My Article : DISGRACING SOLDIERS: INDIA’s IMPERFECTIONS ON NATIONAL SECURITY ! —- Published in the July 2018 issue of FAUJI INDIA
"…For, make no mistake; evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism-it is recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason…"
…Former President BH Obama of US,A in his Noble Peace Prize acceptance speech in 2009.
If the evil does exist and if the "Gandhian" principle of non- violence can not tackle this evil, then only answer is to use the age old principle of cutting diamond with the diamond. In other words, use " bigger force" to counter "evil force". What is "evil"? In simple and lay man's terms, evil is anything which, in Satanic ways, works against the individual or collective interests of the society , nation or even humanity. Former President BH Obama of USA had perfectly defined it as "Imperfections of Man". If the society, nation or the community has to survive, it has to tackle these imperfections of individuals, communities and also of the nation's.
And India has been found wanting in order to tackle the imperfections of man in a judicious and a an effective way. Right from the day of Independence of India, there has been gross neglect of Indian armed forces. It seems defence policy has been chalked out keeping the armed forces miles away from its formulation. One does not understand the reason but one can fathom it's cause. To put it in crude words, it has been the basic sense of insecurity and inferiority complex of the political and bureaucratic structure of the nation. Politicians and bureaucrats have been in some kind of awe of the armed forces.
It was the first Prime Minister of India, Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru, who set the ball rolling of this distrust. And then followed a deliberately chalked out criminal neglect of these armed forces despite wars with China and Pakistan over the last 70 years. There is no change of this "neglect", whether it was Congress ,BJP or Janta Dal,UPA or NDA Governments at the centre. The policy has been of deliberate neglect of armed forces for all these 70 years of independence. Shiv Kunal Verma, in his book," 1962: The war that wasn't" quotes what JL Nehru told first Commander - in- Chief of Independent India, General Sir Rob Lockhart. Read this interesting passage :-
"------when the first Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, General Sir Rob Lockhart, went to Nehru with a formal defence paper that needed a policy directive from the prime minister, Nehru had exclaimed: ‘Rubbish! Total rubbish! We don’t need a defence policy. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. As far as I am concerned you can scrap the army—the police are good enough to meet our security needs.’ -----"
Non- Violence was not the basic reason when Nehru said it so. It was his basic dislike of leadership of the army, who he thought could be a threat to his leadership. There is another incident between Nehru and Lt General Nathu Singh Rathore, when Nehru openly said in Army Commanders conference that he would like to appoint a British officer as Chief of the army, as Indian army officer had no experience of commanding larger forces. Lt Gen Nathu Singh Rathore countered Nehru by saying that in similar vein, India should import a British politician to be Prime Minister, as Indian politicians had no experience. This not only embarrassed Nehru but it also put him in awe of army officers.
Earlier, another incident had taken place before independence in North West Frontier Province (Now, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa). In 1946, Congress had won a massive victory in the province and it had formed the provincial Government. Pakhtoons, under the influence Frontier Gandhi, Abdul Gafar Khan, were keen to join India. A referendum was to be held to decide about the choice of the people. Congress had just won the elections and it would have been a hands down win for India. But Nehru asked Congressmen not to participate in the referendum. This infuriated an Army officer, Major Mihir Mashood, who almost slapped Nehru but was prevented by British political Resident of the Tribal Areas. This also had affected Nehru's psyche. Then military coup in Pakistan enhanced his fears. It was not only him but the entire political establishment.
They, thus, segmented National Security into ,Internal Security, and ' External Security' -- External security going to Defence Ministry and Internal Security going to Home Ministry. In fact this was a clever move to create a parallel force to counter Indian armed forces. In fact, they did so at peril to Indian national security. Paramilitary forces and state armed police forces handle internal security with inherent disadvantages of its leadership. Result is mushrooming casualties of security forces in insurgency and militancy areas. Pathankot airport terrorist attack showed a deliberate strategy to project paramilitary forces ahead of armed forces.
There is a misconception in Indian political and bureaucratic set up that a good spy master or a good foreign service diplomat would also be good national security expert. Compare this thought with other nations, such as USA, Pakistan, France and Russia, where retired military experts handle the issue of National security. We must note that security is not a game of spying or diplomacy but a matter of strategic understanding of regional, international and Intra- National environs to work out a integrated plan to tackle them within the allotted resources.
It is unfortunately true that politicians of all hue and cry, those who get to govern the country, are often influenced by bureaucracy. Using media and other forums bureaucrats play upon politicians fears of likely coup to turn them against the armed forces. This is why long felt need of a CDS ( Chief of Defence Staff) is being short circuited. Bureaucrats play the symphony of a likely coup by armed forces if CDS is appointed. They feel he would be more powerful and as such would not care for civilian leadership. These are imagined and concocted fears. All the same they do cause hallucinations to politicians.
And some political heavy weights have their personal grievances against the armed forces. Result is criminal neglect of armed forces. How strange is the fact that nation facing crisis on Chinese and Pakistani borders had stayed with a part time Defence Minister. Like JL Nehru, present regime too, thinks that national interests can be best served by diplomatic means. National Security Advisor is always a bureaucrat. Armed forces experts are treated as duds, with no knowledge of national security. This is in total contrast to western countries, who are more clued up on national security than Indian politicians. Even in Pakistan and other Asian countries, retired senior Defence personnels are appointed National security advisor.
The fear of military coup in the minds of Indian politicians have blinded Indian politicians right from the days of Nehru. Even after 70 years, politicians psyche has not changed , whether Nehru's Congress or Vajpayee's BJP. They depend on IAS Babus for such an advice on security matters, who has own axe to grind. Bureaucracy No wonder bureaucrats take them for a ride. This is evident from the hesitation on the armed forces demands on OROP and NFU ( Non functional Upgradation). While NFU has been given to CAPF and PMF but it has been denied to armed forces. It is a deliberate act to pull down and demoralize the armed forces with a view to break their will to resist injustice being done to them. Last time army chief had a one to one relationship with PM of the country was in the times of Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw in the years 1969 to 1972. Thereafter Chiefs of the army have been treated non- entities by politico- bureaucratic establishment. In fact, some times the post of army chiefs had passed on to pliable Persons.
The appointment of a woman Defence Minister by the present regime, after a gap of six months, is a reflection of a mindset of incubated fears of an army coup.result is that the appointment of CDS is hanging fire for years. Even the post of a Defence Minister has lost its shine--- either it is kept vacant or given to most unsuitable person, who has no idea of matters Military. Some of the politicians occupying the chair of Defence Minister never understood the job--- they only pursued their political agendas.
In USA, out of 45 presidents till date since 1776 there have been 15 presidents who have been with military background. Besides, there have been large numbers of Defence secretaries or Secretaries of State in the US administration over the last 250 years. India does not trust her military personnels, despite the fact that the nation has been held together with the sweat and toil of the soldiers. Unfortunately, of late some politicians have been openly abusing the armed forces. These imperfections do not bode well for the only truly secular and a nationalistic institution of the nation. If it crumbles, which enemies of India eagerly await, survivability of the Indian existence is a question mark. Present regime has to take a call in this and save this institution to save India. It has to stop lending her ears to bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, certain acts of present Indian government do not repair soldiers mutilated morale. Things are going from worse to worst. At the cost of soldier’s “Izzat”, self respect and prestige, present government has given him a short shrift. Government is toying with the idea of national security by proving up paramilitary forces. Probably, it is possessed by Nehruvian distrust and fears of the armed forces. Therefore government place pliable Generals as Chief of Army Staff (COAS). Possibly , this was the objective of SUCCESSION PLAN of Army Chiefs , worked out in 2005 by the UPA regime, in cahoots with then Army Chief. No wonder Governments maltreat soldiers and army chiefs remain mute spectators—/ whether it was announcements in OROP, not granting NFU; NOT accepting Commissioned officers as Class A Services and even interfering with security of Cantonment by throwing open Cantonment roads to civil traffic. Thus , having constantly demoralised the soldiers, they expect them to fight with same old elan as did old Indian soldiers in Second World War or even in 1971 Bangla Adesh war or Kargil -1999. A la-1962 debacle is waiting to happen. Do not rejoice over Dokala action of July 2017. A lot of water has flown through Brahmaputra since then.
"…For, make no mistake; evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism-it is recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason…"
…Former President BH Obama of US,A in his Noble Peace Prize acceptance speech in 2009.
If the evil does exist and if the "Gandhian" principle of non- violence can not tackle this evil, then only answer is to use the age old principle of cutting diamond with the diamond. In other words, use " bigger force" to counter "evil force". What is "evil"? In simple and lay man's terms, evil is anything which, in Satanic ways, works against the individual or collective interests of the society , nation or even humanity. Former President BH Obama of USA had perfectly defined it as "Imperfections of Man". If the society, nation or the community has to survive, it has to tackle these imperfections of individuals, communities and also of the nation's.
And India has been found wanting in order to tackle the imperfections of man in a judicious and a an effective way. Right from the day of Independence of India, there has been gross neglect of Indian armed forces. It seems defence policy has been chalked out keeping the armed forces miles away from its formulation. One does not understand the reason but one can fathom it's cause. To put it in crude words, it has been the basic sense of insecurity and inferiority complex of the political and bureaucratic structure of the nation. Politicians and bureaucrats have been in some kind of awe of the armed forces.
It was the first Prime Minister of India, Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru, who set the ball rolling of this distrust. And then followed a deliberately chalked out criminal neglect of these armed forces despite wars with China and Pakistan over the last 70 years. There is no change of this "neglect", whether it was Congress ,BJP or Janta Dal,UPA or NDA Governments at the centre. The policy has been of deliberate neglect of armed forces for all these 70 years of independence. Shiv Kunal Verma, in his book," 1962: The war that wasn't" quotes what JL Nehru told first Commander - in- Chief of Independent India, General Sir Rob Lockhart. Read this interesting passage :-
"------when the first Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, General Sir Rob Lockhart, went to Nehru with a formal defence paper that needed a policy directive from the prime minister, Nehru had exclaimed: ‘Rubbish! Total rubbish! We don’t need a defence policy. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. As far as I am concerned you can scrap the army—the police are good enough to meet our security needs.’ -----"
Non- Violence was not the basic reason when Nehru said it so. It was his basic dislike of leadership of the army, who he thought could be a threat to his leadership. There is another incident between Nehru and Lt General Nathu Singh Rathore, when Nehru openly said in Army Commanders conference that he would like to appoint a British officer as Chief of the army, as Indian army officer had no experience of commanding larger forces. Lt Gen Nathu Singh Rathore countered Nehru by saying that in similar vein, India should import a British politician to be Prime Minister, as Indian politicians had no experience. This not only embarrassed Nehru but it also put him in awe of army officers.
Earlier, another incident had taken place before independence in North West Frontier Province (Now, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa). In 1946, Congress had won a massive victory in the province and it had formed the provincial Government. Pakhtoons, under the influence Frontier Gandhi, Abdul Gafar Khan, were keen to join India. A referendum was to be held to decide about the choice of the people. Congress had just won the elections and it would have been a hands down win for India. But Nehru asked Congressmen not to participate in the referendum. This infuriated an Army officer, Major Mihir Mashood, who almost slapped Nehru but was prevented by British political Resident of the Tribal Areas. This also had affected Nehru's psyche. Then military coup in Pakistan enhanced his fears. It was not only him but the entire political establishment.
They, thus, segmented National Security into ,Internal Security, and ' External Security' -- External security going to Defence Ministry and Internal Security going to Home Ministry. In fact this was a clever move to create a parallel force to counter Indian armed forces. In fact, they did so at peril to Indian national security. Paramilitary forces and state armed police forces handle internal security with inherent disadvantages of its leadership. Result is mushrooming casualties of security forces in insurgency and militancy areas. Pathankot airport terrorist attack showed a deliberate strategy to project paramilitary forces ahead of armed forces.
There is a misconception in Indian political and bureaucratic set up that a good spy master or a good foreign service diplomat would also be good national security expert. Compare this thought with other nations, such as USA, Pakistan, France and Russia, where retired military experts handle the issue of National security. We must note that security is not a game of spying or diplomacy but a matter of strategic understanding of regional, international and Intra- National environs to work out a integrated plan to tackle them within the allotted resources.
It is unfortunately true that politicians of all hue and cry, those who get to govern the country, are often influenced by bureaucracy. Using media and other forums bureaucrats play upon politicians fears of likely coup to turn them against the armed forces. This is why long felt need of a CDS ( Chief of Defence Staff) is being short circuited. Bureaucrats play the symphony of a likely coup by armed forces if CDS is appointed. They feel he would be more powerful and as such would not care for civilian leadership. These are imagined and concocted fears. All the same they do cause hallucinations to politicians.
And some political heavy weights have their personal grievances against the armed forces. Result is criminal neglect of armed forces. How strange is the fact that nation facing crisis on Chinese and Pakistani borders had stayed with a part time Defence Minister. Like JL Nehru, present regime too, thinks that national interests can be best served by diplomatic means. National Security Advisor is always a bureaucrat. Armed forces experts are treated as duds, with no knowledge of national security. This is in total contrast to western countries, who are more clued up on national security than Indian politicians. Even in Pakistan and other Asian countries, retired senior Defence personnels are appointed National security advisor.
The fear of military coup in the minds of Indian politicians have blinded Indian politicians right from the days of Nehru. Even after 70 years, politicians psyche has not changed , whether Nehru's Congress or Vajpayee's BJP. They depend on IAS Babus for such an advice on security matters, who has own axe to grind. Bureaucracy No wonder bureaucrats take them for a ride. This is evident from the hesitation on the armed forces demands on OROP and NFU ( Non functional Upgradation). While NFU has been given to CAPF and PMF but it has been denied to armed forces. It is a deliberate act to pull down and demoralize the armed forces with a view to break their will to resist injustice being done to them. Last time army chief had a one to one relationship with PM of the country was in the times of Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw in the years 1969 to 1972. Thereafter Chiefs of the army have been treated non- entities by politico- bureaucratic establishment. In fact, some times the post of army chiefs had passed on to pliable Persons.
The appointment of a woman Defence Minister by the present regime, after a gap of six months, is a reflection of a mindset of incubated fears of an army coup.result is that the appointment of CDS is hanging fire for years. Even the post of a Defence Minister has lost its shine--- either it is kept vacant or given to most unsuitable person, who has no idea of matters Military. Some of the politicians occupying the chair of Defence Minister never understood the job--- they only pursued their political agendas.
In USA, out of 45 presidents till date since 1776 there have been 15 presidents who have been with military background. Besides, there have been large numbers of Defence secretaries or Secretaries of State in the US administration over the last 250 years. India does not trust her military personnels, despite the fact that the nation has been held together with the sweat and toil of the soldiers. Unfortunately, of late some politicians have been openly abusing the armed forces. These imperfections do not bode well for the only truly secular and a nationalistic institution of the nation. If it crumbles, which enemies of India eagerly await, survivability of the Indian existence is a question mark. Present regime has to take a call in this and save this institution to save India. It has to stop lending her ears to bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, certain acts of present Indian government do not repair soldiers mutilated morale. Things are going from worse to worst. At the cost of soldier’s “Izzat”, self respect and prestige, present government has given him a short shrift. Government is toying with the idea of national security by proving up paramilitary forces. Probably, it is possessed by Nehruvian distrust and fears of the armed forces. Therefore government place pliable Generals as Chief of Army Staff (COAS). Possibly , this was the objective of SUCCESSION PLAN of Army Chiefs , worked out in 2005 by the UPA regime, in cahoots with then Army Chief. No wonder Governments maltreat soldiers and army chiefs remain mute spectators—/ whether it was announcements in OROP, not granting NFU; NOT accepting Commissioned officers as Class A Services and even interfering with security of Cantonment by throwing open Cantonment roads to civil traffic. Thus , having constantly demoralised the soldiers, they expect them to fight with same old elan as did old Indian soldiers in Second World War or even in 1971 Bangla Adesh war or Kargil -1999. A la-1962 debacle is waiting to happen. Do not rejoice over Dokala action of July 2017. A lot of water has flown through Brahmaputra since then.
No comments:
Post a Comment