Sanjha Morcha

A searing memory of horror lingers for victims’ families

AMRITSAR:It took place 100 years ago to the day. On April 13, 1919, soldiers of the British Indian Army, under the command of Colonel Reginald Dyer, fired bullets into a crowd of civilians who gathered peacefully in Jallianwalla Bagh, near the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to celebrate the harvest festival of Baisakhi and protest against the arrest and deportation of two national leaders, Satya Pal and Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew.

A hundred years later, the massacre still remains a searing memory for families of the victims who heard about it from survivors and relayed the narrative to subsequent generations.

Satpal Sharma, an 82-year-old retired head teacher, says his father’s brother Lal Chand, who was a survivor, narrated to him the story.

“My grandfather, Amin Chand Sharma, a hakim by profession, was getting ready for taking part in the Jallianwala Bagh protest. In the meantime, my uncle Lal Chand, who was only 12 years old then, started imploring my grandfather to take him along,” said Satpal .

His grandfather and uncle both left for the venue and joined the crowd, which was listening to the speeches of protest leaders when Dyer arrived at the scene accompanied by soldiers. “They took up positions and opened fire on the gathering without any warning. During the firing, among others, my grandfather was killed. My uncle somehow survived; he was taken out a day later from beneath a heap of bodies,” Sharma recalled.

“It was a brutal killing of innocent people and we can’t forget this. Even today, whenever I go to the Jallianwala Bagh, tears roll out of my eyes,” said Sharma, whose grandfather was recognized as a freedom fighter in 2010.

Mahesh Behal, 73, president of the Jallianwala Bagh Shaheed Parivar Samiti, heard the story of his own grandfather, lawyer Hari Ram Behal, from survivors. He was in Jallianwalla Bagh to address the crowd, but he was gunned down by Dyer’s troops before it was his turn to speak . Behal calls Dyer a “butcher”. “Before going to Jallianwala Bagh, my grandfather had told my grandmother, Rattan Kaur, to prepare kheer (rice pudding). My grandmother kept waiting with a bowl of kheer in her hand. Since then, we have not been cooking kheer in April,” Behal said.

The death toll in the massacre is still disputed. The colonial government put the number of deaths at 376, far fewer than the Indian National Congress’s claim that more than 1,000 perished.

Mahesh Behal says the families of some of the victims are in Pakistan. “We have contacts of only half-a-dozen families. No contacts of other families have been traced by the government even after the passage of 100 years,” he said.

Member of Parliament, Shwait Malik, who is one of the members of the Jallianwala Bagh National Memorial Trust, said, “The list of identification of the victims is being finalised by Amritsar administration. Till now, the administration has prepared a list of 501 victims. As soon as the list is completed, I will ask the Centre to announce the status of martyrs to those killed during the massacre.”

Ratan Devi, widow of Chhaju Bhagat, spent the night of Baisakhi in 1919 in Jallianwala Bagh by her husband’s body.

“After passing through that heap (of bodies), I found the body of my husband. The way towards it was full of blood and bodies…By this time, it was 8 o’clock and no one could stir out of her house because of a curfew order. I stood waiting. I could not go anywhere leaving the body of my husband… Amid hundreds of corpses, I passed my night…A number of them were poor, innocent children… What I experienced is known only to me and to God,” read her account preserved in the records of Jallianwala Bagh.

The Bengali keeper of Jallianwala’s memories of pain

 AMRITSAR: Sukumar Mukherjee, the third generation caretaker of the Jallianwala Bagh Memorial, says it deserves much more respect than what it gets from visitors. At the entrance of the memorial that was inaugurated in 1961, there is a gallery, full of words and photos on the massacre. The lines, “It’s a tragedy of national importance that cannot be allowed to be forgotten”, are a stark reminder of how India freed itself from colonial brutality.

SAMEER SEHGAL/ HT PHOTO■ Sukumar Mukherjee, secretary of the Jallianwala Bagh Memorial Trust in Amritsar on April 9. Mukherjee is the third generation caretaker of the memorial.For Mukherjee, secretary of the Jallianwala Bagh National Memorial Trust, this is both home and office – his residence is a short flight upstairs.

The 64-year-old with green eyes was born here, like his father Uttam Charan. The Mukherjees from the Hooghly district of West Bengal have been the caretakers of the Jallianwala memorial since its inception. Mukherjee’s grandfather Sashti Charan Mukherjee, a homeopath practising in Allahabad, was deputed by Congress leader Madan Mohan Malaviya to arrange a session in Amritsar in 1910. He never went back. Present at the bagh on the day of the 1919 massacre, Sashti Charan escaped death by hiding under the dais, and later moved a resolution for acquiring the site at the Congress session in Amritsar. This was followed by a nationwide appeal for fundraising by Mahatma Gandhi and a trust was set up with Malaviya as president and Sashti Charan as secretary. The British, it is said, wanted to obliterate the signs of the massacre by setting up a cloth market here but the Indians managed to acquire the land in 1920. Miffed, the authorities arrested Sashti Charan, who had the land deed, but he remained resolute.

Ever since, the Mukherjees have been the caretakers of the memorial. Sukumar, the youngest of three brothers, quit his bank job to take on the mantle from his father Uttam Charan when he died in 1988. “I was appointed by then PM Rajiv Gandhi,” says Mukherjee. “Most visitors treat it as a picnic spot, sometimes they don’t even care to read its history,” he rues.

Although the Trust is headed by the Prime Minister, managing the memorial is no cakewalk, says Mukherjee. In 2011, he had goons following him when the Punjab and Haryana high court ordered eviction of an illegal occupant from one of the Trust buildings.

During militancy in Punjab in the 1980s, a group of youngsters with swords apparently threatened to kill his father, saying they had seen people smoking in the bagh. “Papaji was very gutsy, he said, ‘kill me’ and they left,” Mukherjee recalls.

Living with a piece of history has its challenges. Kakoli, Sukumar’s wife who came here as a young bride in the 1980s when militancy had gripped the state, remembers the siege during Operation Bluestar. “We couldn’t step out for over a week, thankfully papaji (Uttam Charan) had a habit of storing ration.” It was due to the barter of onions and tomatoes that she came close to her neighbours during that period, Mukherjee says. “My daughters worry about my health and tell me ‘Papa, you’ve done enough sewa, come stay with us’, but I want to see the memorial through its 100th anniversary. Then, I will see,” Mukherjee says.

DYER OR DWYER: WHO IS TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 1919 SHOOTING?

AMRITSAR: It’s widely believed that there would have been no Jallianwala Bagh massacre had it not been for one man who decided to teach Indians a lesson for being “wicked”. Ninety-one years after his death, Col Reginald Edward Harry Dyer — also called the butcher of Amritsar — remains an enigma, painted in either black or white.

But historians say though Col Dyer was the man on the spot, it was Sir Michael Francis O’Dwyer, the lieutenant governor of Punjab, who ordered the Jallianwala massacre. According to Indu Banga, a specialist in history of Punjab: “Dwyer was an arch imperialist who was responsible for this massacre. Dyer was merely following his orders.” Banga says even after his retirement, Dwyer continued to oppose any concessions for Indians.

Dwyer, says Banga, also raised money for a memorial to Dyer. Both men were born in 1864. While Dwyer was shot dead by Indian revolutionary Udham Singh in London’s Caxton Hall on March 13, 1940, Dyer died of cerebral haemorrhage and arteriosclerosis in 1927.

Few know that Dyer was born and raised in Punjab or that he was as wellversed in Hindustani as in English or that one of his favourite possessions was the photograph of an unnamed Sikh officer. What is well documented is his action at Jallianwala Bagh, which proved to be as much his undoing as that of the British Empire in India. Held guilty by the Hunter Commission, the moustachioed officer was forced to resign.

On April 13, 1919, Dyer, 55, was like a man possessed. Giving a first-hand account of the day in “Amritsar: The massacre that ended the Raj” by Alfred Draper, Dyer’s bodyguard Sergeant William Anderson recounted how the crowd seemed to “sink to the ground in a flurry of white garments”. When the soldiers had emptied their carbines, Dyer ordered them to reload and direct their fire where the crowd was the densest.


Resurrection of Rafale Govt edgy as SC admits ‘stolen’ papers in review plea

Resurrection of Rafale

Just when the BJP thought it could breathe long and easy on the Rafale row, which has clung to it like the Bofors stuck to the Congress, the Supreme Court has dismissed the government’s objections against taking cognisance of ‘stolen’ documents while deciding a review petition. The highest court of the land will go ahead with it, despite national security concerns raised by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that the review would tantamount to putting classified information in the public domain. Firm, the court declared that the test of admissibility of evidence lay in its relevance and there was no provision in the Official Secrets Act (OSA) or any other statute by which Parliament had vested power in the executive arm of the government to ‘restrain’ publication of papers marked as secret, or placing them before a court of law.

Earlier, in December, the SC had dismissed the petition, ruling out ‘commercial favouritism’. Irregularities had been alleged in the Rs 59,000-crore deal sealed by the NDA government in 2016 with France for buying 36 fighter jets. The revelation of three ‘missing’ documents, however, necessitated a review plea. These include an eight-page ‘dissent note’ by three members of the negotiating team and two MoD documents, alluding to ‘parallel negotiations’ by the PMO. The Attorney General’s contention that it was a ‘crime’ under the OSA drew the court’s rebuttal  that ‘a public authority is justified in allowing access to information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm sought to be protected’.

The SC is determined to get to the bottom of it. The government can no longer hide behind gossamer pretexts of privilege, immunity and violation of the secrets Act. Probity in defence deals is not optional. If there was, indeed, transparency, there should be no jitters over what may emerge. Getting hands on sensitive papers is no crime, especially if mala fide is not proven. If at all, it exposes the chinks in the ‘security’ network, in a fashion that makes it a class act of journalism.


Letter by military veterans takes a new turn as 2 former chiefs deny having signed it

Letter by military veterans takes a new turn as 2 former chiefs deny having signed it

Ram Nath Kovind. File photo

Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, April 12

A letter written by a group of retired military veterans, purportedly endorsed by eight former chiefs of the armed forces, to President Ram Nath Kovind has taken a new turn. Two of the former chiefs have denied having endorsed the letter or having signed it.

Gen SF Rodrigues and Air Chief Marshal NC Suri have distanced themselves from it saying they never signed any such letter. Gen Rodrigues was quoted by news agency ANI saying he was not aware of any such letter. Air Chief Marshal Suri said he had been misquoted and did not agree to whatever is written in the letter.

Maj Priyadarshi Chowdhary (retd) who had put out the letter in the public domain responded on Twitter saying “We have proof of their (Rodrigues’s and Suri’s) endorsement (of the letter).”

He said a Major General-rank officer was coordinating with the generals and senior officers. “Consent was there. We are an apolitical pressure group of veterans working on the issues affecting the forces.”

The letter expresses concern at the use of military operations for electoral or political purposes. Maj Chowdhary so far has not responded to the claims by the two former chiefs.

The letter appeals to the President to ensure that the ‘secular’ and ‘apolitical character’ of the armed forces is preserved.

Also read: Dedicate vote to airstrike men: PM to first-time voters

Reacting to the development, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “Fake petitions are being signed. It is absolutely condemnable.”

Other signatories are claimed to have endorsed the letter.

The President is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.

The letter was sent on Thursday night to the official email ID of the Rashtrapati Bhawan with copies to the Election Commission.

The letter has the names of more than 150 signatories, including three former chiefs of the Army–Gen SF Rodrigues, Gen Shankar Roy Chowdhury and Gen Deepak Kapoor besides four former chiefs of the Navy–Admiral Laxminarayan Ramdas, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, Admiral Arun Prakash and Admiral Sureesh Mehta.

It also has former Indian Air Force chief, Air Chief Marshal NC Suri as a signatory.

Besides, the signatories include retired Army Commander-level officers, gallantry awardees and former fighter pilots, among others.

The recent developments have caused “some concern and considerable alarm and disquiet among both the serving and retired personnel of our forces”, says the letter.

They referred to the “unusual and completely unacceptable practice” of political leaders taking credit for military operations like cross-border strikes, and even going so far as to claim the armed forces to be “Modiji ki Sena”.

This is in addition to media pictures of election platforms and campaigns in which party workers are seen wearing military uniforms; and posters with pictures of soldiers, especially of IAF Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, on them.

“Such misuse of the armed forces established under the Constitution and under the supreme command of the President, impinge adversely on the morale and fighting efficiency of the serving man or woman in uniform. It could, therefore, directly affect national security and national integrity,” the signatories have warned.

The letter urges the President to take necessary steps and asks all political parties to desist from using the military, military uniforms or symbols, and any actions by military formations or personnel, for political purposes or to further their political agendas.

The soldiers, sailors and airmen owed allegiance to the Constitution, of which you, as President, are the legal custodian, the letter says.

 


Army installs 35 solar lights in Bhaderwah’s remotest village

Army installs 35 solar lights in Bhaderwah’s remotest village

An Army officer inaugurates solar lights in Bhaderwah. Tribune photo

Our Correspondent

Doda, April 2

The Army on Monday installed 35 solar streetlights in Thanala village of the remote hilly area of Bhaderwah.

The Army’s initiative brought cheers to the villagers. “There used to be no power in our village. We used firewood while studying at night. But now we can study under the solar streetlights. We can also venture out at night, which was not possible earlier due to the fear of wild animals,” said Nasir Hussain, a Class X student.

Thanala model village, located at an altitude of 11,500 feet above the sea level, is an isolated and the remotest village of Bhadarwah subdivision. Surrounded by high mountain peaks and thick forest cover, the village has around 475 houses.

Moreover, despite being declared a model village in 2005-06, the area lacks even basic facilities such as road and electricity due to government apathy. The power supply to the village is frequently disrupted due to harsh climatic conditions.

“Earlier, we never used to go out at night due to the fear of wild animals. Now, we can go to the mosque to offer ‘nimaz’. We are thankful to the Army for installing the solar streetlights in our village,” Shakoor Ahmed, sarpanch, Thanala village.

Asgar Ali, a local, said, “We were facing many problems in the absence of power but the government never paid any attention. Some leaders came to the village but just to garner votes. However, the Army came to our rescue and provided solar streetlights to our village.”

Meanwhile, Maj Gen Rajiv Nanda, General Officer Commanding, Delta Force, said, “The villagers were facing a lot of problems due to the defunct power infrastructure. So on their requests, we have installed 35 solar streetlights in the village under the Operation Sadbhavana. In future too, we will continue to support the people in need

 


US approves sale of 24 MH 60 Romeo Seahawk helicopters to India

US approves sale of 24 MH 60 Romeo Seahawk helicopters to India

India has been in need of these formidable anti-submarine hunter helicopters for more than a decade now.

Washington, April 3

The US has approved the sale of 24 multi-role MH-60 ‘Romeo’ Seahawk helicopters to India at an estimated cost of USD2.4 billion, the State Department has said.

India has been in need of these formidable anti-submarine hunter helicopters for more than a decade now.

Designed for hunting submarines as well as knocking out ships and conducting search-and-rescue operations at sea, the Lockheed Martin-built helicopters, would replenish India’s ageing fleet of British-made Sea King helicopters.

The Trump Administration on Tuesday notified the Congress that it had approved sale of 24 MH-60R multi-mission helicopters, which would provide the Indian defence forces the capability to perform anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare missions.

In its notification, the State Department told the Congress that the proposed sale would support the foreign policy and national security of the US by helping to strengthen the US-Indian strategic relationship.

The sale, at an estimated cost of USD 2.4 billion, would improve the security of a major defensive partner which continues to be an important force for political stability, peace and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific and South Asia region, it said.

“The proposed sale will provide India the capability to perform anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare missions along with the ability to perform secondary missions, including vertical replenishment, search and rescue and communications relay,” said the Congressional notification.

India would use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defence, the notification said, adding that India would have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support would not alter the basic military balance in the region, it said.

Currently deployed with the US Navy as the primary anti-submarine warfare anti-surface weapon system for open ocean and littoral zones, the helicopters are considered the world’s most advanced maritime helicopter.

According to industry experts, it is the most capable naval helicopter available today designed to operate from frigates, destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers.

MH-60 Romeo Seahawks would add lethal capabilities of the Indian Navy which, experts say, is the need of the hour given the aggressive behaviour of China in the Indian Ocean region.

According to US Naval Air System Command, the MH-60R Seahawk missions are anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, surveillance, communications relay, combat search and rescue, naval gunfire support and logistics support.

As the Navy’s next-generation submarine hunter and anti-surface warfare helicopter, the MH-60R Seahawk is considered the cornerstone of the Navy’s Helicopter Concept of Operations. PTI

 


A battle viewed through colonial prism by7 Aveek Sen

ndian soft power is projected across the world by Bollywood, which is immensely popular both in Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt of Pakistan. Most people, be it in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, have a better sense of history through popular culture rather than through books. Kesari only serves to pin the blame for British occupation of Afghan lands on Indians.

A battle viewed through colonial prism

Perspective: Though Kesari doesn’t outrightly vilify the ‘other’ (Afghans), one would still identify with the ‘us’ (Sikh regiment) due to the style of narration.

Aveek Sen
Journalist working on cyber security and geopolitics of India’s neighbourhood

AKSHAY Kumar’s movie Kesari is about the Battle of Saragarhi, fought between Afghan tribesmen and the 36th Sikhs regiment of the British Indian Army in 1897. While the battle showcased Sikh valour, it served British imperial interests and should not have been glorified.

The movie starts off with the narration that following the decline and fall of the Sikh empire, which had extended till Afghan lands, the British took control of the three forts of Lockhart, Gulistan and Saragarhi. From time to time, mullahs (Islamic clerics) would incite Afghan tribesmen to wage jihad.

Saragarhi is situated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was known as the North West Frontier Province during the Raj. The area is considered to be occupied territory, and till date Afghanistan does not accept the borders the British drew through Afghan and Pashtun land. The region of the Gandhara civilisation had been predominantly inhabited by the Pashtuns not only during the few centuries after the creation of the modern Afghan state by Ahmad Shah Durrani, but also for thousands of years. The Durand Line border drawn through the Afghan heartland is a colonial British creation and Indians should not be sharing the blame for it. Only its colonial masters are to blame for what a colonial army did. The movie has a scene in which Havildar Ishar Singh (Akshay Kumar) laments that they are a ‘slave army’ of the British.

Though the film doesn’t outrightly vilify the ‘other’(Afghans), one would still identify with the ‘us’ (the Sikh regiment) due to the style of the narration. There is token secularism as Sikh soldiers help rebuild a mosque of the local Afghans and the Afridi tribal sardar (head) declares that the pag (turban) of the Sikhs won’t be desecrated. During the fighting, Ishar Singh lies half-dead on the ground and a mullah tries to desecrate his turban. Ishar Singh stabs him in the throat and then tells the invading contingent that they could kill him but shouldn’t desecrate his holy turban. The Afridi tribal sardar then promises him that they won’t defile his turban. In a later scene, the Orakzai tribal sardar tells the Afridi sardar that there isn’t enough time to attack the other two forts but he won’t return just like that. The Afridi sardar tells him that he may do as he pleases but they shouldn’t desecrate the turban of any Sikh. The tribesmen then proceed to burn down sections of the fort and pillage it.

But are the Afghan tribesmen shown as honourable only as a masquerade? In an early scene, there is a depiction of a tribal jirga (panchayat) where a mullah sentences a woman to death by beheading for running away from the house of her husband, to whom she was forcibly married. Ishar Singh intervenes and saves her. Here the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ characterisation is clear. This scene was unnecessary, if not to project the Afghan tribesmen as savages. 

It is not unlikely that such practices were prevalent then because these exist even now. But there is also the modern way of life among the Pashtuns, a large number of whom are Left-leaning. The major party in the Pashtun belt of Pakistan, the Awami National Party (ANP), is a Left-leaning progressive party. The Afghan politicians, too, espouse the cause of women’s rights.

Former Ambassador Rajiv Dogra, who has written a book on the Durand Line and British occupation of Afghan lands, says that let us not confuse a battle with the war. A movie on a specific battle will give the impression that the battle is greater than the war. The valour of the Sikh soldiers of the colonial British army is unquestionable, but it has to be seen in the larger context. The Afghan tribesmen were reacting to the British occupying their lands by forcing Afghan king Abdur Rahman Khan to sign the Durand Line agreement. Moreover, Sikhs and Pashtuns have a history of antagonism. The Sikh empire’s writ didn’t go beyond Peshawar when parts of the Afghan territory were under Sikh rule. The British feared the Pashtun and used the antagonism the Sikhs had for them. This took the form of heroism in this battle. The antagonism carried on till Partition when the Pashtuns and Sikhs were at each other’s throats. A movie can’t span centuries and delve into philosophical issues, but this is the larger context.

Human rights activist and advocate Tariq Afghan from Upper Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, questioned why only the ills of Afghan society are shown in such movies. There could be a movie on Khushal Khan Khattak, who fought against Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, says Tariq. Khattak was a warrior, poet, writer, politician, tribal chief and a great military leader of that time. Why not glorify him as he was a strong liberal voice during Aurangzeb’s reign? Aurangzeb imprisoned him in the Fort of Ranthambore. Why not a movie on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi), who was a close aide of Gandhi and fought for the independence of the subcontinent. In Pakistan, people call us Indian agents because we are the followers of Frontier Gandhi, says Tariq. “Many books have been written by Indian authors on Ghaffar Khan, but Bollywood has ignored him and his struggle. This is injustice with Pashtuns who supported the Congress before Independence.”

Indian soft power is projected across the world by Bollywood, which is immensely popular both in Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt of Pakistan. One wonders why a movie like Kesari has been made. Most people — whether in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan — have a better sense of history through popular culture rather than through books. As such, the film only serves to pin the blame for British occupation of Afghan lands on Indians.

 


Lt Gen Ranbir reviews security ahead of polls

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, April 1

Ahead of the parliamentary poll, Commander of the Northern Army Lt Gen Ranbir Singh arrived in Srinagar on Monday for a two-day visit to review the security situation in the region. “Accompanied by the Chinar Corps Commander Lt Gen KJS Dhillon, Lt Gen Ranbir visited the forward areas in the frontier district of Baramulla, where he was briefed by commanders on ground about the current situation,” an Army statement said.

“During the visit, the Army Commander was briefed on the counter infiltration grid and operational preparedness of the formations, apart from the various developmental works being undertaken to improve the life of the people residing in remote areas,” it stated.

“He was appreciative of the measures and standard operating procedures instituted by the units and formations,” the statement read.

Later in the day, the Army Commander was briefed on the prevailing operational aspects by Lt Gen Dhillon at Badami Bagh Cantonment.


There’s only national security line, says Capt

There’s only national security line, says Capt

Amarinder Singh. Tribune file photo

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 27

A day after a television channel ran the slug ‘CaptainBacksModiHardline’ after an interview with him, Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh issued a clarification saying that he was against “terrorism and threats to India’s security, much like his Congress party’s stand.

Amarinder Singh said there was “no Modi hardline, only a national security line” that the Congress stood by. He said the news channel’s misinterpretation was “ridiculous” and that he had excoriated Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and his Bharatiya Janata Party for trying to appropriate the armed forces’ actions at Balakot.

He quoted himself as saying in the interview: “The Prime Minister has no business claiming this victory. These kinds of operations have been happening at the Pak border for the last 50 years. Who says this has not been done before? It was done in 1947, 1965, 1971, and during the Kargil operations”.

He claimed he also defended Congress party’s promise of withdrawing AFSPA— saying it was aimed at maintaining peace—as well as to do away with the controversial sedition law. On the latter, he said that there were a number of laws in the country that dealt with such situations.

“We have to de-escalate somewhere,” he said.


Fighting tactical battles for one-upmanship by Pravin Sawhney

Separate doctrines of the Army and the Air Force, and with each service doing its own training, are evidence that no amount of modernisation would help if the focus of the service chiefs remains on tactics. Success in war between India and Pakistan depends on the operational level of war.

Fighting tactical battles for one-upmanship

Face-off: Had India retaliated to the Pakistan Air Force’s counter-strike, an escalation was assured.

Pravin Sawhney
Strategic Affairs Expert

SPEAKING at a recent seminar, the Air Force chief, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa, while referring to the February 26/27 Balakot air spat, raised the critical war-winning issue. He said: “Did they (Pakistan Air Force) succeed in their objective? The answer is a clear ‘No’, as the attack was thwarted, while we achieved our objective in Balakot. This is the main argument.”

This is the wrong argument. If the Indian Air Force (IAF) had followed the correct argument, it would not have lost seven lives in the Mi-17V helicopter on the morning of February 27 when the air exchange was going on. Since the helicopter was not hit by Pakistani fire, it is reasonable to suspect that it went down by friendly fire.

The correct argument is that the IAF breached Pakistan-controlled airspace on February 26 for hitting ‘non-military’ targets in Balakot. These were tactics (battle). The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) struck the next morning and also breached India-controlled airspace. This was done by the PAF in order to maintain balance at the operational (war-fighting or campaign) level of war. The operational level of war is where tactical battles in a particular area or theatre are given a coherent design and tackled as a whole. Moreover, since escalation was not the motive of the PAF either, it goes to its credit that they managed to miss military targets in the area which has extremely high density of Indian Army troops. Destruction of Indian Army installations would have compelled the Modi government to escalate, resulting in war, which neither side wanted.  

The success in war between India and Pakistan depends on the operational level of war. A country can be successful at the operational level of war because of good higher defence management, firepower, joint training and mindset despite fewer numbers in terms of manpower and equipment, which is the case of the Pakistan military vis-à-vis the Indian one. Since air power, given its reach and flexibility, is central to success at the operational level, PAF’s quick retaliation was expected to maintain its air power credibility.

Yet, the IAF was not prepared for the inevitable. Had it been ready, the IAF would have seized control of airspace management after its February 26 strike, since it is its responsibility in war. The air corridors would have been marked and assigned, and all ground-based air defence networks (of the Air Force and Army) would have followed war protocols, waiting for the enemy’s counter-airstrike. Clearly, no one told the ill-fated helicopter not to take off on a routine peace-time flight, and the ground air defence observers, too, were caught on the wrong foot. 

The issue, thus, is about tactics and operational level of war. The Pakistan military, learning from the Soviet Union, has always given importance to the operational level. This is why in the 1965 and 1971 wars, despite being more in bean-counting of assets, India never won in the western sector. Proof of this are the ceasefire line and the Line of Control, which otherwise would have been converted into international borders.

The situation, regrettably, remains the same today. Separate doctrines of the Army and the Air Force, and with each service doing its own training is evidence that no amount of modernisation would help if the focus of service chiefs remains on tactics. For example, after the Balakot operation, a senior Air Force officer told me that the PAF would not last more than six days. He believed in tactical linear success. What about the other kinetic and non-kinetic forces which impact at the operational level?

This is not all. Retired senior Air Force officers started chest-thumping about the Balakot airstrike having set the new normal. Some argued that air power need not be escalatory, while others made the case for the use of air power in counter-terror operations like the Army. Clearly, they all were talking tactics, not war. Had India retaliated to the PAF’s counter-strike, what it called an act of war, an escalation was assured. It is another matter that PM Narendra Modi had only bargained for the use of the IAF for electoral gains.

Talking of tactics, Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa spoke about relative technological superiority. Perhaps, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman would not have strayed into Pakistani airspace if his MiG-21 Bison had Software Defined Radio (SDR) and Operational Data Link (ODL). The SDR operates in the VHF, UHF, Ku and L bandwidths and is meant to remove voice clutter. The ODL provides the pilot with data or text, in this case from the ground controller. The officer, separated from his wing-man, and without necessary voice and data instructions, unwittingly breached the airspace and was captured by the Pakistan army. There are known critical shortages of force multipliers in addition to force levels in the IAF. Surely, the IAF Chief can’t do much except keep asking the government to fill the operational voids. But, he could avoid making exaggerated claims since his words would only feed the ultra-nationalists, and support the Modi government’s spurious argument of having paid special attention to national security.

The same is the case with Rafale and S-400. These would certainly help, but would not tilt the operational level balance in India’s favour. For example, the IAF intends to use S-400 in the ‘offensive air defence’ role rather than its designed role of protecting high-value targets like Delhi, for which it was originally proposed. For the protection of high-value targets, the Air Headquarters has made a strong case to purchase the United States’ National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS). This is ironic, because while S-400 can destroy hostile ballistic missiles, NASAMS can’t do so. It can only kill cruise missiles and other aerial platforms. The thinking at the Air Headquarters is that since there is no understanding on the use of ballistic missiles — especially with Pakistan — both sides are likely to avoid the use of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads lest they are misread and lead to a nuclear accident. So, NASAMS may probably never be called upon to take on ballistic missiles.

Given the direction of the relationship between the India and Pakistan, this assumption may not be the best to make when procuring prohibitively expensive high-value assets.

 


Admiral Verma files complaint with MoD

Admiral Verma files complaint with MoD

Vice Admiral Bimal Verma

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, April 11

Vice Admiral Bimal Verma today filed a ‘statutory complaint’ with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) contesting the appointment of Vice Admiral Karambir Singh as the next Chief of the Indian Navy.

The application has been filed, sources confirmed today. The application has to be responded to within a specified time period. This is an “internal remedy” to address any grievance.

This comes after the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), on Tuesday, asked Vice Admiral Verma to explore all remedies before filing a plea before the AFT. He had withdrawn his plea from the AFT and the ‘statutory complaint’ has been filed with MoD.

Admiral Verma is the commander-in-chief of the Andaman and Nicobar Command. He has asked why he was overlooked as the next Navy chief despite being the senior-most in the line of command. The government last month named Vice Admiral Karambir Singh as next chief of the naval staff, succeeding Admiral Sunil Lanba who retires on May 31.