Indian Generalship

Recent cases against some Indian army generals are becoming hot news suddenly. However, a slide of this magnitude never happens suddenly or by accident. Like many life threatening diseases, its symptoms surface every now and then but are either not noticed or are brushed under the carpet. Finally, they explode in our face.
The book 'Mask of command' explains how like warfare itself, generalship is a cultural enterprise, providing a key to understanding a particular era or place. John Keegan propounds the view of heroism in warfare as inextricably linked with the political imperative of the age and place. He demonstrates how the role of the general alters with the ethos of the society that creates him.
Indian generalship is only reflecting the political imperatives and societal ethos that commenced in 1947.
It started in 62 itself, where Gen Kaul was a nothing but a political stooge. We lost the war because of that but hid the Henderson Brooks enquiry report from public scrutiny. Thereafter, we had 1965 where the then Chief recommended cease fire to the PM on the basis that we had almost finished our ammo which was nowhere the case. After this came to light, no action was taken against anyone. 1971 did see a new era but operation Bluestar soon followed it. There we had the shameful incident of a General ordering his troops to attack machine gun posts barefooted, forbidden to fire in a certain direction. How he accepted such political interference in conduct and methodology of operations was never questioned by anyone. On the contrary, he went on to be army Chief in his time. Thereafter we had the operations in SriLanka which were run more by the High Commissioner ( Dixit ) than by the army generals. As a consequence, we saw ragtag band of LTTE men merrily attacking units of Indian army that boasted of golden jubilees and centenaries. The army still did not protest. That further emboldened the political masters which eventually led to the politically expedient but militarily expensive frontal assaults of Kargil.
Since that too was not contested by anyone, the moral decline began.
We are only seeing the coming of age of a disease that started long back when political imperatives and societal ethos changed in 1947. This decline is purely of swadeshi ( home grown )origins, a sad but inevitable effect of Indianism.

Soldiers are hired guns - hired by questionable MPs

Is being a hired gun a good idea?
A soldier is essentially a hired gun. Hired by the state, but hired all the same. He kills, as told.
In my youth, being a soldier seemed something to be proud of. To be chosen to kill on behalf of the society, the country, the President of India was a badge of honour. Today,I am not so sure. Shorn of all big words,essentially my authority to kill stemmed from the MPs, particularly those of the cabinet. Is there a system to ensure, or even a lame attempt, to ensure that all MPs are good men? Earlier, I either believed so or did not bother. A more experienced man at 57 years, I can now say - They certainly are NOT so. Just look at the news of last 6 months and you'll find out. Should I have killed on Kalmadi's word, or those of A Raja?
Some years back, should I have killed others on the dictates of Phoolan Devi.
All that MPs can claim is that they are popular people. So,I have been proud of having the right to kill on orders of people who were not necessarily right, good, wise or blameless - only people who were popular? If a crowd told me to kill, should I?
The dilemma is also posed in the book/movie - The Day of the Jackal - 'Mercenaries too kill- but at least they themselves choose who to kill'.
Soldiers seem happy handing over this huge responsibility to people who have no known qualification to do so except being popular. In contrast, see the deliberations by judges and the legal system before death sentence is passed even for one individual. And everyone in that system is so qualified.
So, why be proud of being a hired gun -  hired by guys who could well be goons.

Defence is a non-issue in India

NDTV broadcast an interesting program on 7 Jan 11 evening - Dead (ly) weapons. The program showcased the terrible state of the weapons with our defence forces. It made clear to anyone who cares that Indian defence capability is severely handicapped by lack of modern weapons. As an ex army officer, I always had the dilemma as to why no one cares about this?
Why are the citizens more bothered about loss of money in scams than in the vulnerability of their country? My question was answered towards the close of the program. An ex IAF Chief, who had lamented the sorry state of air weapons throughout the program, assured the country that this lack of preparedness notwithstanding, we will not allow a repeat of 62 ( it is another thing that the IAF was not used in 62, which was a grave error). He guaranteed it. An ex army chief, too, spoke highly of the morale of the army. Hearing this, my dilemma cleared. If two ex chiefs go on record to say that India is safe despite this state of weaponry, why bother?
The fig leaf had been provided.
My take is - we are relying too heavily on the raw courage of our youngsters which can last but 14 days. Just that many to die needlessly. In military history, there is a quote - 'Do not use my men where you can use artillery'. Obviously, the quote could not have come from an Indian General.
The fact is that, overall, we are in a terrible state militarily. Such a shocking state of artillery, submarines and aircrafts should be more unacceptable to a nation than any number of money scams. Even with our known adversaries, we can no longer guarantee success in all scenarios. If we do succeed, it will be at unacceptable cost of human lives. And in case we have to cross swords with a really modern army, we simply had it. No ifs and buts.
Hey, I have just found a humorous analogy for our FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail! My country's defence is at stake. Quick, let me bother about money scams!