Originally to be published at : https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-naam-namak-nishan-why-caste-has-no-place-in-the-indian-army-ws-kl-9856418.html
To divide the Army along caste lines is to misunderstand its very soul. Regiments are not barriers; they are bridges, uniting soldiers from diverse communities in a common mission The Indian Army rejects caste divisions, focusing on unity, merit, and tradition. Soldiers from diverse backgrounds serve together, with recruitment and promotions based on ability, not caste. Regiments unite, not divide, reflecting the Army’s ethos of duty and cohesion.
Regiments are not barriers; they are bridges, uniting soldiers from diverse communities in a common mission. The Indian Army is independent India’s most successful project in social resilience. A 1.4-million-strong force where a Dalit jawan from Bihar shares a bunker with a Brahmin officer from Kerala. Where a Sikh officer commands Muslim soldiers, and a Muslim officer commands Hindu troops. Where the son of a landless labourer can rise to command the son of a wealthy businessman. This is not a dream. It is a daily reality — at 15,000 feet in Siachen, in the jungles of the Northeast, and along the LoC and LAC.
Still, critics insist caste divisions linger. They point to regimental names — “Rajput”, “Jat”, “Maratha”, “Mahar”, “Sikh” — and claim these are relics of discrimination. Some allege that lower-caste soldiers are pushed into riskier combat roles while upper-caste soldiers secure safer postings. These charges collapse under scrutiny. They ignore the lived reality of the Army and the sweeping reforms since Independence. The Indian Army is not a caste hierarchy. It is a national institution. Its cohesion is forged in battle, not birth. The Army has long embraced a model focused on merit and unity, ensuring that every soldier is valued for ability, not background.
From British Legacy to National Cohesion
The British Indian Army’s “martial race” theory carved India into fragments. Sikhs, Gurkhas, Rajputs, Madrasis, Marathas and Jats were branded “martial”, while others were dismissed as unfit for service. The result was a force fractured by design—loyal to the Crown, not the nation. It was social Darwinism in uniform, pseudoscience dressed up as policy to serve imperial ends.
Yes, that legacy existed. But what critics ignore is its systematic dismantling after 1947. Independent India tore down the colonial scaffolding. The Army was reorganised. Caste-based recruitment ended. Merit and capability became the only criteria. This was not merely a policy shift—it was a decisive rejection of colonial division, and a conscious choice to build unity, not hierarchy. The Indian Army today stands as proof that unity, not division, wins wars.
A New Way of Recruiting
One of the boldest post-Independence military reforms is the All India All Class (AIAC) recruitment model. It breaks barriers of caste, region and religion by drawing soldiers from across the country. By 2025, nearly 60 per cent of infantry battalions will follow this model. In combat arms such as the Armoured Corps, Artillery and Engineers, the figure will touch 75 per cent. This is not a minor adjustment — it is a tectonic shift.
Officer selection has also been overhauled. Candidates now face a rigorous, merit-driven process assessing leadership potential, academic performance and physical fitness—not caste or social background. The result is leadership built on competence, not identity.
Regimental Names: Tradition, Not Caste
Yes, some regimental names — Rajput, Jat, Mahar, Sikh — sound caste-linked. But they are not about exclusion. They are about tradition, pride and battlefield legacy. These names carry history, not hierarchy.
The persistence of titles such as “Rajput” or “Jat” demands context, not condemnation. They are heritage anchors that build unit cohesion—what the Army calls esprit de corps. Consider this: the Commanding Officer of a Rajput Regiment battalion may be a Christian from Nagaland; his Second-in-Command a Muslim from Kerala; the Adjutant a Dalit from Tamil Nadu.
All are selected through standard Army protocols. While enlisted ranks have traditionally followed class-based recruitment, this too is changing. Critics who have never seen the inside of a battalion miss the point. The class composition system does not divide — it accommodates India’s diversity and is far more inclusive than armchair analysis suggests.
Take the Bihar Regiment. It actively recruits Adivasis, tribals and Dalits from Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. It is not a gatekeeper — it is a gateway to national service.
The Naga Regiment draws from all Naga tribes, without internal tribal distinctions. The Assam Regiment brings together Kukis, Meiteis, Paites, Himars and Brus—serving shoulder to shoulder despite civilian tensions at home. That is unity in uniform.
The Mahar Regiment, rooted in historically marginalised communities, recruits tribals from Maharashtra and Gujarat. Its combat record — including Param Vir Chakra awardees — demonstrates that battlefield honour is not caste-dependent; it is earned.
The Sikh Light Infantry recruits Sikhs from the Mazbi and Ramdasiya sects—groups often sidelined in broader Sikh society. In uniform, they stand equal with Jat Sikhs and others. No labels—just soldiers. In fact, the regiment holds a pride of place by being designated “Light Infantry”, an honour bestowed on only three regiments: the Maratha Light Infantry, the Jat Light Infantry and the Sikh Light Infantry. In the Indian Army, tradition builds pride; identity does not define worth.
Merit-Based Officer Selection
Officer selection in the Indian Army is strictly merit-based. Institutions such as the National Defence Academy (NDA) and the Indian Military Academy (IMA) assess candidates on leadership, intellect and physical fitness. Caste, religion and region play no role. Once commissioned, promotions are earned through performance, not pedigree. The result is a genuinely diverse officer corps—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits and others rising to senior ranks. This is not tokenism; it is proof that caste does not determine success. Capability does.
The Myth of Caste-Based Sacrifice
One persistent myth is that lower-caste soldiers are pushed into danger while upper-caste soldiers remain safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, officers consistently suffer higher casualty rates than enlisted troops because Indian Army doctrine requires officers to lead from the front.
During the Kargil War, officers constituted roughly three per cent of the deployed force but accounted for nearly ten per cent of the casualties. The same pattern holds in counter-insurgency operations, where officers lead patrols and face the same risks as their men.
The claim that upper-caste soldiers avoid danger is not merely wrong — it dishonours those who died leading from the front. These brave hearts came from all regions, religions and castes. Above all, they were from Bharat. In the Indian Army, sacrifice is a duty, not a caste privilege. Officers, men and entire regiments compete not to avoid danger, but to be first into battle.
During Operation Parakram, Lt Gen Rustam Nanavatty, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM (Retd), then Army Commander of Northern Command, visited my battalion. He informed us that we would not lead the assault, as we were deployed in a defensive role. I stood up and requested the honour of moving forward—not for glory, but for duty. He agreed. Gen Nanavatty, one of the finest military minds in our Army, saw not defiance, but conviction. In our Army, the fight begins with the will to fight.
Unity in the Army
The Indian Army’s strength lies in unity. Soldiers do not fight as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Dalits. They fight as Indian soldiers, bound by duty to safeguard the nation. Whether it is a Hindu officer commanding a Muslim-majority unit or a Dalit soldier serving in a traditionally upper-caste regiment, their bond is forged in shared purpose, not social identity.
Veterans speak with pride of the Army’s camaraderie, where trust and competence matter more than caste or creed. In this institution, ability is the only measure.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The Indian Constitution guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination based on caste, religion, sex or place of birth. The Supreme Court has reinforced these principles, particularly with respect to the Armed Forces. While caste-based reservations may have a role in civilian society, the Army’s unique requirements — unity, discipline and professionalism — justify its exemption. The Army has transcended caste divisions both by necessity and by design.
The Indian Army’s motto — Naam, Namak aur Nishan — captures its ethos: service to the nation, selfless sacrifice and loyalty. Soldiers serve not for personal gain, but for India. The Army’s strength lies in its ability to assimilate men from every background, judging each by contribution, not birth.
Beyond Caste, Towards Cohesion
To divide the Army along caste lines is to misunderstand its very soul. Regiments are not barriers; they are bridges, uniting soldiers from diverse communities in a common mission.
The saga of chivalry and sacrifice in the Indian Army proves a simple truth: for its soldiers, the nation comes first and the regiment is family. With this identity, they march forward with pride and ethos, facing the enemy bravely and laying down their lives — not as caste representatives, but as Indian soldiers defending Indian soil.
When a patrol is ambushed or a bunker shelled, the insurgent’s bullet does not distinguish between Brahmin and Dalit, Hindu and Muslim, upper caste and lower caste. In the crucible of mortal danger, all divisions dissolve. What remains is unity.
In the Indian Army, the only identity that matters is the uniform; the only objective that matters is national sovereignty; and the only spirit that drives us is Duty-Honour-Courage. From the day we join this revered organisation, we dedicate ourselves to live and die for Naam (our country), Namak (the gratitude owed to Bharat Mata), and Nishan (the national flag).
