FOOTBALL THE ARCHAIC GAME : ROOTED IN TIME

FOOTBALL THE ARCHAIC GAME : ROOTED IN TIME

(By Ajit Nair : Strictly Personal Views)

          Most games evolve with time – to keep in sync with the changing circumstances of modernity – and the last 20 years have seen the greatest changes that humanity has ever seen. Sports too have changed immeasurably – changes in equipment, in stadia, in surfaces, in the efficiency and reach of TV coverage, in commercialization, in the fitness and resolve of sportsmen and the high stakes involved, with the consequent competitiveness. But the greatest change has been in the modern generation’s  attitude to life – and to sports. The last generation was used to an easy-paced, but skillful and aesthetic way of playing a game. The younger generation wants an instant fix to everything – they want speed, strength and a quick result. Some games re-invented themselves to remain relevant, others merely changed their format or rules.

          Cricket was about to die of old age, but a blood transfusion of One Dayers to Tests saved the day, and pandered to the impatience of modernity. 20-20 came in even before the One Dayers reached adulthood and proved to be an instant success. In Billiards, old-timers made thousand point breaks – today each game finishes at 150 – to counter the challenge of colourful and fast-paced Snooker – and Snooker itself has introduced a 6 ball variant. Hockey changed umpteen rules, some to break the hegemony of India/Pakistan and to suit the Europeans/Australians and some to speed up the game – but all for the better. Squash, Badminton and Table Tennis changed their scoring formats and rode the crest of the wave. Some games were free flowing and fast-paced to start with, and had to make minimal changes – Basketball (3 pointers, triple free throws etc) and Tennis (line call challenges, tie-breaks) amongst others. And most Games enthusiastically embraced Technology.

          But the most popular game of them all – Football – remains rooted in obstinate and arrogant anachronism. Footer is such an entertaining and exciting global obsession, that its popularity has survived its archaic resistance to change. Everybody can and does play it and everybody loves to watch it. As Liverpool FC manager Bill Shankly famously said “Football is not a matter of life and death – it is far more serious than that….” The Footballing mania may well survive its restrictive and out-dated rules and regulations – but who knows when the modern youth just switches off. FIFA and King Sepp must think proactively – the writing is not yet on the wall, but it doesn’t take much time to fetch the chalk. The youth of today are demanding, but not too forgiving. Changes are required not just to entertain, but also to remove arbitrary and patently unfair decisions, to reward the better, more skillful and hard-working team, the more talented player – on the day, and to remove cynical gamesmanship. And finally, to use the benefits of technology to improve the quality of refereeing. In this World Cup, goal-line technology is being used, but video referrals and the full gamut of available technology is not. They must be used, without slowing the game down too much.

My take on what is wrong and what needs to be done, if Football is to remain the King of Sports.

Red cards/Yellow cards.   The biggest Anachronism. Both Cards have completely unintended consequences. Invariably, Yellow Cards are too mild and Red Cards are too harsh. And the worst thing is that the time at which they are given has a huge impact on the game. A Yellow Card early in the game has no immediate effect, but puts the player on tenterhooks for the rest of the game, while a Yellow Card near the end has almost no immediate effect (only long-term). A Red Card at the beginning kills the game and a Red Card for the same offence near the end has very little effect. Two Yellow Cards for two ‘not too serious’ fouls – equals the Draconian Red Card !!! And both illogically carry their effect onto the next game as well. A Red Card – and you miss the next game. A Yellow in two successive games and you miss the third.

Both Yellow and Red Cards must have an immediate effect and it should be even at any stage of the game and always commensurate to the gravity of the offence. Today, there are many different fouls of differing gravity, but only three types of penalties – Free Kicks, a Penalty and the two Cards.

My solution – an immediate three or five minute send-off for a Yellow Card and a 10 minute (or 15/20/30 – at the discretion of the Referee) send-off for a Red Card. And NO carry-forward at all.

Off-sides.    Off-sides have their origin in the late 18^th Century in English Public Schools. They’re archaic in the 21^st. They’re completely incomprehensionable to the average watcher and barely comprehensionable to the informed laymen (like me). Many an off-side decision in this WC has been patently wrong, denying what looked like a sure-shot goal. On 30 June 2014, I was astounded to hear a Legend of the Game, Robbie Fowler say “I’m not sure about the off-side Rule, but I think that should have been a Goal” (France –Nigeria). Laying the off-side trap is fraught with danger – suppose the linesman gets it wrong ? And beating the off-side trap has become a artificial and technical expertise, unnatural to the beautiful game. Absolutely no reason for them.

I say – abolish the Off-side Rule, Hockey has already done that. Let the poacher wait in ambush !! It will add a delicious element of surprise….

Back passes,        Back passes, especially to the goal-keeper, seriously detract from the flow and beauty of Football. To some extent, FIFA recognised that 20 odd years ago and banned Goalies from handling a ball that was back-passed by the foot (as opposed to the head or body). But the bane of back-passes continue. It slows down the game and leads to audience fatigue.

Back passes to the Penalty area must be banned. In addition, back-passes from ahead of the Centre-line to behind it must also be banned (like in Basketball).

Throw-ins/Free Kicks.  A throw-in is an unnecessary and artificial expertise, which slows down the game. Instead of throw-ins, have a kick in, to be quickly taken by the closest player (instead of waiting for the ‘so-called’ expert to arrive – and his speed of arrival depends on whether his Team is ahead or behind !!). And both for Free Kicks and for the Kick-in the player must be allowed to carry the ball, instead of looking for a pass (again, like in Hockey).

Time of play/Injury time.      The clock keeps ticking when the Referee calls a foul. Why? Then extra time is given to compensate the delays. Then players delay during extra time and the Referee has to re-calculate.

Why not stop the clock every time the play is held up and blare a bugle, when time ends – at exactly 45/90 minutes (like in Basketball)………….Time to be kept by the Time-keeper, and not by the Referee.

Replacements/Substitutions.  The Replacements/substitutions rule has remained unchanged for Decades. Three substitutions per match. We see slow Football and tired legs near the end of every match, especially during extra-time. And if a player is injured after the substitutions are made ? What then ? Play a man short ? Patently unfair. Hockey has a rolling substitution rule, which is so wonderful (also Basketball). Fast paced action till the very end.

My take on it - Substitute all you want – to keep each player fresh. And to give every player a chance. And to cater for minor injuries, which necessitate a rest or treatment for a few minutes. It will also give great strategic legroom to the Coach (Imagine : Van Persie starts; the Dutch two goals up in 20 minutes – withdrawn for a defensive player. The enemy equalizes, Van Persie back…..and so on). Games will oscillate between all-out attack and balanced defence.

Challenges.    Any challenge, especially from the rear where the ball is not targeted, only the man, must invite immediate retribution – in the form of a send-off (for a limited duration). It will act as a huge deterrent and prevent unnecessary injuries. Any callous, professional foul must come to the attention of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (like the Suarez ‘bite’). Remember Andoni Goikoetxea, "The Butcher from Bilbao", whose vicious tackling nearly ended the career of the sublime Maradona ?

Video Referrals. The reluctance to use available technology is just not understood by a lot of us. Similar to the Goal-line technology being used for the first time, back-line and sideline technology can be used. In addition, each Team can be given two (or three) referrals per Half, to challenge the Referee’s call. And the dialogue between the on-field Referee and the video Referee can be telecast, along with the video footage being seen by the latter. In Hockey, this has generated great interest, with the audience virtually participating ! Wrong decisions are the bane of modern Football and leads to huge on-field animosity. Hard to blame the Referee – he gets a split-second to make a game changing decision.

Penalty.      The Penalty kick is too serious a matter to be left to the on–the–spot discretion and judgement of the on-field Referee. In this World Cup, the mistakes in awarding (or in NOT awarding) a Penalty have been numerous, and the fate of a Country has been wrongly decided, leading to National despondency. (Even Robben’s last minute Penalty award against Mexico has been contested by many experts – like Robbie Fowler, after watching many replays). Before awarding a Penalty, a video referral must be made compulsory (and irrespective of a Team’s decision to challenge it). This could be applied to Red Cards also.

Number of Referees.     The referee is the only one who has to run from one goal–line to the other continuously, for the full 90 minutes (no substitutions allowed !). The Football field is large – 100 yards and this must put a huge strain on him. Even to the point of affecting rational decisions.

Why not have two Referees (like Hockey – where the Field is smaller) – one for each Half.

Brigadier (Retired) Ajit Nair

Ajai Shukla replies to my Response

Ajai Shukla's reply pasted below......

Dear Ajai,

          Thank you for the courtesy of a well-thought out and much more logical reply than your sensationalistic article.

          At the outset, let me clarify – I have nothing against you personally. I thought you were a very fine TV journalist/anchor/news reader. You were articulate and balanced, but supportive of the Army, without making it overtly obvious – thereby retaining your credibility. But I maintain my distaste of the article in question. It did not convey the feelings of a concerned Veteran trying to push reform in what he thinks is a corrupt, nepotistic, intellectually deprived and virtually dysfunctional Army – “crumbling edifice”, you called it. That was just sensational journalism at its best. Which is what I seriously objected to. There is a deep gulf between constructive criticism and destructive disparagement.

 “The Indian Army fish is rotting from the head.” The very first sentence said it all. A denunciation of what I still consider a very fine Army, trying to come to grips with the ills bestowed upon it by a materialistic society consumed with power and money, and upward mobility. Every problem that you mention, is present in our Army in varying degrees, not one is progressing to a destructive endplay. Grains of truth in a beach of vituperation. It’s not as if the Army doesn’t know of its failings, it’s just trying deal with them, without creating too much internal turbulence. Let’s give the Generals a chance without too much adverse and thoughtless criticism, especially in public. I agree with you – reform from within and from the top is the only option.

I’m forwarding your letter and this reply to all the original addressees, (in BCC), as you’ve asked me to. This exchange of ideas is also on the Old Lawrencians Forum – I’m not sending this to them (I didn’t put it there in the first place – someone else did) – too many disinterested readers, and besides, I don’t want it to become a Sanawar vs Lovedale battle – which it isn’t. My batch of 1969 had eight of us joining the Army (of 64 students). In my three years in the SSB – only one Lawrencian (from either School) appeared, and he was the Bandmasters son from Lovedale (and I failed him – regrettably). I think that’s endemic of the Army’s failure – not attracting adequate talent from the right quarters; and it bodes ill for our future. Which is why, running down the Army any further could well be extremely counter-productive.

I shall reply to your mail in detail – point by point, since I agree in some areas, but disagree in many others, most of all in the method you are adopting, to force the internal change you want. But I’m sure that you are not going to achieve that aim, by using irrelevant issues and sarcastic and facetious language in public, to ridicule the Army. And using exaggeration and sweeping generalizations as tools. These are the causes of my angst.

The Army is nowhere near fulfilling  the dire prophesies of its naysayers.

With Regards

Ajit

P.S.     Gen HS Panag wrote, disagreeing with both of us. Check out his blog at http://rwac48.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/15/.

Dear Brigadier Nair,

Thanks for your email, which is a critique of my article and equally of me as an individual. Since you’ve had the courtesy to send it to me, instead of merely to people you know, I am responding to you personally. May I request you to forward my response to all those you addressed your critique to. It would be the honourable thing to do.

Your arguments illustrate many of the key problems that today’s army faces. Let me list out the points you make in what I consider their order of importance and respond to them. Your assertions are in magenta and my answers are in navy blue:

(a) Articles are written on the army’s declining morals only because they sell. In comparison, everything written about corruption amongst the babus and politicians is “just one big yawn.” My article, like all the others, was just meant to sell the paper.

Firstly, the media publishes many more articles on corruption in government and amongst politicians than on corruption in the army. To verify this, open the newspapers of any ten consecutive days and count how many articles deal with corruption in the army… and you’ll get your answer.

But that is not the point. Regardless of the how many articles are written or not, even the army’s greatest wellwishers admit to rising levels of corruption, sycophancy, infighting and lack of professionalism. And this raises the larger question: observing this trend, should we --- and I include all of us who have given many years of our lives to the army --- bury our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well? Or should we take on the challenge of bringing back on track the institution that we all love?

The path of least resistance is: “don’t let word get out! We’ll fix the problem ourselves, without any outsiders coming to know.”

I call that the Wife Beater argument: “Honey, don’t let the neighbours know. Let’s keep this in-house. We’ll fix the problem ourselves.” Sadly, as we all know, the battered wives who keep silent mostly continue to be beaten regularly.

I am aware that there are still many senior officers who are honest to the core. But there are a growing number of corrupt, self-serving and nepotistic generals who believe that the organisation exists to serve them rather than the other way round. The honest and professional officers who keep silent and do nothing to restore the health of the army are like the wife-beaters’ neighbours, who can hear the cries but do nothing to intervene. And those like you who say, “keep this in-house” are equally culpable. Because, as you all know deep down, the army’s internal systems have failed to stop the rot. Sadly, ethical and moral officers like you are amongst those who are watching quietly and justifying their inaction as “love for the army”.

In the final balance, a crime of omission is as blameworthy as a crime of commission. For everyone who truly cares for this army, it is time to speak out in every available forum. Because internal reform is simply not happening. If we all keep silent, the army will inevitably be discredited in the eyes of the public, which is growing cynical about an organisation that they have long respected. The bureaucrats and politicians just love what is happening; gradually, they will step in and start interfering in the army’s internal functioning. I know you don’t want to see that day. But if you all keep silent, you will all be part responsible for the degradation of India’s finest institution.

(b) You say our veterans should not “denigrate” the army, but support it since “We have a host of unresolved issues – like the OROP, the 6th Pay Commission inequities, the CDS issue et al, but most importantly; restoring pride and honour to the Defence Forces.”

Sadly, our veteran community has chosen to focus mainly on financial benefits, rather than on the army's professionalism and ethos. I note that, in the list of “unresolved issues”facing the army, you have put OROP and 6^th Pay Commission inequities as your top two issues.

If that is what the veterans believe, they are completely out of touch with what the serving officers believe. For each outraged email from veterans like you, I have received ten messages of approval from serving officers, particularly junior and mid-ranking officers. They all say: “We agree completely. Keep writing. Only then will the generals change.”

It would seem as if serving officers --- who still have an immediate stake in the army’s internal health --- are eager for professional reform. Sadly, the retired community is focused on financial benefits; and has long ago abandoned any association with professional issues.

The “pride and honour”that you write about so passionately will not come from OROP or the extension of 6^th Pay Commission benefits. It will come from enhancing the professional pride of the serving soldier, and from instilling the confidence that the army has the ethos and training to tackle any foreseeable challenge.

(c) You write that I should keep silent on the “supposedly-ostentatious lifestyle” of the army chief. The IAS, you say, lives in style, flashing their power. Therefore, the chief is taking no more than is his due as the head of an organisation.

Are you really, publicly, making the argument that the IAS misuses power and, therefore, the army leadership should do so too? I like to think that we soldiers are different and that we hold dear our moral and professional code.

I would have no problem with the chief having 20 servants in his residence. Let the chief’s secretariat take up a case for authorizing that staff (as the navy and air force does quite routinely) and then let him flaunt the status that you apparently believe comes from having a large retinue of servitors. But I strongly oppose the posting of combat soldiers as sevadars/sahayaks/sentries/gardeners/area cleaners; and also the attachment of tradesmen who have been wrested away from combat units and formations, which in turn employ combatants for those duties.

I am appalled at the way combatants are being misused in the army of today. And I am even more amazed that officers, serving and retired, can pretend that will have no operational implications. When you allow the large-scale use of combatants for in the personal staff of officers, the message that goes out is: those tasks are more important than combat. And that means the blunting of your combat edge.

Perhaps you and I simply have different personal philosophies. In my code of conduct, a general who personally pours a drink for himself and for an officer who is visiting him is a far bigger man than one who signals to one of five waiting jawans. Sadly, in today’s declining personal culture, senior officers have even started using their staff officers to offer their guests a drink. And I'm talking about small gatherings, where personal attention can easily be given.

(d) All the recent incidents that involve men confronting their officers are “localized lack of leadership”, not an across-the-board disciplinary crisis. That kind of thing happens in every army, you say.

You are right when you say that each case stems from a “localized lack of leadership.” But, sadly, this localized lack of leadership is spreading like an epidemic. Besides the recent incidents of unarmed confrontations between officers and men, there are also innumerable incidents of fratricide in operational areas. Of course this happens in other armies too. But it is on the rise in the Indian Army and we should wonder why?

From where does this“local lack of leadership” originate? When you think about this, it is obvious that the leadership crisis starts from the top, with the generals (and here we come back to the COAS’s waiters!) behaving as if military manpower is a resource, a perk, which exists for the comfort of officers. Do you really think that the jawans are going to go along with this exploitative relationship endlessly? If the officer-jawan relationship is not made more equal and less feudal, officers are going to start getting killed by jawans even in peace stations. And then we’ll all feel even more victimised when the media notes this trend.

(e) The Indian army’s courses of instruction provide a great military education that result in army officers being “more intellectually enabled than any other profession in India… From the Young Officers Course to Junior Command to the Staff Course to Senior Command to Higher Command Course/LDMC to National Defence Course, no other institution prepares their officers so thoroughly for their next rank/assignment.”

You’ve got to be joking! The military courses of instruction that you cite so approvingly --- YO’s, JC, SC, HC, NDC --- are acknowledged by most armies as a tired, outdated route to predictable and unimaginative thinking. Go and have an honest conversation with a foreign officer (from a serious army) who has done one of these courses.

Give any syndicate in any JC or SC course a tactical problem. One can predict exactly what the solutions of 95% of them will be. These courses are designed to kill off any innovativeness or unpredictability that the training academies might have left alive in the officers.

Intellectual mediocrity is not a natural characteristic of army officers. It is merely the outcome of poor regimental grooming, where officers are not encouraged to read books, to discuss and to dissent professionally with their seniors without seriously endangering their careers. And when you cannot have a civilized professional disagreement with a senior, you cannot develop a freethinking intellect. And without that, you will always be entirely predictable. And in that case, you will quickly die on any serious battlefield.

(f) We should encourage only senior officers to study the 1962 war as “teaching it across the board would be deeply distressing and de-motivating.” In any case, there is no factual material available, since the Henderson-Brookes report is still classified.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the army is an intellectual desert. When apparatchiks decide that junior officers are so fragile that they cannot study a military campaign because it “would be deeply distressing and de-motivating”, you know you are in an intellectual desert.

By the way, notwithstanding the British Army’s glorious history of military successes, the campaigns that it focuses most deeply are its most painful defeats: Gallipoli, Balaclava, Arnhem and so on.

But our army doesn’t want to face the fact that we got whipped in 1962. Instead, we want to pretend that it was only the politicians and bureaucrats that were to blame. We want to wish away Maj Gen Pathania’s decision to evacuate Dirang without a shot being fired… brigade commanders upsticking without a fight… and the many battalion and company commanders that set fire to their stocks of rations and ammunition and fled with their men from their posts just because they heard that a Chinese outflanking column was coming their way. No, we don’t want to learn any decisions from that because we’re perfectly happy to manufacture history. Everyone from the topmost generals, with the rot seeping down the chain of command.

Have you read any regimental histories of the Indian Army? Most of them should be on the fiction shelf of the library. And an army that institutionally lies to itself, that tell lies in its citations for gallantry awards as a matter of course… military culture is dying and needs to be resuscitated.

(g) You say you don’t know Lt Gen Shankar Ghosh’s shenanigans with his medial category as his star waxed and waned, but you are certain that he is “one of the finest officers to have ever served in our Army.” And you have decided that I have attacked Lt Gen Ravi Dastane, who everyone knew 25 years back was “chief material”.

You admit that you don’t know whether Lt Gen Shankar Ghosh actually fiddled his medical category, but you’re confident that he’s a fine officer. This can only mean that, in your books, a fine officer remains a fine officer regardless of how contemptible his actions are. I don’t think this warrants a comment from me!

And how have you concluded that I attacked Lt Gen Ravi Dastane? Clearly you haven’t read the article that I wrote. There is not a single word or phrase in that article that is derogatory to the officer. It is a pure enumeration of facts. So, may I suggest, please go back and read the piece that you cite so authoritatively.

(e) We cannot condemn any chief without a “holistic” view of everything he has done during his tenure. You say that not every chief can be a Sundarji or a Bipin Joshi and that as long as he“stays out of controversy and leads the Army in a fair, impartial and professional manner, then he would have done his job.”

I’m sorry, but I simply don’t agree with you. In my course alone, which I think was pretty much an average course, there were at least five young officers with the potential to be “a Sundarji or a Bipin Joshi.” I am sure that is the case with most courses. And if these officers do not realize their potential, we need to ask ourselves why.

What a depressing statement you make: “As long as he stays out of controversy and leads the Army in a fair, impartial and professional manner, then he would have done his job.”

Are you saying that this is all that we should expect from our topmost generals? From the office that has been occupied by a Cariappa, a Thimayya, a Manekshaw and a Bipin Joshi?

(f) Gen VK Singh was not politically ambitious or divisive. He took a courageous stand on the date of birth issue.

While I agree that Gen VK Singh was airing a legitimate grievance on the date of birth issue (though he showed extremely poor judgment in accepting in writing at the time of his promotion to Maj Gen and Lt Gen that he was born in 1950), you are totally wrong in asserting that he was not politically ambitious or divisive. An army chief who starts attending the inauguration of statues of political leaders is using his office as a launch pad for a post-retirement political career (which is already playing out, in case you haven't noticed!) That is beneath contempt, as far as I am concerned.

And he was not divisive? All I can say is “LoL”. Go out there and talk to someone in army headquarters right now. VK Singh was divisive; Bikram Singh is divisive. And so will be all the future chiefs for as long as professional competence is measured, even partially, by personal loyalty rather than pure military capability.

(g) You say that, since “Not a single word is ever mentioned by any Indian Minister/ Dignitary/Official about our Forces,” the country doesn’t deserve “a dedicated, apolitical, proffessional Army like ours.”

Do I detect a veiled threat here? An implication that we should have an army like our western neighbour, that shows the “babus and dhotwalas” their place?

If that is what you are suggesting, you are doing the army no favour, and India even less so. We have seen what army rule has achieved in multiple countries. It will be even worse in India.

(h) We have fought more wars than the South Koreans, and are therefore more “entitled”to a war memorial than them.

I have no problem with chest beating about the Indian Army. But I do have an issue when it takes the form of false comparisons with other armies that make them look small. Do you really feel superior to the South Koreans? Since you're talking about a war memorial, let me give you a few comparative statistics about our battle casualties.

The total number of Indian Army battle casualties in all operations since 1947 --- the 1947-48 J&K operations; the 1962 war; the 1965 war, the 1971 war, Op Pawan (Sri Lanka), Op Meghdoot (Siachen), Op Vijay (Kargil), and all the LIC operations that the army has conducted in J&K and the northeast --- is less than 20,000 dead and 37,000 wounded. That is the official count by AG’s Branch, Army Headquarters.

The South Korean Army had at least 100,000 to 1,500,000 dead in the Korean War (some estimates go up to 400,000 killed). So it is not a good idea to speak disparagingly of other armies.

Another figure that will put our own casualty count in context. On 1^st July 2016, the first day of the Battle of Somme --- which was just ONE DAY OF ONE BATTLE in the four-year-long World War I --- the British Army took more casualties (20,000 dead and 40,000 wounded) than the Indian Army has taken in the last 66 years.

This is not to gainsay the sacrifices that Indian soldiers have made post-independence. Even one soldier killed is a massive human tragedy in that person’s home. But, as an army, we need to get some perspective about how great we are. We need to stop talking for a while and think. All of us are so busy trying to talk up army’s image that it does not strike us that everyone might not be as impressed with us as we are with ourselves. And when someone gets up and points out something wrong, we go into a child-like sulk.

So while I respect your right to do whatever you like, I will continue to do what I believe is needed to push the army into fixing things internally. We have excellent junior and middle-ranking officers that are yearning for quality leadership. But that will need a radical shift of ethos amongst senior ranks. This is inevitable; if it doesn’t happen top-down, it will happen bottom-up, with terrible consequences for the army. Or it will happen outside-in, which might be even worse.

With warm regards,

 

Ajai Shukla

 

My Response to Ajai Shukla's Article "Wake Up Generals"

See Ajai Shukla's article in the Business Standard at http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajai-shukla-wake-up-generals/491063/ or in his blog "Broadsword" here http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/10/wake-up-generals.html. Then read my response to that. In my Response, highlighted in RED are his remarks/phrases.

My Response to Ajai Shukla's Article "Wake Up Generals"

Dear Ajai,

I am a regular reader of your well-researched and well-written articles in your blog “Broadsword”. Most of them are informative and thought provoking, and a good way for a reclusive, introverted retiree like me to keep in touch with current Army issues.

But your article in the Business Standard “Wake up, generals!”was deeply disappointing. I thought it was crass – singularly lacking in taste and loyalty – and, may I add –intellectual honesty. There is a grain of truth in every issue that you touch upon, but the sweeping generalizations, exaggerations and illogical conclusions you’ve drawn on flimsy evidence, do your Army service little credit. You’ve obviously cut your umbilical cord with the Army and sound more like a journalist with a little knowledge about the Army, rather than the other way around.

Let me elaborate: your outright condemnation of both Gen VK Singh and Gen Bikram Singh in the very beginning imparts a negative tone to your whole article. We cannot condemn any Chief, past or serving, just on one action/set of actions. His performance must be viewed holistically and his overall impact on the Army seen, before pronouncing judgement. I personally don’t think that Gen VK Singh was either ‘politically ambitious’ or ‘divisive’.While I reserve my opinion on what he achieved in his entire tenure, I think it was a courageous stand he took, even though the issue was a redundant one. As far as the current Chief is concerned, I don’t think you are qualified to comment in the definitive manner that you have. "Most new bosses, even sports coaches, are expected to provide a new direction.”Silly comparison and a sillier joke that follows. Sports coaches are invariably changed after a debacle and a new direction may be in order. Army Chiefs, on the other hand, are not ‘supposed’ to invariably provide a new direction. As if the appointment of a new Army Chief is for the express purpose of prompting radical change. It most certainly is not. If Bikram stays out of controversy and leads the Army in a fair, impartial and proffessional manner, then he would have done his job. Not everyone can be a Sundarji or a Bipin Joshi.

The next three paragraphs on the supposedly ostentatious life-style of the Chief are a body-blow to the Army, coming as it does from an insider. Most Army officers have high self-esteem and live in style (though dignified) compared to their civilian peers, belying their low pay. The more senior they get, the more perks they are entitled to. And our Officers Messes are a study in decorum and elegance. I really don’t think there is any harm in living in style, as long as it’s done within one’s pay and authorised perks. And the perks are not inordinate, coming as they do at such a late stage in his career. When I was the Commandant, MIRC – the DC of Ahmednagar came to our Mess. He didn’t walk – he strutted. He came with a retinue of two assistants (uninvited), and six armed policemen in four vehicles, two of which were Toyota Corollas. He considered himself every bit my equal, possibly higher in precedence (equating himself with the Commandant of the Armoured Corps Centre – a Lt Gen !!). And I was commissioned in 1974and he in 1999. The pomp and ostentation that junior IAS/IPS officers live in has to be seen to be believed. Indicting the Chief for living in Army House in the manner befitting any Head of an organisation (in India or abroad) is hitting well below the belt. What do you want him to do – pitch a tent in RD Parade ground ? And entertain top dignitaries from India and around the world there ?

You imperiously comment “This travesty faces no resistance from subordinate generals, many of whom are hardly angels themselves” and then go on to cite several retired officers, not one serving under the current Chief. You castigate Lt Gen Shankar Ghosh for his down and up medical category –I don’t know the exact details, so I can’t comment. But I do know Gen Shankar Ghosh and he is one of the finest officers to have ever served in our Army and your personal attack on him without any personal knowledge, is a travesty of justice. He would have made a fine Chief, had the circumstances so permitted. Ask any officer who has ever had the privilege to serve with him. The current lot of Army Commanders are my peers and I’ve known them for decades and not one of them fits your Satanic description. Each one (including Ravi Dastane, a prospective one, – who you attack in a subsequent article, and who was known 25 years back as “yeh toh Chief material hai” !!) is a thorough proffessional and shuns the Five star culture, especially during visits, when subordinate commanders tend to pile on the pomp. I’m not sure where you’ve got your inputs from – or are you just assuming ? Or general lack of faith in our senior officers ? You mention corruption in your heading, but do not elaborate later – possibly you club it with the perks you say“threatens to seep downwards” to poison the Army.

Saying that the “recent face-offs…suggest a decline in the ironclad faith that the army jawan has always had….” is hugely misleading. Such incidents have happened on and off in our Army throughout my service and point to a localized lack of leadership, man-management and compassion, rather than an across-the-board drop in disciplinary standards. And this is true for armies of most Nations in difficult circumstances – throughout history. Reading “Crisis in Command” by Gabriel and Savage is an eye-opener on the lack of man-management and poor leadership of the US Army in Vietnam. Thankfully, our Army is not headed down that perilous path and knowing the calibre of our officers and men – we never will.

“Lack of intellectual direction” and “intellectual desert” are phrases that you used in casual disdain. I was a GTO in an SSB and abstract intellectual ability in a candidate was not a pre-requisite for selection. Agreed; no great intellectuals in our Army. But the amount of intellectual activity that our Army does is astounding. The equipment oriented and the tactical/command/staff courses we do and examinations we undergo keeps an officer busy throughout his career. An overdose, I sometimes tend to think. From the Young Officers Course to Junior Command to the Staff Course to Senior Command to Higher Command Course/LDMC to National Defence Course, no other institution prepares their officers so thoroughly for their next rank/assignment. I was an undergraduate when I joined the Army. During the course of my career, I progressed to graduation to post-graduation to a Post-Doctoral Scholarship. I have studied every worthwhile military General/campaign and read every eminent military writer – across nations, across history. From Genghis Khan to Sun Tzu to Richard Simpkin, to the two World Wars. I presume nothing has changed since I left three odd years ago. I’m not sure which fabled intellectual desert you allude to. Every Army officer is given the wherewithal to equip himself intellectually and continually improve himself. If he doesn’t use these resources, then he has only himself to blame. Most do (many are forced to), some resolutely don’t – well, there are laggards in every profession. Overall, Service officers are more intellectually enabled than any other profession in India, where “on the job training” or “experience” doubles up as education.

I do not agree, as you seem to suggest, that every officer/soldier should study the 1962 debacle. Senior officers must study it to understand what went wrong and cull lessons and remedial measures from the campaign. But to teach it across the board would be deeply distressing and de-motivating. At any rate, there’s not a lot of factual material on it – till the Henderson-Brookes Report is de-classified, if it ever will be. I’ve read “Himalayan Blunder” by JP Dalvi and “The Untold Story” by BM Kaul and both are not definitive over-arching military studies, merely personal narratives.

All in all, I’m deeply distressed that one of our own on the other side has stopped representing our point of view and has started running us down publicly, using the inside knowledge that he has gained during his time in the Army. You, of all people should realize that the Defence Forces are one of the few institutions which are still relatively uncorrupt and honourable and it is precisely because of this that the media love a good Army bashing article– it sells. No use writing about dishonest or corrupt politicians or bureaucrats. Just one big yawn. I sincerely wish you had kept this article in-house, in your blog, rather than publishing it in a reputed publication, where the lay reader will take your gross misrepresentation of the army at face value…but apparently you wrote to sell.

Today, politicians and bureaucrats are hell-bent on denigrating the Army. We need our Veterans to support the Defence Services, especially those in influential positions in the media. We have a host of unresolved issues – like the OROP, the 6^th Pay Commission inequities, the CDS issue et al, but most importantly; restoring pride and honour to the Defence Forces. I’d gone to South Korea, when I was Dy MS with Gen HS Panag – and for a Country that has fought one single war in its entire history, they have a wonderful, comprehensive War Museum. Isn’t it shameful that we don’t have a single War Memorial/Museum in India ? See the izzat that the Americans give to their soldiers – in every speech made by Barack or Michelle Obama, they talk about and thank their “men and women in uniform, who sacrifice a lot”. Not a single word is ever mentioned by any Indian Minister/Dignitary/Official about our Forces. We’re invisible –except when Veterans like Ajai Shukla denigrate the Services for no apparent reason. I’m ashamed of my Country for this. It doesn’t deserve a dedicated, apolitical, proffessional Army like ours. Jai Hind…..

Brigadier Ajit Nair (A Veteran – and still proud of our great Army)

30 SEPT 2010 : VIEW ON JAMMU AND KASHMIR

30 SEPT 2010 : VIEW ON JAMMU AND KASHMIR

(After Watching “The Big Fight” on NDTV 24X7)

                                By Brigadier Ajit Nair (Retired)     

The Nation has been keenly watching the ongoing hiatus in the Kashmir Valley. Those who understand the political stakes involved and the vested interests at play, trying to jockey themselves into favourable positions once sanity prevails –are sickened at the unnecessary violence and the loss of life. The vast majority – who don’t understand – fall into two camps. One thinks that Kashmiris are being brutally repressed and the other feels that they are being pampered and wonders what the fuss is all about. Both, of course are far from the truth.

I’d like to put down a fresh perspective on the issue, conceived from studying J & K for decades and my experience of having served there for five separate tenures – over eight years in all.

A word about myself. I’m a recently retired Army officer from the South. I’m completely apolitical and though a Hindu, have no love lost for fundamentalists – either Hindu or Muslim. I have no hatred for Kashmiris nor any prejudices against them. I’m taking a completely impartial view, though I sometimes may sound somewhat cold or emotionless – which the truth often is. We’re not going to solve the Kashmir issue through emotion – only a rational and logical solution will work.

First and foremost, we need to make it absolutely clear to the Kashmiri youth that Independence for J & K IS NOT AN OPTION – Autonomy is. Inexplicably, there seems to be hesitation on the part of the Govt or other players involved  in saying this unequivocally. Both India and Pakistan are Federal States with a diverse population. Independence for one State would lead to similar demands from many others, as has happened before and is still happening. Independence for J & K would negate our diversity and raison de etre and would be an unmitigated disaster for both Countries. This must be said often and repeated at every forum, because this is the absolute truth and though the separatists may not like it, even they know it is the reality. Otherwise, the misguided youth of Kashmir seem to think that even though Independence is not an immediately viable option – at least there is a glimmer of hope, something to fight for. There frankly isn’t a hope in hell that India or Pakistan will permit this to ever happen. There is just no use fighting with this Aim in mind and if the aim is unattainable, then the fight is futile.

If hypothetically, a Plebiscite or better still, an opinion poll is held, chances are that a vote for India will prevail. All minority communities (Hindus, Buddhists, Gujjars and Bakherwals, Shia Muslims and Sikhs) will vote against Pakistan and against an Independence with a majority Sunni Muslim population. Even rational Muslims will see the fragility of the new State surrounded by three large nuclear neighbours. Domination or exploitation by any one of them is a certainty. Only within a democratic India is the safety and prosperity of J & K assured.

The current violence in the Valley is inexplicable. In recent years, we have seen the conduct of two successful elections, success against terrorists, diminished support for secessionists and revival in tourism. Then what prompted the youth to suddenly become ‘stone pelters’ ? “Spontaneous”, or “by people not leaders” are unconvincing. Such large-scale and sustained agitations need organisation and leadership. In the absence of any provocation by the State, one can only agree with the hypothesis of the Govt that it is externally motivated and possibly controlled. Aided and abetted by the ‘separatists’. The killings (of over 100 Kashmiris) in the last three months or so cannot be the reason, as claimed. That was a fallout of the demonstrations and unprovoked violence against the State and not vice versa. At best, chicken and egg.  Any grievance that the youth had could have amicably been discussed and resolved with their own Kashmiri Muslim Chief Minister, recently elected by them in a 61% turnout election.

Apologists keep talking about “bullets against stones”. For heaven’s sake, do they expect the Police and Para-military to pick up the pelters stones and throw it back at them? Certainly not. Violence will beget violence and the Police will use the weapons at their disposal and upgrade their response as the violence continues. And that’s true of any Democracy in the world. India is, by all definitions, a “soft” State (poor intelligence, poorly armed and equipped Police, reactive and slow responses due to chronic indecisiveness, no political consensus even for national issues and constant back-pedaling in the face of political opposition and bickering). But the State response, while not trying to be deliberately repressive, can certainly be ham-handed and ill-thought out – and there will be collateral damage. Could this prolonged violent agitation have happened in any Western Democracy ? Would it have been permitted in any illiberal Muslim State – like Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia or Libya ? Certainly not. Or try it in Theocratic Nations like Saudi Arabia or Iran ! Or even in Communist China. It would have been crushed. Even in any other State in India, it would have received a much sterner response. Only J & K could have got away with it.

Kashmiris must understand that there is no genuine support whatsoever for Azadi from any quarters. The Lashkar-e-toiba and other Pakistani terrorist groups have their own pan-Islamic agenda and the ISI has its own – any help they may have rendered over the last two decades was incidental and probably retrograde for the Kashmiri cause. World powers (read US) are fed-up of Islamic terrorism and the line between terrorism and “freedom fighters” has blurred considerably. No support, no mediation there. The States of Pakistan and China may help – not through any love of Kashmir, but merely to keep India embroiled and “weak”. But they have their own Islamic worries and vulnerabilities too. Waziristan and Xinzhuang respectively. Can’t get too involved. If I was a separatist or an informed youth of Kashmir, I’d see the writing on the wall. No Independence. Cut my losses and see how I can lead a better life.

          All talk shows have shown that the Kashmiris leadership focuses on the over 100 deaths in 100 odd days. That, I’m afraid is neither here nor there. Admittedly, deaths of innocent young people is sad and deserves our heartfelt sympathy, but to make it a political issue is fishing in troubled waters. In India death is cheap – witness the 100 odd deaths in a week in a train accident and floods in UP and Uttaranchal. The number of Kashmiris dying is not relevant – the manner of their deaths is. Most have died not in surreptitious or suspicious actions, but in a legitimate open manner in Police action to quell dangerous and violent mobs. There can be no prosecution of policemen doing their job at peril to their own life – or are policemen’s lives cheap ? The risk is of the Police refusing to face mobs or running away – as we saw in the Gujjar agitation. An invitation to lawlessness across the Country. Where there has been prima facie malafide intentions or deliberate use of unnecessary force, the demand for an investigation is legitimate. The separatists focus on these deaths tends to divert attention from real issues. What do the agitators want ? What action does the Govt need to take ? Where do we go from here ? Instead all talk is – did the CM visit the hospitals or the victims’ families ? Is there a failure of governance ? Of course not. Probably because nobody in the media knows the right question to ask.

In a televised show on the recent events in Kashmir, on NDTV 24X7, the cacophony of dissonance was astounding. Only the Anchor – Vikram Chandra seemed to speak any sense – everyone else just stuck to extreme positions and shouted each other down ! The show was “The Big Fight” and there certainly was one ! Vikram, who very optimistically wanted a consensus at the end, was forced to admit failure. Very similar to the national discourse on the subject.

To the Kashmiris, I say, look at the immense positives of Kashmir and of India and of Kashmir in India. You are one of the most prosperous States in India. You have a rich and fertile land and culture, with unmatched natural beauty. You are a gentle and peace-loving people. You have tremendous potential to grow and prosper even more and achieve the highest per capita level of happiness in India. You must march in sync with a confident and forward looking Country, respected within the comity of Nations. And where does Geelani and his separatists want to take you ? To Pakistan ? Because, as I said, Independence is just not an option. Compare the two Countries and make an informed and rational choice.  I am not saying that Pakistan is a terrible Country – but in a comparison with India, it definitely comes out second best, by a long margin.

India – like Shashi Tharoor said in a TED lecture – is a country which is 81 percent Hindu and in 2004, a Roman Catholic woman, head of the UPA Coalition, makes way for a Sikh Prime Minister to be sworn in by a Muslim President! And he in turn was succeeded by a woman as President with a Muslim Vice President. An ancient people and culture who have never invaded another Country. But has been invaded and colonized numerous times and absorbed the religion and culture of its invaders, without losing its own. As Atal Behari Vajpayee said of India, in Chennai, on 13 Sep 2003, “….a country with 4,635 communities, 325 languages and 24 scripts. It is the birthplace of four major religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism - not to mention the animistic cults of tribals and is home to Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism”. A vibrant Democracy, the largest in the World and unbroken since 1947, where every type of Freedom flourishes. A liberalized economy where opportunities abound. Where the Army obeys the Govt without political interference, and respects and defends the Constitution and where every caste, creed, community and religion is represented in Governance. Some call it anarchic, but it functions well nevertheless. Of course, like any fledgling democracy and developing nation, we have problems galore – but at least the problems are known, and solutions being either deliberated upon, being formulated or implemented, albeit inefficiently (Democracies unlike Autocracies tend to be chaotic – preps for CWG vs Beijing Olympics ?!!). And Pakistan – I won’t specifically categorise it, but suffice it to say – mostly the opposite.

Kashmiris – your future lies in your hands. You can always elect your Govt and your CM, as you have done recently. You don’t want the CRPF in your urban areas ? Or the Army in your rural ? Throw them out. You don’t like the AFSPA ? Repeal it. You don’t like curfews ? Lift it. You want jobs ? Create them. You think the Centre is not responsive enough ? Make them listen to your genuine grievances. Or too interfering ? Tell them to lay off – we Kashmiris can look after ourselves. You want communal and religious harmony ? Harmonise them yourself – and as a start point, call the Pandits back to their homes, from where the terrorists chased them out. Do you think all of this is too hard to accomplish ? Not at all. All you have to do is be forward looking and positive. Forget your turbulent History or at least keep it in cold storage, and for the time being maintain peace and calm. Stop listening to divisive leaders, who are relics of the past and want to foment trouble just to stay relevant. Say “enough is enough” to terrorists and infiltrators from across. Trust your mainstream political leaders like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti who genuinely want the best for you. Just do these few things and voila! You will be on a fast track to peace, prosperity and well-being which the young of Kashmir have always craved for and never seen. The AFSPA will melt away with the morning mist. The Central Armed Forces will become unemployed and rumble away in their trucks (except for the minimum numbers required to be deployed on the Line of Control – and they will be looking outwards.) You will be free to pursue your dreams and the dreams of your children;  that is the legacy you owe them – not of bitterness, hatred and violence. And all of that is in your hands, to be done by your own volition. Start today.

GAZA IS THE SCANDAL THE WORLD FORGOT

A RESPONSE BY BRIG AJIT NAIR (RETIRED) TO MARY RIDELL’S ARTICLE IN DAILY TELEGRAPH (REPRINTED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS 11 OCT 2011)

“GAZA IS THE SCANDAL THE WORLD FORGOT”

          The tragedy of Abdullah Wahdem’s home is a poignant and sad story. But, putting aside the deep and heartrending emotions the story evokes, can we just look at the issue dispassionately? Why does Wahdem’s Village receive Israeli shelling ? Because the Israelis are retaliating. Why ? Because the Hamas fires rockets randomly at Israeli villages – in this case, at Sderot. Why does the Hamas fire rockets randomly and without provocation ? Because they know that Israel WILL retaliate and cause innocent casualties. Then why do they do continue this seemingly senseless shelling against a much more powerful neighbour ? Because they want international outrage. Are they succeeding ? To some extent, but their own shelling causes equal if not more outrage.  Then, will they stop, to end the suffering to their own people and to try and usher in peace ? Unlikely. Why not ? Because, if there is peace, they will become IRRELEVANT.

          And this is the same story with every quasi-political, militant organisation. They know how to fight, they know how to gain the support of people who are impatient with long-drawn out peace processes. But once they achieve a position of numerical strength or political authority, they haven’t a clue of how to govern or to bring peace or stability. They consist of rabble rousers and religious fundamentalists, whose raison-de-etre is fighting, terrorising  and spreading canards to maintain dis-harmony. And they are voted into power by the Abdullah Wahdems – the common people who do not know how to differentiate between a militant group and a political party. This is the real tragedy in the Middle East, especially for the Palestinians.

          Its easy to blame the Israelis, but spare a thought for their predicament. Surrounded by hostile neighbours, sworn to destroy them – their fight for survival started with their Independence – in 1948. And who were they before they became Israelis ? Jews, persecuted in Europe and survivors of the Holocaust. In their short history, they’ve fought three Wars, faced terrorism, rocket attacks and implacable enmity from all around – except for the Camp David enforced peace accord with Egypt. With the slow but sure rise of the Islamists in Egypt (witness the recent persecution of the Copts (Christians) by the ultra conservative elements, supported by the Army), this Peace Accord too is faltering. It is only the unstinted US support, coupled with their own tenaciousness, which has kept this fragile Country surviving and even thriving in the little oasis they have created in this harsh and desolate land. This is a Country in which every man and woman serves in the Army and the whole country, especially their border kibbutzes remain in a permanent state of readiness for offensive defence (remember Entebbe ?) This is a Country, which has never seen Peace. In this context, Binyamin Netanyahu’s words ring true “ If the Arabs put down their weapons, there will be no War, if the Israelis put down their weapons, there will be no Israel”.        

          While the whole World, especially India, has heartfelt sympathy for the tragic plight of the Palestinians, displaced from their Homeland and refugees in it – the solution cannot be at the cost of the destruction of Israel, which is the preferred option of the Arabs. Whether the 1947 United Nations decision to partition Palestine and settle displaced Jews and create the State of Israel was right or not can be argued ad nauseam, but that’s History and a fail accompli. The fact of the matter is that Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, a day before the British Mandate was to end and is today, well entrenched. The only Democracy in the region, the most powerful militarily and technologically well ahead of all its neighbours – what Israel wants , it will get (courtesy staunch US support). The Arabs and the Palestinians will be well advised to keep this reality in mind, while formulating a plan for the State of Palestine.

          On 24 Sept 2011, in a speech in the UN General Assembly, interrupted by regular applause, the Palestinian President, Mahmud Abbas vowed that Palestinians were ready to return to peace talks if Israel stopped building settlements. There was loud applause when he held aloft the official request for statehood that he'd presented earlier to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Abbas said “ I do not believe that anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application.” He was right, but of course the US will veto it, once it comes up for a vote. At any rate, this was a bold and positive move and the Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu agreed immediately and said that “lets stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let's just get on with it. Let's negotiate peace”. The condition that Abbas placed – that of stopping the construction of settlements by Israel, is probably acceptable to them. It suits both men to have peace in the region. There is a new air of hope in the Middle East. Now it only remains for Abbas to make the Hamas see some sense, to convince them that peace could actually suit them too.

          There is too much at stake for the entire world, to lose this golden opportunity to negotiate a peaceful settlement of one of the root causes of animosity between Islam and the West. All Countries, including India, who have a stake must pitch in.