Recently released a biopic on Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw has given us an opportunity to have an insight into the politico-military working relationship that prevailed at that time.
There seems to have been direct interlocution between political head PM Indira Gandhi and the Army Chief General Manekshaw on all military matters at the time of 1971 war.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
In that critical time when the chief ministers of the affected states and entire cabinet headed by the PM Indira Gandhi asked him to go for Pakistani troops causing genocide inside East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) General Sam Manekshaw – later Field Marshal – had resisted pressure from Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to launch immediate military operations against East Pakistan in early 1971 to stem the flow of millions of Bengali refugees into India.
He categorically stated that the attack on East Pakistan meant war, and his troops weren’t prepared for war right now. The resources had to be mobilized from across the country, soldiers had to be deployed, with onset of monsoon, the rivers there would become oceans and it would be impossible to move the tanks and provide air support. However, at the same time, he assured victory if given adequate time to prepare.
The entire cabinet was stunned. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi gave him a cold stare. But Field Marshal (then General) Manekshaw remained unfazed and stood his ground. Reality dawned upon the Prime Minister and she gave blanket sanction to the General to start the war on his terms.
Subsequently, on many occasions, Indira Gandhi used to give him direct calls to discuss various important issues. There was no intermediary like Defence Minister or Defence Secretary in between. The same continued till the end of the war and after till he retired. But what happened thereafter? Was the same level of straight talk between the both the tops i.e. head of the nation and the head of the army was maintained thereafter? This question arises in the mind of the people of the nation.
Let’s make a quick evaluation of the changes that have taken place in due course of time. Immediately after Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw retired, Mrs Gandhi gave a big lifetime gift to the defence forces who sacrificed their lives and limbs to fulfil the task the Government bestowed upon them, by cutting the pension from 70 percent to 50 percent and raising the same to civilians from 30 percent to 50 percent, whereas army personnel in generally retire at 35 years of age at a much lower scale than that of a civilian counterpart who serves up to 60 years of age with scope of promotions.
Indian government lacked the sensitivity and defence top brasses did not raise any question in favour of the troops as long as their parks were safe.
Budget is allocated proportionate to the likely expenses based on the need of the organisation. Shortage of defence budget has been the perpetual phenomenon and such deficiencies were to directly affect the war capability both in terms of capital and revenue expenditure affecting both morale and fighting efficiency.
Then came the Sri Lanka issue. ‘Operation Pawan’ in 1987 was a disaster. To earn credit the then army chief pushed the army into the battle field within 24 hours in a different country and absolutely in an unknown place without any orientation and training.
He should have been forthright enough like Manekshaw to hold the deployment till the defence forces were ready. Result was avoidable wanton killing of own soldiers.
Next comes the 1999 Kargil war, where total intelligence and government failure in enemy assessment surprised the Indian army and had to sacrifice many young bloods to get back the lost land. The entire military and political top brass were taken unawares.
Despite One Rank One Pension (OROP) was promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it has been only half implemented, that too after being pushed by the Court.
Agniveer is another concept, which has been termed as disastrous by many military experts. But the service chief continued to vociferously support it. The appointment of current Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) also seemed absurd wherein a retired 3-star general was picked over three service chiefs.
Like that many aberrations are taking place in the army system whereas no senior officer, who matters, is raising his issue with the government. Is it the aberration of military leadership?
When post 1971 war, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi offered the post of Ambassador to Field Marshal Manekshaw post retirement as army chief, he refused point-blank.
But today, we see a large number of retired 3-star generals either joining political parties directly after retirement or taking up political positions. We have seen in our neighbourhood, how the politicisation of the armed forces has adversely impacted its performance during war. Do we want a similar situation in India?
