The Indian Army is a relic from British times. As far as the Brits were concerned, they always referred to this army as a "mercenary force." If you read Philip Mason's The Men Who Ruled India - which you must - then, in the chapter dealing with the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, Mason repeatedly uses the term "mercenary" to describe the Indian Army. Poor men join this Army in search of nothing more than wages. And they will continue to do so until the economy is freed and opportunities vastly expanded. In the Kumaon today, a region from which jawans have been recruited en masse for centuries, retired soldiers make a living by selling their "army quota" rum at huge profits. In a free society, they would rather grow and sell their native charas. Today, they are just cannon fodder. Exploited.
The British did not rule this vast nation militarily - most certainly not! They established "civil government" that was run by a "covenanted civil service." The white-skinned district officer went about unarmed and unescorted, alone among millions of brown natives - who trusted in his "sense of justice and fair play." The Army was there in the background, sometimes used against malfeasants - but never against the people at large. These kallus have launched a tyranny never heard of before in the annals of our History. And there can never be civil government under socialists, who have turned what was a "civil service" into an instrument of "party rule" through the processes of "dual subordination" - and have therefore re-christened it "administrative service." There cannot be anything "civil" without The Market.
The other day, we were on our walkabout when a young lad passed by, and I was told that this fellow was about to finish high school, after which he had decided to join the Army. I winced. Join the Army? And kill people for a living? Or just march around left-right-left-right on a parade ground like a dumbo? What kind of life is that? In truth, this is the life of a "mercenary." A citizen-soldier is a "civilian" who picks up his gun to defend his country against aggressors - and, after the war has been won, returns to his peaceful and gainful trade.
In the thinking of the classical liberals, there is no greater evil that can befall a free nation than that their rulers should be possessed of the services of a "standing army." This is not only a complete waste of revenue in peacetime, it is also a "force" that the ruler can happily use against dissidents whenever he pleases. In India, our tyrants-on-top not only have the Army, they also have some 200 battalions of armed policemen (CRPF) - and all these are used to crush dissent. All these "soldiers" are but mercenaries, not "patriots."
Below is an extract from Cato's Letters, published in the 1720s in England, on the evil of "standing armies":
... it is certain that the Body of Whigs, and indeed I may say almost all , except the Possessors and Candidates for Employments and Pensions, have as terrible Apprehensions of a Standing Army, as the Tories themselves. And dare any Man lay his Hand upon his Heart, and say, That his Majesty will find greater Security in a few Thousand more Men already regimented, than in the steady Affections of so many Hundred Thousands who will be always ready to be regimented? When the people are easy and satisfied, the whole Kingdom is his Army; and King James found what Dependence there was upon his Troops, when his People deserted him....If I were to raise an alternative slogan to Jai Jawan, it would most certainly be Jai Vyapari. That is, "glory to the businessman." In socialist India, where we are all "unfree," young men cannot survive through gainful trade - and hence opt for becoming mercenaries of our The State. This is not "patriotism"; rather, this is "desperation." They all become what Donovan called "The Universal Soldier." But this is neither the pathway to peace nor to civilisation. It is the highway to self-extinction.
In short, there can be but two Ways in Nature to govern a Nation: One is by their own Consent; the other by Force: One gains their Hearts; the other holds their Hands. The first is always chosen by those who design to govern the People for the People's Interest; the other by those who design to oppress them for their own: for, whoever desires only to Protect them, will covet no useless power to injure them.
Below are the lyrics of "Universal Soldier":
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend - and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
If we want to put an end to war, we must trade with all nations freely, avoiding protectionism, which fuels international conflict. We must opt for the "international division of labour" - which is the way to international peace. And prosperity. And civilisation itself.
Jai Vyapari!
And Om Shanti!
