A good citizen needs to imbibe many qualities. That he has some duties and responsibilities to bear is true, but at same time, he enjoys some rights and privileges as a citizen of a free state. While he has every right to participate in the judicial, legal politics, religious and social affairs of the nation, he has also some responsibilities i.e. not to injure the sentiments of others and to protect the weak against the strong. To stand by the state, under all conditions, is his first and foremost duty. A good citizen must be ready to sacrifice his everything for the sake of his motherland. He is also required to be a patriot and nationalist. He should have firm and deep faith in the welfare of his motherland. He has to obey law and order. But he has also to keep in his heart the betterment of the country, the good of society and the interest of the nation.
A good citizen must respect the cultural heritage of his country, i.e. he will have to respect the heroes, ‘the prophet, the sages and saints of his country. He must respect the race which has given birth to him. He must always keep in mind the future of his country. He must attempt to raise the standard of living of his country by working honestly. At an event of aggression or foreign attack, he must be ready to shed his blood for the sake of his motherland. Thus, defense of the country is the supreme duty of a good citizen. Unity of the nations should be his topmost priority. He should work for the unity of the country.
A goodwill for other races, protection to the weak, help to the victims, sympathetic and kind consideration to his fellow citizens are things that are needed in good citizen. A good citizen should have a spirit of cooperation, friendliness, humanity, dedication, devotion for his fellow citizens. He must respect other faiths. He must not do anything which brings disgrace to his society or to his country. Greatest good of greatest number should be his principle. All these good and great qualities, if possessed, make one a good citizen
Military leadership Within the U.S. military, leadership is generally considered something of a given. It is a fundamental ingredient of warfare, without which the outcome of a combat operation cannot be assured. The leader is the brain, the motive power of command, upon whom subordinates rely for guidance and wisdom, and depend upon for good judgment. The leader must be determined, unflappable and charismatic; confident in delegation of authority; able to combine the various strands of command into a common thread; seasoned, intelligent, and thoughtful.
When judging the qualities of leadership, there is a tendency to think of the gifted, or natural leader, involving some expectation that leadership is an inherent personality quality that some have, and others have not. Military history is full of “born leaders,” suggesting that “inspired leadership” is the only true measure of the trait. For a very long time the American people relied on the emergence of just such an individual when necessity demanded it, and fortunately the country has been well‐served in this respect. Much of this has been due to American military egalitarianism, which presumed that any individual, regardless of background, could lead a body of troops in combat as long as the leader had the requisite ability.
An obvious case in point is the Civil War, which gave rise to a number of gifted commanders—Joshua Chamberlain, Nathan Bedford Forrest, John Logan, and Nelson A. Miles, to name but a few—who yet had little, if any, military training. So great was the renown of such natural leaders that a veritable school of military command grew up around them, declaring that genius alone was the true sign of leadership, and that leaders were born, not made.
As the army matured and professionalized after the Civil War, these sorts of arguments met the resistance of educational reformers who argued that certain principles of leadership could be taught, given the proper lessons from military history.
Military courtesy and desipline Military courtesy is basically no different from courtesy in civilian life, just good manner and politeness in dealing with other people. The experience of life has proven that courteous behavior is essential in human relations. The distinction between civilian courtesy and military courtesy is that, military courtesies were developed in a military atmosphere and have become customs and traditions of the service. Most forms of military courtesy have some counterpart in civilian life. For example, you are required to say “Sir” or “Ma’am” when you talk to an officer. Throughout our history, young men and women were taught to say “Sir” to their fathers and other male elders. and “Ma’am” to their mothers, unknown women and female elders.
This tradition is still carried on and it is considered good manners for a younger man to say “Sir” when speaking to an older man. The use of the word “Sir” or “Ma’am” is also common in the business world, in the address of letters, and in any well-ordered institution. Military courtesy is not a one-way street. Enlisted personnel must be courteous to officers, and officers are expected to return the courtesy. Officers respect soldiers as individuals, just as you respect officers as individuals. Without this basis of mutual respect, there can be no military courtesy, and discord will result.
One of the most important of military courtesies is the salute. It is a respectful greeting, a sign of recognition between military persons. It is that, and no more. Salutes are given and returned. They are a privilege of the military alone. Every officer salutes every other officer, just as every enlisted man salutes every officer. The highest-ranking general in the Army is required to return the salute of the newest private. The fact that the subordinate salutes first is simply common-sense courtesy applied to a military expression; it is for the same reason that gentlemen step aside for ladies in doorways and younger people are…