Col Shiv Choudhary
India has been witnessing an increasingly troubling phenomenon: the unauthorized use and public display of Indian Army combat uniforms by civilians, private security personnel, private guards, protestors, entertainers, and even institutional authorities. Once regarded as a symbol of sacrifice, duty, and discipline, the military uniform is now too often reduced to a fashion statement or a prop for intimidation. This growing misuse is not only disrespectful to those who wear the uniform in service of the nation, but it also poses grave national security concerns and undermines the trust the Indian public places in its Armed Forces. The Indian Army’s distinctive Disruptive Pattern camouflage uniform has become a common sight in places it was never meant to appear-from student protests and movie sets to music videos and police deployments. While such usage may seem innocuous to some, it represents a slow erosion of military prestige and causes operational confusion in high-stakes scenarios. Worse still, the symbolic dilution of the uniform has already been weaponized by those who wish to harm the nation, making it far more than a question of optics.
The combat uniform of the Indian Army is more than just fabric; it represents the soldier’s identity, the nation’s sovereignty, and the line between military and civilian roles. Designed for tactical effectiveness and battlefield identification, it plays a critical role in distinguishing combatants from non-combatants and helps maintain order during joint operations. When civilians or non-military personnel wear Army-pattern camouflage, it blurs those lines and weakens the institutional integrity of the Armed Forces. In a disturbing trend, even state police and central paramilitary forces are increasingly seen in camouflage fatigues that closely resemble Army gear. During protests, law enforcement deployments, or riot control duties, the presence of such uniforms has led civilians to mistakenly believe the Army is involved-despite its constitutional mandate to remain apolitical and aloof from internal law and order responsibilities. This confusion not only distorts public perception but challenges the foundational principle of military neutrality, a cornerstone of Indian democracy.
A striking case of such confusion arose in 2019 when the Rajya Sabha Secretariat introduced a new uniform for its marshals that bore an uncanny resemblance to military dress, complete with shoulder insignia and caps reminiscent of Army regalia. The move drew sharp criticism from lawmakers, veterans, and the general public. Former Army Chief General VPMalik (Retd) called it not just inappropriate but a serious security hazard. Facing the backlash, the Secretariat withdrew the new uniforms and reinstated traditional attire. Yet, the fact that such a change was proposed and approved at the highest levels of government revealed a deeper malaise: a growing insensitivity to the symbolic weight carried by military uniforms, and an institutional lack of awareness about the implications of their misuse.
India’s legal framework does, on paper, prohibit the impersonation of military personnel. Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code penalizes those impersonating public servants, while Section 140 explicitly bars civilians from wearing military uniforms or insignia. The Private Security Agencies Regulation Act also restricts private guards from donning uniforms resembling those of the Armed Forces. However, enforcement of these laws remains minimal and sporadic. Online marketplaces and local vendors continue to sell military-style clothing with little to no oversight. There is no system in place to verify buyer identity or restrict the distribution of camouflage gear. As a result, near-authentic military apparel is freely available to anyone, including individuals with malicious intent. These legal provisions remain more aspirational than functional, reflecting policy inertia rather than effective governance.
The Indian Army has repeatedly voiced its concern to both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Home Affairs. Following the 2020 anti-CAA protests in Delhi, where Delhi Police and CAPF personnel were spotted wearing combat-style gear, the Army cautioned that such visual overlap could lead to public confusion and diplomatic misinterpretation. The presence of uniformed figures resembling Army personnel during civil protests may create a false perception of military involvement, undermining the democratic principle of civilian supremacy. In conflict-prone zones like Jammu and Kashmir, where multiple forces-Army, CRPF, BSF, and state police-operate in tandem, the misuse of Army uniforms becomes a matter of operational security. The presence of Army-like attire on non-military personnel hampers coordination, confuses civilians, and makes it difficult to assign responsibility or manage accountability during joint missions. It has led to both commendable actions being misattributed and controversial incidents incorrectly blamed on the Army, eroding public trust critical to counterinsurgency efforts.
More alarmingly, this confusion has been exploited by militants with devastating consequences. The 2016 terrorist attack on the Pathankot airbase involved assailants disguised in Indian Army uniforms. The attackers used their appearance to breach security perimeters and kill seven personnel. A year earlier, in Dinanagar, terrorists similarly wore combat attire to launch a deadly assault on a police station. Incidents in Kalu Chak and Tanda further illustrate how militants have repeatedly worn Army uniforms to gain unauthorized access and carry out attacks. These were not isolated acts of deception; they were the result of systemic failure to control the distribution and visibility of military-style clothing. When the uniform becomes an easily replicable disguise, it endangers not just those who wear it, but the very institutions it represents.
There is also a significant psychological dimension to this issue. Research in the field of enclothed cognition, particularly by Professor Adam Galinsky of Columbia University, demonstrates that clothing influences both behaviour and self-perception. When civilians, guards, or protest organizers wear Army-style attire, they may begin to adopt the psychological traits associated with authority and aggression. In tense situations, this subtle shift in demeanour can escalate conflict rather than defuse it. The militarization of civilian roles also weakens the democratic ideals of restraint, transparency, and accountable law enforcement. Popular culture has only made matters worse. From movies and web series to music videos and social media posts, the military uniform has been trivialized and commercialized. Civilians wear camouflage to parties, on motorcycles, and in photoshoots, unaware of or indifferent to the profound meaning the uniform carries. The cumulative effect is a cultural erosion of the military’s symbolic power, reducing a badge of honour to mere aesthetics.
India is not alone in facing this dilemma. In countries like Iraq, Lebanon, and the Philippines, unauthorized use of military uniforms has enabled impersonation crimes, insurgent infiltration, and psychological warfare tactics. These international examples offer sobering lessons: when the symbolic and operational sanctity of a military uniform is not protected, national security is placed at risk.
India must act with urgency and clarity. The first step is strict enforcement of existing laws. Impersonation and illegal sale of military attire must be met with immediate penalties, including criminal prosecution and license cancellations. Second, the sale of combat-style gear must be tightly regulated. Only authorized stores should be permitted to sell such clothing, and buyers must be required to present valid military identification. Vendors should be mandated to maintain digital records, subject to audit. Third, CAPFs and state police forces should be issued uniforms that are clearly distinguishable from those of the Army. Camouflage should be reserved strictly for combat zones, not urban environments. Fourth, a national registry of camouflage clothing manufacturers and vendors should be created, with severe penalties for violations. Defence-run outlets and military canteens must be the exclusive sources for authentic uniform gear. Fifth, a nationwide awareness campaign must be launched to instil respect for the military uniform. Just as the public is educated to respect the national flag and anthem, the same reverence must be extended to the uniform of the Armed Forces.
The Indian Air Force has already set an example. It enforces strict control over the distribution and disposal of its uniforms, mandating that damaged or outdated clothing be returned and destroyed. Implementing similar practices in the Army and Navy would significantly reduce unauthorized access. As Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd), former GOC of the 15 Corps, rightly said, the military uniform is not a costume, it is a symbol of honour, sacrifice, and constitutional
duty. Its misuse, whether by civilians or even other security forces, disrespects the Armed Forces and weakens national integrity.
The issue of military uniform misuse is not cosmetic-it strikes at the heart of identity, legality, and public trust. Each unauthorized use erodes the prestige earned through blood, sweat, and sacrifice. Each instance of impersonation, especially when exploited by adversaries, places lives and sovereignty at risk. India must not wait for another tragedy to act. Legislative reforms, regulatory enforcement, cultural awareness, and institutional discipline are essential to preserve the sanctity of the uniform and the strength of the democracy it defends.
(The writer is a motivational speaker and social worker.)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
