INDIAN ARMY REFORMS: Reforms Must Go Beyond Pay, Pensions (R)

 SOURCE:

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/reforms-must-go-beyond-pay-pensions-168907

VIDEO: CLICK/GOOGLE TO WATCH VIDEO

            

जवानों की पेंशन कटौती पर CDS को खूब धोया COL ने –प्रधानमंत्री, रक्षामंत्री, & तीनों सेना प्रमुखों 

                     [ https://youtu.be/55fNUkk59nQ ]

  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CLICK/GOOGLE URL BELOW TO OPEN

http://welfarenews.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Letter-to-CDS.pdf

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the wrong track: The highest military leadership is looking at options that dilute the terms of service in terms of financial compensation.

Reforms Must Go Beyond Pay, Pensions

The military is an integrated body of highly motivated and dedicated men and women who pride themselves on belonging to an honourable profession. Ensuring that there is no misuse of benefits, and that the military values are upheld is primarily the responsibility of the organisation.

Lt Gen DS Hooda (Retd)

Nov 11, 2020 

IN his Mann ki Baat address on the occasion of Kargil Vijay Diwas, Prime Minister Modi addressed the nation with these words, “Whatever we say, our behaviour, our speeches, our aim should be to boost the morale and respect of our soldiers.” These are the words that any soldier would be glad to hear from his highest national leader. He would also wish that the Prime Minister’s words are translated into action by those who implement policy. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing is a steady onslaught on the terms and conditions of service personnel, mostly to dilute provisions that have existed for decades.

Cutting down rations for officers, stopping hotel stay during temporary duty, removing income tax exemption on disability pension, and now the proposal to reduce pension for officers who take premature retirement, are examples of steps that have been taken in the past few years. Some of these were reversed after the government faced sharp criticism, but they created misgivings about the political and military leadership.

It is well understood that military reforms, particularly in times of stressed budgets, are absolutely essential. However, some of the personnel policies being recommended appear ill-considered and could have long-term implications on the character of the military. Without getting into the pros and cons of each proposal, the trends that we are witnessing raise three substantive issues. 

The first concerns the responsibility of the military as an organisation towards its members. It would be stating the obvious that the organisation should empower its officers and men and strive to meet their genuine needs. Instead, the approach seemingly being adopted by the military hierarchy is one of collective disempowerment. Income tax relief on disability pension is sought to be stopped for everyone because some ‘unscrupulous personnel’ were misusing disability benefits. Hotel stay for all officers was banned because some of them could indulge in corrupt practices such as ‘exchanging briefcases with contractors’ in the hotel room. A similar logic is being applied in the latest proposal for reducing pension of officers who take premature retirement. Several specialists/super-specialists leave the service to work in other sectors; in order to discourage them, the pensionary benefits of all officers must be cut down.

The military is an integrated body of highly motivated and dedicated men and women who pride themselves on belonging to an honourable profession. Ensuring that there is no misuse of benefits, and that the military values are upheld is primarily the responsibility of the organisation. This is implemented through a system of policies that reward good behaviour, incentives for members, and where required, disciplinary action. Wielding only the blunt instrument that apparently seeks to punish the whole military community for the faults of a few is both an injustice to those who serve with honour and an abdication of organisational responsibility.

The second issue is the impact of the recent proposals on the attitudes of the officer corps. It could well be asked as to why I am specifically talking about the officers and not about all the rank and file who form the larger part of the military. The simple explanation is that officers occupy a special position in the organisation.

In the military system, there is an ‘otherness’ to the officer corps. General John Hackett, in his classic The Profession of Arms, writes, “There is in armies a tendency to set up an officer group with an otherness as a step towards or in some degree a replacement of, the betterness you require.” Officers are commissioned through a document signed by the President who reposes special trust in them. Officers are largely responsible for shaping the military’s ethos and their standards of conduct are pegged at a higher level.

It is the officers who provide the leadership in the military and who are tasked to ensure the care of the men they command. An officer who passes out of the Indian Military Academy takes the Chetwode pledge that he will place the ‘honour, welfare and comfort of his men’ before his ‘own ease, comfort and safety’. This pledge is redeemed daily by thousands of young officers who lead the soldiers from the front and ensure their welfare in the most challenging of conditions.

Some of the recent proposals have caused a sense of disquiet among the officers. I am not going into the merits or demerits of each proposal, but it would be better if policies are implemented after greater deliberation within the officer cadre of the military. Any loss of trust between the junior and senior leadership is a tear that will not be easily repaired.

The third issue is that an obsessive focus on pay and pensions is skewing our thinking on military reform. It is well understood that salaries account for a large section of the total budget, but this is not because the salaries are huge, but because the allocation to defence services is insufficient to support our military ambitions. There is a crying need for reform in the military, but rather than taking the harder step of restructuring to reduce its size, the highest military leadership is looking at options that dilute the terms of service in terms of financial compensation.

The most valued asset of the military is the quality of its human resource capital — the men and women who serve. Thousands of soldiers are currently locked in a standoff with the Chinese army in the freezing conditions of eastern Ladakh. Others are losing their lives battling infiltrators from Pakistan. In times like this, the military leadership needs to display greater sensitivity in pushing policies that could impact the morale of officers and men.

There is an unwritten covenant between the soldier and the state. The soldier pledges to sacrifice his life for the security of the nation, and the state promises to treat the soldier with respect and dignity and provide adequate compensation to him and his family. If this covenant is broken by either side, either the nation will weaken its security, or the military will lose its professionalism. Neither scenario is desirable.

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/no-doubt-army-for-people/399154.html



        PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

PART ONE :  

 [A]      

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/05/an-army-for-people-m-g-devasahayam.html

PART TWO:

[ B ]

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/04/no-doubt-army-for-people.html

***********************************************************************

       No Doubt, Army for People

                              by

         Lt Gen R.S Sujlana (retd)

IN LINE OF FIRE: Army personnel guard the Panzgam camp, 120 km from Srinagar, which was attacked by militants recently. PTI



The Oped titled, "An Army for the People?" (April 26, 2017) conveys a matter of serious concern as it expresses doubts that the Army it is no longer for the people of this country (specially in relation to the people of Jammu and Kashmir). It ends with the question: “Should our Army be different now?” 

A reference has been made to tying up of a stone-thrower in front of an Army jeep, evidently inspired by methods of the Israeli Occupation Force in illegal occupation of Palestine. Tellingly, it has also been conveyed that armed with the so-called draconian powers the Army has under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), instead of defending democracy, it has become oppressive at the whim of an autocratic state. 

Let me first address the episode of tying an individual (who was one among the many others pelting stones on the security force personnel performing their duty) in front of a jeep. This impromptu action by the quick-thinking commander at a critical juncture warded off a potentially dangerous situation, saved many lives and it needs to be commended. What were the options and expectations from the young Army officer? Realising the inadequacy of his small force to counter the large hostile crowd out to lynch the security personnel on duty, his first reaction could have been to pull back to safety, in which case he could be charged with dereliction of duty and cowardice. Another reaction could have been to open fire, leading to heavy collateral damage and civilian casualties and get charged for use of unwarranted force and fuelling the nefarious propaganda machine of the sponsors of terrorism sitting across the border. It would have been foolhardy to be at the receiving end of the hostile stone-pelting crowd, leading to many own casualties. Expectedly, the young Major did not choose to take any of the above options but showed presence of mind. His ingenuity ensured safe evacuation of all security personnel with no casualties to the rioting civilians or collateral damage and needs appreciation. It must be reiterated that this is a clear example of the Army advocacy and teaching of maximum constraint despite extreme provocation at the risk of even suffering own casualties. 

The credit and mastering (if these two words can be used loosely) the art of using humans as shields goes to the terrorists who shamelessly position women and children in front of them. The terrorists literally hid behind skirts (or rather phirans) and then from the safety of this screen of hapless citizens not only inflict casualties on the Army but make good their escape, leaving women and children in the lurch and in danger. Can anything be more unmanly and cowardly? Does it leave a doubt of what treatment the population will receive in the vaporous and no-longer- talked-of idea of "Azadi" but of radical Islam and world-wide jihad?

The very thought of the Army taking a leaf from the Israel Occupation Force is outlandish. The Indian Army is not an occupation force but operating in its own land. Moreover, operations are always launched ensuring minimum collateral and discomfort to the local population or giving a reason for any discord. The Army in its' over six decades of experience in battling insurgents/ terrorists/ anti-national elements has refined strategy and tactics to fight the terrorists, while interacting with and providing solace to the affected local civilian population. Such has been its' expertise that armies the world over (ranging from the US, UK, Russia, to Central Asian Republics, Japan to South-East Asia and South Asia) have sought joint training through exercises with the Indian Army at various levels to learn from its experience. Their outstanding contribution to effectively fight the scourge of terrorism has been widely appreciated. Yes, the armed forces does procure Israeli weapons and advanced technology but it does not need to import any lessons to fight battles.

In the Army's fight against terrorism, an important and well-structured thrust has been on being people friendly. Under the aegis of Operation “Sadhbhavna” in Jammu and Kashmir and Operation “Samaritan” in the North-East, the Army has earnestly taken up the duties of a failed civil administration and literally brought to the door steps of the population a range of elusive facilities: education and exposure to technology through institutions like “Good-will Schools”, medical, veterinary, sports and travel facilities etc. 

A question that may rankle: Why, despite all these measures the population is still hostile and the security forces are not appreciated? Resolving the Kashmir problem is a national challenge and not the sole prerogative of the Army. Rather, the latter has only a minor role which is restricted to controlling the hostile situation to enable the civil administration to take control of the reigns. Such a controlled situation was created in 2014 which enabled the conduct of peaceful elections and witnessed heavy polling, the terrorists sway was down. The yeoman service of the Army during the deluge and disaster caused by the waters of Jhelum and people-oriented actions added to the confidence of the locals. However, what followed was disastrous. The advent of winter saw the Darbar with all politicians and bureaucrats shifting to the salubrious environs of Jammu. Even the separatist leaders flew away and left the population in misery to fend for themselves. 

While the Army and other security forces had done their job, when the need was for the politicians and the civil administration to proactively perform they failed to do so. The Pakistan-based sponsors saw an appropriate opportunity and lashed out with every trick in perception management, while we failed to counter and exploit the success of elections. Just two years down, we witnessed the result of thumb twiddling and losing the narrative — a 7 per cent election turnout with smashed EVMs floating in the Jhelum. An integrated national effort, the need of the hour, is nowhere in sight.

The Army's resolve to ensure mission accomplishment, apolitical conduct and preserve democracy is no different today than the days of Emergency when all pillars of democracy — including the judiciary, bureaucracy and media — crawled to submission. It was left to the Army to stand sentinel over the citizens' liberty and rights. Like in the past, so too in the future, whenever the need arises even for any secondary task the Army will always endeavour to ameliorate any hardship that people may face. 

No doubts need to be raised and no witnesses are needed, their selfless conduct, with thousands having made the ultimate sacrifice, bears testimony to this. The Army led by gallant soldiers and officers at all levels will continue to outperform the enemy within and without. The nation must  TRUST  them. A start would be to raise a National War Memorial, which remains a pipedream despite repeated promises

including one by the present 56"-chest 

regime. 

The writer is former Commandant, IMA & ex-Chairman, PPSC. 
The Army in J&K, facing hostile stone-throwers and cross-border terrorism, needs to be supported by proactive political measures. Paramilitary forces in the Naxal-affected areas too need to be backed by technology, synergy and development on the ground.

An Army for the people? M. G. Devasahayam

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/an-army-for-the-people/397454.html



  
                             PART ONE OF TWO PARTS




  

PART ONE :  

 [A]      

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/05/an-army-for-people-m-g-devasahayam.html

PART TWO:

[ B ]

http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/04/no-doubt-army-for-people.html

***************************************************************
DONT TAKE INDIAN ARMED FORCES  FOR GRANTED. ARMED FORCES ARE THE CUSTODIAN OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION  
                                                 &
 LOYALTY OF ARMY IS GUARANTEED AS LONG AS THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS RESPECTED  AND INTEGRITY  OF THE NATION IS  ENSURED                                                                                         - VASUNDHRA

Powerless?Farooq Dar tied to the Army vehicle as a human shield. Former Chief Omar Abdullah took to Twitter to display his anguish and attached the video screenshot of Dar.

             An Army for the People?

                                     BY

                      M. G. Devasahayam

Army’s healing touch:The Army was the saviour for people devastated by the floods. Army doctors provide medicines to the flood-hit people at a medical camp in Srinagar. PTI

Next Image

L’affaire  Human Shield’ of the Indian Army tying a stone-thrower on their jeep in Kashmir has evoked mixed reactions. Many, including Army veterans, are defending it as a tactical means to avoid stone-throwing and thus permit operations with minimal bloodshed of protestors and Army personnel alike. Many others condemn it vehemently.

Among the latter are those who call it part of "D doctrine" that draws its inspiration and ideology from the state of Israel. While this can be the Standard Operating Procedure for the Israeli Occupation Force in illegal occupation of Palestine, it cannot be an SOP in the Indian Army or any other self-respecting military. 

For the moderate objectors, the Army personnel who used the tactic are clearly at the end of their tether in being deployed in internal security operations with no end in sight. They feel soldiers on-the-ground would not have used the tactic had they not been frustrated with having to take the blame for failures and the bullets and grenades from militants over the decades, for pulling politicians' chestnuts out of the fire, a job that the police are not quite up to.

Those who defend the "human shield" quote paragraph 305 of the "Regulations for the Army" for deployment of troops on duties in aid of civil authorities: "The strength and composition of the force, the amount of ammunition to be taken and the manner of carrying out the task are matters for the decision of the military authorities alone." 

Paragraph 306 (d) provides immunity to officers if they act in good faith which is held to mean "with due care and attention". For them, the young commander in Budgam faced with a hostile crowd of over 900 and the option of opening fire undoubtedly acted in good faith, exercising due care and attention, thereby averting a potential catastrophe.

Both sides have merits in their argument. But the problem is with the common denominator-the prolonged and endless deployment of the Army in internal security duty which is the job of the police and at best of the para-military forces for a short period. As per the Army Doctrine-2004, the Indian Army's primary role is to preserve national interests and safeguard the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war. To perform this role, the Army keeps aloof from the civilian crowd, concentrating on their training and battle readiness.


 Relegating the Army to its secondary/tertiary role by prolonged troop deployment on internal security duties, dilutes the Army's authority, corrupts ranks and compromises efficiency through lack of training. 

Besides, over time the Army is looked upon merely as another state force with its soldiers losing the respect and mystique they traditionally enjoyed. Familiarity breeds contempt and military men find themselves at the receiving end. This is precisely what is happening in Kashmir. Since the civilian population is directly involved, politics and politicians come in. Power games begin and wittingly or unwittingly the Army becomes a pawn. 

In the case of Kashmir, the endeavour of power-mongers has been to create a situation of intense hostility, inextricably miring the military into it forcing it to resort to excessive force. To perform this "task," the Army is vested with draconian powers under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). In a July 2016 verdict, the Supreme Court ripped open the cloak of immunity and secrecy provided by AFSPA to security forces for deaths caused during encounters in disturbed areas. 

Earlier, Commissions headed by former apex court judges have found serious human rights violations by the security forces and have recommended the scrapping of AFSPA or making drastic changes in it. 

Successive governments and the Army top brass have been defending AFPSA with all their might. Over the years, the effort of ruling politicians has been to make the Army an instrument of an increasingly autocratic state. The question arises: What is the mandate of the Indian Army — to defend democracy or oppress the people at the whim of an autocratic state? This poser came up when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in June, 1975 turning a vibrant democracy into enslaved autocracy. Putting the entire blame on Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) and the movement led by him she made specific reference to JP calling upon the Army not to obey any order, which they considered wrong: "You have not sold your conscience and honour for the sake of your bread", JP had said and challenged the Home Minister to try him for treason. Response to the poser came from the international media in a lengthy article titled “Ruler of 600 million arid alone”-Indira Gandhi is unmaking a democracy to save it," in the New York Times of August 10, 1975 — written by Claire Sterling, [http://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/10/archives/ruler-of-600-million-and-alone-indira-gandhi-is-unmaking-a.html?_r=0 ]                                                       a columnist for Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post and International Herald Tribune after extensively visiting India.  After analysing the situation on the ground and presenting the alternatives before Mrs Gandhi — becoming a real dictator or sending the country into the Soviet orbit — Claire opines that neither development is likely to leave the Indian Army unmoved:

[  ]

“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.” 

Claire concludes the article with touching poignancy: "One thing worse than governing India 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." The Army lived up to this faith and Emergency ended with Indira Gandhi's defeat in the 1977 elections. The Army did not intervene but remained a bulwark of India's democracy and its institutions. I was a witness. Should our Army be any different now? 

The writer is a former IAS officer

OROP : At OROP Protest Venue, Police Prevent Ex-Soldier's Attempt To Commit Suicide

SOURCE:
http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/at-orop-protest-venue-police-prevent-ex-soldiers-attempt-to-commit-suicide/298348


27 MARCH 2017

At OROP Protest Venue, Police Prevent Ex-Soldier's Attempt To Commit Suicide

He was stopped by the authorities present and it is unclear whether he managed to ingest some of it.

OUTLOOK WEB BUREAU

Protesting against the government over OROP, an ex-serviceman from the ‘Sabka Sainik Sangharsh Samiti’ today allegedly tried to commit suicide by downing white liquid he carried to the protest venue. He was stopped by police personnel and members of the CRPF.

The organization has been protesting against the government and specifically over ‘One Rank One Pension’. This group of ex-servicemen had planned on marching to India Gate from Jantar Mantar and committing mass suicide today

Intelligence agencies had got wind of their plan and the police had picketed them to keep a better watch on them at Jantar Mantar.

As the protestors started their march to India Gate, the police asked them to step back and it then that one of them tried to consume a white liquid from a bottle.

He was stopped by the authorities present and it is unclear whether he managed to ingest some of it. In the melee, the liquid splashed over the security personnel who foiled the attempt.

Following the incident,  security personnel rounded them up and they were taken into preventive custody and away in a Delhi Police van. 

The organisation’s members have hit the headlines before. In December last year, reports mentioned that a group of four veterans had climbed atop a water tower in Delhi and threatened suicide. They reportedly met Defence Ministry officials later and apprised them of their woes.

POLITICS OF DISTRUST

SOURCE:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/politics-distrust-lt-gen-p-g-kamath

The Armed Forces are no means an independent entity. 

They are accountable to the people. Even its worst 

detractors in their quiet and sombre moments cannot 

help but appreciate their contribution to the country.  We 

look for no thanks and gratefulness from the public as 

we have taken an oath to defend this nation and its core 

values to the peril of our lives.   

 We have willingly surrendered parts of our fundamental 

  rights to strengthen the organisation.  All we ask from our 

countrymen is not to undermine our pride. 

POLITICS OF DISTRUST

By

PG Kamath

Two weeks ago, I attended the ‘The Huddle’ by the Hindu 

in Bangalore.  It was actually a conclave named as 

Huddle, probably for poetic alliteration.  ‘Terror Proofing 

India’ was one of the sessions.  The anchor asked: 

Should India project her armed forces in Syria, Iraq and 

Afghanistan and Gen Halagali responded that India, to 

be called a global power need to project her armed 

forces in trouble spots, if it serves the interest of the 

nation. He also said that the defensive strategy for cross 

border attacks from Pakistan had failed and the surgical 

strike conveyed the right message.  The anchor reacted 

by telling that the surgical strike has not stopped the 

‘cross border terrorism’ to which the General replied 

that after each cross border strike, we need to  strike 

back to raise the cost of ‘cross border terrorism’ to 

Pakistan.  He also said that Pakistan understands only 

one language; a bullet should be replied with a bullet.  It 

was a statement well appreciated by the audience and 

he was applauded couple of times.  The matter rested 

there and at the end of the question answer session the 

Chairman of Kasturi & Sons Ltd, gets up and thanks the 

constitution makers for keeping the Army where it is?  

Though, I do not recollect his exact words but the spirit 

of his statement was that the constitution makers were 

wise to keep the army outside the decision making.   His 

archaic views are really a result of Nehruvian 

distaste for the army. 

All, should do well to read the analysis of Ravindra W Pathak on the legal status of the Armed Forces: 

                            Article 34 

              of the constitution envisages

                       MARTIAL  LAW

 It gives the armed forces the political authority to restore democracy.  

The Armed Forces owe their allegiance to the Constitution of the country.  

Article 52 gives the powers to the President,   who is the supreme commander of the armed forces. 

 Article 74 enables him to function on the advice of the Council of Ministers and Prime Minister. 

 In this way, the Armed Forces take political directions from the office of Prime Minister and the constitutional head remains the President.  

The Armed Forces have been placed in such a way that they are not a part of the Government. 

 It is basically to ensure that the Armed Forces perform their constitutional role to defend the constitution. 

 An officer of Indian Armed Forces also take oath; that he will observe and obey all the commands of the President of the Union of India and the commands of any officer set above him, even to the peril of his life.  


Please note the command he obeys is not of the Defence Minister or the Prime Minister but of the President of India and any senior officer placed above him.  Instead of giving credit to the Armed Forces for ensuring the integrity, sovereignty and democracy of the country since its independence and strictly remaining professional and apolitical, he gloats over the side-lining of the Armed Forces.

  Sad; that we have such people, who brook no 

opportunity to throw barbs at the armed forces, while 

enjoying the security and freedom at their behest. 

 I am reminded of what Voltaire said in the French

 parliament 

“I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death 

your right to say”.  

  I also defend to the death your right 

to belittle the Armed Forces 

as there are many of your likes, among the Indian intelligentsia, who have enjoyed the liberty, freedom, security and opportunities guaranteed by the armed forces that enabled them to be what they are today.

We also just saw how the politicians of all hues pounced 

on the Army Chief, when he said that the stone pelters, 

who interfere with army operations in the Valley would 

be dealt strictly.  The politicians and bureaucrats do not 

understand the pain of the Army Chief, who lost his four 

sons in that operation. His anguish and his response 

should be well appreciated by any, who has his heart in 

the right place.  Now we have a previous

home minister of UPA castigating the Army Chief for intemperate remarks?  

 Isn’t it a live comedy, when he himself is 

alleged to have modified the second affidavit on Ishrat 

Jahan’s encounter to the detriment to the nation?  He 

also violated the rules of Foreign Investment Promotion 

Board to facilitate the Maxi-Aircel deal? That’s not over 

yet; his son, a failed politician owning ‘Advantage 

Strategic Consulting Pvt Limited’ that facilitated the very 

same deal. Just see how the father and son duo work 

seamlessly to amass wealth?


It is a model case study for Management Institutes?   

The son has also been 

accused of money laundering and has been sought after 

by Income tax, ED and CBI.  The wife of the same 

minister is accused of taking 1.26 crores as lawyer’s 

fees from poor people, who had put their money in 

Sharadha Chit Fund.  She is also sought both by CBI 

and ED.   Here, the entire family is minting money 

breaking the law seemingly with unadulterated 

patriotism?  No wonder; he speaks for those youths in 

the Valley, who were obstructing anti terrorists 

operations of the Security Forces.  He does not speak a 

word for an officer and three soldiers, who were killed 

during that operations.  In our Country even such 

persons can masquerade as leaders and the media 

instead of blanking out such criminals from public eye, 

report every sordid comment they make?

I try my best not to harp on Pundit Nehru, who 

unfortunately nursed a deep seated distrust towards the 

Armed Forces of his own country, till he was chastened 

by the Chinese invasion.  Somehow, however much I try 

not recalling his naivety, I just cannot help but 

remembering it with great discomfort, as 

he had brought my country to her knees in front of the Chinese. 

 I wish to rub this point home on each and every occasion, as I cannot ever forgive him. His inherent disdain towards the Armed forces was greedily and conveniently lapped by the bureaucracy, who berated the Armed Forces with glee, while they bartered their professionalism and integrity to please those in power.  

Now let us look at USA:  31 of her 45 presidents have 

been veterans.   There are no qualms of retired Veterans 

holding important posts in the Government.  Now let us 

take President Trump, who has taken Gen James Mattis 

as secretary of defence, Gen John Kelly as homeland 

secretary, Lt Gen Michael Flynn as his national security 

adviser, who has now been replaced by Lt Gen Mac 

Master.  Veteran Ryan Zinke has been nominated as 

Secretary Interior and Veteran Stephen Bannon as Chief 

Strategist.  Many, in the past like Gen Colin Powell and 

Veteran John Kerry were Secretaries of State. It is not 

my intention to name all but suffice to say that great and 

stable democracies do not fear soldiers.  I can understand the people being weary of military, if India was a banana republic under a tin-pot dictator!  Why should the biggest democracy in the world fear the soldiers?

The web of distrust weaved by Pundit Nehru has been 

made more dense and sticky by the self-exalted and self-

opinionated bureaucracy.   It is also in the ‘deep state’ of 

the Indian Government.  It really does not matter who 

gets elected as the deeply entrenched bureaucracy 

would ensure the marginalisation of the Armed Forces; 

the interest of the nation be damned: The bottom line is 

that they should rule the roost. Even President Trump is 

fending off opposition from his bureaucrats, as they are 

doing selective leaks to undermine his policies.  The 

India bureaucracies does the same with subtlety, where 

they would feed falsehood, manipulate and prevaricate 

to enable a decision, which they consider meet their 

ends. 

Disgruntled soldiers from BSF, CRPF and Army, put 

their travails on the Facebook and the media has 

suddenly put springs in their boots and have become 

‘jumping jacks’ to save the country from the corrupt top 

brass?  Playing and replaying their ‘Facebook 

downloads’ and showing a burnt chapatti again and 

again enables the media to take cudgels for the 

downtrodden and become messiahs of these 

undisciplined soldiers. Just to put the matters straight; 

the army, BSF and CRPF would be making about six 

million chapattis per day 

and 

the  naïve TV anchors go gaga with one burnt chapatti.

 Even if one percent of 

chapattis are burnt, then there would be 60,000 burnt 

chapattis on every single day.  Why is the media not 

showing them every day?  Even in their houses they 

would find them occasionally and indeed does it call for 

a national debate?

The Armed Forces have well streamlined channels for 

grievances and only those, who let down their forces go 

public with the complaints.  Instead of letting the forces 

finding answers from within; the unemployed panellists, 

untrained journalists and desperate editors with a focus 

on TRPs burn their midnight oil to let down the forces 

that protect them.  We call it 

‘Freedom of the Press; indeed an exalted thought for thoughtless greenhorns’ 

trying to lower the morale of their own armed forces.  

For one bad sheep there are countless white ones; you 

really do not have a right to paint all of them in one 

brush under the notion of ‘freedom of press’? 

Magazines like ‘Outlook’ have survived the system by serving one family that has wrecked the country since independence.  Just look at the generic heading given on the cover page ‘Officer and a rogue’. Look with how much pleasure our enemies across the border would have savoured the magazine?  Dear Editor! I will not give you the pleasure of reading it and wasting my time.  I am sure you will have roaring sales in Pakistan.  The Chinese embassy would have bought hundreds of 

copies of your magazines and sent it across.  I am still 

not angry with you as you are doing it for your belly.  

You have always been doing it by kowtowing to the 

undeserving and sacrificing your professionalism at the 

altar of expediency. It has been your trait that has 

enabled your yellow journalism to survive. 

 Good luck to you!

The Armed Forces are no means an independent entity. 

They are accountable to the people. Even its worst 

detractors in their quiet and sombre moments cannot 

help but appreciate their contribution to the country.  We 

look for no thanks and gratefulness from the public as 

we have taken an oath to defend this nation and its core 

values to the peril of our lives.    We have willingly 

surrendered parts of our fundamental   rights to 

strengthen the organisation.  All we ask from our 

countrymen is not to undermine our pride. 

(The author is a veteran of Indian Army and can be reached at (pgkamath11@yahoo.com)