Sab theek hai sahib

Posted on April 10, 2012 by sword

The Indian soldier, or Jawan as he is affectionately called, is known for not cribbing under the most adverse circumstances. If you ask your driver who has been waiting well past his lunch time for you to emerge from a long conference in the formation headquarters, “Khana Khaya?”, he is sure to say “Haan Sahib”. Of course, when you question him closely he might confess that he hasn’t. But he will also hasten to assure you that his lunch has been kept at the langar and would be warmed up for him when he gets back. This spirit of not ‘bellyaching’ is probably one of the strengths of the Indian Army which is known to do the best with the least. It’s a habit that has probably got into our DNA, and that is why even the slightest indication of not being ok with the way things are from a subordinate is not taken to very kindly.

But, what is an endearing sign of stoicism in the jawan, may not be the best course of action when it comes to commanders at the apex level. Particularly not when it affects the operational effectiveness of the Army.

Consider this answer to a parliamentary question asked by Shri Dhananjay Singh in Lok Sabha on 19 Dec 2011.

(a) whether the modernization process of army is on track;

(b) if so, the details of the acquisition of arms, ammunition and equipment for the army in accordance with the modernization policy during the last three years;

(c) whether there have been delays in acquisition of important arms, ammunition and equipment affecting the operational capability of the army; and

(d) if so, the details thereof?

ANSWER

(a) Yes.

(b) Procurement of arms, ammunition and equipment for the Army is done from various indigenous and foreign sources in accordance with the Annual Acquisition Plan. This is a continuous process undertaken for the modernization of the Armed Forces to keep them in a state of readiness to meet any eventuality.

(c)&(d): Delays occur sometimes due to unavoidable circumstances but the operational capability of the Army is not affected.

Or take this answer to another question, asked by Shri Sanjay Bhoi asked in the Lok Sabha on 28 Nov 2011, on whether there is a shortage of quality arms and ammunition, specially gun systems, and the steps being taken to make up the deficiencies:-

(a) & (b): Arms and equipment including gun systems in the Indian artillery are available in adequate quantity. Modernization of Artillery, which entails replacement of the equipment of older technology, is an on-going process and is being given priority to ensure that the artillery remains equipped with modern weapon systems.

(c) & (d): No significant problems in existing gun systems have been reported. However, the shortages of certain types/components of ammunition as and when reported, have been addressed adequately.

For those who are not conversant with how parliamentary questions addressed to the Army are answered, the procedure in a nutshell. The MoD (Parliament) sends relevant questions to the Staff Duties Directorate of the Army HQ (now IHQ MoD (Army)), which forwards it to the concerned directorate(s) for answering. Typically, questions of this nature would go to the Weapons and Equipment, Perspective Planning and Military Operations Directorates. SD Directorate collates the replies and the same is approved by the Vice Chief before it is forwarded to the MoD. The reply in parliament, therefore, reflects the considered view of the service HQ.

If we examine these two replies – and these are representative of many more in similar vein which can be accessed from the Parliament’s website – in the light of the recent letter from the Army Chief to the Prime Minister which is now in public domain – we realize that something doesn’t add up. The deficiencies and shortfalls could not have occurred overnight. Nor could the Army move from being fully prepared to operationally unfit within a short span of a few months.

So one wonders whether this economy with truth while replying to parliamentary questions arises from the “Sab Theek Hai, Khana Kha Liya” syndrome? When senior officers and veterans on the television circuits have emphasizing that civilian control over the armed forces means political control not bureaucratic control, why then this subterfuge with the political leadership? If the Army is in dire straits due to delays in procurement of equipment, why is such a rosy picture being painted before the very people who can actually do something about it if they wish to? While not raising undue alarm by laying bare the criticality in the parliament for all the world to see is understood, the stark disparity between the ‘all well’ in these replies and the panic in the letter to the PM is more than a little disconcerting.

If the decision makers in the headquarters had been a little more forthcoming about the problems being faced in procurements in their responses to the parliament, maybe the COAS would not have had to write the infamous letter to the PM at all.

Posted in Blogitorial, Civil Military Relations, Equipment, Military, Politics, Values | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Casus Belli Aching

Posted on March 28, 2012 by sword

Just when commentators were concluding that Gen VK Singh will be remembered for posterity as the Chief who went to court for getting ten more months in office, the General has yet again managed to spring a surprise. Going public with allegations that he was offered Rs 14 Crore as bribe for accepting sub-standard vehicles for the army, he is back in headlines. While he did not go as far as naming the perpetuators of the tantalizing offer, a recent official press release by the Army claimed that the offer was made by a retired Lt Gen on behalf of a PSU and a foreign firm. The release also claimed that the recent stories about communication interception equipment being used without authorization by the Army in the capital have been fabricated by the very same people who offered him the bribe. So now he also has the chance of being remembered as the Chief who was offered a bribe (and turned it down).

As a close observer and occasional commentator on the recent shenanigans by the leader of one of the largest armed forces in the world, one is led to wonder what kind of a creature is Gen VK Singh’s conscience. Or his sense of honour for that matter. Both these animals seem to lie dormant for long periods of time after being aggravated, only to rise suddenly and start baring their fangs in full media glare. One wonders what is it that dictates the timing for their sudden awakenings. Or what is it that motivates them, for that matter.

As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, the much professed sense of honour was claimed to have been aggrieved by the authorities insisting on following the laid down rules, taking into cognizance an unfavourable date of birth amongst the two different ones held on record. However, the affront did not manifest itself when the stakes were high and the appointment of Chief of Army Staff was hanging in balance. It did so, in fact, a few years later when there was very little to lose. Except, of course, the dignity and sanctity of the high office occupied by him. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court cut through the hype and jargon weaved around the facts by his spin doctors, and did not get taken in by the facetious arguments citing, amongst other things, honour and morale of the armed forces to seek a favourable decision. It stuck to the facts of the case and the result was there for all to see.

The awakening of the conscience, likewise, waited for an unfavourable decision in the age row. And if that wasn’t enough, the revelation of unauthorized snooping in the capital by military intelligence using top secret espionage equipment meant for use on the borders probably roused it. As did ongoing investigations into reports that at the height of the courtroom drama, there was an unexplained movement of a mechanized battalion and paratroopers from Hissar and Agra respectively towards the capital.  The General obviously knows that attack is the best form of defence. Or a better strategy still, confuse, cofound and then play the ultimate victim.

The present revelations have raised many questions, most of which are already being asked by the media and political parties on both sides of the political divide. Chief (no pun intended) amongst them is why no immediate action was taken by the General after such serious provocation. Well, he did walk up to the Defence Minister and ‘inform’ him. But this was not followed up by a written report. Nor was any complaint or FIR lodged. Even if the ‘offer’ was made in a manner that it could not be proved, the obvious thing to do for someone who has repeatedly vowed to wage a war against corruption in high places would be to set up a trap by pretending to go along with the offer, after taking the Defence Minister into confidence. In fact, as per latest reports an audio recording of the alleged conversation has been handed over to the CBI – one wonders that if such a recording did exist, why was did he wait for 18 months to hand it over to the investigative agencies. Instead, the General spent his time and energies in fighting the system on his date of birth issue, which obviously was more important to him than the alleged attempts of bribery at the highest level. The sudden expose now, after suffering a public loss of face (and continuing to cling to office thereafter), seems to be more of belly aching than a crusade against corruption.

One further wonders what has been the motive behind the General’s controversial moves in the past year or so. In the age row, anyone who had an understanding of the facts of the case and belief in the wisdom of the Supreme Court knew that he had no chance of a favourable verdict. Yet the General  went ahead and fought a very public and acrimonious battle, unperturbed by its effect on the image of the high office he was holding. And now this – media revelations obviously aimed at embarrassing the government rather than any attempts at belated whistle blowing. Questions have been raised about who his advisors are, and about the quality of advice he has been receiving that has prompted these actions. But one finds it difficult that a person in his position would take such steps merely on faulty advice. Since the arguments of honour and crusade against corruption do not hold much ground given the circumstances and backdrops of the actions, there is one other possible explanation.

It is possible that the General harbors political ambitions, and has used his time in office to set the stage for launching his second career. Viewed against this possibility, his actions suddenly begin to make a lot of sense. Not only has he received more media attention than all the chiefs before him put together, he has also supposedly projected himself as an honourable, fearless and honest crusader against injustice and corruption. Having thus carried out his personal brand building (at the cost of brand Army), it could be a simple matter to step out of uniform and into politics. All will probably be revealed in Act three. Meanwhile, the only saving grace is that the there isn’t too much time left for this drama to play out.

Posted in Blogitorial, Civil Military Relations, COAS, Military, Values | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

In the Name of Honour

Posted on January 28, 2012 by sword

general-v-k-singh-retires-after-a-controversial-tenure

In one of the bestselling books ever, “How to Win Friends and Influence people“, Dale Carnegie talks about 12 ways of getting people around to your way of thinking. Method number 10 in this list is “Appeal to noble motives“. This is a method that Gen VK Singh seems to be attempting in the ongoing age controversy standoff with the government. The General has repeatedly made it clear that the whole issue is about his honour, and not about any of the attended benefits or consequential change in succession. A set of retired officers appearing on television debates have perpetuated this notion vociferously, adding for good measure a few noble causes that the chief does not talk about – civil military relations and honour of the entire organization itself to name a few. In fact I wonder if some of them realize how pompous they sound when they dismiss any further argument with words to the effect that it would be beyond the ability of anybody who  has not been in uniform to understand the concept of honour.

Unfortunately, despite having been in uniform for over two decades, I find it difficult to understand this particular brand of honour. In the concept of honour that I am used to, the organization’s honour and interest is always above any individual’s. That one chooses the “harder right instead of the easier wrong” – something every NDA cadet prays every day to God to help him do. That one has the moral courage to stand up to one’s convictions no matter what the pressures or duress one may be put under, or what the reward be. That one doesn’t give one’s word and then back out. It is because of all this I find it difficult to fathom how the whole affair can be justified by all the senior officers as a fight for honour. Yes, had this fight been started the very first time Gen VK Singh was asked to give a written undertaking accepting what is not his true date of birth, it would have been truly a fight about honour. Even at this belated stage, had the chief resigned before going to court, he could justify that he valued his honour above office or any other considerations. But under the present circumstances, it appears that honour is the noble motive being appealed to, as professed by Carnegie, to get people around to the desired way of thinking. This notion is highlighted by the fact that his Writ Petition asks the court to direct the government to treat his date of birth as 10 May 1951 and he be granted “consequent reliefs and benefits”.

To my mind, the high regard that people hold Army as an organization in is being leveraged to arm-twist the government into looking favourably at an individual case. Public opinion is easily swayed by surface impressions and passionate statements as very few people care to or have the time to go through the facts in detail. In the present circumstances, when the government popularity and credibility is particularly low for various reasons like the 2G scam, Anna Hazare movement etc, the people are only too eager to lap up the spin about a puny but fiesty David fighting the Goliathesque government to protect his honour. This attempt to play to the galleries is borne out by the fact that there is actually a signature campaign being run to garner public support for the General. I wonder if there is a parallel anywhere in the world ever of such a  pathetic campaign being run for a serving army chief. If the fight is all that personal and honourable one, then the chief must get a stop put to such unbecoming activities being conducted in his support.

There is no denying that Gen VK Singh as an individual has been wronged by the inefficiencies and inconsistencies of the system, and possibly by the malafide intent of some vested interests. But despite all of these, he reached the top. He is in a position where he actually has the power to address the very inconsistencies and inefficiencies that were almost his undoing. He has the power to change the system for the better. Regrettably, he chose to devote his energies instead towards what he publicly calls a personal battle for his individual honour.

While it remains to be seen how successful the General will be in ‘getting people around to his way of thinking’ and ‘Winning friends and influencing people’, there is no doubt that the Indian Army as an institution has been the biggest loser in this whole episode. Is the regaining of the self perceived loss of honour of an individual really worth the damage it has caused to the organisation? I wonder.

Posted in Blogitorial, Military | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

Ctrl Z Cyberconstabulary

Posted on January 16, 2012 by sword

By a strange coincidence freedom of expression appears under serious threat in the two leading democracies in the world. Indian Government has given sanction to prosecute 21 internet companies, including Google and Facebook, for carrying material that could “instigate public enmity and even endanger India’s unity”. In the US, debate rages over the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), which would impede free flow of information on the internet by placing massive restrictions on user-generated content like posts to forums, video uploads, podcasts or images, if passed.

In India, the move comes close in the heels of the hugely popular anti-corruption movement by Anna Hazare, which owed a large part of its success to social networking media. The government, under severe criticism from all quarters for big ticket corruption cases, its mishandling of the Jan Lokpal Bill and various other major and minor transgressions, also finds itself on the receiving end of jibes on different online forums and blogs. Facebook groups and pages severely criticizing leading politicians – at times to the extent of being downright insulting – come up regularly and are circulated by users.

The US government was recently hit by the revelation of its diplomatic cables on Wikileaks – something that was “embarrassing but not damaging” as per the government itself. A stronger propulsive force behind the legislation is apparently the clique of companies and unions in cable, movie and music industries. Entities of the brick and mortar era, facing stiff challenge in today’s age of user generated content and peer to peer sharing.

It is nobody’s case that slandering others, writing communally inciting material, or infringing the intellectual property rights of another, are acceptable practices. Considering the difficulty in imposing such measures at the level of the actual perpetrators, the measures aim at shooting the messenger. They target the service providers. The concern of proponents of free speech over internet  is that such restrictive and repressive measures would impact the ‘white’ users of the internet as much, if not more, than the ‘black’ users who are the perpetrators sought to be reined in. These defaulters, who in any case represent a minority on the fringe, would be able to find workarounds to hide their identity, overcome barriers and continue with impunity. With the pace of evolution of technology, and the fact that the perpetrators of wrong tend to be more techno-savvy than the doddering law enforcement agencies, the former will always remain elusively ahead of the latter. They will continue to slander, pirate, share and whatever else they are doing now.

But in the bargain, such legislative and regulatory measures will severely impact the open environment of cyberspace. Imposing caution on the service providers will restrict the free flow of creativity of the users and simultaneously constrain the free entrepreneurial spirit of the internet companies.

Measures by China to regulate the free flow of thought on internet some time back did not raise too many eyebrows – but similar moves by two open democracies, votaries of freedom of thought and speech – cannot be construed as acceptable behavior. Let’s hope better sense prevails amongst the decision makers in both.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Offensive or Defensive?

Posted on January 6, 2012 by sword

Dear Rahul Gee,

Are we fast moving towards an emergency like situation in the country, with the government getting increasingly intolerant of dissent or slights of any kind? The high handed manner in which the protest by Baba Ramdev was dealt with and the orchestrated campaign to discredit the Anna Hazare movement and malign the key players associated with it are some indications of the dangerous mindset the government is getting into. Recent statements by Kapil Sibbal Gee about the government’s inclination or desire to monitor content that is uploaded on social networking sites, and filter out the undesirable from it, also point towards this.

The latest in this sequence of events is the banning of a site called India Against Corruption which was being run by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, for displaying “defamatory and derogatory cartoons”.

There are two observations on this – one practical and the other on principle – and I also have one doubt. First the practical observation.

One can understand the ignorant dinosaurs in the ‘grand old party’ feeling that online content can be wished away by banning or controlled by censoring it – like books or newspapers in the good old days of 1975. But why doesn’t your tech savvy generation explain to these not so gentle men the realities of the information age. By banning the content you are attempting to suppress, you are only giving it more publicity and popularity. While this was not a major problem when physical access to the banned material was easy to control, today access flows through wires and air waves to and from all over the world. If you ban the content at one source, there will be hundreds of other sources where it will appear in no time at all. Thus the increased publicity by banning means many many more eyeballs searching for and circulating the content that was sought to be banned.In other words, by banning a particular content, the government is only helping it go viral (in case you don’t know what that means, ask Dhanush).

Second is the matter of principle. With citizens of the 21st century zealously treasuring their freedom of expression, even people who have no interest in the content per se, as also those who may not agree with it, will make common cause against its banning. “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it” – these words, though spoken by Voltaire more than two centuries ago, are ever more relevant today.

And my doubt – well its an old one. Who died and left you and your friends in charge of deciding what I should see and what I should not? How can you decide what is offensive and what is not? As it is, there is no dearth of offensive stuff on the net, and you don’t go about chasing and banning all of it. So why are Sibbal Gee and party so quick to take offense about some stuff in particular? What if I don’t find it offensive?

Offensive, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. So why not just let the beholders decide – if they do find it offensive, they will avoid it.But if they find it striking a chord – and you find it offensive – then you probably need to think deeply about  way you are doing things.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Another Open Letter to COAS

Posted on January 4, 2012 by sword

army-vk-singh-350_011312011604

Dear General,
A lot of ink has flown since my last open letter to you of 1st July 2011. Some of it on papers passing through desks of MoD, some on the Public Interest Litigation submitted to Supreme Court, and a lot of it on national dailies and tabloids. The air waves are also agog with speculation and discussions on what your next action is going to be. Amidst all this, I take the liberty of writing to you again, renewing my appeal to do what is best for the organization.
There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that your date of birth is as stated by you and not as recorded in the documents under question. But that does not change the existing regulations on the matter – that any discrepancy in such a case needs to be corrected within two years. As head of the organization, you are the custodian of the existing rules, and cannot be seen to be going against them. You can initiate action to change the rules which are unfair, but unfortunately any such changes would not apply in retrospective to the case in question.
As per the reports in media, your fight is to restore your honour, and not to get an extension in tenure. I think it is a little ironic that the fight itself is doing exactly the opposite. Your honour or word was never in question, but by creating this needless controversy, you have thrown it open to debate on prime time television. By allowing the debate to continue, you are not helping matters in any way. In fact, of late there have been leaks and attributed statements that are most unseemly. The fact that some political leaders have made public statements joining cause leads one to believe that their support is being canvassed – something that can’t augur very well for the established fabric of the organization. The fact that the Supreme Court has been petitioned in a Public Interest Litigation on the matter by a regional group of veterans also points to your tacit approval of such a petition. The message that your actions are sending out is that any serving soldier who feels short changed by the existing rules can undertake similar moves for redressal. In an organization where thousands of officers are superseded every year, think of the floodgates of litigation it can open. Even if none of such cases come to fruition, just think of the chaos and upheaval they will cause.
Another interesting facet is the fact that the case relating to your date of birth is being made out to be a civil-military relations issue. It is true that the state of civil-military relations leave a lot be to desired, with the military generally being at the losing end. But linking what is purely the personal grievance of one individual with a significant organizational issue, notwithstanding the fact that the particular individual heads the organization, is tantamount to trivializing the larger issue itself.
There have even been ridiculous statements on television by some commentators that in case you go to court and lose the case, it would be bad for the morale of the forces. While it might be bad for the miniscule part of the forces which are the directly affected party, I don’t think rest of the people are going to lose much sleep over whether you are vindicated or not. Yes, what will be bad for the morale and image of the force is seeing their Chief go to court against his immediate superiors on a matter of personal interest – and also bad for the discipline, for it will suggest to them that it is alright to do so if they also feel aggrieved by a rule or decision that does not suit them.
Coming back to the issue of honour. Isn’t it true that before being appointed as an Army Commander, you had given a written undertaking to accept 1950 as your year of birth? My understanding of the honour code expected of an officer may be limited, but as per that limited understanding an officer must stand by his word – not give it when expedient, and then renege out of it. I refuse to believe that the undertaking was given by you under duress – the only pressure that could have been brought to bear upon you at that point would be not promoting you. And under such circumstances, the honourable thing to do would have been to take the steps that you have taken now – even at the risk of losing out on that promotion. Having accepted the promotion on the basis of that undertaking, even under duress, you lost the moral high ground.
Unfortunately the general perception now is that it is no longer a matter of honour as you are making it out to be. It is more about getting the best out of the situation – whether it is an extension in tenure and a succession plan of your choosing, or a‘negotiated settlement’ with the government wherein you are assured of a suitable resettlement plan. I wonder who your advisors at this critical juncture are – and about the quality of advice you are receiving. I wonder if they have advised you of a possibility where the government accedes to your contention and gives you an extension in service, but not in appointment? It is so easy for them to temporarily create the vacancy of an additional officer in the rank of a general, and appoint a new chief on the designated day.
That would be a sad day not only for you, but for the entire organization. I do hope that in your sagacity, you will prove that all the rumours flying around are nothing but speculation, and not precipitate any action that demean you or the organization in any manner.
I remain
Yours sincerely,
A retired soldier

Posted in Blogitorial, Civil Military Relations, COAS, Military | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

What next common man?

Posted on December 30, 2011 by sword

rjd-tear-papers_338x225

It was a little ironic that the poster boy for the parliamentarians during the Lok Sabha debate on the Lokpal Bill was none other than Lallu Prasad Yadav. MPs cutting across party lines were probably nodding in agreement silently and internally when he spoke of the noose tightening around their necks. Fine role model of probity in public life speaking on a bill that aims at tackling corruption, Mr Lallu lost his Chief Ministership of Bihar when he was chargesheeted in the fodder scam. And clung on to power through proxy by foisting his wife into politics and directly on to the Chief Minister’s chair. One of Lallu’s remarks during the debate was, ‘laws are not made on the streets, they are made in the parliament’. And then, late night of 28 December, two MPs from Lallu’s party, Rajniti Prasad and Ramkripal Yadav, gave a fine example of the dignity of parliament by snatching papers from a minister and tearing them up before flinging them. It is for the people to decide whose conduct is more dignified – the ones protesting on the streets or the parliamentarians like Prasad and Yadav.

The manner in which the whole drama of the Lokpal Bill has unfolded in the last few days has, if anything, lowered the standing of the political class in the eyes of the people even further – possibly to an all time low. Whether it was muddying the waters by introducing reservation for SC / STs / OBCs and minorities in the Lokpal, or the panicked adjournment of the parliament at midnight – the reasons and motives behind each of these shenanigans has not escaped the eyes of the people.

If the government thinks that the low turnout of people during Anna Hazare’s fast in Mumbai indicates a loss in the popularity of his movement or message, it may be in for a rude shock shortly. The reasons for the turnout is being and will be analyzed dissected and debated at length in the comings weeks. But if the government thinks that it was because the anti corruption movement is on the wane, and if its bravado in parliament and on television arises from this belief, it needs to think again.

It takes more than a few statements twisted around by the media, attempts to dig up dirt against members of his team, or the alleged alignment with some elements, for the people to lose their faith. It has taken almost 60 years of constant abuse and misuse of power for them to lose faith in the political class. Popularity of the Anna movement arose from this loss of faith – a feeling of helplessness channelized into action by a straight talking mild mannered person who had no axe to grind. Coming after the phenomenal popularity of movies like Rang De Basanti and Lage Raho Munnabhai, which popularized peaceful protests by common people as a means to take on the high and mighty, the movement has demonstrated to the people that this is a viable alternative.

The fact is that people are fed up with politicians. Whether it is corruption, lack of development, dynastic rule, or the increasing arrogance of the political class – they have all combined to bring down the image of politicians in the country to a new low. And the happenings in parliament have only reinforced this.

So the people will definitely express themselves. Whether they do so by participating in the next round of activities by Anna Hazare, or whether they will rally around another Anna – but express themselves they will.

We, the people, await that moment with bated breath.

Posted in Agitation, Common man, Corruption, Parliament | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Saying it all

Posted on December 25, 2011 by sword

The Commissioned Officer of the Indian Armed Forces

He is patient and steady and ready to bear,

Always wanting to meet every challenge with care,

Manner is easy, yet solid as steel,

Has a strong faith and is refreshingly real.

Never afraid to be bold,

Has not committed to the usual mould,

Doesn’t back out from what is true,

Tells it all straight and means it too.

Has confidence and knows he is right,

When everyone has doubts on his reasons to fight,

To all, he makes his case clear,

Even touching the ones who will not hear.

Geared up for war, yet praying for peace,

Trying hard to make evil cease,

He is a leader and is capable of trust,

And he knows he will do what he must.

The Class I Officer of the Indian Administration

He is patient and steady and ready to bear,

Always wanting to meet every challenge with care,

Manner is easy, yet solid as steel,

Has a weak faith and is surreal.

Never afraid to be cold,

Has committed to the usual mould,

Doesn’t back out from what is false,

Tells it all crooked and means it too.

Has confidence and knows he is wrong,

When everyone has doubts on his reasons to fright,

To all, he makes his case clear,

Even touching the ones who will not hear.

Geared up for peace, yet praying for war,

Trying hard to make evil cease,

He is a pleader and is capable of rust,

And he knows he will do what he must.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Happier birthdays for some?

Posted on December 19, 2011 by sword

Clipboard

Dear Rahul Gee,

India has an excellent cultural practice of respecting our elders and ancestors. We all subscribe to that, observe the shraads  of our departed kinsfolk, and remember them on their birth anniversaries. There is therefore nothing wrong in our government doing the same – remembering our departed leaders on special days. So on the face of it, the fact that Rs. 7.25 cr were spent on ads on birth anniversaries of Rajiv Gee and Indira  by various ministries of the government does not seem too wrong. After all, we all agree that both of them were great leaders who contributed a lot towards the development of the country and it’s emergence as a leading nation of the world today.

But when you contrast this generous expenditure with the miserliness when it comes to any leaders that are not your ancestors, the complexion changes slightly. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for instance. The iron man shares his birth anniversary with the death anniversary of Indira Gee – 31 Oct. On that day, I counted 17 advertisements paying homage to Indira Gee, and one solitary one for Sardar Patel. And on his death anniversary which just went by on 15th December – not even a mention.What is more so, 16th December was Vijay Diwas – anniversary of India’s decisive victory over Pakistan in the 1971 war. A war in which 3843 Indian soldiers died and 9851 were injured.

In fact, while even Babu Jagjivan Ram and Chaudhari Charan Singh have real estate in Lutyens Delhi and along the banks of Yamuna dedicated to their memory, the poor Sardar did not merit even that. Nor does, for that matter, the Indian soldier who lays down his life for the country. One lesson you must learn from this, Rahul Gee, is that your children must follow your footsteps into politics. Unless of course, you can be like Maya Behan and take the onus of perpetuating your memory in your own hands.

But seriously, leads one to wonder what is the criteria that the babus or ministers of various ministries use to decide on which occasions will they use their ad spend? Why do we see such lopsided favour towards placing ads on the occasions pertaining to your family? Is it relative to the significance of contributions to the nation? If so, what are the parameters by which it is measured? And who does the judging?

The only reason that strikes me is that these ministers and babus are trying to be sycophantic to curry favours with you and Sonia Gee. Why don’t you tell them that you are smart enough to see through their pathetic attempts? You may also like to apprise them that like you, majority of the people are also smart enough to do so. In fact, they also get irritated and resent the skewed homages. The result is complete lose – lose. The advertisers don’t get to please you as you are too smart to see through them (you are, aren’t you?). And in the bargain, the voters get more and more irritated with the dynastic politics that such display smacks of. Guess the only people happy are the newspapers who rake in the moolah for publishing the ads.

Is it any wonder, Rahul Gee, that the Indian public finds Anna Hazare an attractive leader to follow? After all, he has no progeny to claim real estate and newspaper columns for him after he is gone.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

An Ode to Black Dungarees

Posted on December 9, 2011 by sword

05prez2

It was an incongruous sight to see the diminutive figure of the President and Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces, mounted on a T 90 tank wearing Black Dungarees, during her recent visit to Exercise Sudarshan Shakti. The Army Chief, sitting next to her, was similarly attired. The incongruity was not in the figures themselves, who had all the right to be where they were. It was in their attire. The cherished black overalls, once the pride of tank crews of Indian Armoured Regiments, have all but lapsed into obscurity over the years. Well, not really into complete obscurity, as these are now worn by the Special Forces, as also by the assorted ‘commandos’ of various police and para military forces. But not anymore by the tank crews.

The black overalls were worn with pride, by the officers and men alike, once upon a time. While the troops were issued regulation cotton one piece overalls by the Ordnance, the officers were free to design their own. And one got to see quite a few creative masterpieces of sartorial smartness.  Since these were to be worn during outdoor exercises, a two-piece dungaree offered greater convenience – managing a coverall while out for the morning ‘bottle parade’ could be considerably difficult. Somewhere in early nineties, the black dungarees of the tank crews were replaced by the combat dress (‘chittra mittra’ or ‘dress kambakht’ as they were (are?) colloquially referred to by the crews). There would definitely have been some perfectly rational ‘big picture’ thought behind this decision. Certainly, uniformity in dress amongst different parts of the organization does lead to logistical ease. But the decision was, nonetheless, one that engendered a lot of sadness amongst the rank and file of armoured units.

Some even saw the doing away of blacks as a part of the overall scheme of things to de-glamorize the Armoured Corps – bring them down to mother earth, so to speak. One is reminded of an incident – reported to be true – when the Commandant of an Armoured Regiment received a Corps Commander on the helipad at the field firing ranges wearing blacks and a stetsonesque headgear, riding crop in hand and driving goggles slung around his neck. The General, a dyed in wool puritan anklet wearing variety, was aghast at the sight that greeted him on alighting from his helicopter. “Which army are you from, Colonel?” he asked sarcastically, and got an equally sarcastic reply, “Take a wild guess General”. One can only imagine what happened to the colonel’s career thereafter.

Whether it was logistic expediency or the desire to curb individualistic patterns of dress – the coming of combat dress saw black dungarees becoming almost taboo. They were relegated to being (almost surreptitiously) worn for maintenance parades within the regiment, and for events like Field Miniature Range (FMR) competitions within armoured formations. Combat dress was mandatory for exercises, external events, and even during field firing if VIP visits were expected.

It was therefore a sight for sore eyes to see, not only the Supreme Commander, but also the Chief – an infantarian – wearing blacks for all the world to see. One hopes that this can be viewed as official endorsement, and black dungarees come back into regular usage.

Posted in Blogitorial, Military | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment