Seven Blunders that Will Haunt India for Ever

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

History is most unforgiving. As historical mistakes cannot be undone, they have complex cascading effect on a nation’s future. Here is a saga of seven historical blunders that have changed the course of independent India’s history and cast a dark shadow over its future. These costly mistakes will continue to haunt India for generations. They have been recounted here in a chronological order with a view to highlight inadequacies of India’s decision making apparatus and leadership’s incompetence to act with vision.

1. The Kashmir Mess

There can be no better example of shooting in one’s own foot than India’s clumsy handling of the Kashmir issue. It is a saga of naivety, blinkered vision and inept leadership. Hari Singh was the reigning monarch of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. He was vacillating when tribal marauders invaded Kashmir in October 1947, duly backed by the Pakistan army. Unable to counter them, Hari Singh appealed to India for assistance and agreed to accede to India. Indian forces blunted the invasion and re-conquered vast areas.

First, India erred by not insisting on unequivocal accession of the state to the Dominion of India and granted special status to it through Article 380 of the Constitution. Secondly, when on the verge of evicting all invaders and recapturing the complete state, India halted operations on 1 January 1949 and appealed to the Security Council. It is the only case in known history wherein a country, when on the threshold of complete victory, has voluntarily forsaken it in the misplaced hope of winning admiration of the world community. Thirdly and most shockingly, the Indian leadership made a highly unconstitutional offer of plebiscite in the UN.

Forty percent area of the state continues to be under Pakistan’s control, providing it a strategic land route to China through the Karakoram ranges. As a fall out of the unresolved dispute, India and Pakistan have fought numerous wars and skirmishes with no solution in sight. Worse, the local politicians are holding India to ransom by playing the Pak card. Kashmir issue is a self created cancerous furuncle that defies all medications and continues to bleed the country.

2. Ignoring Chinese Threats and Neglect of the Military

Memories of the year 1962 will always trouble the Indian psyche. A nation of India’s size had lulled itself into believing that its protestations and platitudes of peaceful co-existence would be reciprocated by the world. It was often stated that a peace loving nation like India did not need military at all. The armed forces were neglected. Political leadership took pride in denigrating the military leadership and meddled in internal affairs of the services to promote sycophancy. Foreign policy was in shambles. Intelligence apparatus was rusted.

Even though signs of China’s aggressive intentions were clearly discernible for years in advance, Indian leadership decided to keep its eyes shut in the fond hope that the problem would resolve itself. When China struck, the country was caught totally unprepared. Troops were rushed to snowbound areas with summer clothing and outdated rifles. Despite numerous sagas of gallantry, the country suffered terrible embarrassment. India was on its knees. With national morale and pride in tatters, India was forced to appeal to all nations for military aid. Inept and incompetent leadership had forced a proud nation to find solace in Lata Mangeshkar’s ‘Ae Mere Watan Ke Logo’.

3. The Tashkent Agreement and Return of Haji Pir Pass

Following the cease-fire after the Indo-Pak War of 1965, a Russian sponsored agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in Tashkent on 10 January 1966. Under the agreement, India agreed to return the strategic Haji Pir pass to Pakistan which it had captured in August 1965 against heavy odds and at a huge human cost. The pass connects Poonch and Uri sectors in Jammu and Kashmir and reduces the distance between the two sectors to 15 km whereas the alternate route entails a travel of over 200 km. India got nothing in return except an undertaking by Pakistan to abjure war, an undertaking which meant little as Pakistan never had any intention of honouring it.

Return of the vital Haji Pir pass was a mistake of monumental proportions for which India is suffering to date. In addition to denying a direct link between Poonch and Uri sectors, the pass is being effectively used by Pakistan to sponsor infiltration of terrorists into India. Inability to resist Russian pressure was a manifestation of the boneless Indian foreign policy and shortsighted leadership.

4. The Simla Agreement

With the fall of Dhaka on 16 December 1971, India had scored a decisive victory over Pakistan. Over 96,000 Pak soldiers were taken Prisoners of War (PoWs). Later, an agreement was signed between the two countries on 2 July 1972 at Shimla. Both countries agreed to exchange all PoWs, respect the line of control (LOC) in Jammu and Kashmir and refrain from the use of threat or force. Additionally, Bhutto gave a solemn verbal undertaking to accept LOC as the de facto border.

India released all Pak PoWs in good faith. Pakistan, on the other hand, released only 617 Indian PoWs while holding back 54 PoWs who are still languishing in Pakistani jails. The Indian Government has admitted this fact a number of times but has failed to secure their release. India failed to use the leverage of 96,000 Pak PoWs to discipline Pakistan. A rare opportunity was thus wasted. What to talk of establishing permanent peace in the sub-continent, India failed to ensure release of all Indian PoWs – a criminal omission by all accounts.

Naivety of the Indian delegation can be seen from the fact that it allowed Pakistan to bluff its way through at Shimla. The Indian leadership was fooled into believing Pakistan’s sincerity. Unquestionably, Pakistan never intended to abide by its promises, both written and verbal. Fruits of a hard fought victory in the battlefield were frittered away on a negotiating table by bungling leadership.

5. The Nuclear Muddle

Subsequent to the Chinese Nuclear Test at Lop Nor in 1964, India showed rare courage in carrying out its first nuclear test on 18 May 1974 at Pokharan. Outside the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, India was the only nation to prove its nuclear capability. The whole country was ecstatic and every Indian felt proud of its scientific prowess. But Indians had not contended with their Government’s penchant for converting opportunity into adversity and squandering hard earned gains.

Instead of asserting India’s newly acquired status of a nuclear power and demanding recognition, India turned apologetic and tried to convince the world that it had no nuclear ambitions. Strangely, it termed the Pokharan test as a ‘peaceful nuclear explosion’ – a term unheard of till then. The Defence Minister went to the extent of claiming that the Indian nuclear experiment was “only for mining, oil and gas prospecting, for finding underground sources of water, for diverting rivers, for scientific and technological knowledge.” It was a self-deprecating stance. Displaying acute inferiority complex, India did not want to be counted as a member of the exclusive nuclear club.

Criticism and sanctions were expected and must have been factored in before opting for the nuclear test. Whereas a few more assertive follow-on tests would have forced the world to accept India as a member of the nuclear club, India went into an overdrive to placate the world through a self imposed moratorium on further testing. It lost out on all the advantages provided to it by its scientists. It suffered sanctions and yet failed to gain recognition as a nuclear power. The country missed golden opportunities due to the timidity and spinelessness of its leaders.

6. Kandahar Hijack

Hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft to Kandahar by Pakistani terrorists in December 1999 will continue to rile India’s self-respect for long. According to the Hindustan Times, India lost face and got reduced to begging for co-operation from the very regimes that were actively undermining its internal security. The hijacking revealed how ill-prepared India was to face up to the challenges of international terrorism.

The eight day long ordeal was over when India’s National Security Adviser brazenly announced that an agreement had been reached for the release of all the hostages in exchange for three Kashmiri militants including Maulana Masood Azhar. Sadly, the Prime Minister claimed credit for forcing the hijackers to climb down on their demands. The worst was yet to follow. India’s Foreign Minister decided to accompany the released militants to Kandahar, as if seeing off honoured guests.

Government’s poor crisis-management skills and extreme complacency in security matters allowed the hijackers to take off from Amritsar airport after 39 minutes halt for refueling, thereby letting the problem get out of control. India’s much vaunted decision making apparatus collapsed and was completely paralysed by the audacity of a bunch of motivated fanatics. It was a comprehensive failure of monumental proportions. India’s slack and amateurish functioning made the country earn the tag of a soft nation which it will find very difficult to shed.

7. Illegal Immigration and Passage of IMDT Act

It is a standard practice all over the world that the burden of proving one’s status as a bonafide citizen of a country falls on the accused. It is so for India as well under Foreigners Act, 1946. Political expediency forced the Government to make an exception for Assam. In one of the most short-sighted and anti-national moves, India passed Illegal Migrants – Determination by Tribunals (IMDT) Act of 1984 for Assam. It shifted the onus of proving illegal status of a suspected immigrant to the accuser, which was a tall and virtually impossible order. Detection and deportation of illegal immigrants became impossible.

Whenever demands were raised for repealing the Act, Congress, Left Front and United Minorities Front resisted strongly. Illegal immigrants had become the most loyal vote bank of the Congress. Worse, every protest against the Act was dubbed as ‘anti-minority’, thereby imparting communal colour to an issue of national security. Government’s ‘pardon’ of all Bangladeshis who had come in before 1985 was another unconstitutional act that aggravated the problem.

The Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on July 13, 2005, more than 20 years after its enactment. The Apex Court was of the view that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals into Assam posed a threat to the integrity and security of northeastern region. Unfortunately immense damage had already been done to the demography of Assam and the local people of Assam had been reduced to minority status in certain districts. Illegal immigrants have come to have a stranglehold over electioneering to the extent that no party can hope to come to power without their support. Nearly 30 Islamic groups are thriving in the area to further their Islamist and Pan Bangla Desh agenda. It is incomprehensible that a nation’s leadership can stoop so low and endanger even national security for garnering votes.

Finally, is India Wiser Today?

Two features are common to all the above mentioned blunders. First, all decisions were taken by the political leadership and the bureaucracy. The military leadership was neither taken into confidence nor consulted. As a matter of fact it was deliberately kept out of the decision making loop. Although military is the primary stake holder in India’s nuclear prowess, it was not considered necessary to take it in confidence while taking decisions of strategic proportions.

As both Tashkant and Shimla Agreements were preceded by bitterly fought wars, they entailed negotiating the extent, scope and modalities of withdrawal from occupied areas. Even then, no need was felt to seek military’s advice and no service officer was included in the Indian delegations. Political leaders and the bureaucracy abrogated the right to negotiate military matters, in the egoistic belief that they were more qualified for the task. The results were disastrous, as mentioned above.

The second common feature is that no political leader or bureaucrat was ever held accountable for monumental blunders made by them. On the contrary, every single bureaucrat made it to the higher grades and was even given lucrative post-retirement appointments. It is an obnoxious sight to see the guilty men of the above blunders masquerading as foreign policy experts on TV shows and unabashedly offering their pearls of wisdom.

The above mentioned seven indefensible blunders have had enormous impact on the security, standing and history of India. Future generations will rue the fact that the Indian leadership failed the nation at critical junctures due to incompetence, ineptitude and selfish interests. Proclivity for perpetuating personal power made the leadership shortsighted and egocentric. But for the historical blunders, the current Indian geo-political scenario would have been totally different.

Has India learnt any lesson? Unfortunately, none whatsoever. Even now, military leadership is consciously and willfully kept out of all decision making apparatus. Even issues that affect security of the nation are decided by the bureaucrats who do not possess even elementary knowledge of military matters. It is only in India that well connected retired bureaucrats are offered membership of the National Security Council (NSC) as a rehabilitation measure. Merit and expertise are of little consequence. Further, India is perhaps the only country in the world wherein NSC does not have a single military member. Bureaucrats and ex-police officers have made NSC their exclusive domain, thereby depriving the nation of well-considered expert military advice. Resultantly, recurring blunders will continue to cost the country dear.

"When the Government Becomes an Adversary of its Ex-servicemen"

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD

The growing adversarial relationship between the Government and ex-servicemen is a matter of grave concern. For the last few years, an impression is gaining ground that the Government is becoming increasingly intolerant and biased against ex-servicemen and is treating them unfairly. The military is an instrument of the Government. How can a Government let itself be seen as an adversary of its own constituent? More so when the affected constituent consists of retired soldiers who have given the best part of their lives to the nation and now, in the twilight of their lives, look up to the Government for support to be able to lead a respectable life. They do not seek favour or pity but ask for compassion, understanding and equity. They want their Government to acknowledge the severity of their service conditions and their contribution to nation safeguarding.

The vindictiveness and wickedness with which the Government is contesting court orders given in favour of the ex-servicemen has shocked even die-hard supporters of the Government. Three sets of recent cases are recalled hereunder to show Government’s intransigence and obduracy.

Grant of Rank Pay

The 4th Pay Commission had granted Rank Pay in addition to basic pay for officers up to the rank of Brigadier. There was no ambiguity at all. However, while fixing pay in the integrated scale, an amount equal to the Rank Pay was deceitfully deducted by the concerned bureaucrats from the total dues, thereby causing heavy financial loss to the officers. It was an act of betrayal of the trust of the armed forces. No other country in the world is known to have conspired and connived so blatantly to deprive its own soldiers of their rightful dues. Even DA, pension, gratuity and other related entitlements of the affected officers were adversely impacted. With one clever stroke, the Government had nullified the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

As all equivalence of appointments in the Government is based on pay scales, bureaucracy employed this stratagem to keep the comparative status of officers down. All pleas to the Government fell on deaf ears. Major Dhanapalan approached Kerala High Court for justice in 1996. The Hon’ble Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed the Government to refix his basic pay with effect from 01 January 1986. Instead of accepting its mistake gracefully and ordering refixation of pay of all eligible officers, the Government appealed against the award to a larger Bench of the same court. The appeal was dismissed.

However, the Government was not done as yet and brazenly filed an SLP in the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. MoD grudgingly refixed the pay of Major Dhanapalan and sanctioned payment of arrears. Although the issue had wider application, the Government failed to show required magnanimity to extend the same dispensation to other affected officers under the specious plea that the Court orders pertained to the applicant only. Dismayed by the apathetic attitude of the Government, many officers knocked at the doors of various courts in the country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted a petition for transfer of all the writ petitions pending before the various High Courts in 2007. The matter was heard and finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08 Mar 2010. The Apex Court held that the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court was correct and reasonable and as such the benefit of this judgment be extended to all eligible officers of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded 6% interest on the amount due to the officers.

The level to which the Government can stoop can be gauged from the fact that it has recently moved an application in the Apex Court for directions seeking modification/directions/recall of the said order of 08 March 2010. It is obsessively resisting grant of overdue arrears to its officers despite clear-cut court directions.

Fixation of Pension

In the case of Union of India and Major General Vains and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, vide its judgment of 09 September 2009, directed that the pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence Services be notionally fixed at the rate given to similar officers of the same rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 01 January 1996. The Apex Court ruled that similarly placed officers of the same rank should be given the same pension irrespective of the date of retirement and that no defence personnel senior in rank can get less pension than his junior irrespective of the date of retirement. Thus, principles governing fixation of pension were unambiguously laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The Government should have accepted the above directions in the correct spirit and applied them across the board. Instead, it continued with its hostile approach and grudgingly readjusted pension only of pre-1966 and their equivalents in Navy and Air Force. Disparity between pensionary benefits of pre-2006 and post-2006 Major Generals continues. Most dishonestly, the Government decided to ignore the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Court and applied its directions only to the barest inescapable cases.

It was left to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Chandigarh, when approached by the aggrieved parties, to rule, vide its judgment dated 03 March 2010, that the SC ruling dated 09 Sep 2009 be applied to pre-2006 retirees as well and that the judgment be implemented in three months time.

Concurrently, in another case, AFT Chandigarh, vide its judgment of 08 March 2010, ruled that the state cannot lay down different criteria for grant of pensions to officers, JCOs and Jawans on the basis of cut-off date of retirement. No defence person can draw less pension than his junior in rank irrespective of the date of retirement. All pensioners of the same rank and service irrespective of the date of retirement are entitled to the same pension. The above directions were ordered to be implemented within four months.

Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been counseling against frivolous and unjust litigation by governments and statutory authorities in a callous and highhanded manner, it is learnt that the Government is planning to appeal against the above judgments – a sad illustration of pettiness getting better of a sense of equity and justice. Strangely, it does not appear incongruous and absurd to the Government that it pays lesser pension to a Havildar than a Jawan who is two ranks his junior. Similarly, a Brigadier is getting lesser pension than a Colonel, only due to different dates of retirement.

Disability Compensation

The case of C S Sidhu, a Short Service Commissioned Officer whose right arm had to be amputated due to an accident while serving on the border in high altitude area in November 1970, is symptomatic of the disdain and viciousness with which an apathetic Government treats its brave soldiers. His pension was fixed at Rs 1000 per month. Directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to pay higher pension were challenged by a unabashed Government in the Supreme Court. While dismissing the appeal on 01 April 10, a bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and A K Patnaik slammed the Government for treating army personnel like "beggars" in respect of emoluments and pension and asked the authorities to adopt a more "humane approach" towards those bravely defending the country's borders.

"If a person goes to any part of Delhi and sits for begging, he will earn Rs 1000 every day and you are offering a pittance of Rs 1000 per month for a man who fought for the country in the high altitudes and whose arm was amputated? Is this the way you treat those brave army officers? It is unfortunate that you are treating them like beggars." observed the Hon’ble Court in verbal comments while passing the order.

It noted, "The army personnel are bravely defending the country even at the cost of their lives and we feel they should be treated in a better and more humane manner by government authorities, particularly, in respect of their emoluments, pension and other benefits.”

In its written order, the Apex Court stated, “We regret to say that the army officers and army men in our country are being treated in a shabby manner by the government. In this case, the respondent (Sidhu) who was posted at a high altitude field area and met with an accident during discharge of his duties was granted a meagre pension. This is a pittance (about Rs 1000) per month plus D.A…..If this is the manner in which the army personnel are treated, it can only be said that it is extremely unfortunate."

An Attitude of Hostility

Having failed to move the Government to accept their genuine demands, ex-servicemen felt compelled to resort to peaceful protests like ‘dharnas’. Not a single Government leader or functionary thought it necessary to meet the protesting ex-servicemen to understand their problems. Nearly 6,000 ex-servicemen signed in blood to express their frustration. The Government remained totally insensitive and indifferent. Over 22,000 medals were returned by the dismayed ex-soldiers to the President of India on six occasions as a mark of protest against their total neglect. Medals earned during active service are the proudest possession of soldiers and their being driven to surrender them would have made any government sit up and take note. But the Indian Government, true to its wont, remained unconcerned. This episode will certainly go down as a dark chapter in the history of Independent India, wherein ex-soldiers were treated so disdainfully.

It is a matter of shame that the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, the President of India, has not been able to spare a few minutes to meet a delegation of ex-servicemen despite repeated requests for a meeting. She can meet all and sundry but not the soldiers due to whose sacrifices India continues to exist as an independent nation. Compare this with what President Obama said at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention at the Phoenix Convention Center on 17 August 2009, “You have fulfilled your responsibilities. And now a grateful nation must fulfill ours. And so long as I am President of the United States, America will always fulfill its responsibilities to you”, he declared. He termed America's commitment to its veterans as sacred bonds and a sacred trust Americans are honour bound to uphold. It is no wonder that America has been the undisputed world power whereas every foreign invader succeeding in enslaving India.

Conclusion

Purportedly to solve the problems faced by ex-servicemen, a new Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DEW) was raised in the Ministry of Defence in 2004 with much fanfare. It was with the ostensible mandate of dealing with resettlement, welfare and pensionary matters of ex-servicemen. DEW has turned out to be a cruel joke played on the hapless ex-servicemen by self-serving bureaucracy. DEW is headed by a bureaucrat and there is no ex-serviceman in the whole department at all. The opportunity has been utilised to create another Secretary level appointment. Needless to say that without first-hand experience, DEW has degenerated into another bureaucratic quagmire where no proposal ever fructifies.

A comparison of DEW with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) will be enlightening. All the top officers of DVA are ex-servicemen. It is headed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Ric Shinseki, a lifelong soldier and a wounded warrior from Vietnam. Under the direction of the President, he is responsible for administering benefit programmes for veterans, their families and their survivors. He is a member of the President's Cabinet. His Deputy Secretary, W. Scott Gould is a veteran of the U.S. Navy, having taken active part in Operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. He was awarded the Navy Meritorious Service Medal. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff of DVA, is an artillery officer having retired in 2001 as a Colonel after completing 30 years of service. Most of the subordinate functionaries also possess military experience.

Regrettably, the Government has failed to appreciate the intensity and criticality of the relationship that ex-servicemen enjoy with the serving soldiers. It is a unique umbilical cord that binds the two into an everlasting bond. Not only are the ex-servicemen treated as repositories of unit traditions but also considered as conscience-keepers of the battalions. In no other organisation are the retired personnel treated with so much of respect and due deference.
Therefore, the way a Government cares for its ex-servicemen has a profound effect on the morale of the serving soldiers. Shabby and apathetic treatment meted out to ex-servicemen by an ungrateful Government can never motivate a soldier as he sees himself as an ex-serviceman of the future. He starts entertaining doubts about Government’s sincerity in fulfilling its commitments to him after superannuation.

It is time the Government reviews its stance and tries to regain its lost credibility amongst ex-servicemen. For that, it should institute proceedings against the officials who connived to deprive the officers of their Rank Pay. They must be exposed for their nefarious act and shamed publically as anti-national elements for demoralizing the armed forces. Secondly, officials who recommend filing of revision petitions should be identified and made accountable for wasting public money and bringing disrepute to the Government. Finally, all judgments issued in favour of ex-servicemen should be implemented in letter and spirit in a convivial manner, without any past rancor.

Today, ex-servicemen are a disillusioned and disappointed lot. They feel let down by their Government. Their exasperation and plight of helplessness can be best described by recalling the poignant lines of lyricist Anand Bakshi –

“When an enemy inflicts a wound, a well-wisher comforts the heart;
But when a well-wisher inflicts a wound, who will heal it?
If a boat is trapped in midstream, helmsman can row it ashore;
But when the helmsman sinks the boat, who can save it?”