Acting against our own army minister? Deccan Herald 15 Jun 18
On a debate on News 18 on 08 Jun, in which I was a participant, the anchor thanked the BJP spokesperson for agreeing to come for the debate. She claimed that many spokespersons of the party whom the channel approached, stated that the topic being very sensitive, they were wary of participating. The topic was the last announcement by the Nirmala Sitharaman on the opening of all roads on the cantonment. The BJP had never expected the strong response this one action received.
Probably the defence ministry neither did its study on the subject nor did it anticipate the outflow of public anger, which followed their action. The root of the problem was Secunderabad, where multiple colonies have mushroomed around the army cantonment and residents of these colonies used army roads for commuting. However, post attacks on army camps in Kaluchak and Sanjuwan, restrictions began being placed, which angered residents. There were no serious concerns with any other cantonment.
The MoD ignored the court order of 2014, which would have impacted its unilateral decision. Two PILs were filed in 2014, PIL No 62 and 82. The Judge gave his decision on 26 Sep 2014. Para 56 of the Judgement read, ‘Ultimately the General Officer Commanding (GOC) is the authority who has to take decisions in the best interest of the army. This court has no expertise to decide on when to impose restrictions and how to impose restrictions.’
Para 62 of the same judgement states, ‘Conscious of the difficulties of commuters, the army authorities have imposed restrictions in a phased manner. Subject to security concerns and training schedules, it is for the GOC to allow civil traffic till alternative road network is developed. It is necessary for the civic administration to take immediate urgent measures so that civilians are not put to inconvenience and hardships.’ The court also ordered the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and its District Collector to submit a report within two months.
If the civil administration has not acted, they should be taken to task, why should the army be made responsible. Praise should go to the army authorities in Secunderabad, who despite the court order permitted limited movement. Similarly, they need to be credited for not opening roads which impact the security of their families.
The defence minister claimed that she had taken the army on board and it was a collective decision. If she as the defence minister had decided, disobeying would imply mutiny, which is not an Indian army ethos, hence was obeyed. The Press Information Bureau release by the MoD on 20 May stated, ‘Based on the review undertaken by Smt Sitharaman the following has been decided. All closed roads in the cantonments to be reopened forthwith. The closure of individual roads would be reviewed de novo.’ Thus, it was not a collective decision. Based on these directions the army issued its orders opening all roads with effect from 22 May.
The MoD letter on 28th May clearly indicated her refusal to trust her own army generals, who may be capable of leading troops in war, countering security threats and taking life/ death decisions in deciding closure of roads. The letter stated that all decisions on closure of roads would be done by the MoD. It implied that either the defence secretary or principal director defence estates, who have no idea of the cantonment concerned, nor knowledge on security would determine if closure of roads. Completely illogical.
The fact that her decision was meant to assuage her party followers was evident when members of her party celebrated in Khadki and Danapur. They celebrated a symbolic victory over its own army, which was neither criticized nor was a statement issued against it, by any party hierarchy. Similar was the comment by Gadkari in Mumbai, when he stated that ‘not an inch of land would be given to the navy’. One does not require rocket science to deduce the BJP’s intentions.
Her meeting families only implies postponing what has already been decided. While officers’ accommodations are fewer and wider spread, those of jawans are closer and in larger clusters, adding to security issues. Therefore, anger flows from across the rank and file of the army. A glance through social media would bare open the anger.
Is she aware that already reports of misbehaviour by locals and damage to property, belonging to families living alone has begun emerging? I wonder if she has met Soumyadip Jana, the fifteen-year old, first victim of the Sanjuwan terror strike, who remains in coma even after five months. His was the first house that terrorists struck. Memories of such incidents would always haunt soldiers serving on the borders, while their families are in peace stations far away.
She would have been briefed that major cantonments arteries have always been open and only minor arteries are closed. Ordering removal of all checks, makes cantonments more vulnerable than malls and hotels. In fact, the logical decision should have been done on a case by case basis, rather than a unilateral one, across the board. Protests outside the cantonment in Secunderabad demanding opening every axis have divided the nation as never before.
The BJP is now in a catch 22 situation. If it unilaterally withdraws its order, those whom it sought to pacify would be up in arms, impacting local vote banks. If it continues with the decision, it would anger the serving and veteran community and impact their votes. The armed forces community is already boiling with the BJP for multiple issues, however this is the icing on the cake.
I do hope the top brass of the government considers the ramifications of this hasty and ill-conceived decision taken by the MoD and seeks to reverse it, before a mishap occurs which will definitely put the ruling party in the dumps and be exploited by every opposition party to full advantage. This decision could then be the catalyst for its downfall in 2019.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army