An Open Letter to Aakar Patel

Dear Mr Patel,

This is in response to your piece published in today’s TOI under a presumptuously named column ‘AakaarVani’. I’m writing this to correct you on some factual and a lot of perceptual errors that seem to behind almost every sentence in the piece. I’m writing in the hope that you may correct these, unless of course these aren’t inadvertent, but deliberate spin that you want to give to bolster the argument you make in the title of the piece.

Let me start by pointing out the irony in the title itself, since having written it yourself, you obviously didn’t spot it. That an article criticizing the army and saying a lot of things about the faujis is titled “Nothing can be said about our faujis, they’re above criticism”. If irony was alive in India, it may have died another death – though even now it must have turned a little in its grave at this.

As regards the assertion itself. I don’t see the basis of the sweeping statement that the army is above criticism. By whom? By the media? Haven’t you heard of the ‘Ketchup Colonel’ or rather read criticism of his actions which was widely covered by the media. As are any instances of wrong doings or corruption, rare though they are, whenever they do come up – like this report about a recent case.  By the judiciary? Courts regularly pass adverse remarks and judgements affecting the armed forces, as in this case. By the government? The fact that they have ordered a probe to investigate lapses, if any, in the Uri attack is a clear indication that not just criticism, the army isn’t immune to adverse action either.

Although I’m sure that wasn’t the thought behind your assertion, but let me point out the reason why there is a sliver of truth in it. Yes, by and large the army IS above criticism, and that is because by it’s performance and conduct, it seldom leaves itself open to it. Whether fighting terrorists in Kashmir, rescuing victims of natural disaster in Uttarakhand, or displaying it might and pomp during the Republic Day parade, it performs its job diligently, effectively and without fear or favour.  In a country where we are usually resigned to indifference, inefficiency, nepotism and corruption, such conduct probably sets it apart and hence by and large above criticism. Except, of course, the occasional black sheep, such as the cases I’ve already cited above.

To answer your question, probably that’s the reason why “in India this respect has changed to reverence.” As regards the “cult of Army worship that we have built so successfully”, there hasn’t been a single instance of a newspaper or TV channel being attacked or journalist shot (a la Charlie Hebdo) for adverse reporting on the army – above mentioned or otherwise. Unless of course, you yourself feel that your own or anyone else’s adverse opinion about the army is above criticism and feel anyone expressing a view countering it is a ‘worshipper’.

You have raised two other points, both of which indicate either an incomplete understanding of the issues, or a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. First is about pensions. You say, “Why should retired soldiers insist on getting what retired teachers and clerks and postmen do not?” I would request you to read a little more on what OROP is all about. It’s actually about retired soldiers insisting on being brought UP to what retired teachers, clerks, postmen – and bureaucrats – are getting, and NOT about getting MORE than them. Soldiers serve up to 35-45 years of age (because of the organisational requirement of keeping the army young) while all others serve up to 60, and as a result of missing out the corresponding number of increments and promotions, their pensions were much lower than others. This has been rectified to a great extent in OROP, and they have been brought up to a place where they are at less of a disadvantage – still not getting more.

The second is about “some minor rule which equates an Army officer with a bureaucrat of similar rank. But why must soldiers insist on this parity?” Again, complete lack of information, or deliberate obfuscation. The order you refer to has, in fact, downgraded army officers vis a vis bureaucrats from the previously existing equation, and hence it is the bureaucrats who are insisting on revising the parity, not the army officers, who have represented to the MoD for restoration of status quo.

One can understand your angst against the army by reading the very first paragraph of your piece – “Every day, on my way to work, I go past the headquarters of the Madras Sappers in Bengaluru. A tank in desert camouflage is at the gate, its cannon overlooking the pretty Ulsoor Lake. I’d like to row on it but civilians are forbidden.” So, since the army regulations prohibit you from enjoying this, you decide to write a bunch of lies and half-truths to vent your frustration.

I would love to challenge your views on the bit you have written about the battle honours and pre vs post-independence army. But I’ll save that for another time, as I think this is more than you can digest in one go.

Sincerely,

A fauji who, unlike you, is NOT above criticism.

 

 

 

Posted in Blogitorial, Media, Military | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Heroes amongst us

This Diwali, there was a special effort from the government to put the soldiers in the forefront of national consciousness. The prime minister himself celebrated Diwali amidst troops deployed on the remote frontiers, just as he had the past two years. In addition, this year there was a drive to connect the soldiers with people they fight to defend via the ‘Sandesh to Soldiers’ campaign. People were encouraged to send their message to soldiers via social media and through the prime minister’s website and app, to express their feelings and regard for those who were far away from their homes during the festival, keeping us safe in ours to celebrate. People were also exhorted to light one lamp specially in the memory of the martyrs who had laid down their lives fighting for the nation.

Motivated by the Prime Minister’s call the residents, of 1200 MIG Flats in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi,led by Sanjay Bhatia, a social activist a team of young boys and girls of the area,

decided to take this a step further and honour the ex-servicemen living in their colony as well. On the evening of Deepawali, 30 October, the residents held a gathering in the central park and fetedthe ex-servicemen residing in the colony. There were several of them, varying in rank from Captain to Colonels, including a Vir Chakra winner. Most of them had taken part in 1962 and 1971 wars, and they narrated their memorable and exciting experiences. Bouquets were present to each officer by the Leader of the House, South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Subhash Arya before each resident present lighted a diya for the fighting soldier.
This small gesture by the residents of one colony in Delhi meant so much to those elderly veterans who have been living unknown and unnoticed amidst them for years. Not only did it make them feel special on that day, it also helped the rest of the colony to recognise them. With the result that now, when they step out for a walk in the colony, every single person they encounter exchanges greetings with them.
This is an example of how small initiatives by the government can be taken even further by people themselves. While the government initiatives covered those who were serving, and those who had laid down their lives, a large number of people who served the nation but don’t fall in either category were included in this expression of thanks. How wonderful it would be if this idea is widely propagated, and emulated everywhere across the country. This would bring the people closer to the heroes amongst us, people who spent the prime of their lives in service of the nation, and our now spending the evenings of their lives living amidst usin unnoticed, unsung oblivion.img-20161030-wa0547 img-20161030-wa0548 img-20161030-wa0613 img-20161030-wa0635 img-20161030-wa0663 img-20161030-wa0667 img-20161031-wa0004
Posted in Military | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Close Encounters

img_3815

 

The trouble with opposition generated and media sustained hype about anything that could be used to embarrass the government is manifold. First, there seems to be no issue too serious, no institution too sacrosanct to avoid politicisation and sensationalizing. We recently witnessed major opposition parties casting serious aspersions on the credibility of the army by asking the government to furnish proof of the operations that the DGMO briefed media about. One regional leader of the major opposition party even went as far as to call the operations fake, and instead of chastising him, his party Vice President built on that argument and accused the government of pimping the blood of soldiers. Secondly, hype is sought to be built up around catchy phrases with scant regard to the connotations. Shallow arguments are built around superficial information just to grab eyes and ears. These are turned into gospel truth merely by frequency of repetition. And what is worse is that those responsible for speaking on behalf of the government also fall into the trap, trying to counter the narrative built to target them rather than demolishing it to build a more cogent one closer to reality.

Latest in this cycle is the storm being kicked up about the gunning down of eight fugitives from Bhopal jail belonging to the banned militant organisation SIMI and under trial for charges including terrorism, conspiring to murder and a previous jailbreak. They escaped from the prison in the middle of the night after killing a jail guard, and were killed by the police the next day in what is widely being touted as a ‘fake encounter’. The arguments being forwarded and theories being propounded range from absurd to bizarre, and converge towards a narrative that is being sought to be built, that the entire episode was a pre-mediated plot on part of the authorities to kill innocent Muslims. What is being implied is that either they were deliberately allowed to escape so that they could be followed and killed, or maybe they were just picked up from the prison and taken to the place of the encounter and shot dead in cold blood. Grainy video footage of a few seconds from unknown sources are being purported as substantive evidence that the killing was in cold blood.

But if we step back from the noise and rhetoric to examine the facts, a clearer picture emerges.

Fact 1 – All the eight were under trial for heinous crimes including terrorism. Yes, they were not convicted criminals, but four of them had previously escaped from jail, a crime which doesn’t require much to prove in a court of law.

Fact 2 – While escaping this time around, they had murdered a jail guard in cold blood. Unless those making vague references to conspiracies are also alleging that the murder victim was a sacrificial goat in the elaborate plan by the authorities, the fugitives were also facing fresh charges of murder.

Fact 3 – The information about the presence of the fugitives near the encounter site was given to the police by villagers, with the sarpanch being on record on video asserting this. Scores of villagers witnessed the ensuing encounter from a distance. As per eyewitness accounts on video, the police asked the fugitives to surrender and also fired in the air. It was only when they refused to surrender, and started pelting stones that the police fired at them.

Fact 4 – One video shows one policeman firing into the supine body of one of the fugitives from close quarters.

If we piece together these facts, we can dispassionately arrive at some logical conclusions. There were definitely major lapses on the part of the jail administration, who don’t seem to have learnt anything from the previous escape by four of these under trial terrorists. But the eight had definitely escaped and were on the run. When confronted by the police at the encounter site, they did not surrender. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can this be called a case of ‘fake encounter’, which implies that the whole incident was stage managed. That the police either picked them up from the prison, took them to the site and then killed them in cold blood. Or that they surrendered, and instead of arresting them, the police shot them. Neither of these versions are borne out by the facts listed above.

What the police can possibly be faulted for is ‘use of excessive force’. And how much force can be considered excessive while dealing with hardened criminals and suspected terrorists is a matter of the judgement of the person in charge on the spot. The fact that they had already killed a policeman while escaping would have been a factor in making this judgement. One of the primary responsibilities of the commander on the spot is to avoid casualties to own men, and the fugitives had already demonstrated the intent to do so. Whether they had the means to do so was not something that was easily discernible at the spur of the moment.

Another factor in deciding whether the force was excessive or not is the possible outcome if such force wasn’t used. Since it was obvious that the terrorists had no intentions of surrendering, failing to shoot them could have led to their escaping, and possibly carrying out terrorist attacks in future leading to death of innocent citizens.

Politicians with an axe to grind may go ahead and use the incident to castigate the police and target the government, even choosing to ignore or twist facts. But we, as ordinary citizens must realize and appreciate that such actions by the police and other security forces are aimed at protecting us. If we can’t give them even the slightest margin of error in decision and action, it is at our own peril.

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

Karan Johar and Capt Boycott

design

Had Sir Charles Boycott been alive today, he may have empathized with Karan Johar. Wanting to get his lands harvested amidst protests from tenant farmers in 19th Century Ireland, Sir Charles resorted to hiring 50 workers from outside the county to do the work. The catch was that they had to work under protection of a 1000 strong force and the resultant cost was several times the profit from the harvest. Faced with a similar situation of being prevented from ‘harvesting’ the fruits of the labours put into his film, Johar has tried to do whatever it takes to reap his crop. But at what cost?

A victim of circumstances rather than design, Johar was unfortunate enough to have cast a Pakistani actor in his film at a time when relations between the two countries appeared to be on an upswing. To his utter bad luck, a series of attacks by Pakistan backed terrorists and punitive reprisal by India led to the ties turning belligerent by the time the movie was due for release. Popular sentiment against anything to do with our estranged neighbour engendered a spontaneous social media campaign against the movie. To make matters worse, the Pakistani actor in the eye of the storm refused to condemn acts of terrorism in his host country, preferring to flee back home, leaving Johar holding the proverbial baby and facing the flak.

It didn’t take long for people with interests – vested and otherwise – to jump into the fray. Fringe political elements rushed in to grab the driving seat in the bus of public sentiment, asserting their nationalism by threatening dire consequences if the movie was allowed to be released. Theatre owners, afraid of being at the receiving end of vandalism, decided not to screen the film. While they professed popular sentiment and their own sense of nationalism as being their motive, it’s obvious that the prospect of financial losses due to the film doing badly at the box office combined with possible damage to their property was an equally compelling reason. People in the film industry were divided, depending on what they themselves had at stake. Several in the same boat as Johar – having invested in forthcoming movies with Pakistani talent – came out strongly in his support. Some others took the opportunity to settle old scores, basking in his discomfort. A section of the intelligentsia attempted to link the chain of events with the narrative they have been carefully constructing and nurturing ever since the present government came to power – that of growing intolerance in the country. In doing so, they misrepresented a spontaneous popular boycott as a ban, implying the authorities were responsible for it. Central and state governments, possibly in a bid to counter this narrative, assured their commitment to allowing the release and providing adequate protection to the theatres screening the film.

The eventual outcome of this churning has been a negotiated settlement under which Johar has been assured of a peaceful release of the film provided he agrees to certain conditions laid down by the party opposing the release. Notable among these is payment of Rs 5 crore towards the Armed Forces Martyrs Fund by Karan Johar, and by all other producers releasing movies featuring Pakistani artists. In his single-minded effort to harvest his crop, just like Capt Boycott, Johar is heedless to the cost. But the Armed forces themselves are not amused at being made a party in this unsavoury deal. The payment, instead of a voluntary contribution by the producer to a noble cause, is rightfully being viewed as a ransom being extracted with a gun at his head. That this is being done in the name of martyred soldiers is offensive to their sensibilities, and senior veterans have urged the army not to accept the payment. The defence minister echoed the sentiment, and the chief minister who was supposed to have ‘brokered’ the deal has distanced himself from it. Popular sentiment isn’t likely to be assuaged under these circumstances either. Preventing the release of the movie wasn’t the common netizens’ agenda in the first place, and they may stick to their original intent of not loosening their wallets to watch the movie. So, it remains to be seen if Johar himself manages to break Capt Boycott’s jinxed precedence and actually profit from the troubled harvest. Forging a truce with Raj Thakre may assuage fears of theatre owners, but it won’t convince those boycotting his movie to spend money to see it. And of the movie bombs, he won’t even have the cold comfort that Capt Boycott did, of being immortalized in language by having a unique form of protest being named after him.

 

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

When the tail wags the dog

The Armed Forces seem to be under siege. The adversary is neither as deadly as terrorists or enemy soldiers, nor as discernible as them. Silent, slow and insidious, the damage caused by them wouldn’t be in terms of mortal wounds or loss limbs, but the long term impact on morale and efficiency is likely to be much more damaging. The attackers are none other than people providing support and ancillary services required to keep the forces functioning and fighting fit.

A huge organisation like the Armed Forces require a plethora of support functions besides its main job of waging war or preparing for it. Since a trained soldier/officer is a resource better engaged for the latter, support cadres consisting of civilian personnel have been set up to take care of former. But as time has progressed, the imperatives of managing these cadres themselves has assumed greater importance than the actual function they were set up for.

The Military Engineering Service (MES) is a part of the army Corps of Engineers. It provides civil engineering support to the Armed Forces in peace stations. It’s officers and personnel are drawn from the Corps of Engineers. To avoid diverting too many combat engineering officers and men towards such tenures, MES started direct recruitment of civil engineers for some of these posts. Since their terms and conditions of service were obviously different from army officers, administrative requirements necessitated setting up a separate cadre for them, and a separate cadre called Indian Defence Service of Engineers (IDSE) came into existence.

Now, many years later, this cadre is attempting to subsume the very organisation it was created to serve. As is clear from the letters below, something that has a distinct unpleasant flavour of a trade union has come up amongst the personnel of this cadre. There are attempts to replace the identity of the parent organisation, i.e. the MES, with that of the cadre, shockingly sounding like attempts at secession. It would be unimaginable for any person in uniform (with whom the post occupied by the originator of the letter is interchangeable) even imagining writing such a letter.

picture1

pictur2

picture3

Unlike the above example, which has unfolded away from public gaze, another attempt by a civilian support cadre to overstep its bounds is in the news. This is because of the outrage caused by a letter written by the Central Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Ministry of Defence attempting to downgrade the uniformed officers’ vis vis their counterparts in the Armed Forces HQ Civil Service(AFHQCS). The service, another support cadre set up to provide clerical and office supervisory support in the armed forces headquarters, has now assumed proportions that it was never intended to in the first place. The letter, which issues with the approval of the Raksha Mantri, lays down an amended equation between armed forces officers and the AFHQCS officers wherein the former have been downgraded one step from the existing level. As per it, a Principal Director is now equated with a Maj Gen.

img_3788

img_3787

Not mentioned in the letter, but as an obvious fallout it would mean that senior clerical staff from the forces posted to headquarters would be working under much junior civilian superintendents. Although the attempted downgradation has no direct impact on pay and allowances, it’s yet another attempt at placing the interests of a cadre over those of the very organisation it was created to serve.

These are but two examples of civilian cadres under the ministry of defence. Apart from the approximately 15 Lakh uniformed personnel, the ministry pays a large number of civilians of the defence budget. These are personnel from departments / organizations like DRDO, Ordnance Factories, Defence Estates, Defence Accounts, MES and Armed Forces Headquarters staff. As per the Census of Government Employees 2011, this figure has grown from 3.65 Lakhs in 2008 to 3.75 Lakhs in 2011. There has been virtually no corresponding increase in the strength of the uniformed personnel in the three services. This represents a substantial number – 25% – vis a vis the strength of the uniformed forces, and therefore a major chunk of the defence salary bill. In monetary value this share is disproportionately greater than 25% because of a higher ratio of senior posts amongst this vis à vis the armed forces. For example, it includes 121 Apex grade / HAG civilian personnel receiving the highest salaries as compared to 24 at the corresponding grades (Chiefs / C-in-Cs) in the armed forces.

What began as measures to prevent diversion of uniformed personnel to non-core functions have transmogrified into self-perpetuating organisations existing for furthering their own interests. In order to reduce the ‘flab’ and cut down the salary bill component of the defence budget, time has therefore come to take a hard look at all these organisations and cadres and prune them wherever possible. For example, bulk of the services provided by the MES can be outsourced to large facilities management firms at great savings. Similarly, greater integration of service headquarters with the ministry of defence can ensure replacing large number of civilian officers and clerical staff.

When the tail begins to wag the dog, it’s prudent to dock the tail.

 

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

Feeding the wrong dog will kill off Twitter

In an insightful piece in the Mumbai Mirror, @PritishNandy has highlighted the reasons why he feels Twitter is dying. Commercialisation, politicisation, and the emergence of the much maligned supra nationalist troll – all these have led to a sharp decline in the quality of discourse. This, he feels, is directly reflected in the fall in the evaluation of Twitter’s price in the eyes of prospective buyers. He laments the end of open, intelligent debate and discussion, the banter and two-way conversation that attracted many like him to Twitter in the first place.

There is undoubtedly a lot of truth in what he says. The ‘democratisation’ of Twitter, or it’s de-elitisation, driven by falling prices of devices and data, seems to have lowered any debate to the lowest common denominator. Proliferation of ‘egg face’ twitterati with double digit followers and a gutter tongue has left everyone, from the Prime Minister to media moguls, open to question, derision and abuse. But to my mind, these are not really the primary reasons that would cause the end of healthy debate on Twitter. Twitter provides an effective mechanism for dealing with abusive trolls – they can be blocked i.e. they would not be able to see your tweets and you would not receive any notifications from them. You can even go a step further and report them to Twitter for specified transgressions, which could lead to their account being suspended.

What could actually kill the essence of Twitter is the reluctance of a large section of the ‘intelligentsia’ to be questioned on their views. Possibly due to their inability to defend their point of view when questioned logically, or maybe out of sheer arrogance. Whatever the reason, this is a noticeable trend, example of which can be seen below.

003

004

005 001002

My takeaway from these multiple exchanges was that when these supposed crusaders for free speech and liberalism – be they journalists, activists or jurists – are faced with uncomfortable questions themselves, they press the block button. What is even more surprising is that I have seen the very same people (before being blocked of course) gleefully engaging in slanging matches with outright offensive trolls. Possibly those exchanges help them project themselves as intellectual victims of abuse, whereas the inability to answer straightforward questions shows them up in pretty bad light. Hence they respond by blocking those asking inconvenient though polite questions instead of those abusing.

So the future of healthy debate on Twitter depends on “which dog you feed” as per this old parable –

ckxkt5mvaaapp7q

Since it suits most people to encourage the abusive trolls, they are the ones that will ultimately grow and kill Twitter.

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

Aim before you shoot

untitled-5

Any military operation has clear aims. These differ at different levels, with the aim at the lower level contributing towards (but not necessarily fulfilling) the aim at the higher level. For example, the aim for a battalion commander could be to capture Hill ABC. For his GOC who assigned him the task, the capture would be a step towards securing his own, larger, aim – say the capture of Area XYZ which includes the Hill. So the capture of Hill ABC could, for example, prevent enemy reinforcements moving into Area XYZ, thus helping the GOC’s in achieving his overall aim. This nesting of aim within aim goes all the way right up to the level at which the operation is ordered. Achievement of aim at the lower level is not and end in itself, but means of achieving the aim at the higher level.

In this context, let’s look at the recent Surgical Strikes across the LoC to try and understand what would have been the aims at different levels. At the bottom of the ladder, the commander of each strike team would have been given a specific target. His aim would have been to destroy the allotted target – cause maximum damage, kill as many terrorists as possible. At Army Headquarters level, the aim would have been to carry out strikes at multiple locations to destroy terrorist launch-pads and kill terrorists waiting to infiltrate into India. At the level of the government, the aim was probably to send a clear message across to Pakistan as part of its larger strategy of dealing with state sponsored terrorism. The move to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, review the Indus Water Treaty and Most Favoured Nation status would be some other components of this strategy, which seems to have come into play after the terrorist attacks on the army camp in Uri.

The call from DGMO to his Pakistani counterpart to inform him of the successful completion of the raids, and the subsequent press conference to announce the same to the world, would be an essential part of sending this message. Translated into plain speak, the message would read something like this – “Having failed to convince you through other means to desist from providing support to terrorists, we now reserve the right to take appropriate military action in retaliation to cross border terrorism. We will do so at the time and place of our choosing, and we are not intimidated by your threat of nuclear escalation.”

A simultaneous message was sent across to the people of India. That the government they elected is capable of responding to terrorist threats, responding to violence with violence, not content with lodging diplomatic protests and handing over dossiers. And to the world at large, the message was “We have given peace a reasonable chance. We reached out to Pakistan multiple time and at the highest level. We have even allowed their investigative team to visit the site of terrorist attack in Pathankot in an unprecedented move. Yet terrorist strikes backed by Pakistan are continuing in our territory. We now reserve the right to retaliate.”

Looking at the bigger picture, shorn of the messages sent across by the government publicly owning up and talking about them, what would be achieved by the Surgical Strikes for which the brave soldiers risked their lives? Elimination of scores of terrorists and destruction of their temporary structures would be cathartic for the soldiers who participated and those who were in the know that such operations took place to avenge the lives of their comrades at Uri. But beyond that, it wouldn’t make any difference at all. To Pakistan, the people of India and the world community. The jihadi factories across the LoC can replace the loss within no time at all. The world would continue to see India as a ‘soft state’, and Pakistan would continue to laugh at our faces. And the people of India would continue to live in fear.

Instead, Pakistan is confused – swinging between denying any strikes took place and vowing to hit back. Director General of the infamous Pakistani intelligence agency ISI has been unceremoniously replaced. Its repeated rattling of the nuclear sabre has been exposed as false bravado.  Countries across the world, with the exception of China, have supported the action taken by India to safeguard itself from terrorist attacks.

In this light, let’s take a look at the belated owning up of similar strikes in the past by the Congress and UPA. Without disputing that they did take place and without trying to compare their scale and scope with the present operations, I would like to know what prevented the government of that time to publicly acknowledge them? While the tactical aims would be similar to the latest strikes, what were their strategic aims, and what was achieved at that level? What was their impact on Pakistan, the people of India and the world?

In the absence of any clarity on this, it would appear that these were operations planned and executed at the local formation level by the army. They were aimed at avenging the lives of Indian soldiers, and restoring the morale of the local units. They may have been carried out either with prior approval of (as opposed to on the orders of) the government, or it is even possible that the government could have been informed of it post facto. Possibly the government wanted plausible deniability in case of things going wrong, and preferred a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy.

Whatever be the case, the operation carried out on 28 Sep was certainly with a clear cut strategic aim, and public acknowledgement of the same by the government was a step towards achieving that aim.  The previous strikes would therefore appear to be lost opportunities. Had there been clearer strategic thinking around them, possibly the Pathankot and Uri attacks would never have taken place, and these strikes wouldn’t have been required.

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

Another Wednesday

army-7591

The Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) is the most important appointment in the Indian Army and amongst the most important in the government as a whole. He is custodian and executor of the operational plans of the country. Even within the Tri-services milieu, he can be considered as Primus Inter Pares – the Airforce and Navy both have his counterparts in Air Operations and Naval Operations, but the DGMO heads Military and not Army Operations. A nuance that reflects the traditional primacy of the ground arm of the forces due to size and nature of operations so far. One of the better known aspects of his role is the fact that he and his counterpart in Pakistan have a direct hotline, used for a routine weekly talk and on special occasions to avoid unplanned escalations due to ‘noise’ in flow of information.

On 29th September, Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, the present incumbent, picked up the hotline and spoke to Maj Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza, his Pakistani counterpart, to inform him of Indian Army’s operations against terrorist launch-pads across the Line of Control in POK. Shortly afterwards, he addressed a press conference to give out the details of the operations to the media and through them, the nation. The operation, ever since being referred to as ‘surgical strikes’, has since generated varied reactions within the country and across the world. From complete denial, as expected, by Pakistan, to varying degrees of approval, support and disbelief from across the world.

The overwhelming response within the country has been one of pride and jubilation. Not because violence of any kind is a cause for celebration – but the people of this country had become accustomed to news of terrorist attack after another with no apparent response from our side except ‘strongly worded statements’. There is only so much beating people’s pride can take. In the Bollywood movie ‘A Wednesday’ a middle aged common man, played by Naseeruddin Shah, hatches a devious plot to ensure just retribution to some notorious terrorists. He succeeds, and goes back to his ordinary life without ever being discovered. The immense popularity of the movie reflected the sentiment of majority of the people who were hungry for such revenge. And coincidentally, it was a Wednesday when the country did finally get its retribution.

It was no wonder that in the face of such overwhelming public approval for the action, all opposition parties expressed strong support for the government and army. Not only would it be extremely churlish to do otherwise, it would also be extremely damaging politically. Yet, in the low brow world of Indian politics, such uncharacteristic civility has a short shelf life. It hasn’t taken various opposition parties to climb down from the bonhomie in the flush of immediate aftermath of the operations, and initiate murmurs of disbelief while also trying to play down the significance of the operations.

The first, initiated by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in his typical sly and indirect manner, was the demand to release the footage of the operations as proof to the doubting Thomases in “Pakistan and international media”. It was school-boyish ploy (Teacher, I’m a good boy but he’s asking… can you answer him?) aimed at being politically correct and remaining on the right side of popular sentiment while trying to simultaneously plant doubts about the government in their mind. The thread was taken up by Sanjay Nirupam, an ex Shiv Sena and current Congress member and former MP, albeit in stronger language. Politics apart, such voices are truly inimical to the country’s interests. The fact that both these statements have since been played up in Pakistani media as evidence that the strikes never took place is ample indicator of this.

It’s not clear whether the two ‘leaders’ in question don’t really understand the issues involved, or whether they do but disregard them in the hope of political advantage. Possibly they don’t know the difference between a military operation and a sting operation – something that they’re definitely more familiar with. Hence the demand to release the video footage to ‘prove’ the claims. Do they even realize that such footage, if released, has the potential of giving away critical operational and tactical information to the enemy, which could jeopardize similar operations in the future? Why should Indian Army provide readymade training videos to their own enemies – showing them the mistakes they made, and what to look out for in the future? If at all the army clears the release of any footage, it will have to be after detailed analysis and editing to avoid giving away any such information. And any edited footage would be open to question of being doctored. So, if the DGMO’s word isn’t good enough for these leaders, they should be allowed to remain in their skeptical world without any further attention being paid to them.

The other narrative being built up now is ‘This isn’t the first time such strikes have taken place.’ The Congress has given out dates on which similar operations were carried out under their regime. The difference, they say, was that they weren’t publicized. Fair enough. It’s for the army to do its job as per political direction and clearances, and for the government to decide what information to make public. This would depend on its policy and strategic imperatives, which are dynamic due to external and internal factors. And it’s an incumbent government’s prerogative whether to follow in the footsteps of its predecessors or blaze a new trail. And in doing the latter, if the past governments look weak and indecisive in retrospect, so be it.

Since the last word on this is far from having been said, we will witness many more twists and turns in the days to come. It would be prudent for the opposition to weigh their options and words carefully for two reasons. First, of course, it’s national security which is in question. And second, which should be of greater interest to them, in what seems to be an attempt to prevent the government from getting political mileage from military actions, they shouldn’t end up harming themselves irreparably.

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

Jaane Mat Do Yaaron

It wasn’t very long ago that media (or press, as it was better known as) enjoyed near universal public trust and respect as the fourth pillar of democracy (the legislature, executive and judiciary being the first three). This because of its onerous role of keeping the other three pillars honest. It was rightfully considered as people’s watchdog, representing their voice against corruption, injustice, malpractices and all other forms of exploitation that the people were otherwise hapless to raise.

Not that there wasn’t cynicism against this even back then. Worries of big newspapers being in bed with politicians and bureaucrats have always existed. The classic Kundan Shah movie ‘Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron’ was a tongue in cheek satire on this very relationship. The slapstick sequences including the hilarious Mahabharata scene apart, the movie portrayed mutual back scratching relationship between a newspaper editor and corrupt officials working towards the interests of some builders. Notwithstanding the huge success of the movie, the media continued to enjoy its high pedestal.

220px-jaane_bhi_do_yaaro_1983_film_poster

Possibly the reason was that before the era of social media, they had a monopoly on dissemination of information. So, as a common citizen if I wanted to express my disagreement with their point of view, the best option I had was to write a letter to the editor of a leading daily, and hope like hell that it would be published. Even in the off chance that such a letter, criticizing the very people deciding whether to publish it or not, was published, I had no way of knowing how others reacted to it. Of finding out how many people out there shared my opinion, connecting with such like-minded people and joining my voice to theirs to make a chorus loud enough for it to be heard over the raucous decibel levels of the mainstream media.

With the advent of social media on ubiquitous smart phones and other devices, powered by ever rising internet penetration, all this has changed. The stranglehold that newspapers and TV channels had long maintained on information has broken. And how. Today, a single tweet of some of the big influencers on twitter (many of whom are ordinary citizens) often has more views / impressions that the viewership of large TV channels. And this visibility is available at the low cost of a smartphone and internet connection.

This has resulted in a situation where the word of a media doyen is no longer above scrutiny, questioning and rebuttal. Somewhere along the way, scandals like the Nira Radia tapes affair and the Essar phone tapping scandal exposed the cosy, incestuous relations that the journalist – politician – corporate triad shared. Where favours, inside information and favourable reporting is fully convertible currency. This caused a major dent in the people’s confidence and belief in the word of all journalists. With the information tools now available, it was much easier for Mr Average Singh to start questioning the duplicity of some journalists, who were seen as partisan, building their stories around a particular narrative they wanted to push to the public. Such as the narrative of 2002 Gujarat riots, Narendra Modi’s complicity in the same and the whole fear psychosis around the hell that would break loose if he became the Prime Minister.

And then their worst fears came true. Not only did Narendra Modi become the Prime Minister, he also got a majority in parliament on his own. The cabal that had so doggedly fought to keep this from happening slowly came to realize why this was even worse than they had feared. Because suddenly the gravy train came to a grinding halt. Government patronage in the form of junkets abroad and exclusive access to corridors of powers, allowing wheeling and dealing journalists to play power brokers, suddenly dried up.

The resulting backlash was in form of a concerted malicious media campaign to show the government in a bad light in any which way. So a stone thrown by a drunk miscreant became a communal attack on a religious institution. Stray, stupid utterances by unknown nobodies became indicators of the government and ruling party’s evil designs. The narrative of rising ‘Intolerance’ in the country was actively promoted. Deprivation made some so depraved that they were even willing to go along with the narrative of Pakistan against that of their own country, possibly forgetting the difference between opposing the government and opposing the nation. Some of them continued in the mistaken belief that their role was not reporting information but ‘shaping public opinion’.

clipboard01

The backlash to the backlash was on social media, particularly on Twitter. The same people who had reposed their faith in the leadership of the prime minister questioned started posing counter questions to the journalists, tearing holes into the narrative they sought to build. These journalists reacted by dismissing those questioning them variously as ‘Sanghis’, ‘Internet Hindus’, ‘Bhakts’ and ‘trolls’. Instead of engaging in a dialogue and justifying their argument, they even threatened those who questioned them and their narrative. Possibly because the narrative itself was indefensible, being built on half-truths, conjectures and heresy.  The tone, tenor, and even the language used by some of these so called journalists would give even the most abusive of trolls a run for their money.

cm43xn_wgaaq4yd

There has even been an underhand attempt to try and stifle the freedom of expression on social media, ironically by the very people who are supposed to be the guardians of free speech.

The outcome of all this is that today, media has fallen below politicians, bureaucrats, police and judiciary as a profession in the eyes of the people. The following two polls are an illustration of this.

 

clipboard01 clipboard01a

Mainstream media is already facing a crisis of survival because of the shift in the way people consume news and information, relying more and more on crowd-sourcing online rather than conventional sources. While most media players are adapting to this change in form, they also need to take into account the threat to the credibility of the profession as a whole primarily because of the actions of a few desperate individuals who’re unable to stomach their own fall from the pedestal they had placed themselves on. Though unfair, it’s common for the whole herd being labelled because of a few black sheep. It’s time for the rest of the herd – those who continue to do their job honestly and in an unbiased manner – to disown the black sheep and cast them aside.

Jaane mat do yaaron – change or perish.

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

There’s a time and place for evrything

lessons-learned
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Frequently and wrongly attributed to Sir Winston Churchill, this truism  from George  Santayana’s book The Life of Reason (1905) is relevant in view of the events of the past few days. The attack by Pakistan backed terrorists on an army camp in Uri, and the overwhelming outrage thereafter.
In 1962, an ill-informed government sent an equally ill-informed and unprepared army to war with China. This was a consequence of a long chain of events, beginning with Nehru’s ‘Forward Policy‘ in 1961 and climaxing in an overwhelming strength of Chinese soldiers surrounding the tactically unsound Indian post at Dhola. The news caused a massive media outrage, which echoed in the parliament with demands to retaliate becoming louder. Having painted himself in a corner with his earlier false bravado, Nehru tried to save face by telling the Indian Army to ‘Throw the Chinese out’. Result was the debacle which remains the darkest blot on the otherwise glorious history of Indian Army.
In 1971, Indira Gandhi the Army Chief Gen Manekshaw to go to war with Pakistan over the East Pakistan refugee issue. The refugee influx was already a crisis, and there was public hue and cry, specially in the Eastern states whose thin resources were stretched to extreme due to the influx of millions of miserable souls fleeing from Pakistani atrocities. Gen Manekshaw had the moral courage to stand up to the Prime Minister, asking for the right to strike at the time of his choice, keeping the time for preparation and campaigning season in mind. And to her credit, Mrs Gandhi had the sagacity to listen to professional military advice and not succumb to public pressure. Result was a resounding victory, a bloody nose to Pakistan, and the creation of Bangladesh.
The difference in the results between the two instances above ought to serve as a lesson for India’s strategic planners in the current environment. Yes, our patience has been tried once too often. The thousandth cut has been inflicted, and it’s necessary to sort out the hand wielding the knife has to be severed. Yet, as the DGMO has said, it has to be at a “Time and Place of our choosing”. The response can not and must not be a political face saving exercise, but a well thought out military response. That’s what the past tells us.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment