India’s most potent weapon
The men in olive green. Honour them
By H. S. Sodhi

A COUNTRTY that does not respect and look after its heroes, neither deserves them nor produces them. A hero is best seen as an achiever of the highest order in his or her field.

How are heroes created? The obvious factors would appear to be: the role of genetics; upbringing in the family and social environment, including schooling; a system of judging potential talent; training in the specialised discipline; the right opportunity and challenge being faced; the continuing respect, kudos and physical care of those who manage to reach the heights of success to that they can act as role models.

The last factor covers a fairly large canvas. The person has to be remembered an a achiever; he or she has to be given due respect and recognition; he or she has to be given adequate means to live an honourable and comfortable life, though it does not have to be ostentatious. With the focus shifting on our new heroes who have performed so well in the recent war in Kargil, there is a need for some rethinking on how some of the heroes of the previous wars have been treated. They include some senior officers whose exploits were lionised during the war. However, after the battles were over, they were treated in a manner that did not become a grateful nation.

A news weekly recently pointed out in a well-documented feature in some of our past sports heroes, were living a life of penury with little or no recognition.

There are military heroes also who need attention. The names that come easily to mind are that of Brig Pritiam Singh of the Poonch siege fame, Gp Capt Mehar Singh and some seniors involved in the out right victory in the Bangladesh war of 1971.

Achievers tend to act as role models for future generations but with one very important rider: how the future generations see them being treated by the country. We thus come back to the factor of living honourable and comfortable lives. Achievers in any field can never be saints. They all have faults and quirks which some of those in power — or the peers struggling to get past such achievers by more foul than fair means — will try to find fault with and bring them down.

In this context the aim here is to discuss mainly the heroes of the military since Independence and how they have been treated. Here some very vital differences between the military and civil perceptions and ethos have to be accepted at the outset.

The military is based on discipline and its justice is fast and sure of some end result. It believes in and practises that there must not be any case of a wrong being ignored. Further, the pyramidal structure of military ranks makes for intense competition among peers for the few openings for upward mobility. Often the means used can be unethical. Because of discipline and all its ramifications and service conditions, individual likes and dislikes of seniors can take sharp angles with much faster results, good or bad for the individual.

All this is not there in the civil sector, even in government agencies. The tenure here is protected to a much greater degree. The civil procedures can be lengthy to the point of irrelevance. There is no strong desire, in spite of the oft-repeated verbal pontification, to punish wrongs, in fact there seems to be every effort to shield. That is how there are the cases of political leaders and bureaucrats getting away with a lot of misdeeds that in the military would attract instant and strict action.

The military has had its heroes since Independence who have been recognised; and these belong to the entire echelon of the military hierarchy from sepoy to General. There have been a number of gallantry awards during our wars and seniors have been given due recognition by other appropriate awards. We have had two cases of the rank of Field Marshal being awarded. Of these the first one was in recognition of the outright victory in the Bangladesh war of 1971. The second one was much after the event and did not have any connection with any recognisable action apart from the fact of having been the first Indian C-in-C; a rather dubious reason for such an award because the other two services also had the first Indian Chiefs — not to mention the setting of a wrong precedence for the future.

The need is to see the military heroes who have been left out or even punished. This brings us face-to-face with the actions of an individual as a professional and also at the personal level. The cases being mentioned fall in a category where the professional achievements have been very significant but there may have been alleged doubts about the personal integrity, though nothing concrete has ever been mentioned.

The foremost in this category is late Brig Pritam Singh of the Poonch siege fame (1947-48 J&K war).

Those who were there then and others, who have studied this campaign, are unanimous in the view that he was the single most important factor in saving Poonch for India. If Poonch had been lost, for whatever reason, a very large swathe of additional J&K territory would now have been with Pakistan. A fairly detailed article on Pritam Singh had appeared in the Tribune on December 2, 1995, written by Lt-Gen (Retd) Harwant Singh which gave many pertinent details of his achievements. After the ceasefire in J&K, Pritam Singh was court martialled on various charges, which are also discussed in this article, and it is apparent that the charges were not proved but he was found guilty of misappropriating Rs 3,000 to Rs 4,000 ! But this too was not fully proved. This is where personalities and peer competition comes into play. The article mentioned that first the then C-in-C, Carriapa, spoke to the parties concerned and wanted the case closed in view of Pritam’s actions in saving Poonch but within a few days he seemed to have changed his mind and ordered the inquiry, leading to the court martial. What were these reasons? Politics is suspected. It is surely time that all such papers are now, after a lapse of over five decades, made public. They could now call for a review of the case and Pritam’s reputation could be restored even though he is no longer alive to relish it.

Another hero of that war was Gp. Capt Mehar Singh. He was the first one to land at Leh and also Poonch. His mere presence was enough to inspire confidence. It is alleged that he was asked to put in his papers prematurely, presumably on the same charge of stealing carpets from Poonch. Here again, nothing concrete has come out. But he at least had the satisfaction of leaving the service with his reputation untarnished publicly. But did he get his due for all the magnificent work done in J&K?

The only war won outright has been the 1971 war. The General who was literally the very first one to get into Dacca with his troops, and contact Gen Niazi, has been totally ignored in the mattter of awards. The reason is not known. It is safe to presume that there must have been some allegation against him at the personal integrity level.

Surely, the professional performance must be adequately rewarded. For the military it can consist of just two things: an award, a promotion. While a promotion may be withheld due to alleged integrity reasons, an award for the professional performance should not be denied. This happened in other cases two in the Bangladesh.

The government has little to do with such actions or vindictiveness. It is all within the military, initiated by certain professional seniors. They forget the importance of due recognition of achievements and how these act as role models for future generations. To quote just one example. Pritam Singh gave a sterling performance of duty and dedication to the nation in the face of overwhelming odds in holding out and all saw what was the end result court martial, loss of reputation, loss of career, loss of pension; no further recognition. In the subsequent wars there was a crying need for some more Pritam Singhs but none were to be found. Even those very who were well decorated in earlier wars were found wanting and ran away. Is this what the military wants to demonstrate and inculcate?

It is time that the military top brass gave this a serious thought. The first step should be to reopen the case of Brig Pritam Singh. If the award of the rank of Field Marshal can be given much after the event, surely the same can be applied in setting right what might have been a wrong by looking into the entire episode, including the achievements and the court martial proceedings, again.

It is imperative that more positive personalities, achievers, heroes, are brought to the fore in the mind of the public and the current politicians. This will help bring about an element of sanity and maturity among the powers that be, professional and political.