Premium
This is an archive article published on November 25, 2007

Letters to the editor

The defence minister8217;s statement in Parliament that the three chiefs of the Indian Armed Forces are not exempt from frisking...

.

Forces of honour

8226;The defence minister8217;s statement in Parliament that the three chiefs of the Indian Armed Forces are not exempt from frisking at airports is just a pointer to their wilful, planned, steady degradation. It is actually an insult to the dignity and honour of every serving soldier, sailor and airman and to the millions of veterans. It all started with our first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who neither understood nor was interested in military matters. The fact that he asked a British officer to stay on as commander-in-chief for a few years after Independence shows his frame of mind. Nehru8217;s disdain for military officers was emulated by his successors and the bureaucrats, who adopted devious methods to bring down the prestige of the services. This was particularly apparent in a succession of orders issued on the Warrant of Precedence. After the first Indo-Pak war the service chiefs were made junior to Supreme Court judges. In 1955 their designation was changed from commander-in-chief of their respective services to chief of staff. They further dropped in status after the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict and became junior to the Cabinet secretary. Their decline continued unabated and they were made junior to the attorney general after the Indo-Pak war of 1965. Yet again, after the 1971 Indo-Pak war they were put next to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The discrimination in the service condition of Armed Forces personnel is evident from the fact that whereas a peon, a police constable or an air hostesses can serve until 60, some 97 per cent of army jawans are compulsorily retired at an average age of 37 to fend for themselves on a paltry pension after giving the best years of their lives to the nation. Further, the disability pension of disabled army officers is almost one-third of his civilian counterparts. The list of disparities is endless.

When unjustly discriminated against or vilified, the soldier must defend his honour.

8212; Lt Col B.R. Malhotra retd

New Delhi

Vocal aftermath

8226;This refers to 8216;Naroda Patiya to Nandigram8217;. by Pamela Philipose. Her comparisons are apposite. West Bengal CM Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee proud boast that those who had earlier evicted his party8217;s supporters from Nandigram had been paid back in their own coin, reminds one of Narendra Modi8217;s recourse to the Newtonian law of equal and opposite reaction, to explain the anti-Muslim pogrom in the state in 2002, which followed the burning of a train coach in which kar sevaks were returning from Ayodhya. What is immediately evident from remarks of this nature is the lack of remorse on the part of our leaders 8212; be it the two chief ministers now or Rajiv Gandhi in the past, when he made that infamous comment about the effect of a big tree falling. To them, the deaths of individuals, many of them innocent women and children, from violence unleashed by their parties are not to be greatly regretted. When leaders trot out justifications of this kind, they are publicly commending the actions of their supporters.

8212; Farzana Nigar

Ranchi

Analyst8217;s ardour

8226;There is a distinction between the article, 8216;Naroda Patiya to Nandigram8217; by Pamela Philipose and the editorial,8216;Nandigram bandwagon8217;. While the editorial wishes to defuse the tensions, the article has the hidden agenda of keeping Hindus and Muslims divided. The editorial has pointedly warned of the impending danger in communalising the Nandigram issue and serves as a rejoinder to the article.

8212; Kedarnath R. Aiyar

Mumbai

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement