SIACHEN HANDOUT: BARTERING INDIA'S SECURITY - shared

Reference:  http://gfilesindia.com/frmArticleDetails.aspx?id=418&Name=DEFENCE
 

by Kunal Verma

"Let us not get carried away by what can at best be described as sentimental hogwash"

-- General (Rtd) VK Singh

The fiftieth anniversary of the Indo-China War has evoked a feeling of anger –not so much at the Chinese, but towards our own leadership that failed the country in the most shocking manner. Amidst the groundswell of emotion that swept through television channels and the media, the Ministry of Defence could not take the risk of continuing to tow the Congress dominated line of ignoring the 1962 War. Finally, fifty years after Chinese mortars had shattered the morning stillness on the Namka Chu on October 20, 1962, our own bugles played the last post at the Amar Jawan Jyoti at India Gate. In a symbolic gesture that has far reaching ramifications, the three Service Chiefs and the Defence Minister, finally lined up and saluted the dead!

Since Independence, the Indian soldier has been called upon time and again to clear the mess, usually at the point of the bayonet, that has been made by our bungling ‘civilian leadership’. The examples are endless: the ceasefire in 1949 when Indian troops were poised to regain the whole of Jammu and Kashmir; the Tashkent Agreement ‘returning’ to Pakistan vital posts like Haji Pir and Black Rock in Kargil in 1965; the repatriation of 93,000 POWs to Pakistan in 1971 without ensuring the return of a handful of our own men (some of whom are still languishing in Pakistani jails); the list can be quite exhaustive. Now, ironically, as we mourn our dead in NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh) and Ladakh, the Government is poised to add yet another feather in its cap of bungles. Quite frankly, if the latest PMO initiative on the so-called demilitarization of the Siachen Glacier is pushed through, it could well be the mother of all bungles!

After its obsession with Kashmir since 1947, Siachen has been the biggest bone that is stuck in Pakistan’s throat since it ‘lost’ the glacier to the Indian Army in 1984. For years, talks between the two countries had been held on the issue and after the Kargil War in 1999, the situation on the ground had more or less stabilized itself. Then most incredibly, since November 2011, rumours of an impending ‘settlement’ on Siachen began to surface. Then the odd articles began to sporadically appear in the media, mainly questioning the wisdom of having gone into the area in 1984, while focusing on the expense factor – both material and in terms of human lives – always implying that India was sitting on a wasteland that had little or no strategic value.

All this time meetings between Indian and Pakistani Track II members were indeed being held to discuss various CBMs, among which Siachen was a key issue. Dubai (September 2011), Bangkok (February), Chiang Mai (April) and Palo Alto (July) preceded the Lahore meeting on 23-25 September where a formal agreement to demilitarize Siachen was inked. That the Lahore delegation was acting on a predetermined brief was fairly obvious, for the handshake was done despite the formal reservations of certain key members of the delegation.

The Lahore agreement was more or less kept under wraps, but the Atlantic Council of Canada that acted as a ‘peace-broker’ on Siachen let the cat out of the bag. The composition of the Indian delegation was, to put it mildly, incongruous – for despite an impressive array of ranks (including a retired Air Chief), none of the Army officers had ever served in the region. The Pakistani side, on the other hand, was led by Jehangir Karamat, a former Pakistan Army Chief who understands the strategic implications of the Siachen region.

Says General VK Singh, who handed over charge of the Indian Army earlier this year: “Let us first be very clear as to who is asking for this so-called demilitarization. The Pakistanis are not on the Siachen Glacier, but are west of the Saltoro Range. Contrary to what they want their own people to believe, they have a zero presence in Siachen. I wonder if demilitarization will also result in Pakistan withdrawing from Baltistan, pulling back to the west towards the Karakoram Highway? Until recently, they had even refused to accept the AGPL for verification of who is where. It is ludicrous that in such circumstances we are talking of demilitarization and withdrawal. Our troops are well established and administratively well off so what is the rational to pull them out of the area?”

Lt General PC Katoch, a former commander of the Siachen Brigade adds: “For decades, India has always distrusted the Atlantic Council, which is perceived to be in bed with the Pakistani military. In this arrangement Pakistan has grabbed the strategic opportunity to attain all its key goals. It is surmised that the PM is aiming for a Nobel Peace Prize to recover the legitimacy his Government has lost after a succession of scandals.”

Post the Shimla Agreement in 1972, the delineation of the LC between India and Pakistan extended up to NJ 9842. Beyond this, the two sides agreed that the LC would run “thenceforth north”. This clearly implied that the boundary would follow the ridgeline to the north along the Saltoro, but subsequently both Pakistani and USAF maps later drew a lateral line from NJ 9842 directly to the KK Pass which implied that the area belonged to Pakistan. A subsequent mountaineering expedition to Siachen found plenty of evidence of activity east of the Saltoro. Given the extreme conditions in what was at the time often referred to as the ‘third pole’, the Indian Army pulled off one of the most innovative and daring operations by pre-empting the Pakistani Army which was rushing to occupy the heights that would dominate the glacier.

Having been beaten at their own game (as acknowledged even by Musharaff in his book) the Pakistani Army subsequently succeeded in establishing a foothold on the 22,143 feet Qaid-e-Azam post, its only real significant position on the Saltoro at the time. In 1987, in what surely must rank as one of the most incredible military operations, men from 8 JAK LI pulled off the near impossible and wrested it from Pakistan. Re-named ‘Bana Top’ after Subedar Bana Singh who led the attack, even today Pakistan does not acknowledge its loss. After all the fighting on the glacier over the years, the bottom line is that Pakistan has no worthwhile presence on the Saltoro!

Whether the Nobel Peace Prize is the ultimate motivating factor or not, the general perception is that the PMO is acting under US pressure to demilitarize Siachen. In Baltistan, Pakistan’s position is precarious, as its anti-Shia policies over the years have alienated it from the local population. Most observers believe that even maintaining its current position west of Saltoro is now becoming untenable. Watchdog groups in the West, along with a few vernacular Pakistani newspapers, have been regularly reporting on parleys to hand over the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region to China on a fifty-year lease. It is perhaps pertinent to point out that the Shaksgam Valley (to the immediate north of the Siachen region) was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963 while the area to the east was occupied by the PLA in 1962 to provide depth to the Western Highway.

In an ever-changing geo-political scenario, to look at Siachen only from an India-Pakistan perspective is absurd, especially as Chinese footprints over the entire Northern Areas are getting more and more obvious by the day. From the US point of view the geo-political relationship between them and Pakistan has always revolved around the Gilgit-Baltistan region. A counter balance and a possible launching pad against Tibet (perceived to be China’s soft underbelly) the Northern Areas have always been the hub around which the Great Game was played. Talk of leasing the region to China cannot be lost on the Americans, who would be desperate to keep Pakistan in Gilgit-Baltistan and keep the Chinese out, especially as China is today also making serious attempts to cut its way through the Wakhan corridor into Afghanistan. By getting India to take a step back on Siachen, it gives the Pakistan leadership the incentive to hold on to the region, for the border with north-western Ladakh, which is currently static, becomes active again. In the guise of ‘peace moves’ the new situation sought to be thrust upon us is far more dangerous. India has never understood the British concept of pushing its frontiers out, and has a history of losing ground regularly. As Maroof Raza points out, Siachen has been the one exception where India has gained ground since Independence.

Let us for the moment forget about everything else – demarcating positions, joint patrolling, CBMs et all, which are being talked about in the Lahore Agreement. Let us just ask a simple question – demilitarization of Siachen will mean drawing up a new defensive line. Where exactly is that supposed to be drawn? To fortify the area south of the Shyok River means fortifying the entire Ladakh range, which would require at least two divisions and would sooner or later make Leh, like Kargil town, a front line target of enemy artillery guns. The Chinese pooh-pah the McMahon line on the grounds that it was drawn up by the Tibetans and so it has no sanctity; tomorrow if the region is leased to them, how do they care what was decided with Pakistan!

Over the years, subsequent Army Chiefs, including the current COAS General Bikram Singh, have categorically rejected the demilitarization of Siachen. Says an incensed General VK Singh: “Have the proposers of such recommendations ever visited or stayed at the glacier or the higher posts? Has our trust deficit with Pakistan disappeared? Please remember what happened after PM Vajpaye's visit to Lahore. We must also be clear on the implications of this to our stand on the Shaksgam Valley. Has the government or the Track 2 team sent by it decided that we have no further claim on POK? Let us not get carried away by what can at best be described as sentimental hogwash.”

A weak opposition that regularly fails to take on a scandal-ridden Government on key issues – be it nuclear power, FDI or whatever – and the growing perception that the PMO is simply doing what they are told to do by the World Bank and the West with complete disregard to the interests of the country is indicative of a complete policy vacuum. If the UPA II walks like a duck, talks like a duck and behaves like a duck, it must be a duck and the country must recognize it for what it is! The main trouble is, the egg that it now lays in the last few days of its reign at the top can emerge as a monster of epic proportions. The Government of India cannot be allowed to barter away our control over Siachen in return for some nefarious political gain that it might want to garner.

---------------------------
"Here then is the larger question. Can a small cabal take such a monumental decision without involving the People, Parliament and President of India? Can the PMO be allowed to barter away our control over Siachen in return for some nefarious political gain or a ‘Nobel Prize’? These questions have to be asked and satisfactorily answered if India is indeed a Democracy!"  - M G Devasahayam

Kunal Verma is the author of The Long Road to Siachen: The Question Why and The Northeast Trilogy. A filmmaker, he has been professionally associated with the Armed Forces for over two decades. His films include The Standard Bearers (National Defence Academy), The Making of a Warrior (Indian Military Academy), Aakash Yodha (IAF), The Naval Dimension and Kashmir: Baramula to Kargil among others.

The Soldier, the State and the Media - Nitin Gokhale

(About the Author - This piece was written on 06 April 2012 by Nitin Gokhale. Multi-tasking as author, teacher, journalist, student of conflicts and wars; currently Security and Strategic Affairs Editor with NDTV. Despite three decades of experience across mediums--print, web and broadcast, the hunger for news hunting is still undiminished. )

My gratitude to the author for permitting me to share this. The original link is here The Soldier, the State and the Media

In my three decades of reporting on the Indian military, I have never felt more uneasy about the military-media interface as I have in the past three months. Not because the media has been accused of being sensationalist or because many unsavoury truths about internal rivalry and groupism in the military brass has created bad blood in the top hierarchy.

My unease stems from the damage that events of the past few months have inflicted on the average Indian soldier. While all dramtis personae are equally culpable in the current controversy, we in the media certainly have a greater responsibility not to add fuel to the fire.

For at least a quarter century now, we have been lamenting the steadily diminishing status of the ordinary Indian soldier in the society.; that soldering is no longer respected as a nobel profession in our rural areas; that the jawan struggles to get his due from the civil administration increasingly contemptuous and apathetic towards him; that he continues to get poorly paid and unfairly treated by a society solely driven by materialism.

Now, following a spate of reports based on half-truths and outright lies, motivated by God alone knows what, we may have done the ultimate disservice to the Indian soldier: planted the seed of suspicion about his loyalty in the minds of ordinary Indians. While I will defend the right of every media person to report what he or she thinks is right, I am afraid none of us has thought through the consequences of the effect it will have on the psyche of the Indian soldier and more importantly the way ordinary Indians will view the Indian Army.

In the mad race to boost our circulation and viewer ratings, we may have, in one go, started the process of demolishing one last institution that has stood rock solid in defence of idea that is India. For the first time in my now reasonably longish career in journalism, I feel like hiding from my friends in the military. I feel we have not paused to think of the long-term damage we have wrought upon the profession of soldiering. I say this because from disaster relief in floods, tsunami, and earthquakes to rescuing infant Prince from a deep tube well and from quelling rioters in communal strife to being the last resort in internal CI operations, the Indian Army has been omnipresent. It is, what I call, India’s Brahmaastra (the ultimate weapon).

The versatility, adaptability, selfless attitude and resourcefulness of the Indian Army has allowed it to be what it is today: Nation Builders. And viewed in the context of India’s immediate and extended neighbourhood, its stellar role stands out in stark contrast to its counterparts in other countries. Remember, Indian and Pakistani Armies originated from the same source, the British Army and yet, six decades since they parted ways, there couldn’t be a bigger dissimilarity in the way the two have evolved. As they say, India has an Army while the Pakistani Army has a nation! More importantly, despite India’s increasing dependence on the Army to pull its chestnuts out of fire time and again, the Indian Army has scrupulously remained apolitical.

The contribution of the Indian Army in nurturing and strengthening democracy—with all its faults—can never be underestimated. It has put down fissiparous and secessionist forces within India with great cost to itself over these 60 years. It has protected India from within and without. The Indian army also has a unique distinction of helping create a nation (Bangladesh) in the neighbourhood and then quietly walking away to let the people take charge. By contrast, the Pakistani Army has never really allowed democracy to flourish in its country. Instead, it has created a military-industrial complex that has spread its tentacles in every aspect of governance. Even today, the Pakistani army does not let go of any opportunity to undercut democracy; it nurtures and treats jihadi elements as its strategic asset against India and the United States. Even in other smaller nations around India—Nepal, Myanmar and Bangladesh, for instance—the armed forces have had to intervene and run the affairs of those countries at some point.

The Army has also withstood systematic assault on its status from politicians and bureaucrats who are forever looking for ways to downgrade the military’s status. While the principle of civilian supremacy over the armed forces is well entrenched and understood in India, what is incomprehensible is the constant chipping away at the military’s standing. The nation as a whole and indeed the people at large have the highest regard and affinity for the men in uniform for the yeoman service they render in every conceivable situation, but most mandarins in the MoD and some of the politicians do not have the same opinion and are repeatedly trying to run down the military without realising the immense damage they cause to the only available bulwark we have against any attempt to Balkanise India. Now unfortunately, even we in the media seem to have joined these ill-informed and devious bunch of opportunists.

As former Chief of Army Staff, Gen S Padmanabhan says in his book, A General Speaks: Even after Independence, India’s political leaders found it convenient to keep the Army, Navy and the Air Force out of the ‘policy’ making bodies. The service HQs were left at the level that the British left them—that of being ‘attached offices,’ of the MoD. Even at the level of Defence Minister and Service Chiefs, exchanges on major matters of Defence policy were few and far between…”

Another former Army Chief, Gen Shankar Roy Choudhury has observed: “It is… essential in the national interest that the armed forces are upgraded and updated on an ongoing basis, something which governments have been traditionally loath to acknowledge and undertake, the Indian government perhaps more so than others in this respect.

”Historically, it is to the credit of the Indian Army that it has fulfilled its role as an organ of the state…It has functioned effectively in every type of role, in spite of the general lack of a supportive government environment by way of adequate finances, resources, equipment, personnel policies, or higher political direction.”

A nation’s military provides what is called a ‘hard-edged’ backup to its international standing. A strong military and especially a powerful, well-trained, fully equipped army act as a deterrent against adversaries. It is therefore essential that the nation’s decision-makers consciously back the Army and provide it with the support that it needs to meet diverse challenges that exist and are likely to come up in the coming decade. So far, the Indian Army has fulfilled its role in nation building admirably well. All of us, ordinary citizens, media persons, politicians, bureaucrats, must continue to back the nation’s strongest asset and further strengthen it, if we desire to see India as a global player in the decades to come.

Centuries ago, Kautilya, the wily old strategist told king Chandragupta why the soldier is important for the survival of the Kingdom. If India has to survive as a nation-state, this advice (reproduced from a piece written by Air Marshal SG Inamdar for the USI Journal) is worth repeating in its entirety here. As the learned Air Marshal says:” It is amazing how clearly those ancients saw the likely fault lines in governance, the intricacies of management of the military by the state functionaries, the nature of the military and the citizenry and the close interplay between them all. It is truly amazing how those observations continue to be so completely relevant today, even after 2000 years.”

Here’s what Kautilya told the king of Magadh:

Kautilya
“The Mauryan soldier does not himself the Royal treasuries enrich nor does he the Royal granaries fill.
He does not himself carry out trade and commerce nor produce scholars, thinkers, littérateurs, artistes, artisans, sculptors, architects, craftsmen, doctors and administrators.
He does not himself build roads and ramparts nor dig wells and reservoirs.
He does not himself write poetry and plays, paint or sculpt, nor delve in metaphysics, arts and sciences.
He does not do any of this directly as he is neither gifted, trained nor mandated to do so.

The soldier only and merely ensures that:-
The tax, tribute and revenue collectors travel far and wide unharmed and return safely;
The farmer tills, grows, harvests, stores and markets his produce unafraid of pillage & plunder;
The trader, merchant and moneylender function and travel across the length and breadth of the realm unmolested;
The savant, sculptor, painter, maestro and master create works of art, literature, philosophy, astronomy and astrology in peace & quietitude;
The architect designs and builds his Vaastus without tension;
The tutor (‘acharya’), the mentor (‘guru’) and the priest (‘purohit’) teach and preach in tranquility;
The sages (‘rishis, munis, and tapaswees’) meditate and undertake penance in wordless silence;
The doctor (‘vaidyaraja’) tends to the ill and the infirm well, adds to the pharmacopoeia, discovers new herbs and invents new medical formulations undisturbed;
The mason, the bricklayer, the artisan, the weaver, the tailor, the jeweller, the potter, the carpenter, the cobbler, the cowherd (‘gopaala’) and the smith work unhindered;
The mother, wife and governess go about their chores and bring up children in harmony and tranquility;
The aged and the disabled are well taken care of, tended to and are able to fade away gracefully and with dignity; cattle graze freely without being lifted or harmed by miscreants.

He is thus the VERY BASIS and silent, barely visible CORNERSTONE of our fame, culture, physical well-being and prosperity; in short, of the entire nation building activity. He DOES NOT perform any of these chores himself directly: he ENABLES the rest of us to perform these without let, hindrance or worry (‘nirbhheek and nishchinta’).

Our military sinews, on the other hand, lend credibility to our pronouncements of adherence to good Dharma, our goodwill, amiability and peaceful intentions towards all our neighbour nations (‘sarve bhavantu sukhinaha, sarve santu niramayaha…’) as also those far away and beyond. These also serve as a powerful deterrent against military misadventure by any one of them against us.

If Pataliputra reposes each night in peaceful comfort, O King, it is so because she is secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks to the mighty Mauryan Army constantly patrolling and standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action (‘animish netre’), day and night (‘ratrau-divase’), in weather fair and foul, dawn-to-dusk-to-dawn (‘ashtau prahare’), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, loss of life and limb, separation from the family, all through the year, year after year (‘warsha nu warshe’).

While the Magadha citizenry endeavours to make the State prosper and flourish, the Mauryan soldier guarantees that the State continues to EXIST! He is the silent ’sine qua non’ of our very being!”

Can we all—people in uniform, civil services, politics, media and society at large– imbue this spirit?

A Letter to the 'Fiction Writer' of 04 Apr 2012

About the Author - M.G. Devasahayam has diverse experience of serving in the Indian Army, Government (IAS), Corporate Sector, partaking in democratic process reforms, pursuing advocacy of public causes in the voluntary sector. His professional expertise is in the areas of Urban Development, Utility Management (Public Transport, Electricity), accountability and governance in public services.

"How The Indian Army stood by Democracy during the dark days of Emergency "

Dear Shekhar Gupta,

I recall the days when I was the District Commissioner of Chandigarh in the mid-seventies and you were a cub reporter with THE TRIBUNE. You then had idealism with fire in your belly. I had taken you as my younger brother and had presided over your registered marriage, the only time I performed this duty which is delegated to Executive Magistrates. You then rose fast and became a clebrity in the media. Except for odd telephonic conversations there was no contact between us. Even this contact was lost when you became a super-celebrity and I could not even reach you over phone.

Be that as it may, after reading the special story written by you in today's Indian Express insinuating coup attempt by the Indian Army led by a fine soldier called VK Singh all I can say is that I am ashamed of having ever known you.

I would not depart without reproducing a brief passage below:

The critical role played by the Indian Army in protecting and defending India’s democracy during the dark days of Emergency (26th June, 1975 – 21st March, 1977) has been candidly brought out in the Book “'JP Movement, Emergency and India's Second Freedom': (Publisher VITASTA, ISBN 978-93-80828-61-9, October 2011 - Author M.G.Devasahayam)”, which was written in the context of the National Emergency and the role played by Jayaprakash Narayan (who was my prisoner for nearly six months) in restoring democracy. Herewith are some of the extracts:

“During the 20 months of active Emergency, people moved in hushed silence, stunned and traumatised by the draconian goings on. Across the nation, grovelling academicians, advocates and accountants vied with each other to sing paeans of glory to the Emergency rulers, some signing pledges of loyalty and servitude in blood! Whisky-swilling and pipe-smoking social climbers and sycophants chanted in unison, “Discipline is preferable to democracy,” just because trains were running on time and they got a parking lot at the Connaught Place! The bulk of the civil service crawled when asked to bend. The higher echelons of the judiciary bowed to the dust and decreed that under the Emergency regime, citizens did not even have the “right to life”. Politicians of all hue and colour, barring honourable exceptions, lay supine and prostrate. There was gloom all around and it looked as if every thing was over and the world’s largest democracy was slowly but surely drifting into dictatorship. "

What changed the tide is best described in a long investigative article titled “Ruler of 600 million and alone – Indira Gandhi is unmaking a democracy ‘to save it’ and looking to exchange moral authority for bread” in the TIME magazine of August 11,1975, written by Claire Sterling, regular columnist for Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post and International Herald Tribune, who had recently visited India.

“Indira Gandhi is perhaps more powerful than ever before, but she is also more alone. There is no one left to share with her the blame of the regime’s failings, no one of any stature to partake with her the task of running her vast benighted nation.

So desperately isolated has she become, so driven into new repressions that cut off her line of retreat, that the dynamics of staying on top may well push her into becoming a real dictator. And, though she is not the woman to make India anyone’s satellite if she can help it, her increasing dependence on Moscow and the Communists could send the country lurching into the Soviet orbit. Neither development is likely to leave the Indian Army unmoved. And that is perhaps the crux of the situation. India’s standing Army of nearly a million men has been resolutely non-political since Independence. But it is also sensitive to the smallest slight to its honour, dignity and military independence, not to mention the nation’s sovereignty; and it is steeped in loyalty to constitutional principles. It was altogether her Army when she enjoyed unquestioned legitimacy of constitutional rule. It may not be should its ranking officers conclude that she has become something else. More than ever now, her fate hangs on the Army’s loyalty.”

Taking a direct hit at Indira, the author concludes: “Someone once told me, as I was traveling around India, that the one thing worse than trying to govern the country by democratic persuasion would be trying to govern it by force. Yet that is how Indira is trying to do it now. Depending on how fast and how far she goes in changing from a traditional Prime Minister to the one-woman ruler of a police state, the Indian Army – the one group with the power to stop the process – could intervene. If it were to do so, it would almost certainly be not to replace her with a military dictator, but to restore the institutions (of democracy) it has been drilled into defending since birth.”
[Comment : Claire Sterling is 'better informed' about the Indian Army than the 'fiction writer' of 04 Apr 2012 !!]

You have insinuated that such an Army had attempted a coup. Can there be a worse form of betrayal? God alone knows what your motives are? Yet may God bless you.

With anguish in my heart, I am copying this to some of your colleagues and some others for whatever it is worth.

Devil's Advocate - Kunal Verma

This is an email written by Kunal Verma to Karan Thapar regarding his 01 April 2012 interview with Brijesh Mishra. Don't miss the punch line!

Dear Mr Thapar,

Personally, I've always disliked your rather offensive way of interviewing people, but then that's been your manner and we do get all sorts. Your interview with Brajesh Mishra on the 1st of April, however, was perhaps the worst form of journalism that I've seen in recent times. Forget about what the Hon'ble Mr Mishra was saying, it was YOU who was leading him on. Apart from the fact that your entire stance is motivated (what's it like to bat for the Brit's Old boy and all that sort of thing!), YOU Mr Thapar, are guilty of one of the biggest crimes in my book - attempting to destroy the Institutional Integrity of the Indian Army by attacking its chief. You don't need me to tell you that your entire interview is based on concocted premises and lies that have been floated around ever since this entire 'Age Issue' was manufactured by the powers that be, simply because you know that as well as anybody else. You've been dishonest at every stage - the choice of the man you chose to interview, your misuse of the platform that you have, and perhaps even more importantly, you should have had the discerning ability to sieve through the campaign of vilification that has been unleashed over the last few months.

Like You, I was also born into the army. Like You, my father too was a General. Like You, I am a product of the same school that you went to.

I may be an insignificant fly compared to the likes of You, Brajesh Mishra and all the others who are today hurling accusations against the General. As an author and a film maker I've been associated with the Army, Navy and Air Force for the last two and a half decades. Even though you are a seasoned television journalist who is known to rip people apart, I'm willing to sit across the table and answer each and every accusation of yours. I have with me the original file on Exercise Lal Qila and have been on the ground where each and every bloody battle took place in 1962 when your father was the COAS. I'm willing to risk your sneering condescending manner and answer all your questions. My only condition being that the last question of our discussion will be who has been the worst Chief of the Indian Army ever.

Kunal Verma

Repair the Ramparts - Admiral (Retd) Arun Prakash

About the Author - Admiral (Retd) Arun Prakash, PVSM, AVSM, VrC, VSM is one of India's most decorated Naval Officers. In the 1971 Indo-Pak War, Lieutenant Prakash flew Hawker Hunter aircraft for the 20th Squadron Lightnings. For his gallantry in air action over West Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir, he received the Vir Chakra. He has served as the Chief of Naval Staff and Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee from 31 July 04 to 31 October 06. He is also one of my most favourite Admirals ever.

Corruption in the armed forces is merely the symptom of a cancer embedded in our polity

1. Shekhar Gupta’s gallant attempt (‘Ministry of Indefensible’, Indian Express, March 31) to salvage the sullied reputation of the armed forces, after the recent media-battering it has received, was as commendable as it was unexpected. Sadly, the damage done to a grand edifice, and the wound inflicted on the psyche, self-esteem and esprit de corps of a million-and-a-half young officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen go deep and may not mend soon. Equally mortifying to the nation was yet another reminder, through a leaked letter, that the emperor has no clothes; this in the presence of the Chinese leadership.

2. The ability to introspect is not a national strength, but we must face the reality that the continuing drama, as it unfolds, reveals merely the symptoms of a cancer whose roots are embedded in our polity and which has entered the national security system. In a democracy such as ours, the answers will come, not from shrill TV anchors haranguing emotional and intemperate veterans, but from the political leadership.

3. As we seek a panacea, let us examine some facets of this hydra-headed disease.

4. A major contributory factor has been political detachment from and indifference towards matters relating to national security, because this is not an issue that can win or lose votes for the politician. Such is the intensity of political activity in the country that, even with the best intentions, it leaves the Raksha Mantri (RM) inadequate time for Defence and strategic affairs. The writer has often sat across the minister’s table to brief him on an important issue, only to be interrupted by the incessant ringing of his four mobiles and three phones in rapid succession. These were, no doubt, urgent calls relating to the business of Parliament, party or constituency, but once the allotted time was up, one had no choice but to leave the RM’s office, knowing that the Defence secretary would be summoned later to fill in the blanks.

5. The ministry of defence (MoD) is unique, in that it demands of the Minister not just a comprehension of complex security issues and expeditious decision-making, but also frequent interaction with the Military hierarchy. A degree of familiarity with the senior military leadership coupled with some self-assertion would enable the Minister not only to seek their expertise and advice, but also to provide guidance and exercise political supervision with a friendly but firm hand. Unfortunately, such a level of comfort has rarely prevailed in South Block. The armed forces leadership and the country’s political establishment are simply ill at ease with each other, and a yawning chasm has developed between them. This gap is bridged by the bureaucrat, but as we can see, things tend to drift.

6. The politician should have, by now, realised that he is not dealing with British blimps or Prussian herrenvolk, but proletarian Armed Forces. The Indian officer corps is drawn increasingly from the middle and lower strata of the Indian middle class, whose first instinct is to defer to civil political authority. Had the RM and the chiefs established an equation of mutual respect and confidence, the current crisis could have been resolved behind the closed doors of his office. It is now obvious that dialogue in South Block has been taking place first on files and then via the media.

7. The next important factor is the almost total reliance that the RM has, in the current system, on the MoD bureaucracy for advice, routine decision-making, problem resolution and crisis management. While the comfort level in this relationship may be higher, the delegation of “civilian control” to the bureaucracy, while excluding the armed forces from these functions, amounts to dereliction of responsibility by the political establishment.

8. While many accusations against the bureaucracy, of obduracy, stonewalling and even malice, may be overstated, one thing that they have certainly achieved with great deliberation is to stubbornly resist all attempts at change. The writer is currently serving on a task force on national security reform. As the sole relict of a similar task force constituted by the NDA government in 1999, I have an eerie sense of déjà vu as, 13 years down the line, I hear, with a sinking feeling, the same logic and arguments being used to stall yet another attempt at reforms.

9. The estrangement between the service headquarters and MoD has not just created an atmosphere of bitterness and mutual recrimination, but also led to systemic dysfunctionalities. Two examples from the recent controversy are enough to demonstrate the level of stasis. First, in the midst of all the ranting about corruption surrounding the supply of Tatra trucks, no one has thought of asking the MoD why, after importing thousands of these trucks over 40 years, our vast defence-industrial complex has not been able to produce an indigenous version. The ammunition shortages revealed by the army chief’s letter refer to the reserves which the service is supposed to maintain in order to fight a war of 30-45 days’ duration. Since wars do not always give notice of their approach, how is it that the RM, Defence Secretary and Chief did nothing about these shortages all these years?

10. A critical factor, and the root of much of the corruption we see all around, is the fact that political parties, across the board, see the arms import business as a veritable “golden goose” for election funding. This may explain the lackadaisical pursuit of indigenisation as well as corrupt individuals. We have witnessed, since the 1980s, virtually every single major Defence contract getting embroiled in allegations of corruption and kickbacks, often made by commercial rivals. The net result of these controversies is that the modernisation plans of the armed forces have slowed down drastically, and the nation’s capability to produce weapons has stagnated. Dare we hope for a bold political consensus that would declare Defence purchases “holy cows” and off-limits for exploitation?

11. The final factor that needs to be addressed is the steep and calamitous decline in the ethical standards of the armed forces. There is obviously a deep subliminal urge, among officers, to “keep up with the Joneses” in other sections of India’s rapidly prospering society. This has led some of us in the senior hierarchy of the armed forces to adopt ostentatious customs and lifestyles; either by misusing official funds, or by adopting other unethical means. Such is the change in mores that, till it became an overnight “scam”, the owner of a swank Adarsh apartment certainly evoked more admiration than someone living in a downmarket three BHK flat.

12. Blaming this decay on our polity and our society is not a good enough excuse; the armed forces used to be the exemplars of rectitude, ethics and morality for the Indian society. After all, we invented phrases such as “officer-like conduct” and “an officer and a gentleman”. Moreover, the current pay, allowances, perks and pensions allow serving and retired personnel to live in dignity and comfort. It is time for deep introspection at the senior levels of the military. The rot can only be stemmed if we can teach our young officers to develop disdain for filthy lucre and show them, by example, how to live in spartan and soldierly dignity.