Why Nitin Gadkari’s outburst against Navy betrays ignorance Daily O 13 Jan 18
Nitin Gadkari, the union minister for shipping in an address in Mumbai last week, questioned the authority of the navy in blocking a proposal for a floating jetty in Malabar Hill of Mumbai. He went on to state, ‘Where is the navy at Malabar Hill? A mindset has developed to create roadblocks in projects. Bring the project before me. We are in power, not the navy or the defence minister. I will not give even an inch of land to the navy in South Mumbai. We respect the navy, but they should go to Pakistan and do patrolling’.
Such comments by Gadkari are clearly indicative of his lack of knowledge and frustration. The central government had issued directions to the armed forces, to clear projects in near vicinity of the cantonments, post a series of construction, including the Adarsh building in Mumbai, which could impact the security of military cantonments. These were laid down under the Ministry of Defence (MoD) guidelines and are being implemented irrespective of who plans the constructions.
As per the MoD guidelines, projects rejected by the service HQs at local levels, could be projected to the MoD for a review. The ultimate authority is the MoD. Thus, the navy in Mumbai, after considering the jetty at Malabar Hill and its impact on the naval bases in the city, was within its rights to reject the proposal. The state government could approach the MoD for clearance. Even projects being directly approved by the centre could face similar objections. Thus, Gadkari was clearly ignorant or he was not briefed on the reasons why the project was turned down or being aware was seeking to score a few brownie points. The last appears most probable.
His comment that the navy should patrol Pakistan indicated a new low in knowledge. The Navy is responsible for protecting the nation along its sea lines of communication, which it has been doing exceedingly well. It would only be required to patrol off the coast of Pakistan during war or increased hostilities which it would do, as part of his task.
If Gadkari was presuming that his comments would add a few additional votes in his future election campaigns, he is mistaken. Mumbaikars are more than thankful to the armed forces of the nation for the immense support provided to them in times of trouble. During the monsoon, when Mumbai was in a deluge, the navy set up canteens and provided free meals to all those who were unable to return home due to flooded railway tracks. The army is building Foot Over Bridges, which the Mumbai municipal corporation and the railways failed to construct. When Mumbai was under a terror strike, the first force to enter the hotels were the naval Garuds (commando’s).
The armed forces have never been against development. Mr Gadkari may be unaware, but it is the armed forces who have secured the nation and defended its institutes to ensure development. He may never know, but Late President Abdul Kalam had stated in his speech to passing out cadets from the Indian Military Academy on 09 Dec 2006 that ‘national development and national security have to go together’.
However, if any commercial activity is so located that it opens doors for inimical forces to monitor or impact military movement then that facility is a threat to the nation. In such cases denial of permission has been done on numerous occasions in the past. Some cases, post the sealing, are also being contested in the supreme court as they were forced into closure after immense investments.
The navy is in Mumbai, not out of choice or compulsion. It has been a major naval base even prior to independence and being the financial capital of India must be secured from all threats. Its force levels continue to grow as threats to India increase. As force levels grow, so does the strength of the force. It therefore needs land for its staff, providing which is the responsibility of the government. Mr Gadkari would in no way be doing the armed forces any favour by allocating land, it is their responsibility.
Mr Gadkari is only a Minister of Shipping. He is not the Prime Minister of India nor the defence minister to pass direct instructions or comment on a national resource. Allocation of land is done by the state government in consultation with the defence minister. The shipping ministry is nowhere in the picture on such issues. He would benefit the nation if he restricts his comments on a topic of which he is aware.
Being a minister of shipping, he would be aware that it is the Indian navy, which has secured the shipping industry from the piracy prevailing off the coast of Africa. It permanently patrols the seas to secure ships from inimical forces. Thus, instead of praising them for their stellar performance, he raised his voice on a topic on which he was ignorant.
In his address he was venting his frustration as the navy, which possibly after detailed analysis rejected his proposal. He may not have experienced his orders being turned down earlier, being a powerful political figure, however when it comes to ensuring national security, the armed forces refuse to budge despite pressure. If they are to be overruled, then the authority must flow from its own ministry, rather than an outspoken political figure. If the naval vice admiral, Girish Luthra, present at the event would have walked out, on Gadkari’s comments, the insult would have been his. It was his maturity that he remained seated.
The Prime Minister spends Diwali with soldiers, terms them as members of his family and promises to cater for their welfare. His own minister, Nitin Gadkari, berates them solely because they considered national security more important than accepting one of his schemes. Despite his comments, the armed forces would adhere to the guidelines laid down by the MoD and reject any proposal which threatens national security. For them the nation would always remain more important, as governments may come or go, but the armed forces would always remain.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army