Buddy System debate: Why jawan dignity has again reached Parliament?

Capt. Lokendra

February 15, 2026

Buddy System debate: Why jawan dignity has again reached Parliament?

The debate around the Buddy System, also known as the Sahayak System or Batmen System, has once again become a serious issue in public discussion. For many civilians, this may look like an internal Army matter. But for jawans, veterans and defence families, it is directly linked with dignity, morale and the ethical use of trained soldiers.

The basic question is simple: should a soldier trained to protect the nation be used for personal domestic work?

This question has become sharper because allegations around sweeping, mopping, shoe polishing, dog walking, car washing, gardening and other personal chores keep returning in public debate. The issue has also been discussed in Parliament, courts, media reports and veterans’ circles. The matter is sensitive because it touches the image of the Indian Army, but reform-focused discussion should not be seen as an insult to the institution. A strong institution becomes stronger when unfair practices are corrected.

To understand the issue properly, one must first separate two things: operational buddy support and domestic misuse. In military life, a buddy has a clear operational meaning. During operations, training, field movement and difficult situations, a buddy system can provide support, security, communication help and coordination. This is part of military functioning. No serious reform voice is asking to weaken operational support.

The problem begins when this operational idea is allegedly stretched into personal service. Critics argue that a jawan should not be asked to perform household chores for officers or their families. That is where the system becomes controversial.

The Sahayak system has a long history. According to an Indian Express explainer, the concept emerged from the colonial-era “batman”, short for Battle Man, where a young soldier helped an officer during military activity. Over time, the practice was codified through Army orders and policy letters into the Sahayak system. The same report notes that the Navy and Air Force do not have a similar Sahayak system for officers.

The official purpose, as described in public reports, is not domestic service. Listed duties include personal protection, attending telephones, receiving and delivering messages during operations or training, maintaining weapons, uniforms and equipment, helping in trenches and shelters, supporting patrols and independent missions, and carrying or operating radio sets, maps and other military equipment. These are military-linked duties, not household chores.

This difference is the heart of the controversy.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence had already taken a serious view of the issue. A Factly review of the committee’s report notes that the Ministry of Defence had described the authorised use of Sahayaks for officers and JCOs in specific war-establishment contexts. But the committee also recorded concern that some soldiers were being deployed at officers’ residences. It observed that jawans are recruited to serve the nation, not to serve family members of officers in household work, and recommended abolition of the system.

The committee’s view is important because it recognised both the dignity of soldiers and the need to end colonial-style misuse. It reportedly could not understand why the Army needed such a system when the Navy and Air Force did not follow the same practice, and it reiterated that the Army should stop the colonial practice.

The legal route has also been used. In 2017, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Defence Ministry on a plea seeking a ban on the Army’s Sahayak system, in a matter linked with allegations of lower-rank staff being forced to do domestic and menial work for seniors. In 2022, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking abolition of the Sahayak system, with LiveLaw noting that the court did not proceed with the petition.

The issue has not disappeared because the underlying concern remains. In 2017, after social media complaints, an Army formation reportedly instructed officers to ensure the dignity of serving soldiers and restrict employment of buddies to entitled duties. The report said the instructions specifically mentioned that buddies should not be used for looking after pets, children, washing private vehicles or other menial jobs.

This shows that the problem is not imaginary. Even if the official system has a military purpose, the fear of misuse has been strong enough to trigger instructions, committee observations, public debate and legal scrutiny.

The latest discussion, as described in the video, connects the issue with a Rajya Sabha speech where MP Sanjay Singh raised concerns around soldier dignity and pending recruitment issues. The video frames the matter as a public-interest debate over whether peace-station misuse of the Buddy System should end, while operational support should remain protected.

This is the balanced way forward.

No Army can function without support systems. Officers in field conditions need communication, protection, equipment assistance and operational coordination. In a combat environment, a buddy is not a servant. He is part of the functioning military structure. But in peace stations, when a soldier is allegedly used for domestic work, the justification becomes weak.

The Army is one of India’s most respected institutions. Its strength comes not only from weapons and training, but also from trust between ranks. A jawan must feel respected by the system. If a trained soldier feels reduced to a personal attendant, morale suffers. When morale suffers, the institution also suffers.

This is why the debate should not be reduced to officer versus jawan. That framing is harmful. Most officers respect their men, and most units function on discipline, trust and mutual dependence. But even if misuse occurs in a small number of cases, it deserves correction because dignity cannot be selective.

The reform demand can be practical. First, operational buddy support should be clearly defined. Second, domestic work should be explicitly prohibited. Third, peace-station support, where genuinely needed, should be handled through civilian staff or authorised administrative arrangements. Fourth, violations should be audited and punished. Fifth, soldiers should have safe grievance channels where complaints can be raised without fear.

The issue also matters in the Agniveer era. A modern Army cannot attract and retain motivated youth if old colonial perceptions continue. Young recruits today come with education, awareness and expectations of dignity. They accept hardship, discipline and risk for the nation. But they will naturally question duties that appear unrelated to soldiering.

The public must also understand that reform is not disrespect. Asking that jawans should not be used for personal household chores is not an attack on the Army. It is a call to protect the honour of the uniform. The soldier’s dignity and the Army’s dignity are not separate. They are connected.

In the end, the core message is clear. A soldier is trained for the border, operations, discipline, weapons, security and national service. He is not trained to polish shoes, walk dogs, wash private cars or perform personal household tasks. If the Buddy System is needed for operational reasons, it must be protected. If it is misused for domestic service, it must end.

The Indian Armed Forces are the pride of the nation. That is exactly why reform should be handled with seriousness, not noise. A modern military must preserve tradition where it strengthens the force and remove practices where they damage dignity.

The Buddy System debate has reached Parliament again because the question remains alive in the minds of soldiers, veterans and citizens. The answer should be clear: honour the soldier, protect operational needs, end domestic misuse, and ensure that every jawan serves with dignity.