Monthly Archives: August 2018

WRITING about World War I, famous war journalist and communist activist John Reed wrote in 1917: “War means ugly mob madness, crucifying the truth tellers, choking the artists, sidetracking reforms, revolutions and the working of social forces.” The legacy of violence, especially in the 20th century, is undoubtedly a history of human barbarism, plunder and suppression, torture and genocide, and above all, deception and lies. Indeed, there can be no legitimacy of war and any form of violent action is in itself wrong. War must be resisted “because to use violence to end violence would be logically self-contradictory,” argued Christopher Caudwell in 1938.

“The one thing that enables the authorities to deceive the public,” says eminent historian Howard Zinn, “is to keep the public from thinking back to the history of war, the history of government deception, the history of media complicity.” This statement could very well sum up the history of the pervasive and systematic Indo-China cross-border militancy smacking of war as an instrument of national policy. The frontline war journalists are kept at bay and (mis)information is all that the public is fed on. Understandably, the Chinese foreign policy is the villain at whose hands India faces a slippery situation, which if allowed to escalate, would boomerang on the already declining economy of the country. But there should be no self-righteousness when we are witnessing a moment of loathsome political and social turmoil in the country.

The Charter of the United Nations declares that peaceful coexistence “is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members.” This in itself is a laudatory declaration. However, we are faced with a different reality at the crossroads of human nature and international politics, a reality of inequality which is elemental to it. The theory of equality embedded in the Charter misses a noteworthy fact of human nature: the fixation of world leaders with the passion for status which they feel entitled to enjoy on the international stage.

History abounds with examples of nations going to war merely for some damage to, or advancement of, position. The Falklands crisis arose out of Britain’s unshakable sense of self-esteem receiving a blow if the colony was not salvaged. Russia too could not tolerate any blemish on its status, and consequently took the anticipatory measure of an impulsive war with Germany. George Bush declared war on Iraq presumably to wipe out weapons of mass destruction but more plausibly to avenge the insult heaped on his father by Saddam Hussein.

War has seldom been a worthy initiative, waged for worthwhile causes. It’s more likely to be read as a distraction from the socio-political or economic upheaval. Misguided with a fervent ideal of pseudo nationalism, it arouses an ethno-racist pride and delivers legitimacy to a faltering national leadership guarding personal vanity and enabling enhancement of power over the malleable subjects.

The defence of international standing may often supersede any other consideration, as is apparent in the Indo-Chinese territorial skirmishes over the last half a century. The display of military prowess serves as a sense of self-importance, security and economic gain in matters of determining international consequences relating to military dominance and economic hegemony. It is a key factor driving the world, in the words of Steven Pinker, towards ‘the course of war and peace’.

China and India today are poised across the borders in a state of belligerence common to nations which, in the words of Shakespeare, are ‘jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel.’ Ever since the humiliation of India in the 1962 invasion, the Chinese have persistently and periodically disturbed the peace and calm of the border with a periodic wrap on the knuckles of India, a rising power to be kept under check. Moreover, the ‘Line of Actual Control’ remains obscure and thus susceptible to cross-border disputes if only to exhibit nothing but military arrogance or national assertion. The rugged ice-covered terrain of the border, indeed, has no value in actuality for the antagonists.

The recent spat on the Ladakh border strikingly amounts to the theatre of cruelty reflecting the spectre of medieval barbarism experienced in tribal warfare, leaving Indian soldiers brutally bludgeoned by ‘martial artists’ dropped near the border. Disturbing the status quo on the border with such bloodthirsty violation of the laws of war at a juncture when India remains vulnerable in a losing battle against the novel coronavirus, undeniably seems to be ethically unneighbourly. In an era of unprecedented militarisation, China, the global hyperpower, has increasingly embraced imperial aspirations with all its military and economic posturing. Empire, which essentially is undemocratic, threatens to define the relationship between China and the rest of the world with its ramifications felt in every successive military intervention.

Both India and China have arrogantly pushed ahead in constructing better strategic infrastructure with the intention to dominate the border through the deployment of heavy forces, and whimsically walking into disputed territories. The Chinese aggression could be another 1962 type of a lesson in subjugation. India has to tread lightly and guard its hard-won equilibrium. Complacency at this juncture would be disastrous.

In spite of the advancing trade relations with India, why has then China brought on this international crisis? Only one answer comes to mind: China would like to defend its dominance in the subcontinent in the context of India’s unremitting rise as a global power. If China needs to become a part of the international comity of nations, it will have to change its posture and stop being an interventionist military power dominating the economies of other countries. The systemic confiscation of land across the border, the policing of the South China Sea or the overrunning of Tibet in the past has further antagonised world opinion against it, especially in the wake of the Wuhan crisis.

The denunciation of the seemingly endless investment in military capacities, of the brutality of war is, therefore, central to the politics of peace and war. To react to the complexity of world affairs with military firepower or predatory economics rather than a realistic political response and diplomatic negotiations is not the solution. War, indeed, can never be the inescapable route to the settlement of differences. It can only signal a dark future at home and abroad.

WITH over 6 lakh Covid-19 cases each so far, old allies India and Russia are among the countries worst hit by the pandemic. It’s natural for both to envisage stronger bilateral ties in the post-Covid world, as emphasised by PM Narendra Modi during his telephonic conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday. There is a bigger reason why India needs Russian support — muscle-flexing by the Chinese in Ladakh. Setting its sights on a massive upgrade of its military capabilities, India is banking on Russia for the supply of fighter jets and the much-vaunted S400 anti-aircraft missile system. India has promptly reached out to its all-weather friend in recent weeks, be it through Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s trip to Russia or External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s participation in a virtual trilateral conference involving Russia, India and China.

Russia, which enjoys good relations with China as well as India, can’t be expected to take sides openly. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov has made it clear that his country is not keen on acting as a mediator to resolve India-China differences, fearing that any intervention could ‘seriously hurt the efforts Beijing and New Delhi are independently making to find a way out of this situation.’ However, a prolonged standoff can impact trilateral interests and force Moscow to choose its friend. Russia’s keenness to improve cooperation with India can send a subtle message to Beijing. What Russia does behind the scenes could help India in building international consensus against Chinese transgressions.

PM Modi’s surprise visit to Ladakh on Friday, which came hours after his chat with Putin, has signalled his intent to confront the hostile neighbour head-on. Along with enhancing military firepower and reducing economic dependence on China, India needs diplomatic heft in the global arena to turn the tide. A nationwide vote in favour of constitutional amendments has cleared the decks for Putin to stay in power till 2036. Deeper ties with Russia’s undisputed leader can pay dividends to India both in the short and long terms.

Deepinder Manta

Tribune News Service

Mandi, July 3

The memories of the Kargil War are still fresh for Brig Kushal Thakur (retd), who commanded the 18 Grenadiers — the battalion that had captured Tiger Hill and Tololing — during the war. He is filled with nostalgia as well as pride whenever he recalls the event. The retired Brigadier is currently the CMD of the HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation.

Talking to The Tribune, he said, “As I sit and recollect those memories, I am filled with nostalgia and pride to think of all courageous men who fought with the utmost sincerity and patriotism to bring glory not only to themselves, but also to their platoons.”

“As the Commanding Officer of 18 Grenadiers, I had seen the professionalism of my men in counter insurgency operations from where we were ordered to move to the heights of Kargil almost overnight. Every unit trains its men for conventional operations and yet when one encounters it, one can never be too prepared,” he added.

“Other than the fact that we were transported in a matter of a couple of days, we faced other logistic challenges such as lack of equipment, high-altitude warfare preparations, acclimatisation and what turned out to be one of the most significant factors, artillery support,” he said.

He recalled, “What looked like infiltration on papers turned out to be preparation of a full-scale war from the enemy’s side. 18 Grenadiers and 2 Raj Rif were assigned to capture Tololing. Despite strategic and logistic challenges, the men regardless of their own safety and well-being roared and marched ahead like lions taking control of it on June 12/13, 1999.”

“This fierce battle, like any other, took its toll. I lost two of my brave officers — Lt Col R Vishwanathan, who was also my second in command and Maj Rajesh Adhikari, besides 2 JCOs and 21 other ranks,” the ex-serviceman said.

He said seeing the strength of 18 Grenadiers, Gen Mohinder Puri, the then GOC of 8 Mountain Division, ordered to take control of Tiger Hill.

Capt Sachin Nimbalkar led his company from the front. Lt Balwan Singh’s Ghatak( commando) platoon, comprising Havaldar Madan and Grenadier Yogender Yadav, carried out a surprise assault on the enemy.

“The unit was ably supported by brave turbaned soldiers of 8 Sikh. On July 4, 1999, the Tricolour flew atop Tiger Hill. The victory of Tiger Hill infused a new josh throughout the ranks of the Army. For their tenacity and unparalleled valour in the battlefield, 18 Grenadiers was honoured with 52 awards, including Param Vir Chakra, two Maha Vir Chakra, six Vir Chakra and 16 Sena Medal (Gallantry), besides many other honours,” recalled the retired Army officer.

Ravinder Sood

Palampur, July 3

Rakesh Bhardwaj, father of martyr Vikas Bhardwaj, has been running from pillar to post, as the government has failed to fulfil the promises made to the family, except for providing a job to his daughter. Vikas had sacrificed his life in a militancy operation in Manipur, in 2015.

The Tribune team called the bereaved family at Matehar village in Pandol, 7 km from Baijnath, adjoining Mandi district. Bhardwaj was in tears and said Vikas was his only son and the family’s only hope. The call from the Army headquarters on June 4, 2015, to inform about the death of his son in Manipur virtually shattered the family, he said.

During his cremation, ministers and MLAs of the state reached the village and promised to construct a road to the village and name a school in his memory. A survey was conducted to construct the bridge to connect their village with the road, but no headway has been made in the last five years.

The parents and grandmother of the martyr said they had lost their 24-year-old son. They were feeling let down because of the appalling attitude of the authorities, he said. It seemed that the government had failed to recognise his sacrifice, as no one from came to meet the family and express their support in the past five years, said the martyr’s father.

“All we have are a few condolence letters from the Governor, the CM and the Commanding Officer of Vikas, but nobody cared to establish contact with us,” said Rakesh.

Vikas was a second-generation Army man. His father, retired as a Naib Subedar. With the passion for serving the nation running in his genes, joining the Army was the foremost mission for Vikas. However, the family feels so dejected that they have decided not to let any other member don the olive green uniform, the father said. “The response of the authorities to his sacrifice makes us think that his bravery was an act of foolishness,” the family said, expressing anguish and anger over the attitude of the government.

BRIDGE CONNECTING VILLAGE NOT MADE

Ministers and MLAs had promised to construct a road to the village and name a school in his memory. A survey was conducted to construct the bridge to connect their village with the road, but no headway has been made in the last five years

Sandeep Dikshit

Tribune News Services

New Delhi, July 3

Over the past few days, India has briefed the envoys of most major countries, including EU members, Japan, US, France and Germany, on the tensions with China across the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Russia, for its part, has promised to step up cooperation saying it was not interested in acting as a mediator in the border dispute. “I think any intervention in such a delicate matter as border dispute is not just inexpedient, but can also seriously hurt the efforts Beijing and New Delhi are independently making to find a way out of this situation,” said a senior Russian official. At the same time, he underscored that India and China were capable of finding solutions without any mediation from third parties.

No mediation

Any intervention in such a delicate matter as border dispute is not just inexpedient, but can also seriously hurt the efforts Beijing and New Delhi are independently making to find a way out of this situation—  Russian official

Significantly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had initiated a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday during which both sides had resolved to strengthen their bilateral partnership.

Though US Defence Secretary Mark Esper twice called up Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in a gesture of solidarity and French counterpart Florence Parly had condoled the deaths of soldiers in Galwan Valley, India’s first port of call for solidarity and military hardware after the June 15 LAC clash has been Russia.

Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla on Friday briefed Japanese Ambassador Satoshi Suzuki on the situation along the LAC. “Japan also hopes for a peaceful resolution through dialogue. Japan opposes any unilateral attempt to change the status quo,” Suzuki observed after the briefing. South Block has also provided its version of the tensions on the LAC to envoys from EU, US, France, Germany and Russia.

While India-China tensions continued, Moscow had initiated a meeting of RIC Foreign Ministers. In continuation with this dual-track policy, Russia on Thursday initiated a virtual meeting of sherpas from the five BRICS countries —Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — in which MEA Secretary Sanjay Bhattacharya participated.

On the bilateral front, Russia said it did not set any limits. “There is an expression ‘the sky’s the limit’. For Russia and India, the sky is not the limit,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov said in an interview with TASS news agency.

Russia found itself in the ideal position to play the role of ice-breaker as it has mutually-exclusive defence and energy ties with both China and India. During the epidemic, as against China-baiting by the West, Moscow saw Beijing as the first victim of Covid rather than the initiator.

Touching on the existing problems in the Indian-Chinese relations, Morgulov said the border dispute was “undeniable”, but it did not interfere with trilateral cooperation.

Interestingly, the Russian media is rounding off its reports on the LAC tensions by citing Indian figures for the fatalities — 20 Indian soldiers killed and 76 wounded while 45 Chinese soldiers were killed or wounded.

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 3

A book, “Military Pensions: Commentary, Case Law & Provisions,” authored by a Chandigarh-based lawyer, Major Navdeep Singh, was released globally through online platforms on Saturday.

The volume is a hardcover reference book divided into 33 chapters containing commentary on various types of pension and the policies and provisions governing them. It also contains important decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts and Armed Forces Tribunal on different facets dealing with pension.

The book contains a variety of unique and rare provisions dealing with pensions in the defence services with relevant rules from the year 1940 to the Seventh Pay Commission, including some rules promulgated in 2020.

It also contains detailed chapters on disability and operational benefits with various provisions governing the same in India and abroad. Other types of pension such as service pension, invalid pension, special pension, reservist pension and also concepts such as recovery from pension and One Rank One Pension (OROP) are also covered, Maj Navdeep Singh said.

The author has actively practiced civil and military service matters and has been associated with various landmark cases on the independence of tribunals and efforts on global reforms of military justice. He was a part of the historic “Yale Draft” which was attended by judges, jurists and representatives of the United Nations to improve upon the ‘UN Draft Principles governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals’ at the Yale University. He has also been a member of the expert committee set up by the Defence Minister to recommend measures to reduce litigation in the armed forces and strengthen the system of grievance redressal.