The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

ARTICLE

A babel of individual voices
Make haste and prioritise carefully
B.G. Verghese

Mr Modi is now firmly in the saddle. He should not let his enthusiasm outpace what should be a measured administrative stride nor allow his colleagues to derail him by thoughtless word or deed. The swearing-in was hyped beyond measure both as a spectacle and a diplomatic coup. The first was a bit of a bore with 90 minutes of repetitive swearing-in while the ensuing talks with the visiting heads of government and others could not be path-breaking without key ministers in place or any in-depth briefing. It was at best a pleasant and useful getting-acquainted exercise.

The Council of Ministers has the virtue of being small (45) but there will soon be some expansion in order to ensure political and regional balance. The consolidation of related ministries like transport and energy is welcome but may need further streamlining. Collective Cabinet responsibility and accountability have been restored by abolishing the plethora of GoMs and EGoMs that the UPA recklessly set up.

Information & broadcasting has strangely been mated with environment. Both need reform, the first by being abolished, with its component units like Prasar Bharati, the Films Division and DAVP being granted autonomy; and the other by avoiding an excessively rigid touch-me-not approach to nature, something that misreads the progress of civilisation. The environment must of course be protected but the watchword must be dynamic balance. Poverty is the worst pollutant and to get rid of poverty (and avoid social instability) we need infrastructure, skilling and jobs. The new Environment Minister has promised to fast-track Rs 80,000 core of stalled projects, which if sensibly done will give a great stimulus to investment and growth.

Mr Modi has been right to call for openness in government and to urge ministers and officials to twitter and keep in touch with the public. The social media and a responsive government are each important in their own way but there is danger in encouraging a babel of individual voices, each claiming to represent some essential truth. The result can only be misunderstanding and incoherence and a departure from studied decision-making.

There is also need to be wary of too much centralisation of authority in the person of the Prime Minister and the PMO as appears to be Mr Modi's inclination. India does not operate a presidential system and even an overdose of presidential style can lead to loss of ministerial initiative and a tendency to pass the buck.

Jitendra Singh, Minister of State in the PMO, was unwise to stir an avoidable controversy over Article 370. This fetched a tart reply from Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti that any such move could prove dangerous and controversial. The RSS immediately joined in to support the abrogation, thrusting its view on the new dispensation. This is a danger signal and could suggest the Parivar's desire to remote-control and micro-manage events from Nagpur.

BJP-RSS illiteracy on Article 370 is well known. The notion that this makes J&K a less integrated state than others is fallacious. Article 1 read with Schedule I Entry 15 and the J&K Constitution (which few know about or have bothered to read) make this absolutely clear. The argument that Article 370 has not benefited the people of J&K but has stalled their progress and welfare is bogus. The state has the best record of any in the matter of land reforms in abolishing landlordism, an evil that continues to enslave millions, especially in eastern and southern India.

Moreover, Article 370 is just among a whole family of provisions contained in Articles 371 and 371 A to I and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules that provide for special dispensations for different classes of people and regions.

The BJP and the RSS can equally do with a tutorial on a uniform civil code. This is a Directive Principle (Article 44) that calls on the state "to endeavour" to legislate a uniform civil code. Securing a UCC does not imply any compulsion to abrogate personal laws as tirelessly and mischievously argued by ill-informed politicians, lawyers, editors and academics. Personal laws come under the rubric of “freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion” guaranteed by Article 25 subject to “public order, morality and health” and other fundamental rights.

Any UCC will, therefore, necessarily be optional and, indeed, exists in part in the Special Marriage and Divorce Act 1954. But by a special amendment sponsored by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency, the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs marrying under the Special Marriage Act are to be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, a patent effort at communal appeasement.

The Special Marriage Act is a great boon and allows inter-faith, inter-caste and even inter-regional marriage without necessitating conversion by one or other spouse to the faith of the other. Moreover, few know that Goa is governed by a UCC, a legacy of Portuguese rule. Neither has been challenged for being ultra vires.

A UCC essentially provides for gender justice. All personal laws, without exception, are heavily biased against women in order to keep property within the family circle. Property, not faith, underpins personal laws. Empowering women by granting them one-third representation in Parliament is relative trivia compared to empowering 600 million Indian women through a UCC that enables them to regulate their personal lives. Yet those who eloquently plead for women's rights, including women, have ignorantly joined the vicious bandwagon illegally and gratuitously to crush women's rights. This is one of the great inequities of modern India.

The truth is that the RSS and the BJP believe that brandishing the prospect of a UCC is a whip with which to terrify Muslims in particular and get them to fall in line. The other popular notion that Hindu law has been unified is another piece of exalted rubbish. The Hindu Code Bill codified a considerable part of Hindu law but many other Hindu codes continue to exist in different parts of the country. Among the practices protected by Hindu law is the joint family, a property-oriented regime that has today become a major tax haven.

Finally, Entry 5 of the Concurrent List entitles any state to enact a UCC as marriage and divorce, adoption, wills, intestacy, succession, joint family and partition fall within its concurrent jurisdiction. Why then has no BJP-ruled state even lifted a finger to enact a UCC, as many states took the initiative to legislate freedom of information Acts. The new Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, on TV last week spoke of "unifying India's oneness" and its unity in diversity through a UCC. Do it man; don't dance around it as others have done for 50 years. India needs a UCC today. Without it, no Indian has the right by law to be an Indian in personal life. He or she must remain not even a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh Indian, but, ultimately, a denominational or sub-denominational one at that, down to the gotra by Khap law. What an unfolding of the inner hollowness and humbug of Indian secularism.

www.bgverghese.com

MIDDLE

From cost-cutting to extravagance
Kirti Dua

I was looking at the wardrobe of my ten-year-old nephew, he has 32 T-shirts. Nowadays, in the wardrobe clothes are generally grouped as party wear, casual wear, gym wear, night suit, etc. However, things were quite different at our time when many of my clothes were modified out of father's clothes by my mother.

I have two younger brothers and it was a sort of family tradition that when the elder one grows out of his clothes, then the next in line was given those clothes. My youngest brother always had this grudge that he never got any new clothes. My mother used to stitch our night suits, using the famous Phagwara JCT Mills fabric. The extra cloth from these night suits invariably was used to make undergarments. Making shirts out of the same piece of cloth for three brothers at the same time was also a part of the cost-cutting family strategy. Our family tailor had standing instructions from my mother that all the clothes to be stitched should have a loose fitting and sufficient margins so that these clothes should fit comfortably in the subsequent years as well. At times the shorts stitched in Class III would fit smartly in Class VI. Otherwise also my clothes were not too trendy. I experienced an awkward moment at a function when one of my uncles told me to go and get ready, whereas I was standing there wearing the best shorts I had.

I got my first school blazer when I was in Class VIII. The same coat was also used by my younger brothers. Those days, Rajesh Khanna and other cine stars used to wear bell-bottoms. I got my first bell-bottom in the eighth standard and it was the only formal dress I had at that time. In our school, students had an option to wear a civil dress on Saturdays. On Saturdays, the girls would come in different colourful dresses. Since most of the boys had only one extra trouser, they decided to wear the school uniform on Saturdays as well. Whenever I tried to convince my mother for more clothes, she would tell me that since you are growing, there is no fun having many clothes at this stage.

We used to wear home-knitted sweaters in winter. For these sweaters, wool was purchased from the market after an exhaustive survey. All efforts were made to select a new design for the sweater. Generally, winter afternoons used to be the knitting session when the ladies sat together, gossiped, exchanged knitting needles at different stages of sweater and give suitable suggestions. To complete a sweater, it used to take three to four weeks. Once, my mother made a green and yellow sweater for me after copying a design from a magazine. On the completion of this sweater, it was found that our vegetable seller too had a sweater with a similar colour combination and design. I was never comfortable wearing that sweater.

I am still having my first red check coat which I got in college and it fits well. My mother's farsightedness always worked!

OPED

Saga of grit, guts and valour at Gallipoli
There is no dearth of stories of bravery by the Sikhs in war but the guts and bravery shown by 14 Sikh (Ferozepur) during attack on Turkish well prepared trenches at Gallipoli on June 4, 1915, remains unique
Major General Kulwant Singh (retd)

World War I, Gallipoli (1915). Photograph by Trooper O Ward, 1st County of London Yeomanry (Middlesex, Duke of Cambridge's Hussars), From a photograph album of 124 photographs compiled by him.

21st Indian Battery Guard. Photograph taken in 1915 by Sergeant Charles Alexander Masters while on active service with the Australian Imperial Force in Gallipoli.

in the year when we are celebrating the 100th Anniversary of World War I, we need to pay a tribute to valiant 14 Sikh sacrifice, which is the only one of its kind. Before the attack, the Battalion strength was I5 British officers and 574 men and after the attack, there were only three officers and 134 men left.

At the end of October, Turkey entered the war on the side of Germany. The Turkish Empire stretched from the Balkans in the North to Mesopotamia in the South. The Allied strategy was to push through the Gallipoli Peninsula, the narrow strip of sea that joins the Mediterranean to the Black Sea, which separates Asia from Europe. This way they would be able to link up with the Russians and strike a blow that could drive Turkey out of the war. This also met the requirement of Russians since it enabled them to open a diversionary front against Turks to relieve pressure on them.

Tough terrain

Gen Sir Ian Hamilton was to command the forces responsible for the new front. Gen Hamilton’s assessment was that their strength was inferior and the terrain also favoured the Turks, who were well dug in on dominating ground. 14 Sikh, part of 29 Indian Brigade, formed part of Hamilton’s expeditionary force.

Up to the end of May, the process of inching forward by night and digging in was continued, until the British front line lay about 200 yards from Turks. The Brigade covered a frontage of approximately 800 yards; Sikhs trench line lay astride the Gully Ravine. The task of Sikhs was to capture two Turkish trench lines called J-10 and J-11, both on dominating positions. The ground between the opposing forces was mined, strengthened with wire obstacles; the enemy had dug several small trenches and the possibility of crossfire of machine guns was not ruled out.

For plan and actual battle we go to the authentic account by Second-Lieutenant R.A Savory (who later retired as Lt Gen in 1947). “On June 3, we received orders for general assault all along the line next day. The orders were short and clear. At 11 am on June 4, all the guns were to bombard the enemy’s frontline trenches for 20 minutes. Then for 10 minutes they were to stop while the infantry were to cheer and wave their bayonets. The object of this was to persuade the enemy to man their parapets. Then the bombardment was to come down again. At noon we were to advance. It all sounded simple enough. The 14 Sikh were to attack astride the Gully Ravine. June 4 was a beautiful summer day. Our guns started registering at 8 am and even before the bombardment began, it must have been clear to the enemy that something was to happen. It was now 11.30 am and time for cheering to start; but the noise was so great that we could hardly hear it even in our trench. And then — twelve noon — blow the whistle — and we were away. From that moment I lost all control of the fighting. The roar of musketry drowned every other sound, except that of guns. To try to give an order was useless. The nearest man was only a yard or two away but I could not see him. Soon I found myself running alone, except for my little bugler, a young handsome boy, just out of his teens, who came paddling along behind me to act as a runner. Poor little chap.”

“At 12 o’clock the first wave of 14 Sikh dashed forward to attack along with other two battalions of the Indian Brigade. To attack during day on well-coordinated defences lacks explanation, except for over reliance on artillery fire which was suppose to neutralise the Turk defences.

“Unfortunately, the artillery fire had little effect on the enemy in his strong defences with overhead cover. That did not deter the Sikhs; they did what they are best at — charged at the Turks with their bayonets. Despite many of them wounded, they continued to fight till they dropped dead.

“During the first few minutes, I was knocked down, lying on the parapet with two Turks using my body as a rest. Over which to shoot at our second line coming forward. When I fully recovered consciousness, the Turks had gone. I looked around and saw my little bugler lying dead, brutally mutilated. I could see no one else, stumbled back as best as I could, my head was bleeding and I was dazed and then, Udai Singh, a great burly Sikh with a fair beard who was one of our battalion wrestlers, came out of the reserve trenches, picked me up, slung me over his shoulder, and brought me to safety; and all the time we were being shot at.”

In this battle, 14 Sikh lost 371 officers and men killed or wounded. Out of 15 British officers, only three were left unwounded. The next day, the Battalion was ordered to pull back due to excessive causalities. The situation was so acute that Second Lieutenant Savory was the only officer not seriously wounded; he took over the command of the battalion, when Commanding Officer Colonel Palin was moved out to command a brigade.

General Hamilton wrote to the Commander-in-Chief in India paying noble tribute to the heroism of soldiers of 14 Sikh: “In the highest sense of the word extreme gallantry has been shown by this fine battalion….In spite of the tremendous losses there was not a sign of wavering all day. Not an inch of ground was given up and not a single straggler came back. The ends of the enemy’s trenches were found to be blocked with the bodies of Sikhs and of the enemy who died fighting a close quarters, and the glacis slopes was thickly dotted with the bodies of these fine soldiers all lying on their faces as they fell in their steady advance on the enemy.”

Glowing tributes

Later in 1945 Martial India F. Yeats-Brown, paid glowing tributes to 14 Sikh — “The history of Sikhs affords many instances of their value as soldiers, but it may be safely asserted that nothing finer than the grim valour and steady discipline displayed by them on the June 4 has ever been done by soldiers of the Khalsa.Their devotion to duty and their splendid loyalty to their orders and to their leaders make a record their nation should look back upon with pride for many generations. Yet another passage from Yeats-Brown.... “Put them (Sikhs) in a hot corner, and they live up to their title of Singh, which means lion. In Mesopotamia in the last war, The Arabs called them Black Lions.” What inspired Sikhs to fight so doggedly and willingness to die at alien land for the British Empire? Whether it is Gallipoli or Saragarhi, when in the battlefield, Sikh soldiers follow the Gurus’ edict: “Sura So Pehchaniye, Jo Lare Din Ke Het; Purza Purza Kat Mare, Kabhun Na Chhade Khet.”

Profile in courage

Sikhs (under the British Indian Army) fought alongside the Anzacs at Gallipoli

At least 10 Sikhs fought for the Australian Imperial Force in World War I

In World War I and II, 83,005 Sikhs were killed with 109,045 wounded fighting for the allied forces.

Approximately 1 million Indian troops went to World War I (the largest volunteer army ever raised) with approximately a third of these being Sikh troops

Factfile Gallipoli

In the Battle of Gallipoli, British Commonwealth and French troops struggled to take the peninsula between February 19, 1915 and January 9, 1916.

The British were commanded by Gen Sir Ian Hamilton, Admiral Sir John de Robeck. There were 5 divisions, building to 16.

The Turks were commanded by Lt Gen Otto Liman von Sanders and Mustafa Kemal Pasha. There were 6 divisions building to 16.

The aftermath of the campaign

The Gallipoli Campaign cost the Allies 141,113 killed and wounded and the Turks 195,000. Gallipoli proved to be the Turks' greatest victory of the war.

The campaign's failure led to the demotion of Winston Churchill and contributed to the collapse of Prime Minister H. H. Asquith's government. The fighting at Gallipoli proved a galvanising national experience for Australia and New Zealand, which had not previously fought in a major conflict.

The anniversary of the landings, April 25, is celebrated as ANZAC Day and is both nations' most significant day of military remembrance.

Heroism in the face of death

In the Gallipoli campaign, the 14 Sikh regiment was virtually wiped out, losing 379 officers and men in one day’s fighting on June 4, 1915. Writing of the Third Battle of Krithia during the campaign, General Sir Ian Hamilton paid noble tribute to the heroism of all ranks of the 14 Sikhs.

During this battle, the 14 Sikh (as part of the 29th Indian Infantry Brigade), composed entirely of seasoned Sikh soldiers from the Punjab, launched repeated attacks, in the face of murderous machine gun fire, against the Turkish positions astride Gully Ravine. Held up by the barbed wire that was unaffected by the allied artillery bombardment, a section of men leapt the barbed wire and charged the Turks with their bayonets. However, human valour was unavailing against modern weapons of war, and on that day the battalion’s casualties amounted to 82 per cent of the men actually engaged in the battle. Only three British officers were left unwounded.

How the campaign began

British Commonwealth and French troops struggled to take the peninsula between Feb 19, 1915 & Jan 9, 1916.

Following the entry of the Ottoman Empire into World War I, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill developed a plan for attacking the Dardanelles. Using ships of the Royal Navy, Churchill believed that the straits could be used for a direct assault on Constantinople.

Operations against the Dardanelles began on February 19, 1915, with British ships under Admiral Sir Sackville Carden bombarding Turkish defences with little effect.

A second attack on February 25 forced the Turks to fall back to their second line of defence. Entering the straits, British warships engaged the Turks again on March 1, however their minesweepers were prevented from clearing the channel due to heavy fire. Another attempt to remove the mines failed on March 13. With the failure of the naval campaign, it became clear to Allied leaders that a ground force was going to be needed to eliminate the Turkish artillery on the Gallipoli Peninsula which commanded the straits. This mission was delegated to General Sir Ian Hamilton and the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force. This command included the newly formed Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC), the 29th Division.

Beginning on December 7, troop levels were drawn down with those at Sulva Bay and Anzac Cove departing first. The last Allied forces departed Gallipoli on January 9, 1916, when the final troops embarked at Helles.