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
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
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
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
.
