Kamal Ghorui
In every gathering of veterans, there exists a sacred space where memory and brotherhood quietly meet. Uniforms may be folded away, medals stored in velvet cases, but the soldier never truly leaves the man. Stories of service of grit, fear, courage, and loss, bind generations together. Most are told with humility. Some, however, begin to drift from truth. In recent times, in the age of social media and hyperactive national media, this drift has found a far more visible and damaging stage. What was once confined to ante rooms and regimental reunions now plays out before millions, unchecked, unverified, and enthusiastically amplified by anchors and algorithms alike.
This is not about harmless nostalgia. Pride in service is earned and deserved. But when recollection becomes performance, something sacred is diluted.
War and soldiering are never individual achievements. No battle is won alone. Behind every citation stands a section, a platoon, a company, often unnamed, often forgotten. Yet narratives get reshaped. A patrol becomes a solo mission. A team effort becomes a personal triumph. A supporting role transforms into centre stage. And in the bid for followers and applause, even decorated soldiers can risk becoming caricatures of themselves, amplified versions crafted for visibility rather than truth. The uniform that once symbolised restraint and dignity begins to resemble a costume worn for effect.
The real cost is not reputational, it is moral.
Swept up in emotion and the intoxication of public attention, many do not pause to consider that there are others who were there, seniors who commanded them, juniors who served under them. The ones who remember. And when accounts don’t add up, they speak. What follows is rarely dignified. A public contradiction becomes a bitter exchange, a slugfest played out on social media timelines, and noticed far beyond our borders. To prove themselves right, some are willing to go to any length, digging up old records, leaking private conversations, calling out former colleagues by name. Our not-so-friendly neighbours watch carefully. In our eagerness to be heard, we sometimes offer them precisely what they seek: discord within our ranks, operational details carelessly disclosed, and a portrait of an institution at war with itself.
Somewhere, another officer, another jawan, perhaps a fallen soldier, waits with a story untold while someone else speaks louder. The armed forces have always valued izzat as quiet dignity. The finest soldiers speak least of themselves. Their stories are carried by others, not manufactured by their own voices.
There is also a generational cost. Young officers absorbing embellished accounts begin measuring themselves against fiction. Civilian audiences, with no other frame of reference, come to see soldiering as theatrical, a world of lone heroes and personal glory, rather than the grinding, collective discipline it truly demands. When the profession of arms is reduced to theatrics, it fails every soldier currently serving in silence.
Above all, there remains an unwritten creed: once a soldier, always a soldier. The sanctity of the uniform is not confined to years of active duty, it must endure till the last breath. A man who carried a rifle with honour and then carries his memories without it has broken faith, not with an institution, but with every comrade who trusted him to tell the truth.
Honour in uniform does not retire. It lives on in how stories are told.
To remember truthfully is also a form of service.
Jai Hind
END OF ARTICLE
