“—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 USA 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'. Bigger force would mean a nation’s armed forces. But it does not mean a coup by military to take over reins of the country but the use of military force at the behest of constitutional government of the country.
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 an effective way. It has been deliberately and constantly neglecting the only instrument which can effectively deal with it. However, the political leadership and bureaucracy has always been worried about military engineering a coup d’état.
Jai Ram Ramesh mentions in his book on VK Kishna Menon that General KS Thimaiyya was suspected of a secret move to carry out a military coup to overthrow Nehru Government. Even in January 2012, then Army Chief , General VK Singh was accused of planning such an action . It was a news item in Indian Express. Such fears of politicians and bureaucracy have always been there . As such armed forces were given a raw deal.
Precisely speaking, right from the days of Independence of India, there has been gross neglect of the issue of national security. 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 its cause.
To put it in more 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 soldiers and 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 77 years. There is no change of this 'neglect', whoever forms Government at the centre. The policy has been of deliberate neglect of armed forces for all these 77 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 in 1958, had 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.
Truly speaking national security implies protection and projection of national integrity and interests. We must note that security was not only 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 how the post of CDS (Chief of Defence Staff) has been converted into a mere bureaucratic one by making him a secretary of DMA ( Department of Military affairs).
Bureaucrats play the symphony of a likely coup by armed forces, if CDS was given an operational responsibility. 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 only by diplomatic means. National Security Advisor is always a bureaucrat. Armed forces experts are treated as duds, having 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 77 years, politicians psyche has not changed. They depend on IAS Babus for such an advice on security matters, who has own axe to grind. No wonder bureaucrats take them for a ride.
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 ‘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, most of the times since 1990, the post of army chief had passed on to pliable persons.
In USA, out of 45 presidents till date since 1776, there have been 15 presidents who have had 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 on this and save this institution to save India. It has to stop lending her ears to bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, certain acts of Indian governments do not repair soldiers mutilated morale. Things are going from worse to worst. In the recent swearing in ceremony of new Government on 09 June 2024, three Chiefs of Armed forces and the CDS were in a row much behind a Bollywood actor Shah Rukh khan and Industrialist , Mukesh Ambani and his son.
At the cost of soldier’s 'Izzat', self respect and prestige, governments of India have given military a short shrift. Governments have been toying with the idea of managing internal national security by propping up paramilitary forces. Probably, they are 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 on OROP, non-granting of 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 the old Indian soldiers in Second World War or even in 1971 Bangladesh 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.
It is not only Government but also the opposition leaders who toy with the prestige of armed forces . Top leaders of Opposition had questioned 'Surgical Strike' carried out by Army in January 2016 and Air strike carried out by Air force in February 2019, at Balakote in Pakistan consequent to Pulwama attack by terrorists in J& K. This is not only display of distrust in the armed forces but also demoralising soldiers. National security is thus badly compromised and jeopardised.
Comments