Maintaining two war memorials in proximity (English Version) Rakshak News 09 May 18

Maintaining two war memorials in proximity (English Version) Rakshak News 09 May 18

Based on a demand from across the nation on the need to establish our own memorial for those military personnel who laid down their lives in service of the country, the government announced the construction of a new war memorial in Oct 2015. This issue was pending for decades with every government looking for reasons to delay its decision. Even the earlier Delhi government under Shiela Dixshit was unwilling to give a clearance for its construction claiming two memorials close to one another would reduce open space at India Gate.

The memorial is finally nearing completion and is likely to be inaugurated by Independence Day. This memorial is being constructed to honour over 22,600 military personnel who have sacrificed their lives since Independence. The memorial would have all their names engraved. A war museum close to the location is also being constructed and would be ready by Jul 2020.The total project cost is being pegged at Rs 500 Crore.

The existing war memorial at India Gate was constructed in 1931 to honour the 82,000 soldiers who laid down their lives in the First World War and the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919. Post the 1971 war an addition was made which included a reversed rifle, capped by a war helmet on a plinth in black marble.

Four urns surround the structure with permanently burning flames fuelled by CNG and each face of the cenotaph has the words ‘Amar Jawan’ inscribed in gold. It was inaugurated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 26 Jan 1972 and is manned by members of the three services 24 X 7. It is here that wreaths are laid on momentous occasions and it is around this memorial that the republic day parade progresses.

India needed its own memorial for honouring its valiant members of the armed forces who sacrificed their lives post- Independence. Every nation has its own war memorial and India for seven decades was honouring its martyrs on a British constructed memorial of World War I. On completion of the new memorial there is a need for a decision as to what should be done with the earlier one and to which level would it need to be maintained and cared for.

Both memorials honour Indian soldiers though the periods may vary, but they remain Indian soldiers. The additions made post 1971 in the earlier memorial would remain, as removing or moving it would be against norms. Both memorials would have burning urns which would need to be maintained. While both are in vicinity, the emphasis of honouring those who sacrificed their lives would shift to the new memorial as it is dedicated to the post-independence soldier. Politically, the present government, since it took the decision to construct the new, may tend to ignore the earlier.

The armed forces must maintain the sanctity of both memorials, hence there would be a requirement to place a joint service guard and continue ceremonial traditions at both as the memorials represent the Indian soldier, who fought without any political bias. The services cannot afford to let one be ignored as it could be defaced or insulted during protests or demonstrations or even by anti-national elements.

Therefore, the defence ministry in conjunction with the services would need to issue guidelines so that neither is ignored. While constructing a new memorial was the demand of the nation, having two in proximity has raised issues on what needs to be done with the earlier memorial, which served as the national war memorial for seven decades. The completion of the war museum would add to the grandeur of the new memorial.

The service headquarters should take the lead and work out operating procedures to ensure both are well maintained, respected and given similar care, as after all they honour our soldiers. It should not ignore one for the other.

Defence lands ‘encroachment’: stop attacking army Daily O 04 May 18

While the history of military cantonments is readily available on the net a few relevant issues seem to be missing. The British established cantonments to keep the army ensconced away from the public, providing it areas for habitation, training and recreation. However, since these were orderly locations and the hub of all activity in the region, the future city grew around the cantonments and spread. Business establishments were first established in areas surrounding cantonments.

Therefore, cantonments initially away from the city, became the centre of growth of the town. Presently most cantonments possess prime lands in almost all major cities and are surrounded by the best of localities. Bengaluru, Secunderabad, Lucknow, Allahabad and even Kolkata are some examples. The Bengaluru, Secunderabad parade grounds and the Kolkata Maidan have always been viewed by state governments and builders due to their prime locations.

It has been the insistence of the army backed by the government which has protected them from becoming concrete jungles. Dhaula Kuan in Delhi was an isolated location in the seventies, however presently controls access to many parts of a growing city including to the airport. Most army cantonments are grounds where the local public comes for their daily walk and fresh air. Cantonments possess greenery and open spaces which result in a difference in temperatures and low levels of pollution and thus must be so maintained and prevented from being concrete jungles.

Expanding cities began to surround cantonments and colonies mushroomed outside cantonment limits, with its residents freely using cantonment roads for commuting. Issues began rising to the fore once army authorities began placing restrictions on movement on roads within the cantonment for security purposes, post the commencement of terrorism and terror strikes within the country.

Land in military stations come under two different entities. Some roads and land are under cantonment boards, which are developed and maintained by them, while other roads and land belong to the army and are termed as A1 and B defence lands, meant solely for army use. Some land is occupied by the army, while others earmarked for its future use while the balance is with cantonment board for maintenance and security including local markets and civil populated colonies.

Amongst the cities where use of army land has become a bone of contention is Secunderabad, where multiple mushrooming colonies surrounding the cantonment are impacted with closure of roads. The battle for opening of roads in this city has been raging for a few years, as increased colonies mushroom in areas around cantonments. For the residents, movement through cantonments save them time and distance, which has financial implications.

Mohan Guruswamy, a noted policy analyst even published a scathing article on the issue of closure of roads in the Deccan Chronicle titled, ‘This is not Pakistan, General Saab’ a few days ago. He claimed that arbitrary closure has impacted the movement of civilians and the army is unwilling to hand over land for construction of roads and flyovers claiming market cost. He went on to accuse the army of being in business, taking arbitrary decisions and refusing to heed to public demand.

There are some issues which need to be elaborated for explaining to those unaware of government rules. Transferring land from the army to civil authorities is not under any army officer, unless the land is A1 or B defence land. It remains the purview of the cantonment board, however army views are taken. Rules were tightened by the government of India, post the illegal transfer of defence land in Pune by a defence minister, who had personal interest. All transfer of lands, irrespective of classification, needs the approval of the MoD, the local authorities can only recommend.

Land has been given where essential, Kolkata and Bengaluru for metro and Lucknow for flyover and rail over bridges being recent examples. In the case of Kolkata, the land handed over was A1 defence land, on which a part of the army hospital existed. Thus, it is incumbent on the state government to process the case with the ministry. Blaming the army is meaningless and it is the easiest target, especially for a renowned individual, as it would not respond to criticism, as is its norm.

Security of cantonments is a primary responsibility of the local military commander. It is a bigger headache when the cantonment is open and surrounded by colonies in every direction. There are regular intelligence inputs of militant threats to army cantonments. Inside cantonments, there are small colonies of family accommodation which are vulnerable spots, many of which house families of soldiers deployed in insurgency operations or along troublesome borders. Their concern for security of their families, while they battle militancy or a hostile enemy, is paramount.

Incidents of militant attacks on family quarters in recent times in Jammu are examples of anti-national elements seeking to target army morale, by hitting at weak spots. The 14 May 2002 Kaluchak massacre where militants attacked the family accommodation and killed 23, including women and children still haunts the army. The latest in Feb this year in Sanjuwan also involved living accommodation. Attacks have also taken place in Nagrota and Pathankot. Hence the army would need to ensure security of its own areas. An attack in the interior of the country would be more demeaning.

If the army imposes caution by deploying soldiers in uniform along major roads, then the public feels it is overbearing and approaches the courts, Allahabad being an example. Hence, it has to adopt deterrent measures. An attack on a military cantonment is an embarrassment to the nation and severely impacts military morale, especially if families are targeted. The recent attack on an army school in Pak resulted in the army launching a major counter militant operation, mainly because it hurt the soldier’s morale and dented the image of their army.

No army in the world has that luxury of soldiers that it can deploy them all over the cantonments to ensure security, as demanded by Guruswamy. It therefore adopts a methodology of employing quick reaction teams moving through the cantonment in vehicles at random while guarding major installations and monitoring traffic by restricting movement through certain roads.

The national public should understand that the army, which has stood by the nation in every aspect and would do so all through history but has to act to ensure its own security. It must ensure security of cantonments to prevent embarrassment to the nation and itself. It may at times behave in a manner to cause inconvenience to the local public, which can always be resolved by a civil-military liaison conference. This is a regular conference attended by senior civil and military members of the city to discuss problems and arrive at solutions.

Surplus army lands can only be granted by the government, the local army authorities have no right. This could easily be resolved through the same channel, which has failed in the state of Telangana for unknown reasons. If the state authorities do not adopt this approach, then they must be blamed for their own highhandedness and lack of interest in helping the public.

Blaming the army may be easy but understanding its constraints is difficult. Channels of resolution always exist, employing them is more important rather than throwing the blame on an institution which maintains a studied silence because of its ethos.

Armed forces veteran on why Akshay Kumar’s Rustom uniform auction is offensive Daily O 01 May 18

A tweet by Akshay Kumar on placing the ‘uniform’ he wore for the movie Rustom on auction and the proceeds going for animal welfare has been questioned by many on social media. While the aim of the actor was honourable, many veterans felt it was a cheap publicity seeking stunt. The movie Rustom for which he wore the dress took its cue from the true-life story of naval commander KM Nanavati’s case of 1959.

The reasons why the actions of Akshay and his wife Twinkle’s so-called noble gesture is wrong are plenty. The uniform worn along with the medals which adorned it were grossly out of place. Most of his medals dated to the current time, whereas the uniform was meant to represent the late 1950’s, however represents the present. The uniform and body regulations have undergone multiple changes between then and now. While the common Indian, unaware of the errors in the dress would have ignored it, the veterans and serving did raise multiple issues on it.

That apart, what Akshay and Twinkle failed to realize was that what was worn in the film was not a ‘uniform’, but a costume. It may have been inadvertent, however despite all which has flowed on social media has yet not been corrected. Had the tweet indicating the sale stated that the ‘costume’ worn by the actor was being auctioned, there would have been no objections. It was the term ‘uniform’ which irked the veteran community. After all, once a member of the armed forces family, always a member of the same, irrespective of the age and rank at which an individual left or retired.

For those from the armed forces family, a uniform is earned with sweat, blood and tears. Years of training and the grant of a presidential commission only permits an individual to wear a uniform in the rank of an officer. A rank is earned with even more effort and sweat. A film star, despite all his social obligations and support to multiple charitable organizations, has no right to claim he has been granted the power to wear a uniform, solely because he represented a character who did adorn one. Further, terming his costume as a uniform was even more derogatory.

Even those national figures granted honorary ranks in the services, Sanchin Tendulkar and Dhoni being examples, are only permitted to wear uniforms on special occasions. Dhoni wore his Territorial Army uniform to march upto the President to receive his Padma Bhushan. Sachin is observed in his air force uniform when he attends special air force events, including air force day.

Within the veteran community, uniforms are never sold. While families of those who sacrificed their lives in the call of duty maintain a set of uniform in fondness and memory, as some social media posts have recently indicated, others who retire, destroy theirs. In some cases, uniforms of known personalities including high gallantry award winners are maintained in regimental museums or their units as an inspiration to those who follow. Auctioning or selling them is considered degrading.

The subsequent war of words on social media, by a veteran, was the expression of a soldier hurt by Twinkle and Akshay’s actions. The threats and counter threats was immaturity flowing from both ends. Justifying a wrong and refusing to accept the difference between a costume and uniform is Twinkle’s immaturity and using threatening language that of the veteran officer. The difference being that for Twinkle this auction was a commercial venture to support her charity, while for the soldier it was his heart which ruled.

The actor should realize that his attempt of raising funds for a charity using a term which could be avoided has hurt feelings. If his intention is still genuine, all he would need to do is change the word ‘uniform’ to ‘costume’, which in any case would have no impact on the auction, even if ever does take place. A small line of apology would also restore the reputation of the actor in the eyes of the armed forces community.

In the ultimate analysis, I am certain that both, Akshay and Twinkle, being educated would have by now understood the difference between a uniform and a costume. Admitting their error is the issue. Possibly, if they are ever considered to be granted honorary rank by any of the three services, then what they would adorn would be a uniform. Till then, despite any role that Akshay plays in any film, all he would wear would be a costume.