Your Q, His A

While we will remain far superior in terms of nuclear weapon capability, it is not in our interest to allow nuclear weapons to come into play in any conventional conflict. This is also the reason we need a high level of conventional military capability.

Our aim, therefore, would be to win while keeping the war non-nuclear. This would place restraints on the defence forces. But they are well-prepared for this and have factored it into their operational planning to dominate the adversary8217;s military power to our advantage. It is in the public and political domain that we need to understand that since it would not be a classical war, it would not be possible to judge victory and defeat in classical terms. This is why many people failed to understand our victory in 1999.

As regards US support, its first aim would be to ensure that the two countries do not go to war. Its support in the war would depend greatly on how it sees its own interests.

While it is unlikely to act against India, we would need to remember that we would have to fight our war whether the one against terrorism that Pakistan has been waging, or a direct military one by ourselves.

GEORGE Fernandes has been reinstated as defence minister. This gives people reason to believe that corruption is rampant in the armed forces and defence ministry. But is it true that corruption is rampant? I cannot believe that Fernandes is back without the support of the top brass of the armed forces and people who could benefit financially from having him on the top. What our jawans think?

LET us deal with the simple issue first. We are a democracy with clear and firm political control over the military. Political leadership appoints the top brass of the armed forces and not the other way around!

Only in countries like Pakistan are defence ministers appointed by the army. It is grossly incorrect to say that corruption is rampant in the armed forces. The defence forces are still the major institution of the country which is not corrupt and where honour and integrity are still valued, and valued very highly.

We should not interpret individual failures in an 11 lakh-strong defence force as representative of the whole force. The integrity of the defence forces is well recognised by every segment of the society; otherwise we would not be so comfortable with asking them to take on even tasks which correctly do not belong within their domain of responsibility.

Thirty years ago I had to leave the NDA on account of medical reasons. I have always wondered whether that was a fortune or a misfortune. Recently in TIME magazine March 18, 2002, on page 21 I saw the manner in which a US soldier is dressed and armed. Here it is the crooks disguised as politicians who get bulletproof vests and cars. I also read the story relating to the attack on Aha-I-Kot, where the US army takes unprecedented measures to ensure that not even one US soldier8217;s body is left behind. The total number of US soldiers who have so far died in the Afghan operation is not even 20, whereas we lost 600 in Kargil. The recent story that VCDs, TVs etc were purchased instead of equipment convinces me that I was fortunate 31 years back. I have also ensured and even advise parents of my generation NOT to send their children to join the armed forces. Could you convince me I am wrong in my views?

THE very fact you are asking this question 30 years later means you are not sure that it was good you did not qualify!

It is unfortunate that you have been actively discouraging people from joining the defence forces. If we all did that, India would obviously not have a fighting force to defend it. If you see dispassionately, there can be little comparison between our military and US military; or our war in Kargil and US war in Afghanistan. US annual military expenditure is almost equal to our national income for the year!

Secondly, they were not fighting a regular military and the bulk of the fighting on the ground was done by the Northern Alliance whose casualties would need to be taken into account. Our defence forces are extremely conscious of the need to keep casualties to the barest minimum. And I could tell you numerous accounts of officers and jawans laying down their own lives in order to bring back wounded or dead comrades. However this should not detract us from the basic issue that we need to pay more attention to the man behind the machine and equip our jawans better.

Pakistan seems to be able to take the initiative to attack us every time. Why does India lack the initiative to take action like Pakistan?

DEMOCRACIES by their very nature especially when compared with authoritarian dictatorships are reactive and rarely take the initiative to start a war or undertake aggression.

We are no different. In addition our priority is the socio-economic development of our people and that requires an environment of peace. But that does not mean that we will not fight back and win. In fact Pakistan, which initiated every war since 1947 has lost each one of them with heavy costs, not the least being its break up in 1971. It is hardly an example that I would recommend to anyone interested in the well-being of their own people.