This Vijay Diwas, Modi government must end the war its against Indian soldiers
As we celebrate Vijay Diwas, victory over Pakistan in 1971, it is a time to introspect.
The 1971 war was a decisive victory. It concluded when Lt General AAK Niazi, then governor of East Pakistan, signed an unconditional surrender in Dhaka on December 16, 1971, and Pakistani forces comprising 93,000 soldiers, surrendered to the Indian Army. Paintings of the surrender ceremony adorn Army establishments, filling the hearts of those who view it, even today, with pride.
Each battle of the war had its heroes. While some were recognised for their exceptional bravery and leadership, others remained unsung. While some battles were immortalised on screen, others remain a part of history. Hearing the recount of battles from those who participated, leaves any audience filled with pride for the common soldier. The nation stood as one throughout the war, supporting the armed forces in their endeavours.
At the end of the war, Bangladesh came into existence, despite the hype of the US Seventh Fleet moving into the Bay of Bengal and open threats by US President Richard Nixon. India proved that it would not bend, despite international pressure, unless its objectives were achieved. The sacrifice of the Indian soldiers and the Mukti Bahini, who fought alongside, will remain etched in Indian and Bangladeshi history.
As a nation we need to say a silent prayer for those who remain in Pakistan's custody even today, with no knowledge of whether they are alive and in what condition. Governments over the years have almost given up on them, with only their families hoping and praying for a miracle. Our hearts even go to the families of those who made the supreme sacrifice to ensure India’s victory. India won the war and the Army proved it had out grown the ghost of 1962.
However, what the Army gave to the nation, Indira Gandhi lost on the bargaining table. She lost the advantage of holding 93,000 prisoners and settling the issue of Kashmir permanently, instead letting the advantage shift to Bhutto. Whether it was deliberate or an error in judgement or based on a promise Bhutto made, but could not follow, India remained the loser.
The release of documents covering the crucial stages of decision-making, may only unravel the mystery. It was a repeat of the post-1965 war Tashkent talks, when Haji Pir was handed back to Pakistan without realising its strategic importance, the government again never sought military advice, instead relied on diplomatic and bureaucratic suggestions, losing the advantage. Never again would India ever get such an opportunity in history, to resolve Kashmir in India’s favour.
The Indian soldier proved then and has proved ever since, that he remains dedicated and sincere to his task. The armed forces fought with weapons and equipment well below standard, hence it was truly the men behind the gun who led India to victory. Led by General Sam Manekshaw, the Indian Army was decisive and clear in its aim and ultimate objective.
There were days during the 13-day war, when operations were bogged down, progress was slow, but the leadership maintained faith and belief in the soldier, knowing he would not fail and he never did.
A lot has changed since then, but the soldier has not. He has never let the country down, be it in Kargil, Siachen or even Kashmir. Equipment profile, communications and intelligence gathering may have improved, but what would remain unchanged is the man behind the gun. He battles on, unaffected by the happenings behind his back, where he is continuously downgraded, his entitlements withdrawn, left to fend for himself post his disembodiment and even forced to battle for his pensions, denied by some bureaucrat sitting in an air-conditioned office.
It hurts the common Indian when news floats of senior veterans or their widows, battling for their justified rights in courts, denied by a heartless government machinery. Such cases need to be personally handled by the defence minister, as caring for veterans and their widows is a national responsibility, which it cannot ignore. The only consolation is that the Army looks after its own, but faces a stonewall when it encounters chair-bound bureaucracy.
1971 proved that leadership at the helm needs to be strong and decisive. It cannot be accepting directions from those ill-informed on military matters. Despite all pressure, General Manekshaw refused to launch operations until he was certain that the Army was ready. He was unwilling to commit his forces till he was confident that desired equipment was in place. If the armed forces must succeed, then the leadership needs to be upright and an inspiration to the rank and file.
The present leadership needs to stand tall against those seeking to let the military down. After all, they represent those whom they command. If they claim helplessness against government apathy, then it is a weakness in leadership and ignorance of the Chetwode Motto.
A major change over the years has been an increase in threats facing the country, which demands a well-equipped and motivated military. The armed forces can no longer live on the laurels of 1971 and Kargil, but must be prepared for the future, where challenges are on the rise. The leadership at the helm of the nation needs to understand that ignoring the armed forces and permitting bureaucracy to override and degrade them as also withdrawing what is justifiably theirs, would only harm their morale. They must also realise that welfare and well-being of veterans and war widows is their primary responsibility, which if they ignore would impact the Army's performance.
Vijay Diwas must be an occasion which the nation should celebrate with gusto and pride across all spectrums of society and in every educational institute. It should be an occasion to rekindle patriotism and nationalism. War heroes and widows of the 1971 war should be felicitated across the country, conveying the message that the welfare of armed forces personnel remains a national responsibility.
It was India’s glorious moment and should be celebrated as such, not solely a military event as has been the case until now.