Debopom Ghosh
Political Essayist & Student of Public Administration, CU
A young boy in a courtyard, somewhere between Dhaka or Dakar, holding a tin
soldier, the paint scraped at the chin where he has bitten it in past. He lines it up
against a row of similar toys and orders them to march under the command of an
‘invisible voice’. His parents applaud, even snaps a photo to record the moment.
In the photograph, the boy is already an officer with his posture corrected, jaw
squared, the world reduced to a single clean line of leadership.
One of the very few idealistic and utopian origin stories the fetish loves (other
than glaring up seeing their idols swimming in impunity and harrowing whomever
they want) – the uniform as promise, the salute as destiny. We mostly mistake it
for patriotism or a heroic sacrifice; it is often merely a dirty contract with power
and capital.
Ceremony as Narcissism
The city prepares for a parade. Flags unfurl with the calculated and rehearsed
choreography of a stage set. The drums do not beat for citizens’ welfare; but for
so-called ‘brilliance’, beauty of discipline, for the spectacle of ordered force.
Spectators stand and feel a small, deep thrill, a rush of safety like a cheap drug.
For a few minutes, complexity collapses into spectacle as dissent is muffles by
the drum, injustice is swallowed by glitter. The fetish nourishes itself on this – the
more beautiful the pageant, the easier it is to forget what the boots hide.
The Fetish’s Economy
To fetishize the military is to make it aspirational currency. In homes where
opportunities are scarce, the barracks become a vault of capital and power. Rank
equals access to land, to schools, to cushioned pensions and preferential hires,
of the family members, too. They wear uniforms in spirit; the retired colonel’s
name opens doors at the university, a captain’s nephew receives a scholarship
that never appeared on an open application. This is how a modest uniform grows
aristocratic fangs.
These networks are not secret conspiracies so much as social habits, enabling
nepotism being laundered through devotion. It is the quiet system that triues to
assert the fact: loyalty to the flag is convertible into comfort for the family. It
clearly breeds a new class and sense of elitism, the bloodline of the barracks and
a wall of privilege that is polished as carefully as a brass badge.
Impunity, Rehearsed
Fetishization is indulgence. When violence is beautiful, the cost of cruelty is
rendered abstract. Impunity is rehearsed like a drill as investigations delayed,
witnesses intimidated, files misfiled. The language of accountability gives way to
euphemism – ‘internal inquiry,’ ‘operational necessity,’ ‘collateral damage’, as if
grammars and jargon could absolve action.
Globally, where this pattern hardens, it ossifies into regimes progressively.
Military elites secure economic franchises – they tutor national narratives,
becoming the custodians of silence. The architecture of power becomes a
mansion with its own laws. And every mansion breeds servants, and those
servants become the chorus that applauds the performance and defends the
master when the curtain falls, no matter what the context is, no matter what
apocalypse has been chosen by what god.
The Erotics of Force
Yes, erotics. The fetish is not merely respect; it acts more as something sensual.
The uniform fits the body like a second skin, and in that fit is an intimate
obscurity, posing authority as allure. Cinephiles, advertisers and history textbooks
conspire to make the uniform sexy, decisive, the external manifestation of
masculinity. It is not merely an occupational garment, but a destructive aesthetic
that trains desire.
That training is politically and ethically dangerous. Desire is a blind engine, it
wants what it wants, even when that want corrodes public life. When citizens
internalise the fantasy that power in uniform is inherently noble, they passively
accept policies that favour the wielders of that power such as – policies that close
courts, weaken oversight, and privatize justice. History has been the witness.
The Families
Army families are cast as sanctified in the fetish’s mythology, as the noble
household of service and sacrifice. Many within these households have
sacrificed, many grieve – it’s undeniable honestly. Yet to be noted from a realistic
and sociological lens, institutions are larger than individuals – the social system
allows sacrifice to calcify into expectations and entitlement, paved as a
mechanism by the states since ancient days. Pensions become inheritance, and
whole careers are planned on the presumption of protection. The love of kin turns
into a structural advantage and, without guardrails, that advantage crystallizes
into a hereditary rent.
The Damage Trail
What happens when fetish meets statecraft? First layer, politically – citizens trade
debate for awe as policy becomes performance, dissent becomes a stain.
Second layer, socially – markets skew to favour military-linked contractors,
housing and land tilt toward well-connected retirees, moreover, media narratives
compress into heroic arcs. Third layer, morally – a culture normalizes force and
learns to flux silence with consent.
Violence doesn’t stay merely physical. There is also the violence of possibility
stolen, when merit is hollowed out by lineage, young minds learn an ugly lesson
that loyalty to an emblem and hierarchy is more profitable and celebrated than
innovation or equality, that courage in argument is riskier than courage in
obedience.
A Counter-Myth Concept or Civic Allure
If fetishized force seduces our very soul, then civic virtues must learn how to
seduce back. This is an emphasis on reimagining allure. Imagine a democracy
that makes deliberation cinematic, that stages town halls with the same
dramaturgy and emotional power that parades currently enjoy. Imagine education
that teaches critique as a rite of passage, that trains children to find the
exhilarating pleasure of argument or critical thinking and discussions at least,
enabling them to learn to address such issues or loopholes. Institutions must be
redesigned as stages for civic beauty. Accountability should not be dull, but
irresistible. Transparent procurement, televised oversight hearings, civic awards
for whistleblowers – these can be made to feel as grand as any honor guard. By
making scrutiny prestigious, the fetish is bound to lose some of its hold.
Reassessing the Core
The idolization of the military, a phenomenon prevalent in societies across the
globe, presents a varied, compound and deeply corrosive challenge to
democratic norms and social justice. This pervasive “army fetish” is not merely a
benign expression of gratitude but a deleterious idolatry that elevates the armed
forces beyond critique, granting them a dangerous degree of impunity and
cultivating a culture of arrogance and elitism. Rather than serving as a
transparent and accountable arm of the state, the military, buoyed by this
unchecked veneration, can become a state within a state, an apparatus of
immense uncontrolled power that often and generally operates above the law.
This widespread cultural reverence for the armed forces stems from a complex
interplay of nationalism, deformed jingoism/xenophobia, historical narratives, and
a romanticized view of armed violence. This narrative positions soldiers as
impeccable heroes, their actions beyond reproach, and their sacrifices beyond
question. This societal sanctification insulates the military from the critical
scrutiny necessary for any public institution in this era, at least. It transforms
legitimate analysis into an act of disloyalty and infidelity, effectively stifling any
discourse on military overreach, corruption, or human rights abuses, thus
indicating this public blind spot is a key enabler of military impunity, eventually
allowing for atrocities to be downplayed, excused, or entirely erased from the
national consciousness in a progressive manner and even honestly maybe worse
has been caused throughout the history yet we are unaware of it. The systemic
violence in conflict zones, to the use of force against domestic dispute, the
fetishized status of the military acts as a aegis, preventing accountability and
perpetuating a cycle of arrogance.
This culture of exceptionalism extends beyond the battlefield and into the very
fabric of society, creating a distinct socio-economic class. Military families, often
presented as a separate and revered aristocracy, become inheritors of this
unearned privilege. Their lives are frequently guarded from the socio-economic
struggles of the general population, and their proximity to power can foster an
narrowing, entitled worldview. This socio-political dynamic further alienates the
military from the very civilians they are ostensibly sworn to protect, fostering an
“us versus them” mentality that undermines the concept of a shared national
identity. The result is a society where a selective group holds immense power
and influence, with little to no checks from the civilian state or populace. This
elitism is antithetical to the principles of a just and equitable society, where all
institutions should be subject to public oversight and/or democratic control.
Ultimately, the fetishization of the military is a social cancer because it
systematically erodes the foundations of a healthy democracy. It successfully
distorts civilian-military relations, replacing a necessary balance of power with a
deferential and uncritical reverence. This unchecked power fosters an
environment mature for aggression, not just against external adversaries, but
against domestic populations as well. A healthy society does not idolize its
instruments of force, but rather holds them to the highest standards of
accountability. The path forward requires a bold and unblinking re-evaluation of
our collective relationship with the military, one that champions and celebrates
critical inquiry over blind adoration and prioritizes civilian oversight to ensure that
power, particularly the power of lethal force, is never allowed to exist without
consequence. So, no thank you for your service, it was your choice and you are
bound in that manner. You are rather welcome for our taxes.
Last Image: The Boy Again
Back in the courtyard the boy still plays. The tin soldiers stand, but now he
hesitates. He looks at a second tin, finds a tiny judge with a gavel, a teacher with
a chalked hand, a mayor with a battered briefcase. He places them beside the
soldiers. Something shifts as power is no longer singular in his world.
The fetish can be outwitted with imagination. Replace fear with curiosity,
reverence with scrutiny. Uniforms must and have to become one small costume
among many, not the wardrobe of the nation. Loud, stubborn, and
unapologetically public.
