In the wake of a controversy over the replacement of the iconic ‘1971 Surrender’ paint ing at the army chief’s lounge in South Block, General Upendra Dwivedi on Tues day defended the decision, stating that the new artwork symbolizes a bridge between India’s past, present, and future. The painting in question, which depicts the surrender of Pakistani forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War, was moved to the Manekshaw Centre in Delhi Cantonment in December last year. It was replaced by a new painting showcasing India’s military strength, with themes inspired by the Mahabharata, modern war fare, and historical symbols. The new artwork includes depictions of Chanakya, Garuda, and Krishna driving Arjuna’s chariot, alongside images of tanks, helicopters, and boats. In response to the back lash, the Additional Direc torate General of Public Information (ADGPI) issued a statement on social media, explaining: “This painting represents one of the greatest military victories of the Indian Armed Forces and underscores India’s com mitment to justice and humanity. Its new placement at the Manekshaw Centre will ensure it reaches a large and diverse audience, includ ing dignitaries from across the world.” A month later, during his annual press conference ahead of the 77th Army Day, General Dwivedi addressed the issue, explaining that the date 16 December was chosen for the relocation as an “auspicious date.” Regarding the new paint ing, the Army Chief said that it was created by Lieu tenant Colonel Thomas Jacob of the 28 Madras Regiment, a serving officer and a rep resentative of the younger generation of the Army. He added: “Coming to the painting which is there as of now [in South Block], this has been conceptualised and made by Lt Col Thomas [Jacob] of 28 Madras Regi ment, which is the younger generation [of the Army]. If you see the golden history of India ~ it has three chap ters. It has British era, Mughal era and the era before that. If we wished to connect that [history] and the Army’s vision, symbolism becomes important.” General Dwivedi empha sized that symbolism plays a crucial role in communi cation with the younger gen eration of officers and sol diers. “So, once you look at that, my communication with my younger generation ~ my young officers, my jawans, is equally impor tant.” Addressing concerns about the painting’s mytho logical elements, the COAS pointed out that Chapter 4 of the original Indian Con stitution includes an image of Krishna and Arjuna in the same chariot depicted in the artwork. He also defended the inclusion of a semi-clad Brahmin and the depiction of Chanakya near Pangong Tso, urging that India’s civilizational history should be recognized. “If you open Chapter 4 of the original Constitution book, the painting which is there is of Krishna and Arju na, of the same chariot. It is also being said that there is a semi-clad Brahmin stand ing at the centre on the banks of Pangong Tso. If the Indian does not know Chanakya, we need to refer back to our civilisational approach,” said the COAS.