Obligations of a good citizen.
Lt Bikram Singh notices a man stealing. Should Lt Bikram Singh
keep quiet or catch him and hand him over to the police?
Lt Bikram Singh sees a group of persons indulging in looting and
arson. Should he be a silent spectator to this carnage or stop it?
Lt Bikram Singh sees a clerk taking bribe to do some job for a
citizen. Should he expose the clerk or keep quiet?
Lt Bikram Singh sees some anti-social elements cheating innocent people
of their meagre possessions. Should he stop such anti-social elements
from doing so?
Lt Bikram Singh sees some goondas trying to rape a woman. Should
he stop this rape or join the goondas and enjoy the woman?
Lt Bikram Singh sees a person being stabbed in the back. Should he
make an effort to catch the culprit or let him escape because he is armed?
As a good citizen Lt Bikram Singh would actively indulge in all
the above contingencies and bring succour to the victims as his
conscience and constitution of India demands. The moot question is
whether General Bikram Singh should actively participate in preventing
country's assets being looted, stolen, manipulated, corrupted, citizens
being raped, stabbed and killed by a coterie of politicians and babus
right under his nose or look the other way like a typical chowkidar sitting on
a stool with a danda outside a building enjoying his free cup of tea?
Does his role change with regard to his civil and
constitutional obligations when Lt Bikram Singh becomes a General?
Sent by Ram Gulrajani"
*************************
Some more Musings to Ponder
Most of us think that General Parvez Musharraf had planned the 1999
Pakistani coup d'etat. The truth is that it was a sudden occurrence when
Nawaz Sherrif replaced General Musharraf with Lt General Ziauddin Butt while
the former was on a visit to Sri Lanka. Because Musharraf's plane
was denied landing at Karachi that Lt General Muzaffar Usmani, Karachi Corps
Commander, cleared the airport and let General Musharraf land safely.
The
following extract from Wikipedia
"After the Kargil War, Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif was already on bad terms with Chief of Army Staff General
Pervez Musharraf. Sharif assigned blame for the political and military disaster
on Musharraf, and Musharraf placed the blame on Sharif. On 12 October 1999, Sharif dismissed
Musharraf and nominated the Inter-Services Intelligence Director, Lieutenant
General Ziauddin Butt, in his place. Musharraf, who at that time was on an
official visit to Sri Lanka, immediately returned on a commercial airliner.
Also on board were Major-General Tariq Majid and
Brigadier-General Nadeem Taj. In an
attempt to thwart Musharraf's return to Karachi, Pakistan, Sharif ordered the
plane to be diverted to Nawabshah. When this failed, Sharif ordered the
Karachi airport to refuse to allow the plane to land; the airport used civil aviation planes to
block the runway. The Pakistan Army, under directions from Lieutenant General Muzaffar Usmani, seized the control tower and allowed the plane to land. After this,
troops took control of the state-run television station in Islamabad, encircled the Prime Minister House, gained control of international
airports, and cut international phone lines.
"On 14
October 1999, Musharraf declared a state of emergency and issued a Provisional
Constitutional Order. These designated Musharraf as Chief Executive, suspended
the federal and provincial Parliaments, and suspended the Constitution, although they left Muhammad Rafiq Tarar in
office as President."
What is
important to note in the above extract is the loyalty of
all subordinates to General Musharraf when he was being targeted by
the civil authority. Newly appointed Chief General Ziauddin
Butt stood aside when civilians targeted General Musharraf, despite the fact that
former had the carrot right in his hand!
The moot
question again is : will all Generals stand behind COAS in India if he was
to put his foot down on civilians kicking us in our teeth, pissing on our faces and throwing
crumbs at us? Or if he were to tell babus that Defence Forces are not
chowkidars with a danda? Or if the President's pleasure is withdrawn
and he is given a marching order?
Coup d'etat
is not necessary for a Chief to assert himself for the sake of his command and
for the good of the nation. There are always lessons to learn from
history, even though they may be from the enemy's pages.
The question of a coup in India does not arise. The babus and the politicians make sure only meek timid self serving rise to the top and remain subservient to them. The saga of Vishnu Bhagwat showed, if one Chief is sacked others are waiting to take over the mantle. The babus invariably create situations that no two Generals see eye to eye on any operational personnel or service matters. The Pakistani Generals on the other hand are extremely loyal to the institution of Armed Forces and if required, give the boot from time to time to the politicians and babus. One command which specialises in such activities is the 111 Rawalpindi Brigade. Their check list and battle drills for action are always ready. They don’t have to be told what to do. Will any Army Cdr or PSO support an Indian serving Chief in this regard? Never.
ReplyDeleteAshok.
Edited.