'Go to Pakistan border, won't give an inch of land': Why Nitin Gadkari's outburst against Navy betrays ignorance
Union shipping minister Nitin Gadkari, in an address in Mumbai last week, questioned the Indian Navy's authority for blocking a proposal for a floating jetty at Malabar Hill in South Mumbai.
“There is no Navy in Malabar Hill, so they had no right to deny permission,” the Union minister said. Taking a dig at the senior officers, he went on to say: “The Navy is needed to patrol the borders near Pakistan, not in South Mumbai. They [naval officers] came to request that land be allotted to the Navy in a prime area in Mumbai. I will not give them an inch of land.”
Such remarks by Gadkari are clearly indicative of his lack of knowledge and frustration. The central government had issued directions to the armed forces to clear projects in near vicinity of the cantonments, post a series of construction, including the Adarsh building in Mumbai, which could impact the security of military cantonments. These were laid down under the Ministry of Defence (MoD) guidelines and are being implemented irrespective of who plans the constructions.
As per the defence ministry's guidelines, projects rejected by the service HQs at local levels, could be projected to the ministry for a review. The ultimate authority is the MoD. Thus, the Navy in Mumbai, after considering the jetty at Malabar Hill and its impact on the naval bases in the city, was within its rights to reject the proposal.
#WATCH: Union Minister Nitin Gadkari says, 'Navy is needed at the borders, from where terrorists come, why does everyone (in Navy) want to live in South Mumbai? They came to me asking for a plot, I said I will not give even an inch of land.' pic.twitter.com/45gQDlbcBP
— ANI (@ANI) January 11, 2018
The state government could approach the defence ministry for clearance. Even projects being directly approved by the Centre could face similar objections. Thus, Gadkari was clearly ignorant, or he was not briefed on the reasons why the project was turned down, or he was seeking to score a few brownie points. The last appears most probable.
His comment that the Navy should patrol Pakistan indicated a new low in knowledge. The Navy is responsible for protecting the nation along its sea lines of communication, which it has been doing exceedingly well. It would only be required to patrol off the coast of Pakistan during war or increased hostilities which it would do, as part of its task.
If Gadkari was presuming that his comments would add a few additional votes in his future election campaigns, he is mistaken. Mumbaikars are more than thankful to the armed forces of the nation for the immense support provided to them in times of trouble. During the monsoon, when Mumbai was inundated, the Navy set up canteens and provided free meals to all those who were unable to return home due to flooded railway tracks. The Army is building foot-over bridges, which the Mumbai municipal corporation and the railways failed to construct. When Mumbai was under a terror attack, the first force to enter the hotels were the naval guards (commandos).
The armed forces have never been against development. Gadkari may be unaware, but it is the armed forces who have secured the nation and defended its institutes to ensure development. He may never know, but late president APJ Abdul Kalam had stated in his speech to passing out cadets from the Indian Military Academy on December 9, 2006, that "national development and national security have to go together".
However, if any commercial activity is so located that it opens doors for inimical forces to monitor or impact military movement, then that facility is a threat to the nation. In such cases denial of permission has been done on numerous occasions in the past.
Some cases, post the sealing, are also being contested in the Supreme Court as they were forced into closure after immense investments. The Navy is in Mumbai, not out of choice or compulsion. It has been a major naval base even prior to Independence. Mumbai being the financial capital of India, must be secured from all threats. Its force levels continue to grow as threats to India increase. As force levels grow, so does the strength of the force. It, therefore, needs land for its staff, providing which is the responsibility of the government.
Gadkari would in no way be doing the armed forces any "favour" by allocating land, it is their responsibility.
Nitin Gadkari is only a minister of shipping. He is not the prime minister of India nor the defence minister to pass direct instructions or comment on a national resource. Allocation of land is done by the state government in consultation with the defence minister. The shipping ministry is nowhere in the picture on such issues. It would benefit the nation if he restricts his comments on a topic about which he has no clue.
Being the minister of shipping, he would be aware that it is the Indian Navy, which has secured the shipping industry from the piracy prevailing off the coast of Africa. It permanently patrols the seas to secure ships from inimical forces. Thus, instead of praising the Navy for its stellar performance, he raised his voice on a topic on which he was ignorant.
In his address he was venting his frustration as the Navy, which possibly after detailed analysis rejected his proposal. He may not have experienced his orders being turned down earlier, being a powerful political figure. But he should also know that when it comes to ensuring national security, the armed forces refuse to budge despite pressure. If they are to be overruled, then the authority must flow from its own ministry, rather than an outspoken political figure.
Had the Western Naval Command chief vice admiral, Girish Luthra, who was present at the event, walked out over Gadkari’s comments, the insult would have been Gadkari's. It was Luthra's maturity that he remained seated.
The prime minister spends Diwali with soldiers, terms them as members of his family and promises to work for their welfare. His own minister, Nitin Gadkari, berates them solely because they considered national security more important than accepting one of his schemes.
Despite his comments, the armed forces would adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Defence and reject any proposal which threatens national security. For them the nation would always remain more important.
Governments may come or go, but the armed forces will always remain.