The Army Brat

THE ARMY BRAT

1.         We often use words in the English language wrongly. In time the meaning of the incorrect used word changes from the traditional or dictionary meaning to what can be termed colloquial or informal. A large number of words come to mind which we commonly use and which actually mean something else. We often get the spellings wrong but assume we are correct. Since we have always used the incorrect spelling.  A few amusing examples of our erroneous usage or wrong understanding of words and phrases is first needed. Moral as a noun or an adjective, which is used to describe standards of good or bad character and  behavior. It can also be used to describe a kind of story that tells you how you should or should not behave. Take the amusing misusage of Loose versus Lose. Incorrect: "I just know I'm going to loose this race." Correct: "I just know I'm going to lose this race." We cannot use these spellings interchangeably. Not only are the meanings subtly different but they also SOUND different.  Lose has more of a Z sound; while loose has more of a hiss to it.

2.         As English evolves, word meanings shift and turn, sometimes reversing themselves altogether. Here are two that come to mind that have shifted their senses over the years. It is wise to likewise be flexible. We need to relax our vocabulary at the expense of useful distinctions such as the following:-

a) Ironic.  The impact of ironic has been diluted because many people use it to mean “coincidental,” when its traditional definition is “counter to expectations or what is appropriate.” It is because this word is so often misused that I have deliberately quoted it. Our media and a lot of so called English language experts routinely use ironic when they actually mean something else.

b)  Anxious. Unless you’re frightened of them, you shouldn’t say you’re “anxious to see your friends.” You are actually “eager” or “excited”. To be “anxious” implies a looming fear, dread or anxiety. It does not mean that you are looking forward to something.

3.         But let us apply our selves to the amusing and often misunderstood term “Army Brat”.  The common understanding of the word ‘Brat’ to the average Indian-English speaking person is an ill-mannered annoying child. Correct no doubt, this should let many a civilian reader feel comfortable. However when the word is suffixed with ‘Army’, ‘Navy’ or ‘Military’ the whole phrase takes on new connotations. When such a phrase is used colloquially and in general conversational English, it means something else. At this juncture I would like to state that no malice is intended towards the non Army Brats who will also read this. Therefore everyone who reads regardless of whether they are Armed Forces children or not, may like to know that the term ‘Brat’ is a common reference to children of military members.  It is a term of endearment - referring to a group who endure hardships, frequently move, change schools, leave behind friends, put up with frequent deployments, long absences of their parent(s), and (sometimes) inadequate government housing.

4.         There is dire need to explain to the reader how the word ‘Brat’ came to be used in all things Military. Look at the more human side of a word that today is used in many Armies of the World including India. Despite what is often known as an ‘Americanism’, the word ‘Brat has its origins in the United Kingdom. The very first reference of ‘Brat’ in English literature goes back to 1707. As we all know, often things military, all seem to stem from the British way of life. I quote, “Historical documentation relating to life in the British Army shows that married soldiers could be divided into two categories. Firstly, a soldier could marry with his commanding officer's permission, which would ensure that his marriage was recognized – his wife and children would be allowed to live in barracks and would be provided for by regimental funds. This was known as marrying "on the strength" as the wife was able to exist "on the strength" of the regiment.  The number of marriages that received the permission of the commanding officer was limited so that the regiment would not have to provide for too many dependants, with estimates suggesting that only 6 per cent of the soldier population was permitted to marry "on the strength". Marriages not receiving the permission of the commanding officer meant that wives and children lived beyond the life of the barracks and often had to eke out a difficult existence with little or no money provided by the serving soldier.

In his satirical play The Recruiting Officer, first published in 1707, George Farquhar pens a song about soldier life in which he refers to dependants not living on the strength of the regiment:

"We all shall lead more happy Lives,
By getting rid of Brats and Wives,
That scold and brawl both Night and Day;
Over the Hills and far away …"

It is quite possible that this is the earliest recorded use of the term "brat" specifically in relation to military families (although it should be noted that "brat" is a pejorative term that could be used to refer to any child). < Unquote.

5.         And here I come to my rather satirical but NOT pointed view that there are all kinds of kids who may be Army ones or civilian ones who can turn out to be real ‘nasty little brats’. So whether it’s an Army child or a civilian child it’s all about upbringing. So read on as this should make every ‘Army Brat’ proud of being one who, is the son or daughter of someone from the Armed Forces. Whether the kid is an officer’s child or a soldiers, they all live the same lives when they grow up and study in schools that they change so often. The words “quiet, reflective, distant, independent and adaptable to change” often come to mind when describing service children. It’s nice that there are Face Book groups where you can reminisce and associate with your upbringing. Some Army Brats go to boarding school or like myself, have moved around during childhood to a fair number of places. (Yes the author is also an Army Brat). It was not like many civilian kids home lives, those who stay with their family in one area, born and bred there. There are pluses and minuses of this. Yes, you never settle in one place and form a distinctive attitude and approach to life, but you meet a diverse range of people and see different scenery and ways of life that you almost think it’s the norm, to experience a different place every couple of years or even months – it’s like an adventure!  Becoming less attached to the town you move to probably helps ease the transition and can almost be described as a coping mechanism.

6.         A researcher found a book written in 1921 which described the origins of the term.  It came, like many of our Indian  military traditions, from the British Army.  It seems that when a member of the British Army was assigned abroad and could take his family (mostly in India), the family went with the member in an Administrative status entitled:  BRAT status. {It stands for:  British Regiment Attached Traveler.}  Over the years, it was altered to refer only to the children of the military member (the wives of the British Army objected to the term referring to them).  And the term not only stuck, but in many cases was adopted world-wide.  The use of the English term "military brat" is in common use (within military cultures),  in Australia, in India (also called Fauji Brats), Canada (also known as Base Brats), Pakistan, Philippines, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (also called Pad Brats), and the United States to name just a few countries worldwide.  Also known as camp followers there have been such military-dependent subcultures (under various other names) in many parts of the world for thousands of years. "Military brat", in military culture is known as a term of endearment and respect and  may also imply a certain spunkiness or adaptability.  Research has shown that most current  and  former military brats like the term, however outside  of  the military world, the term "military brat" can  sometimes  be misunderstood  by  the  non-military population, where the word "brat" (by itself) may be seen as negative. Within military culture, the term "military brat" is not considered to be an insult, but rather connotes affection and respect.  In the Indian context being termed “fauji brats”, children with parents in the Indian Armed Forces are a unique breed in many ways. They grow up seeing and experiencing a unique ‘esprit de corps’. Amazing as it may seem but actually true; some Indian fauji parents seem to take objection to their offspring being called ‘Brats. Interestingly a lot of Fauji Brats are doing so well in life one wonders what the hullabaloo about their being called ‘Brats’ is all about.

7.         Noted military brat researcher Mary Edwards Wertsch who is a psychiatrist  polled 85 ex-military children as to whether or not they liked the term "military brat" and only five respondents (5.9% of the study group) objected to the term.  The term is now widely used by researchers and academicians and so is no longer merely a slang term, but a name clearly attached to a recognized and well studied segment of military culture all over the World.

Modern perception of the term

8.         As adults, military brats can share many of the same positive and negative traits identified in other populations that experienced very mobile childhoods.  Having had the opportunity to live around the world, military brats can have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers.  Regardless of race, religion, nationality, or gender, brats might identify more with other highly mobile children than with non-mobile ones. Military brats also graduate from college at a higher rate than the civilian population and divorce at a lower rate.

CONCLUSION

9.         In conclusion I would like to quote what an IAF officer’s daughter wrote a while ago. Quote >Military brats can have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers. Getting transferred is what the general public associates life in the defense services with.  Moving to a different place practically every year is very much part of enlisted life. From a very young age, children with parents in the military or Armed Forces are used to having Dad walk in and announcing yet another move to a new city or town, a new home, new school and new friends. Thanks to this the “Fauji Brats” end up seeing the length and breadth of the country in a short span of time and they grow up with a range of assorted experiences. Packing up and moving on is a very ‘normal’ concept for defense children – they even learn the art of how to pack sans the modern day comforts of ‘packers and movers’. The parents do the packing, with generous help from friends, and the kids pitch in as a matter of course. Being an Air Force officer’s daughter, I have personally supervised loading trucks – to the amazement of the men who came to do  the lifting.  With so many changes in everyday life, defense children develop a rare brand of confidence and world-perspective. They learn to deal with adverse situations from a very young age – adapting to a new school every few years is a kind of ‘survival training’ that children outside the services rarely have to undergo.  The Armed Forces have rules and regulations for all personnel. By extension, these get incorporated in the lives of defense offspring, as well. Discipline is a very integral part of the defense services and a defense home tends to adhere to certain regimental principles (for instance, time and tide wait for no one). Discipline becomes second nature, with few exceptions to the rule. And this is called ‘Brat’ discipline. The various successes that children of defense personnel have achieved over the years stand mute testimony to the environment in which defense kids grow up.  I can name Sushmita Sen, Lara Dutta, Gul Panag, Priyanka Chopra, Rahul Kanwal and Anubha Bhosle amongst my ‘Brat Pack’ colleagues who have brought honor to the Armed Forces and made their parents proud. We all are Military Brats. <Unquote

10.       They also learn not to discriminate on the basis of caste, creed, color, language and race – in the Armed Forces, every person is valued. They learn to accept and respect everyone since they see other personnel doing the same. Defense children grow up with friends from every religion – they visit temples, churches and Gurdwaras with equal gravity, and learn to celebrate all festivals with the same pomp and gaiety. This is, perhaps, the most important lesson that children growing up in a defense environment learn. The Fauji Brat is thus a reasonably well rounded adult.

11.       Under no circumstances does this article put forth the thought that children from the defense are better than others. However, environment does play a big role in the overall development of a child.  Because the defense services come with their own definition of life and living,  children grow up learning to accept, accommodate, help and enjoy all that life has to offer.  And that’s what a Fauji Brat or Army Brat or Air force Brat or Navy Brat is all about my friends.

12.       These last words from a soldiers son sum up the issue of the Brat pack in the Armed Forces of the World.  Quote>  My  Dad said  in  his farewell  retirement  speech that when we add up how many years our family has served on active duty in the Armed Forces  it totals to over a century.  Like I said, what is a civilian?  It must be such a different way of life for them. I thank  my Dad everyday now for raising me as a military brat. Of course at the time I didn't like it but, now that I am a little older and out of the house I realize how many skills and responsibilities I was taught  by being  an Army  brat.  It makes  me cry tears of joy now that I see that I am not alone in the experiences I had growing up as a military brat.<Unquote

Lt Col (Retd) Sukhwant Singh, 

The  Quintessential  “Army Brat”

09 Sep 2012           

THE SAHAYAK SYSTEM IN THE ARMED FORCES

The sahayak system in the Indian Army has a long and convoluted history. But where shall I begin. It has raised tempers and all the mis-information floating around needs to be corrected. It’s a story just waiting to be told and hopefully readers will have a smile on their faces. Some I am sure may disagree but essentially it’s all about the fun years and growing up in a unique system that only the members of the Armed Forces would comprehend. If I manage to ruffle a few feathers just think of it as another blog. After all I  get writers' privilege and freedom to write what I please.

A little history first, since lots of us have no idea about the hows and whys. Please remember that the attendant, orderly, bearer, “flunky”, helper, batman/batwoman, sewadar, sahayak have been an integral part of any military system since times immemorial. All of us high thinking modern members of society with our misplaced sense of equality think only about what we perceive as menial labor. Our respective interpretations of demeaning and unbecoming work by Sahayaks has been distorted unnecessarily by everyone whether its the media, twitterrati, Government, armchair activists, the Army itself, hidden whistleblowers and many more. And when looking back into the mists of time, there have always been helpers, servants or attendants to the ‘superior officers”, rulers, Government functionary and so on.

Orderlies were used as far back in time as the Greeks, in the Roman Senate and even during the times of Chanakya and Emperor Ashoka.

In Rome it was the duty of every male citizen to provide himself with weapons and serve in the army at his own expense. The very poorest were excused from this obligation but in extreme cases they were provided with arms by the State at their expense. The moment a young man entered the Army he had to take an oath “I will obey my superior and will carry out all their orders so far as I am able”.  As the Republic developed and the character of the army changed, it became more professional and included a large number of troops besides legionaries. The concept of ‘camp followers’ was invented.  They were essentially the civilian wives and families of soldiers and other civilians who looked after the superior officer, the Senator and others. That is how the manservant became an integral part of the military system. They were the precursor to the modern helper or orderly or sahayak.  To quote the general definition, a Camp Follower  is a term used to identify civilians and their children who follow armies. There are two common types of camp followers; first, the wives and children of soldiers, who follow their spouse or parent's army from place to place; the second type of camp followers have historically been informal army service providers, servicing soldiers needs whilst encamped in particular selling goods or services that the military does not supply, these have included cooking laundering nursing, sexual services and sultry.  The latter versions of these ‘followers’ became ‘combatants’ possibly because you can’t have a ‘civilian’ going to every battle field.

Incidentally the Maurya army had manservants too. And so did many other establishments in Indian history. But lets move on to what such men were called and expected to do in more modern times.

The orderly system in the Armed Forces rather Government forces was first introduced during British rule in 1861.  In the absence of communication facilities at that time, the idea was to ensure that the services of a serviceman or policeman were available for the officer to act quickly in case of any law and order problem. Amusing but this is actually how the modern system started.

DEFINITIONS

Here are a few definitions.

In the Military a junior rank detailed to carry orders or perform minor tasks for a more senior officer. Thus the orderly or batman was a compulsory appendage.

A soldier who serves as an attendant to a superior officer; "the orderly laid out the general's uniform", and did a lot of other odd jobs for the superior officer. He had no role to play in the family life of the officer.

A batman (or batwoman) is a soldier or airman assigned to a commissioned officer as a personal servant. Yes jokes apart the word “personal servant” are a direct quote. And correct by the way. But this was essentially a word used in America.

The official term used by the British Army in the First World War was Soldier-Servant. Every officer was assigned a servant, usually chosen by himself from among his men. The term Batman replaced this in the inter-war years. By the Second World War, only senior officers of the Army and Royal Air Force were officially assigned their own batmen, with junior officers usually having the services of one batman between several officers. Batwomen also served in the women's services.

Batman was usually seen as a desirable position. The soldier was exempted from more onerous duties and often got better rations and other favors from his officer. Some of these soldiers were in fact the shirker types who fitted in excellently with the officer and into his home. Senior officers' batmen usually received fast promotions to lance-corporals rank, with many becoming corporals and even sergeants The position was generally phased out after the war. However Officers of the Household Division in the UK still have orderlies. And dear readers this is the case in the  British Armed Forces of  today, circa 2012. The exact same system came to be a part of the Indian Army. Except it got decidedly corrupted.

In the British Armed Forces the term "batman" or "batwoman" was formerly also applied to a civilian who cleaned officers' messes or married quarters. In the Royal Air Force, free married quarters cleaning services were phased out for all officers except Squadron Leaders or above in command appointments as of  01 April 1972.

In the Royal Navy the stewards performed many of the duties of batmen in the other services. Aboard ship, only Captains and Admirals were assigned personal stewards, with the other officers being served by a pool of officers' stewards. Most vessels carried at least two stewards, with larger vessels carrying considerably more.

The term "orderly" was often used instead of "batman" in the colonial forces, especially in the British Indian Army. The orderly was frequently a civilian instead of a soldier. This became “bearer” in Peace stations of the Army. The  bearer concept is still in existence in a lot of peace time military stations in India and such people are used by all three Services. The  bearer is a civilian who is employed by the Mess and is essentially employed and paid not from Government funds. It is a misnomer that many are unaware of especially the ‘civilian’ reader. The Mess funds which are collected from the officers are used. Thus they are essentially ‘servants’ for all occupants of the Mess.

One famous example of officer and batman during the Second World War was British actor Lieutenant Colonel David Niven and his batman, fellow actor Peter Ustinov. Niven and Ustinov were working on the film 

"The Way Ahead" as respectively actor and writer, but the difference in their ranks made their regular association militarily impossible; to solve the problem, Ustinov, who was only a private, was appointed

 Niven's batman.

And now to their duties as suitably refined over the years. Generally these have been adapted and adopted in the Indian Army till very recently. I say recently because of some amusing aspects that we shall see later.

A batman's duties often included:

• Acting as a 'runner' to convey orders from officer to subordinate
• Maintaining the officers uniform and personal equipment as a valet
• Driving the officers vehicle, sometimes under combat conditions
• Acting as the officers bodyguard in combat
• Other miscellaneous tasks the officer does not have the time or inclination to undertake or do
• The action of serving as a batman was referred to as "batting"
• In armies where officers typically came from the upper class, it was not unusual for a former batman to follow the officer into later civilian life as a domestic servant.

THE SAHAYAK IN THE INDIAN ARMY

So how the heck has this military system gone awry and ended up the subject of so much discussion, heart burn and what have we. Coming  from a military family and having grown up in essentially different conditions a lot of my contemporaries will recall life almost identical to mine.  You see our parents were those who were commissioned when India was still part of the British Empire. They and were that lot of Indians who fought in the II World War. Most came from backgrounds as diverse as today, except that it was those who had a reasonably good education by the standards in those times.

But on with my part of this personal interpretation of Army life as I saw it.  I do not recall being in the company of an orderly or batman in my childhood years. That is how isolated we children were from the batman my father was authorized and privileged to have. The batman to the best of my knowledge came to look after my father’s uniform, clean his surroundings and be a messenger if so required.  We had a cook or khansama, the bearer and the masalchi and they had nothing to do with the Army and WERE NOT PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.  The latter doubled as a household servant  and help, in an officer’s home.  And yes everyone was paid for their work by the Officer. And they were proper servants NOT “servants” paid out of Government funds. Seems strange but the earliest I seem to recall of a batman or orderly was when I was in high school. By then my father could have had a full cricket team in the house. The batman was rarely seen or even heard. Despite his presence the batman in any case worked for my father and not for the household.

When I joined the Army and ended up in  an old illustrious Artillery Regiment, the first thing we young officers were told was that we would have to share one batman between three of us and that went on till I became a young Captain. We were also told what the batman was supposed  to do and this was strictly implemented.  During the 1971 Indo Pak War, I did get the privilege of a personal batman, though I recall he was more my bodyguard, radio operator and  buddy.  My stints in  training establishments were with no 'orderly' in uniform. The Mess bearer looked after  my needs.  Subsequent to my joining  the  flying  branch as an AOP pilot  I was exposed to the IAF system where civilians did the odd job or two. My wife did the shopping and we had a paid safaiwallah who did the house. Of course a lot of my younger married  life was in field or semi field areas. But with wife and son in tow. Was lucky I suppose.  When we did return to Peace routine, it was once again sharing of the batman.  Never did we ever use the batman as a personal servant. Eventually I ended up in a HQs establishment and found that the ubiquitous “sahayak” was again a far and distant  subject.  All of us staff officers had a batman who dropped by twice or thrice a week. We never had or used ‘batmen’ for what can now be termed ‘menial’ jobs and are considered humiliating. We did our own shopping, hired the usual maid and odd job help. I do not recall seeing batmen hovering around when I went calling to a senior officers home.

Eventually I ended my career  where I was directly involved in managing manpower within a training establishment. No sign of the batman except the man who came, did my uniform, helped change a bulb and was told “Bhaiya aap ja sakte ho”. The amusing thing was I changed the bulb, the batman held the stool.  We walked our own dogs, went to the market to buy things and generally the batman was more a nuisance than any real help. I may seem like the oddball who did not ‘enjoy’ the ‘free’ Government servant but I just wasn’t used to it.

So how have we all got so badly mixed up in this ‘orderly’, helper, batman sahayak thing. To my mind here are a few of the faults that emerge from keen observation of this misuse of the ‘orderly’, ‘sahayak’ and ‘helper’ in the Army.  Read on friends and ponder. I have deliberately included what are the causative factors. Rest is up to your wisdom in interpreting the system. Mind you this has been a slow decline and not a sudden change.

To begin with the batman was a soldier whose duties to his superior officer became more of a right rather than a privilege. Remember that only senior officers were permitted exclusive batmen in the old days. The younger lot had to ‘share’ the services. Today every officer and even JCO wants to have his own batman.  Because every officer assumes it  is his ‘right’. The blame for this is that of the establishment and senior lot  have not been educating the officers. Sadly the ‘senior’ lot themselves are in some way or other to blame.

A lot of officers who used to be single in the old days are now married at an earlier age. Instead of they educating their wives about Service customs and traditions, the modern 21st Century officer likes to consider himself as an equal to his superior. Strange but that’s the honest fact of the matter. And terribly wrong.  Leadership suffers. Do remember that there is a very fine dividing line between privilege and misuse.

The modern Indian soldier is educated and is an aware person. He has his own aspirations and concepts about soldiering. Adequate care has not been taken to give the soldier his rightful due. The officer who imagines it is his birth right treats the soldier in a colonial tradition. Worse the soldier is not given the respect he deserves as a human. Man management was and is an important part of the training syllabus of the Army. And is taught at all stages of an officer’s career. Still, there is a big difference between what is taught and what is done on ground.

The role of the batman has got mixed up with that of a domestic servant. This is not the case and must never be. A lot of people state that so what, the Police, the IAS and other Government employees use batmen, why should we not do the same. Well that’s exactly what makes us different from them. No questions on this.

The old term ‘orderly’ became ‘batman’ in some Armies, and ‘helper’ in others including the Indian Army. To bring some respectability to the job the combatant soldier did for his officer, the term ‘sahayak’ was coined. We called them ‘sewadar’ also at some time or other.  And all this name changing etc happened in the last 25 to 35 years. The ‘duties’ that  the soldiers were expected to do soon became distorted, and they became a part and parcel of the officer’s family. This unfortunately  became more a norm than an exception. From simply looking after the officer and doing his work, the ‘sahayak’ started doing more personalized domestic duties within the officers homes. From ‘helping’ to water the plants to doing odd jobs like minding  the children and walking the dogs soon became a routine. Strangely enough the officers started to assume  it was their birthright. The officers’ wives thought these were perks of Service. Children grew up with the ‘Bhaiya” attitude. The sahayak was an additional help in the home of an officer and no one thought otherwise. Proof in the pudding is that one often hears tales narrated by Army brats about this “Bhaiya”  system that they grew up with.

But how did this all come about. To my mind the main fault has been a careless attitude of the superior officer who was unable to guide his subordinate on necessary military protocol as regards use of the batman. To gain cheap popularity the superior permitted the subordinate  and turned a blind eye to what soon became a misused privilege. The second very glaring reason was inadequate salary. To hire a servant costs money. Why not use the orderly to do household jobs. Initially no one objected since the orderly was a favored person and got his perks like quicker promotions and softer work conditions. Many an orderly preferred to do orderly duties instead of the soldiering duties within a unit. Often the shirker types were deliberately sent to do orderly duty for the officer. And then the orderly was a favored person within his own group of colleagues.

Ulterior motives surfaced. Having a kind of informer in the ‘sahibs’ home was ideal since the unit lower level leaders themselves incompetent, were able to find out the weakness of their officers. Surprisingly often the JCOs and NCOs themselves suggested that a sahayak would be provided. Let’s face it weak leadership and sadly lowered ethical motives have all contributed to this sad decline. No wonder that today there is so much turmoil in social circles about the so called “misuse” of soldiers as ‘Sahayaks”. Worse the whistle blower category of disgruntled officers, other ranks and Veterans are nibbling into the moral fiber of the Army. This has to be curbed with a strong hand. Having ‘civilian’ Sahayaks or servants paid out of defense budgets will not work since despite freeing the so called 30,000 combatants  may appear to seem OK, has anyone stopped to think  about the loss to the exchequer with the planned ‘civilian’ replacements. A serious rethink needs to be done.

In conclusion let me state that with all the research and analysis done by various think tanks and more wise and worldly officers, I am of the firm opinion that the ‘sahayak’ system must be done away with. And there is no need for replacements. Amen

 .