Defence and 'bloody civilian' attitude- colonial hangover.

 July 16th, 2025. 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend a very elegant and enriching book launch event. During the discussion, the author shared her views on canines, both as companions and as a menace. The author, a senior citizen and the wife of a retired senior army officer, candidly expressed her thoughts, highlighting how pet dogs are splendid while stray dogs pose a menace. She had many examples to quote.

While describing, she narrated a particularly interesting story, on how once, an army guard complained to her that the “civilian dogs” were responsible for spreading dirt everywhere. The term “civilian dogs” referred, of course, to stray dogs. We all burst into laughter. But on second thought, the remark sounded both ridiculous and offensive, reflecting a certain mindset on the part of the guard.

Many of us have either personally heard or seen in films the casual use of the phrase “bloody civilians” by defence services personnel. This mindset seems to stem from a colonial-era attitude that labeled local Indian citizens as “bloody natives,” or “bloody Indians”, a legacy that, in some ways, continued within the forces as “bloody civilians.”

Armed forces personnel are exceptionally punctual, disciplined, and known for their chivalry, exemplary qualities that often place them on a different pedestal from others. But does this distinction extend beyond the boundaries of the cantonment? Or does the culture of elevating themselves above the common citizen still persist in their demeanor?

I have numerous friends who are senior army officers, and they are among the most polite, humble, and respectful individuals I know. I don’t sense that archaic mindset lingering among them. However, even they acknowledge that, in yesteryears, a clear line was drawn between the military and civilian world, both in professional and personal life. They also admitted that anyone who continues to harbor anti-civilian sentiments today would struggle to adapt to life after hanging up their boots.

Those boundaries have now largely dissolved. This is what a vibrant, robust democracy brings forth, enabling institutional cultures to shed colonial legacies and encourage the building of more synergetic, respectful relationships.

It ultimately stems from the reality that everyone, regardless of professional background, emerges from the same so-called civilian community. And that is exactly where they will return, time and again, during service and certainly after retirement. Thus, this demarcation holds no relevance, except within the scope of core professional operations.