors is fairly obvious. At a time when confidence in many public institutions has been weakened, the armed forces remain among the few national institutions that command broad public trust. A former officer speaking with the authority and language of the regiment carries the kind of credibility that politicians and other commentators often struggle to match. Military symbolism therefore becomes a powerful political asset -- one that can lend emotional force and moral weight to arguments far removed from matters related to defence and national security.

But this is a risky exchange. The short-term benefits of borrowing military prestige may come at the cost of a longer-term institutional erosion. The strength of a professional military in a democracy lies not only in its battlefield capability but also in its perceived impartiality. Once citizens begin to associate military identity with a particular political position or political party, the institution risks losing the broad-based confidence on which its legitimacy depends.

This does not mean, of course, that veterans should withdraw from public life. On the contrary, their experience in leadership, administration, national security and public service can enrich the democratic debate. They have every right to join political parties, contest elections, campaign for causes and express their personal views. The crucial distinction is that they do so as individual citizens, not as representatives -- real or implied -- of the armed forces on active service.

The concern arises when personal political expression is accompanied by the visual language of the institution itself. A retired officer appearing in regimental gear, displaying service symbols or invoking military identity while advancing a partisan argument, may unintentionally create the impression that the armed forces share that position. That perception, even if incorrect, can be damaging because it weakens the separation between the personal convictions of veterans and the constitutional neutrality of the military.

Military regulations and traditions do recognise circumstances in which veterans may appropriately display their service identity, particularly during ceremonial, commemorative or official occasions. The difficulty emerges when these symbols migrate into overtly partisan environments – such as political rallies, television battles and ideological campaigns, where the uniform risks becoming less a reminder of national service and more a prop in political theatre.

The phenomenon has extended beyond questions of defence policy into wider political controversies. Retired military voices have featured prominently in debates on issues ranging from national security operations to domestic political disputes such as economic policy, religious questions and public protests. The danger is not that veterans participate in these conversations; it is that their military credentials may be used to imply institutional authority in areas where the armed forces themselves have no constitutional role.

The “uniform” carries power precisely because it represents something larger than the individual who wears it. It symbolises discipline, sacrifice and service to the entire nation. That symbolic capital must therefore be handled carefully. When it is repeatedly drawn into partisan contests, the immediate beneficiaries may be the political actors seeking credibility, but the eventual cost may be paid by the institution whose strength depends on standing apart from the political competition.

The restraint associated with the “uniform” was never merely a matter of tradition or etiquette. It was a recognition that the armed forces are the sword arm of the republic, and that a sword entrusted to the State must never appear to belong to one side of a political battlefield. Preserving that distinction is not a limitation on the democratic rights of military veterans, it is a safeguard for the military institution itself. Once public trust in its political neutrality begins to fade, restoring it becomes an impossible task.

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant-governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry