Right through known history, greater attention and expenditure have been devoted to killing enemy soldiers than to protect one’s own men

It is a military axiom that an offensive military operation generally costs thrice the blood, money and resources than a defensive one. Yet, conquerors — ambitious and impatient as they usually are — do not wait long enough for an adversary’s provocation to attack. In the last century, Adolf Hitler was an outstanding example of not being patient enough to wait for the enemy to attack first. In the 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte was a similar case. Napoleon and Hitler met with defeat; the latter also with death. In Hitler’s case, a lady crystal-gazer had predicted that he had to fulfil his military ambitions by 1943. Thereafter, her crystal showed a dark curtain. Hitler too had declared on Radio Berlin that he would rather fight in his 40s than wait till his 50s.

Training and sustaining a soldier are expensive. Added to this expenditure is the humanitarian factor like the life of one’s brethren who have volunteered to defend one’s country. Incidents of our country’s soldiers falling in action make most Indians grieve. Our latest experience has been the tragic death of Chief of Defence Staff Gen Bipin Rawat and 13 others in a helicopter crash. Emotion of this intensity might not be seen or felt if an Air Force plane crashes or a naval ship sinks; as did INS Khukri in the 1971 war.

Most countries term their functionaries in charge of the military forces as Ministers or Secretaries of Defence, although in a few nations they are known as Secretary of War; the United Kingdom in WWI, for instance. This might be because of the implicit embarrassment of a Minister being proudly called a warmonger. Yet, right through known history, greater attention and expenditure have been devoted to killing enemy soldiers than to protect one’s own soldiers. The sword and the spear cost more than the shield. In the centuries gone by, there were no medics in the event of injuries to soldiers; nor was an ambulance available to salvage the wounded soldier. The Stanford Encyclopedia informs us that the system of organised medics began in the 19th century during the Napoleonic Wars. For the animals — mainly horses — in Europe and also elephants and camels in India, there was never any medical facility until their deployment in war died out.

The advent of gunpowder and later the innovation of the field gun, a revolutionary weapon, were more damaging to the enemy, but of no protective utility to one’s own soldiers. The musket was actively used in Spain in the Battle of Parma in 1521, with its design undergoing improvement to transform into the modern rifle, in which the cartridge travels in a groove. This was developed in the 19th century based on the mechanics conceived by English mathematician Benjamin Robins. It was entirely an offensive weapon. Helmets thereafter have become compulsory battle-gear for soldiers. The headgear is ancient but its consistent use began only towards the second half of World War I. The bulletproof jacket is not yet compulsory for all soldiers, although its use is now being increasingly mandated by Special Forces across the world.

The reason for such snail’s-pace progress in the evolution of defensive or protective equipment for soldiers must be sought in the mindset of aggrandisers and conquerors, who believed in and lived for conquests. Wars were the most potent means of attaining the political objectives of kingdoms, empires and, later, nations. Territorial conquests and continual expansions were the order of the age, for much of history. Soldiers were seen and treated as cogs in the wheel of a heartless machinery or, to put it crudely, cannon fodder. They came from the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and the incentive for the common folk to enlist and shed their lives — other than the undeniable attachment to one’s land, religion and way of life — was also the promise of a share in the spoils of war. The last factor was particularly crucial for monarchs and adventurers wanting to line up multitudes of able-bodied men for conquests in faraway lands. Soldiers were meant to fight and die for their king, country or God; such was the thinking prevailing till the 19th century.

Prince Klemens von Metternich, diplomat, statesman and Austria’s Foreign Minister during the Napoleonic age, met Napoleon to try and persuade him to cease his quest for hegemony over Europe at the expense of human lives. Bonaparte’s bland riposte was: “Aristocrats like you don’t understand us soldiers born in the cantonment (Napoleon was born in one). They (soldiers) are meant to fight and die. I don’t give a damn about them and neither do they.” Things certainly have come a long way since those rather sordid days. The two World Wars, plus the possible horror of a nuclear holocaust, have certainly forced a sea change in the approach to conflict and warfare. While only the naïve would believe that war is a thing of the past, the technologies of the defence or war industry are undeniably reflective of increased concern for the safety of the fighting man and his individual and societal welfare.

(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)