Veterans split over Amar Jawan Jyoti flame being extinguished
Lt Gen Satish Dua (retd), former Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff, also tweeted in favour of the move.
“The flame of the Amar Jawan Jyoti is not being extinguished. It is being merged with the flame at the National War Memorial," government sources said. (Express photo) A war of words has broken out among war veterans after the government announced that the Amar Jawan Jyoti at India Gate would be extinguished and merged with the flame at the National War Memorial.
Air Vice Marshal Manmohan Bahadur, former Additional Director General of The Centre for Air Power Studies, tagged the Prime Minister’s Office in a tweet:: “Sir, the eternal flame at #IndiaGate is part of India’s psyche. You, I & r generation grew up saluting our brave jawans there. While NationalWarMemorial is great, the memories of #AmarJawanJyoti are indelible. Request rescind decision.”
Sir, the eternal flame at #IndiaGate is part of India’s psyche. You, I & r generation grew up saluting our brave jawans there. While NationalWarMemorial is great, the memories of #AmarJawanJyoti are indelible.
Request rescind decision.
RT if u agree
— Manmohan Bahadur (@BahadurManmohan) January 21, 2022
He further wrote, “The Commonwealth Graves Commission maintains graves all over the world for soldiers who died in WW I and WW II — and will continue to do so. It’s a pity that OUR ‘Eternal Flame’ at the iconic India Gate is being extinguished. A generation grew up with it. Oh! What a sad day!”
The decision, though, also found support among many. Retd General Ashok Mehta told The Indian Express: “The Congress will obviously oppose (the decision) because the Amar Jawan Jyoti came up during their time. But with the War Memorial now in place, it does not make sense to have two separate flames to commemorate soldiers. It is the right choice to merge the flames and have only one place for it. The (BJP) government has taken a political call to see it (Amar Jawan Jyoti) as a colonial structure, otherwise they could have built a memorial around it as well.”
When contacted, Major General Amarjit Singh said: “I think it is okay because you can’t have two institutions. One place is better. The new War Memorial is a really good institution, so I think that should be looked after in a better way rather than having two separate places. The War Memorial has everybody; the latest names are there which are not there at India Gate. It also takes a lot of manpower to have two separate places. We’ve got to move on.”
Air Marshall Anil Chopra told The Indian Express: “I personally feel it’s a good thing. They’ve just merged the two in a single place, with no disrespect to the flame having been there for the last 50 years. By the merger we are just recognising all martyrs in one shot. We have a National War Memorial and that should be the single point where the flame should be. Some people are saying it could have been in both places. It could have been, but if there are two places very close to each other, then it doesn’t make sense. You’re just confusing the people. I have been to 40 countries. So if there is one in Kremlin, the other is at the War Memorial built 20-30 km away.”
Major General (Dr) GG Dwivedi, Bangladesh War Veteran, said: “Amar Jawan Jyoti was created for the 1971 war martyrs. Thereafter, we lost men in Kargil, Siachen.. But we didn’t have a War Memorial of a national character. Now we have the National War Memorial. There is the question of the flame, whether it should have been merged or not. If you think apolitically, it makes sense to have one place where the dignitaries go and pay homage to our martyrs. The other school of thought is that it could have continued but then it would have become redundant because no one would go there. Dignitaries will only go to one memorial; they won’t go to two. If we don’t get into the politics of it, this is a logical step.”
However, Lt Col Rajendra Bhaduri (retd), a veteran aviator, tweeted: “India Gate has names of Indian soldiers who died in wars. It is immaterial who constructed it. The 1971 war memorial Amar Jawan Jyoti was added to it in 1972. It is sacred and it need not be extinguished even if there is a new war memorial with its own amar jyoti.”
India Gate has names of Indian soldiers who died in wars. It is immaterial who constructed it.
The 1971 war memorial Amar Jawan Jyoti was added to it in 1972. It is sacred and it need not be extinguished even if there is a new war memorial with its own amar jyoti— Rajendra Bhaduri (@BhaduriRajendra) January 20, 2022
Another veteran, Lt Col Manoj Channan wrote, “While NWM is a great step forward, please remember, armed forces are all about remembering your fallen heroes, ethos, traditions. Eternal flame at India Gate will not be a cost which government of India cannot bear. There are memories attached of people who had lost their kith and kin.”
Brig KS Kahlon (retd) of All India Defence Brotherhood believed that the extinguishing the flame was a bad idea and that it was disrespectful to the Indian soldiers who died in the World War 1 or the Afghan Wars. “Indian Army derives its traditions of valour from them and it is a pity that those values are being tramped upon today,” he said.
Former Army Chief General VP Malik, however, supported the move to merge the flames and tweeted, “A natural thing to do now that the National War Memorial has been established and all ceremonials related to remembrance and honouring soldiers killed in action are being held there.”
Lt Gen Satish Dua (retd), former Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff, also tweeted in favour of the move. “A needless controversy is being created. The flame of Amar Jawan Jyoti is being merged with that of National War Memorial;it is not being extinguished. NWM is the designated war memorial at National level to pay homage all India’s Bravehearts, past present or future.”
A needless controversey is being created.
The flame of Amar Jawan Jyoti is being merged with that of National War Memorial;it is not being extinguished.
NWM is the designated war memorial at National level to pay homage all Indias Bravehearts, past present or future.
Hear my take https://t.co/n4Zdu7VpED— Lt Gen Satish Dua🇮🇳 (@TheSatishDua) January 21, 2022
Col DPK Pillai (retd, Shaurya Chakra went a step further and called the World War 1 Indian soldiers ‘mercenaries’. He tweeted, “It is coming of age of India. A flame lit in a memorial for World War 1 honoured the mercenaries who fought for the British in a war that didn’t mean anything for colonised India. The NWM for independent India’s wars is the appropriate place for an eternal flame to honour Indians.”
Speaking to The Indian Express, Lt Gen Tej Sapru, former GOC-in-C Western Command, said that he was perfectly fine with both the options-keeping the Amar Jawan Jyoti at India gate aflame as well as extinguishing it and merging it with National War Memorial. “There would not have been any harm had they let the flame be at India Gate too. However, I also do not see any issue with the new memorial being the centre place for the flame. After all we always make improvements on the present infrastructure and new things are added. There should not be any controversy over it, in my view,” he said.
According to Col Anil Talwar (retd), there was a middle path which could have been adopted. “Maybe they can have a remembrance day to be held on Veterans Day or Armistice Day at India Gate. Like the Haifa Day remembrance is held at Teen Murti, which is also a World War 1 event,” he said. He added that now that the national war memorial had come up it also made sense to have all ceremonial functions only at the memorial and not India Gate.
President of Ex-Servicemen Grievances Cell Lt Col SS Sohi (retd) said that it was a shame that while Indian soldiers who died on foreign soil while fighting in the two world wars are revered and honoured by the countries where they died fighting, the same Indian soldiers are being denigrated in their own country. “These politicians can have a dozen memorials to their dead leaders in the capital where they get cremated and give them fancy names. But they get pain in their stomachs to see two memorials to soldiers side by side. Why should the flame be extinguished? It is preposterous,” he said.
A former Army officer and now a Supreme Court advocate, Major Guneet Chaudhary, said there was no harm if the flame at India Gate had been allowed to burn. “This is part of our history. It is associated with the 1971 war because that was when it was set up. I remember visiting that place as a child after the 1971 war with the wife of a Maha Vir Chakra awardee who was proud that her husband’s sacrifice was recognised by the Amar Jawan Jyoti. We cannot brush aside history like this,” he said.
Share
