Rank disparities lead to friction

There are occasions when friction and tussles for power crop up due to difference in rank, hierarchy, culture, operational philosophy and command structures in different uniformed services like the Army, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and others.  

The tussles for power and authority in joint operations are often caused by differences in operational approach, key result areas (KRAs) of the leadership and nature of the missions. The Army typically operates within a strict hierarchy and centralized command, whereas paramilitary forces like the CRPF and BSF prefer flexibility and a more decentralized approach. These differences sometimes cause friction, and disputes emerge between senior officers from different services.

Clear, crisp and effective communication, unified command structure, and mutual respect for each other’s expertise and leadership are a few things that the uniformed services lack.

Also Read: Clash of the Uniforms: Why army and police don’t see eye to eye # Part 1 

Operation Pawan (Sri Lanka, 1987-1990)

The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), led by the Indian Army, was deployed in Sri Lanka to assist the Sri Lankan government fight against Tamil separatists. But instead of fighting the Tamil separatists like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), there were routine clashes and disputes between the Army and the Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs) like the CRPF on how to conduct the operation.

The Army was in charge of the overall military strategy, but the paramilitary forces claimed to have their own experience of handling counterinsurgency operations. The CRPF which had ample experience of handling internal security operations did not like being overruled in operational matters leading to frictions due to lack of coordination and cohesion. The rank structure of the Army, which prioritized seniority and military protocol, clashed with the paramilitary forces’ more flexible approach, leading to tension between different ranks and forces.

Kashmir Insurgency (1990s – Present)

The Indian Army, CRPF, BSF, and local police have been carrying out joint operations to combat insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir since the early 1990s. There have been instances in which disagreements over command and control have cropped up because of the different organizational structures and priorities between the Army, CRPF, and BSF. The Army often insists on centralized control while paramilitary forces like the CRPF which have a different command system resisted it. This leads to friction between the Army and paramilitary officers and other ranks over who should lead the operations and how to allocate resources between them. This lack of trust and tussle often leads to inefficiencies and tactical missteps especially when quick decision-making is required.

Operation Vijay (Kargil War, 1999)

During the Kargil conflict, a joint operation was conducted by the Indian Army and Air Force. The Army led the ground operations, while the Air Force provided aerial support. However when it came to coordination between the Army and the Air Force the senior military officers from both the services always seem to agree to disagree on different ways to handle different tactical situations. The issue was largely about seniority and perceived capability. The Air Force officers wanted more direct control over air operations, while the Army officers were concerned about ground command. This often led to tensions between them.

Operation Green Hunt (Chhattisgarh, 2009-Present)

The Army, CRPF, and state police have been jointly involved in a large-scale anti-insurgency operation in central India in which rank and authority often leads to friction. Senior Army officers and CRPF officers often found themselves at loggerheads over strategic decisions in Operation Green Hunt. The Army insists that it has much longer operational experience, while CRPF claims to have practical experience in handling internal security issues. This infighting between the two uniformed forces often leads to confusion and delays, especially when decisions have to be made quickly in the dense forests where the Maoists are active.

BSF Border Operations  

The BSF is responsible for guarding the international borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. But the Army is occasionally called in for joint operations when there is an escalation of border tension or when the threat is deemed to be high. The bone of contention in the joint operations between the Army and BSF always is – command and control. While BSF officers are trained for border management and internal security, Army officers are trained for warfare. The differing training backgrounds and organizational cultures sometimes creates friction, especially when the command hierarchy is unclear. There have been instances where BSF and Army officers have clashed with each other over who should take the lead in the operations.

Operation All Out (Jammu & Kashmir, 2017)

Operation All Out was a counterinsurgency operation in which the Army, CRPF, and Jammu and Kashmir Police worked in tandem to eliminate terrorist cells in the region. In the course of the operation, there were disagreements between the Army and CRPF officers regarding operational priorities. The CRPF being a paramilitary force with experience in internal security, sometimes found itself in conflict with the Army’s military-focused approach to the situation. This rank-related friction and differences in leadership style, often led to operational delays and reduced efficiency in some cases.

Anti-Naxal Operations  

The CRPF and state police have been jointly fighting against Naxalism in the forests of Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Andhra and Jharkhand with marginal and limited presence of BSF and ITBP in some pockets. CRPF is by far the largesst stake holder in all naxal affected states. But often rank-related friction emerged between the CRPF and police officers due to CRPF’s emphasis on flexibility and adaptability in counterinsurgency operations. The issue always was as to who should command the whole operation  — CRPF which has more ground experience or local police which has better intelligence setup and was familiar with the area and people. This often used to lead to conflict between the uniformed services.

However over a period of time CRPF and the state police have learnt to understand and respect each other’s role and responsibilities – leading to better results and coordination in joint operations.

Importance of rank in uniformed services

Rank is more than just a form of recognition in the uniformed services. It is a vital component of the organizational structure that ensures effective command, discipline, and operational success. It defines authority, fosters teamwork, helps in conflict resolution, and ensures that the service runs efficiently, particularly in high-stakes or combat situations. Without rank, the hierarchical order would collapse, leading to confusion, inefficiency, and potential failure in accomplishing missions. Thus, the rank system is fundamental to the success of any uniformed force.

Rank defines the roadmap of authority, which is essential for effective command and control in military operations. Each rank signifies a level of responsibility and decision-making authority, ensuring that there is no ambiguity about who is in charge during complex operations.  A structured rank system helps streamline decision-making. Senior officers have the experience and authority to make strategic decisions, while junior officers follow orders. This reduces delays in response time during critical situations.

In uniformed services, such as the Army, Police, CRPF, CISF, and BSF, rank plays a crucial role in defining authority, decision-making power, and responsibilities. However, disparities in rank between different forces can often lead to friction, misunderstanding, and resentment. The hierarchical structures across these organizations may foster a sense of superiority or inferiority, impacting teamwork and collaboration.

Rank Defines Authority, Decision-Making Power, and Responsibilities

Rank is a key factor in determining the authority and command structure within any uniformed force. Higher-ranking officers hold decision-making power, while lower-ranking personnel are expected to follow orders. The Army, for example, has a very rigid and structured rank system, where seniority plays a significant role in leadership and operational authority. Similarly, the Police and paramilitary forces have their own hierarchical structures, but these may not always align with the Army’s rank system.

Difference in rank structures can create confusion or conflict when forces from different organizations are required to work together. A senior Army officer may expect to take charge during a joint operation, while a senior BSF or Police officer may assume command in a border or urban security operation, causing a potential conflict over leadership.

In a situation where multiple forces are deployed together, differences in rank-based decision-making can lead to friction. For example, a low-ranking CRPF personnel might be tasked with crowd control in a volatile area, but his superior may be from the Police, leading to a situation where two rank structures clash in terms of decision-making. This confusion over who has the final say can create inefficiencies and increase tensions.

Each force carries its own responsibilities, and higher-ranking officers are accountable for the actions of their subordinates. However, in joint operations, this responsibility may not be clearly defined. A senior Army officer might expect others to follow his orders without question, while a senior officer from another force (BSF or Police) might resist due to the chain of command within his own organisation. This lack of clarity in accountability can lead to operational inefficiencies and mistrust.

Effect of rank-based hierarchies on relationships between forces 

The Army operates under a strict hierarchical system where rank and seniority dictate everything from decision-making authority to respect. On the other hand, forces like the Police or CISF may have a more flexible, practical approach depending on the nature of the situation. When these forces work together, the difference in hierarchical approaches can lead to tension, especially if personnel are not trained to appreciate the nuances of different rank structures.

An Army officer accustomed to a strict military hierarchy may find it difficult to work with a senior Police officer who operates in a more decentralized, tactical role. This disconnect between the two approaches can result in misunderstandings about authority, power, and leadership.

In joint operations, personnel from different forces may perceive themselves as superior or inferior due to rank. An Army officer may feel they outrank a Police officer, despite both being part of a joint mission. Conversely, the Police officer might feel that his role in maintaining law and order in urban environments is more important than the Army’s combat-oriented mission.

These perceptions of superiority or inferiority can undermine teamwork, as personnel from one force might question the competence or legitimacy of those from another force, especially if the seniority of the other force is not recognized. This creates an environment where cooperation becomes strained.

Superiority or inferiority due to rank  

Rank in uniformed services often ties directly into an individual’s sense of self-worth and professional pride. A person of high rank may develop a sense of entitlement, which can sometimes lead to arrogance or disregard for the input of lower-ranking personnel. This can create a toxic work environment where subordinates feel disrespected or underappreciated.

Similarly, lower-ranking personnel may feel that their contributions are ignored or belittled by their higher-ranking counterparts. This can breed resentment, especially in high-stress situations where tensions are already high.

In situations where promotions or special assignments are involved, rank disparities can cause jealousy or frustration. For example, a BSF officer who is consistently overlooked for a promotion may feel inferior to an Army officer with a higher rank, leading to feelings of inadequacy or resentment. These feelings can spill over into personal interactions, leading to conflict, particularly when joint operations require close collaboration.

Rank differences can become especially problematic in the field. An Army officer may not trust the judgment of a Police officer or vice versa, due to their perceived superiority or inferiority based on rank. This lack of trust can lead to inefficiency, miscommunication, and poor coordination, may ultimately hinder the success of the mission.

Case studies of rank-related tension in joint operations

Case Study 1: Border patrolling by Army and BSF

Army and BSF often work together in border security operations. A common issue arises when senior Army officers attempt to assert command over BSF personnel due to their higher rank, despite BSF personnel being more familiar with the terrain and local dynamics. Tensions can mount if BSF officers resist following commands from Army officers, citing their own authority in the region. These types of rank-based conflicts can slow down operations, as personnel from both forces may struggle to find common ground on leadership.

Case Study 2: Police and CRPF coordination during civil unrest

In situations of civil unrest or riots, Police and CRPF personnel are often deployed together. The Police force may be led by a senior officer who has local jurisdictional authority, while the CRPF might have a higher-ranking officer in charge of overall security. This hierarchy clash can cause friction, especially if the Police officer feels undermined by the CRPF officer’s authority, despite the fact that both forces have specific roles in crowd control and security.

These situations can escalate if the forces fail to recognize the importance of respecting each other’s chain of command, which may lead to breakdowns in communication and operational effectiveness.

Conclusion

Rank disparities play a significant role in fostering resentment and conflict between uniformed personnel. Differences in authority, decision-making power, and responsibilities can create a sense of superiority or inferiority, particularly during joint operations. Misunderstandings about who holds command, combined with the psychological impact of rank-related ego, can strain interpersonal relationships and hinder operational efficiency.

To mitigate these issues, effective leadership is essential. Leaders must recognize and respect the unique hierarchies within each force and ensure that clear roles and responsibilities are defined in joint operations. Training personnel to appreciate the different operational contexts and rank systems, along with encouraging open communication and collaboration, will help reduce friction and foster a more cooperative environment. Addressing rank-related tensions through leadership, mutual respect, and understanding is key to improving teamwork and achieving mission success.