The name of the town of Jaffna has resonated for long in the Indian Army, particularly among the units that fought to capture it from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in October 1987 as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).

Brig Manjit Singh, decorated with the nation’s second highest gallantry award, Mahavir Chakra, for his personal bravery during the dash to link up with Jaffna during Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka, passed away after a brief illness. He was 78.

The name of the town of Jaffna has resonated for long in the Indian Army, particularly among the units that fought to capture it from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in October 1987 as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). A stronghold of the LTTE, the battle to wrest Jaffna exacted a high toll on the units of 41 Infantry Brigade, which was commanded by Brig Singh.

Brig Singh’s push towards Jaffna later came in for criticism from his former subordinates as well former divisional commander who did not appreciate the hard handed methods employed by him in command of his brigade. He ended up sacking his Deputy Commander, Brigade Major, OC Brigade Signal Company and two battalion commanding officers.

However, he never regretted his decisions and had scathing comments to make about performance of several officers under his command. An outspoken officer, Brig Singh’s brusque manner tolerated few mistakes.

An alumnus of Khalsa College, Amritsar, Brig Singh had originally been commissioned in the Mahar Regiment. However, years later he was shifted to Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry (JAK LI), an order which he bitterly resented at the time. True to his nature he had had a ‘run in’ with the then Colonel of the Mahar Regiment, Lt Gen KV Krishna Rao, who was at the time GOC-in-C Western Command and later the Army Chief.

The citation for his award of MVC details in brief the courage shown by him in battle for Jaffna.

It reads, “Brigadier Manjit Singh while commanding an Infantry Brigade as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force, was tasked to establish a link-up with Jaffna Fort, along Western Pincer in the face of all-out efforts by the militants to thwart their advance. Brigadier Manjit Singh himself assumed charge of the leading elements. He broke through the desperate cordon of the militants and successfully established a link-up with PARA Commandos operating from Jaffna Fort. His leadership and demonstration of personal valour motivated his command to push back the enemy. Throughout the operation, Brigadier Manjit Singh displayed conspicuous courage and valiant leadership”.

Brig BK Unnikrishnan of the Corps of Signals, who was commanding a sub unit in Jaffna fort during the battle, has described the moment when Brig Singh reached the fort fighting through LTTE strongpoints. The account below gives an idea of how pitched the battle was:

“The Brigade had faced very stiff opposition on its way; it was stalled at many places initially and had to stop the advance mid-way due to ambushes and heavy fire. It suffered heavy casualties. However Manjit took a bold decision to move forward with a small group comprising his GSO 3 and two infantry companies. It was a daring move and despite interference from the LTTE, Manjit managed to reach the Fort at night with a few dead bodies and several injured soldiers. Lt Col TPS Brar, CO, 1 MLI received him and took him to the Ops Room. I was present there along with Maj Shankar Murthy, my 2IC. Manjit and I had known each other very well but I found him dazed and unable to respond to my words. His combat dress was full of blood and he was in a terrible state of mind”.

In a statement to LA Times, who’s correspondent visited Jaffna after its capture, Brig Singh said of LTTE, “They were stopping us at every place. Every time they checked us, we lost a lot of men. When we tried to move our vehicles, we were hit with land mines.”

In several accounts written by veterans of IPKF, Brig Singh has been criticised for his style of command. It was said that he was close to the then Chief of Army Staff, Gen K Sundarji, who was also originally from the Mahar Regiment and that he had managed to get the command of 41 Brigade due to this proximity.

Brig Singh, on other hand, had told this correspondent some years ago that he had been personally chosen by the Chief because he wanted results on ground. He said he did not regret any action of his and that he did what was the need of the hour.

After being passed over for promotion to the rank of Major General, the mercurial tempered Brig Singh did not stay on in the Army and took premature retirement. After spending many years in USA, he finally settled to his farm in Rahon, near Nawahshahar, where he gradually faded away.

Brig Manjit has presented his Mahavir Chakra to the JAK LI battalion that he commanded.

The Army Chief also mentioned fundamental rights “guaranteed to all our citizens”, and said if the Army was guided by them, “we will not go wrong in the discharge of our duties”.

General M M Naravane in New Delhi, Saturday. (Express Photo: Tashi Tobgyal)

On the eve of his first Army Day as Chief of the Army Staff, General M M Naravane swore “allegiance to the Constitution” on Saturday, saying the Army is of the people and for the people. The force fights for the values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, and respects the rights of the people, he said.

In his opening remarks at a press conference before Army Day, celebrated on January 15, Naravane said, “be it a jawan and an officer, we take an oath” to follow the Constitution, “and that is what should guide us in all our actions and at all times”. “What it translates into is also the core values which are enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, that is justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, and that is what we are fighting for when we are deployed on the borders.”

The Army Chief also mentioned fundamental rights “guaranteed to all our citizens”, and said if the Army was guided by them, “we will not go wrong in the discharge of our duties”. “We are an Army of the people, for the people, and whatever we do, will be for them,” the General said.

The Army Chief’s comments come against the backdrop of accusations of politicisation of the force by his predecessor, General Bipin Rawat, now the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). A week before his retirement, Rawat, asked about the protests on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens, said it was not leadership that was being seen in universities and colleges, “the way they are leading masses and crowds to carry out arson and violence”.

Army chief Manoj Mukund Naravane: An officer who is known to deliver

Praising the creation of the CDS post and the Department of Military Affairs as “a game changer”, Naravane said they were looking into all aspects of how these would evolve. “There is no doubt that integration is the key, and that is mentioned in the charter of the CDS… When we go in for joint or integrated theatre commands, we will do so keeping our own requirements and operational realities in mind, and will not blindly copy any existing system or any other army of the world,” he said.

Asked about comments by some ministers that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir would be a part of India, Naravane said if any such orders are received from Parliament, the Army would act on them, noting that there was a parliamentary resolution saying the entire erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was a part of India. “If Parliament wants that the territory be one day ours and if there are orders in this regard, we will definitely act on them,” he said.

Also Read | India reserves right to ‘preemptively strike’ at sources of terror: Army Chief warns Pakistan

Repeating his remarks from the day he took over as Army Chief, Naravane said that earlier there was a view that the threat was more towards the western front (read Pakistan) than the northern front (China). “Now we think both borders are equally important… It is in that context that the rebalancing is taking place.”

Regarding China, the Army Chief said that after the Wuhan and Chennai meetings between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Premier Xi Jinping, “certain strategic guidelines” are a given. He said most differences at the border are now settled at the lowest levels and not allowed to escalate, which had led to peace on the northern border. “We have had a number of rounds of talks… Maintaining peace and tranquillity on the border only helps… No talks can be successful if bullets are flying.”

Naravane said there would soon be a direct line between the Director General of Military Operations in India and the Western Theatre Command in China, which looks after the India-facing front.

The General, who returned only on Friday from a visit to Siachen, said the glacier was strategically important as it faces both Pakistan and China. “We should not lose sight that it’s one place where collusivity can happen (between China and Pakistan).”

On the threat of a two-front war, Naravane said that in that case, “there will always be a primary front and a secondary front”. He said that there are also Dual Task Formations which can move between the two fronts.

Though the Army is involved in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations, Naravane said this was short-term and the Army was prepared for its long-term role of conventional warfare.

He said that of the four studies started by General Rawat to reorganise the Army, two had been completed and are being implemented, and that they expected clearance from the government on Integrated Battle Groups soon. “In this process of integration, we will take everyone along, nobody will be left behind.”

Apart from allegiance to the Constitution, the Army Chief said belief in self and consolidation, along with taking care of the aspirations of its personnel and putting quality over quantity were some other principles by which the Army functions.

In a report from Islamabad, PTI quoted the Pakistan army as saying it was fully prepared to respond to any act of Indian aggression, in response to remarks by General Naravane. “Statements by Indian Chief Of Army Staff… to undertake military action across LOC are routine rhetoric for domestic audiences to get out of ongoing internal turmoil,” Pakistan Army spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor tweeted.

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, January 10

The newly created Department of Military Affairs, which is headed by Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Bipin Rawat, will soon have structure to run its affairs.

Since the CDS will also be Secretary of the Department of Military Affairs, it will have structure to include civilian bureaucracy also.

The plan is to have just two joint secretaries to begin with. Meaning cutting down decision-making process as the two would report to General Rawat. The two joint secretaries would be helped by a dozen deputy secretaries and more than 20 under secretaries.

A formal notification is expected soon and it will lay down the structures of reporting channels of the officers. The DMA can have both civilian and military personnel working under it.

Since the task of the DMA is laid down clearly, the idea is to keep a smaller unit that is more responsive.

President Ram Nath Kovind had on January 30 notified the new rules of business dividing responsibility between the newly created Department of Military Affairs, and laying down what all the Defence Secretary would be doing.

The department will look after the work of the Armed Forces of the Union — Army, Navy and Air Force. The Territorial Army and works relating to Army, Navy and Air Force, will be under the same department. He will also handle procurement exclusive to the services except capital acquisitions.

The CDS will promote jointness in procurement, training and staffing for the services through joint planning and integration of their requirements. He has been tasked with the facilitation of restructuring of military commands for optimal utilisation of resources by bringing about jointness in operations, including through establishment of joint/ theatre commands. He will also promote use of indigenous equipment by the Services.

Formal notification expected soon

• The Department of Military Affairs (DMA) will have a structure to include civilian bureaucracy as well
• The Chief of Defence Staff will be the Secretary and the plan is to have just two joint secretaries to begin with
• The two joint secretaries will be helped by a dozen deputy secretaries and more than 20 under secretaries

Gen Naravane not only repeated the bit about constitutional values but added fundamental rights, when a question was put to him about statements made by his predecessor and the Eastern Army Commander in support of the CAA.

Gen M M Naravane in New Delhi on Saturday. (Express Photo by Tashi Tobgyal)

When General M M Naravane took the stage in the auditorium of the Mankeshaw Centre for his first annual press conference as Army Chief, not many expected him to set the tone for his 28-month tenure so firmly with his opening statement. It came swiftly and in an understated manner, unprompted, but the intention and the thought underlying it was hard to miss: a course-correction, to pull the Army away from political controversy back into its professional domain.

Pre-empting the criticism that the armed forces had become politicised under the current government, the new Army Chief started with the A-B-C of his priorities. The ‘A’ stood for allegiance — where he stressed that the allegiance that every Army personnel owed was to the Constitution, and the values enshrined in its preamble. Never in public memory has an Army Chief said so categorically that the Army is deployed on the borders to defend the core values in the preamble to the Constitution — justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity — for every Indian.

The ongoing countrywide protests by students against the new citizenship law and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) have been marked by public readings of the preamble. But Gen Naravane was not wading into that territory: he was trying to arrive at a formulation where any political party or ideology, including those in the government, did not figure in any manner. Historically, from Gen K M Cariappa’s time, the formulation of the cause served by the Army has been slightly different: it has always been said that the Army serves the government of the day, and not any political party or ideology.

Gen Naravane not only repeated the bit about constitutional values but added fundamental rights, when a question was put to him about statements made by his predecessor and the Eastern Army Commander in support of the CAA.

Asked directly about violence against students in JNU, including police action, he avoided the topic, and limited himself to certain homilies about the National Defence Academy, which is affiliated to JNU. There couldn’t have been a stronger way to send a message to his senior commanders who seem to have strayed from the apolitical path in recent years.

The stress on constitutional values and fundamental rights was not the only indicator of the shift Gen Naravane wants the Army to make. In response to a couple of leading questions about capturing Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, as stated by Ministers last year, he referred to the 1994 Parliamentary resolution on J&K, and said that the Army will do whatever is asked of it by the government.

Asked if he would continue to speak strongly on issues, like his predecessor, to project the forces, Gen Naravane said, “Indian Army believes in doing its job and we are not seeking any publicity. We will continue in the same way of serving the nation to the best of our ability.”

Gen Naravane’s predecessor, Gen Bipin Rawat, the current Chief of Defence Staff, was often criticised for overstepping his boundaries to comment on policy and political issues outside the domain of the Army.

We need to think in the light of the startling progress in intelligence and surveillance, targeting with accuracy and impunity. Large arrays of conventional armies and weaponry may not be adequate. Nations, unless they converge their intelligence and technology to create intelligent conflict-winning platforms, may miss the boat.

Lt Gen Sanjiv Langer (retd)
Former Deputy Chief, Defence Staff

On January 3, General Qassem Soleimani was killed by a drone strike in Baghdad. He was the Commander of the Iranian Al Quds Transnational Forces, for the last 20 years. Let us recount the facts known to us. This strike, though undoubtedly premeditated, comes at the culmination of a chain of proximate events probably commencing from December 27, 2001. On this day, attacks were launched on a US coalition base which resulted in several casualties. While the rationale of his killing could be examined further, we choose at this point to only focus on the facts.

Major General Soleimani was killed by a missile strike on his vehicle in the vicinity of the Baghdad airport. This strike was authorised by the US President and was undoubtedly launched from a drone platform.

Fact 1: An Iranian national has been killed in Iraqi territory by a US drone.

Fact 2: The attack and killing took place in Baghdad, a non-war zone.

Fact 3: The controllers of this attack are definitely out-of-area, based in another country or the US.

Fact 4: The US and Iran are not at war and Iraq, an independent sovereign country, is at war with neither.

Fact 5: There were no diplomatic protocols that preceded, nor any prior warning or interlocution.

Fact 6: Reportedly, the US military has taken ‘decisive, defensive action to protect US personnel abroad’ by this killing.

While the implications in the security domain are complex, the economic fallout was immediate. Global oil prices jumped by $3 a barrel. India’s benchmark stock indices fell 0.4 per cent, gold surged $700 and the Dow Jones was down by 0.56 per cent. The US Shale Oil Industry gained head-room and relief. Other oil-producing countries will undoubtedly benefit.

If we conjecture on the ‘back-office’ procedures and intelligence that has facilitated this attack, our conclusions could be startling. It is common for security analysts to categorise generations of warfare. In effect, these broad categorisations are inadequate today. A generation of warfare was demonstrated in the Second Gulf War, in 1991. Post-9/11 trends in war and conflict have been set on a trajectory that constantly evolve and mutate at short intervals. Commencing with the surge after 9/11, which received a hurricane start-up, undoubtedly rocky, we see today, a fine-tuned approach for initiation and management of conflict.

General Soleimani would have been under the US intelligence communities’ unblinking eye surveillance. Simply put, this means that once high-value targets are designated, there is no gap in their surveillance. Target detection and identification fired by inventive artificial intelligence (AI) is now relatively error-free. Vulnerability analysis leads to well-defined windows and frames for attack. As in this case, the Iraq airport zone would have been suitable for the strike due to its detailed knowledge as well as the exposed nature of the target.

The world media has covered numerous aspects of this incident, but what of our system of international laws, sovereignty and this new era of no-contact warfare? As a general principle, if the drone had been brought down, there was no human identification or legality to be applied. Unmanned crashed remains can be subject to long, unrestricted deliberations on identity and intent. In this case, this is not relevant since the US has claimed the attack.

And what of the ability to create an event and spark a chain of intended and unintended consequences? This conflict creation formula can be applied to diverse environments, ranging from security scenarios to economic and perceptual domains. It brings to mind an approach by the Alexander of Macedonia, where in the vast battle space at Gaugamela in 331 BC, he choose the one element, that when taken out, would compromise the enemy formations: the Persian King Darius. A continuation of thought, on a grander scale, was Napoleon’s identification in the war of A centre of gravity.

Today, riding the crest of the wave of the hurricane that commenced in 9/11, this refined thought can be applied creatively to a growing spectrum of conflict.

We need to sit back and think in the light of this startling progress in intelligence, surveillance, precision targeting and impunity. Large arrays of conventional armies and weaponry equipped and configured for particular types of war may not be adequate. Nations, unless they converge their intelligence and technology to create intelligent conflict-winning platforms, may miss the boat.

Our obsession with war, as we knew it, seems to blind us from the new paradigms of spot and creeping conflict. We have seen a horrendous conflict in Syria, the tail-end of which is still under way, which redefines all conceptions of war as we understand it. This geometric, incremental progression of conflict also raises difficult questions on the role and functioning of international bodies, whose raison d’être is centred on war, as we knew it.

General Soleimani’s death represents a singular event. The death of very few generals would impact international economies, open a slew of politico-strategic concerns, and raise uncomfortable questions on sovereignty, legality and latitude.

Based on the Iranian response, the game is on. We are unlikely to see a docile acceptance of this singular act. Iran has, over the decades, shown a great capability for innovation and resilience. Technology and intelligence leave a substantial headroom for responses and escalation in the enlarged spectrum of conflict.

Lawmakers and professionals must sit back and take stock of the galloping domain of intelligence, precision-targeting, and the expanded domain of conflict. In a creeping or sporadic conflict scenario, there is now an ability to keep the conflict well below the threshold of war. The events orchestrated in this new domain can be calibrated to be damaging, painful and frighteningly accurate.

In India’s context, given the clear and present threats we face, strategic and conventional forces are a necessity. Nevertheless, the currency for intelligent wars must be minted. This present event places us firmly on a swaying tightrope between our conflictual needs of the US as well as Iran. It will be an uneasy diplomatic journey to deal with two raging tigers, both of which we need.