Barkha Dutt
In the last few days the sound and fury that has amplified public anger
over the killing and mutilation of two Indian jawans at the Line of Control
(LoC) would have us believe that we are a country that cares deeply about our
soldiers. The enthusiastic ferocity with which our leaders have plunged
themselves into the debate would suggest that our military traditions are
seamlessly woven into the fabric of our body politic.
I wish this were the case. Instead of thrusting the mercilessness of war upon young men
and their families, if only we were evolved enough to build a genuine culture of respect
for our soldiers. By definition, the easily expressed
emotionalism of our rage - 140 characters on Twitter, the mechanical press of a
click on Facebook or a forwarded chain mail - is designed to diminish in
synchronicity with the fading of the headline.
But the loneliness of
loss in military families and the unimaginable burden that an obligatory
stoicism places on them only registers once everyone else has moved on with
their lives. And it is then that honour and a rightful place in the collective
consciousness of a country can help make some sense of youth being snuffed out
by violent death.
War-by-teleprompter
or sabre-rattling from the long-distance comfort of a studio must not to be
confused with giving our soldiers the value they deserve. But then it is much easier to whip up cosmetic concern than to actually
tackle questions of attitudinal and institutional change. Former Army
Chief General VP Malik, who was at the helm during the 1999 war in Kargil, has
rightfully argued that the military must be given some space to provide inputs
in sensitive areas of policy-making. That the ultimate authority will always
belong to the government of the day should not exclude the legitimacy of the
military's concerns, especially since it's their lives that are on the line.
In the initial aftermath of the eruption along the LoC, it was,
for instance, not clear whether the government and the army were speaking in
one voice or whether our politicos had any keen understanding of what it means
for a 'paltan' to lose one of its own at the frontlines of conflict. There
is a reason that the first priority for local commanders was to ensure that the
cauldron of simmering anger and grief did not boil over; regimental honour
is as primal a trigger in the fauj as family loyalty could be in the civilian
universe.
The gaps in
understanding are partially because almost none of our politicians has a
military background or any visible and regular engagement with the troops.
Contrast this with the US where 24 presidents have had roots in the military;
where US President Barack Obama will routinely be on the ground in Iraq or
Afghanistan to meet US combat soldiers or where every family who loses someone
in battle will get a personal letter from the president in tribute.
Here the
fact that a hunger strike by the mother of a slain soldier was what it took to
get political attention for her family says something about us. But while media focus was intense in this
instance, there were more than 90 other army funerals last year that remained
on the margins of public attention.
The
psychological disconnect between a military and civilian mindset is also to do
with how power is structured in India. Nothing offends soldiers more than the
fact that bureaucrats who have never been in a conflict zone long enough to see
a bullet fly get to have the final say in different aspects of military life -
from procurement to pensions. This is despite a sustained street agitation by
ex-servicemen to demand one rank, one pension.
Even
something as basic as a national memorial for soldiers - a perfect way to make
a nation's relationship with the idea of valour more organic - has been tangled
and tripped by years of red tape.
First
mooted in the 1960s, the proposal has never got off the ground because of
political wrangling. It's at present stuck on a disagreement over whether India
Gate - built by the British for soldiers who died in World War I - is an
appropriate venue, ensuring more delays in an embarrassingly over-due debt to
the Fallen Soldier. Despite shrill
news headlines, we have failed to make military tales part of the popular
imagination or our oral history. Where is a single state-of-the art,
multi-media museum where we can take our children to reconstruct, for example,
the Battle of Tiger Hill?
I owe my
life to a soldier who pulled me away from a hailstorm of ammunition into the
safety of an underground bunker in 1999. Since then - more
times than I can count - I have seen the warmth, generosity, humility and
humour of our men (and I hope one day more women) in uniform.
They did not complain when they fought to
reclaim Indian territory without snow boots, night-vision goggles, or even
bullet-proof jackets. They didn't complain when their day's work was only to
spend hours guarding eternal stretches of road in militancy-hit areas for
explosives and mines, declaring it 'open' for safe travel. And they don't
complain when they are called upon to do the work of the civil administration -
build bridges during floods, rescue toddlers from open manholes and lead flag
marches to calm hostilities in riot-hit neighbourhoods. They don't even
complain that we barely remember them in peacetime.
It's far too easy - also
lazy and destructive - to sit back and talk loosely about conflict. Before the
2003 ceasefire, firing along the LoC could claim as many as 100 lives every
year. Why would we wish that again on any soldier? Tragedy-driven rhetoric
comes easy; it's far tougher to create and sustain genuine respect.
Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, NDTV and currently a Visiting Fellow at Brown University's India
Initiative
The views expressed by the
author are personal
By the kind
courtesy of Hindustan Times
The reality on ground could not have been described in better manner than done by Barkha whom I have admired from the Kargil days.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if any politician at national scene would ever get to read the situation let alone consider what ails the system prevalent in our country in matters relating to defence specially the human resource of the three services.
Blame lies mostly on the beaurocracy who have assigned to themselves the role as brown rulers of this great country.
Thank God the Services have not let themselves feel alienated thus far but one shudders to think if situation is not improved by the Goverment soon what will happen to the security of our motherland.