July 26, 2012 was Kargil Day. It went past practically unnoticed except for the Defence Minister and the chiefs of three services laying down wreaths at the India Gate. This is not surprising as the nation and most of the media continue to wallow in trivialities of political shenanigans or film stars peccadilloes. Are we waiting for another Kargil to happen to pay the price for ignoring the warning Kargil sent us? It seems so.
This is what I understood when I read General VP Malik's article in Times of India yesterday. He was the army chief at the time of Kargil war, and a warning from him sends a strong message to the nation.
Still, I am reproducing his article, courtesy Times of India, with hope overcoming my cynicism that someone would read and act. Here it is.
Kargil: 13 years after
V P Malik,
V P Malik,
Jul 26, 2012
How long
will the armed forces continue to give so much but receive little from the
government?
The strength
of a military force lies in the quality of its human resources, weapons and
equipment, and its morale. There is no better time to reiterate this than now,
exactly 13 years after the Kargil war.
Twenty days
after taking over as army chief - while addressing the prime minister and his
cabinet committee of security colleagues in a Combined Commanders' Conference
(October 20, 1997) - I had described the state of the army as "the spirit
is strong but the body is weak", and then proceeded to indicate the high
deficiencies of arms, ammunition and equipment.
In March
1999, just before the Kargil war, I wrote to defence minister George
Fernandes stating, "The army is finding that major acquisitions
get stymied for various reasons and a feeling of cynicism is creeping in. By
and large, the prevailing situation is that nothing much can be done about the
existing hollowness in the army. By denying essential equipment, the armed
forces would gradually lose their combat edge which would show adversely in a
future conflict..."
And then in
May 1999, despite the Lahore Agreement, Pakistan surprised us strategically and
tactically. Before the melting of the snows, Pakistan army units lodged
themselves on several heights in Kargil and Southern Siachen sectors to
dominate the Srinagar-Kargil-Leh highway. When the fog of war cleared and the
reality emerged that the intruders were not mujahideen but Pakistan army units,
the whole nation was shocked.
During the
war, in a media briefing, a journalist asked me how the army was going to fight
in the face of its severe weapons and equipment shortages. My spontaneous reply
was: "We shall fight with whatever we have." The prime minister asked
me whether I should have made such a remark. I explained that my response was
to a direct question from a journalist. Any attempt to cover up the true state
of affairs would have conveyed an impression to the army rank and file that
their chief was indulging in double talk. If that happened, they would lose
confidence in me.
To get away
from long faces and depression in New Delhi and to boost my own morale, I went
to the Kargil and Siachen front and addressed troops regularly. Interacting
with them and seeing their commitment and motivation, I would get reassured.
The spirit
was strong; the morale high. We were confident that we would throw the intruders
out from Kargil and Siachen sectors. And if the situation demanded, we could
also attack across the border. Looking back, however, I cannot help wondering
if the Pakistan army would have dared to attack us in Kargil if we had the
required quantity and quality of weapons and equipment. And would we have
suffered that many casualties even if they had?
How has the
situation changed today? Let me deal with the weapons and state of equipment
first.
On March 12,
2012, former chief of army staff V K Singh wrote a letter to the prime minister
ruefully informing him that the army's air defence weapon systems were
obsolete, the infantry was deficient of crew-served weapons and lacked night
fighting capabilities, and its tank fleet was devoid of critical ammunition. He
alleged that there was "hollowness in the procedures and processing time
for procurements as well as legal impediments by vendors".
For the
military and informed strategic community, there was nothing new in this
letter. The surprise was that none of our worthy politicians, bureaucrats or
media persons owned up that this was a chronic problem which had dogged the
nation for decades. The government had failed to rectify it.
What about
military spirit? In the recent past, we have witnessed an unhealthy row over
the age of V K Singh, the alleged bribe to purchase Tatra vehicles from BEML,
and the deep-lying suspicion of the military over movement of some units for
training near Delhi. The last mentioned incident reflects the lack of trust that
continues to bother officials in the government after 65 years of independence
and after what the armed forces have contributed to the nation.
There is
deep discontent among the armed forces veterans and widows. They feel cheated
over pension disparities and anomalies. As a result, they have been organising
rallies, fast-unto-death agitations, and surrender of war and gallantry medals
to the president to draw public and political attention. Less visible is the
unhappiness among serving soldiers over the automatic promotions and
upgradation rules that the civil services have managed to secure for
themselves. The general impression is that the political leadership takes
little or no interest in the armed forces' welfare.
A few days
ago, the prime minister announced a committee under the cabinet secretary to
look into these anomalies and grievances. Against all organisational norms, the
committee had only civil secretaries as members and no representation from the
military.
The
government may have forgotten the Kargil war, but in military history, it will
go down as a saga of unmatched bravery, grit and determination. The army
responded with alacrity and with its characteristic steadfastness and
perseverance. How will it fight the next one? Not differently. Because the
Indian soldier is a remarkable human being: spiritually evolved, mentally stoic
and sharp, physically hardy and skilled. And his institution remains proud of
its traditions of selflessness, devotion to duty, sacrifice and valour.
The writer is former chief of army staff
No comments:
Post a Comment