Encouraging people to join the armed forces and urging them to die for the country is a very serious matter. You are, sort of, approving a product and encouraging others to use it. If so, do you not have a responsibility to ensure that the makers comply with what they advertise?
Of late, I have been seeing the new ad for Paan Vilaas masala where two users who recommend Paan Vilaas go around its factory and satisfy themselves that indeed, no tobacco or nicotine is being used in its manufacture, as is advertised. In this case, if they had found that tobacco and nicotine were surreptitiously being used in manufacture, should they still have agreed to put their names behind the product?
I have experienced that the country makes all sorts of promises to improve the chances of the soldiers coming out alive of a firefight, but does not deliver on the promise. Better equipment, better training, greater number of officers, better infrastructure around the battlefield, better pay and perks of soldiers - all this is promised but not delivered. The drawbacks of the 62 debacle are still to be overcome, so we should not even talk of those of the Kargil war.
As for the seriousness of the country/government in meeting the needs of the fauzi pensioners, battle casualties and war widows, the lesser said the better. Last fortnight, the retired community has had to file a contempt petition against the Defence secretary ( and others ) for not implementing the Supreme Court orders for payment of dues to pensioners for over 30 odd years! This blogpost doesn't have the space for more example but one about our jawans' families must be cited.
Just some months back, the country suffered the disgrace of having the heads of two of its soldiers severed by the enemy. The country was on boil for a few days with the army chief and the CM of the state trying to beat each other to visit the house of the martyrs. Promises were made overnight to build a memorial, a road to the village and more. It seemed that the country stood united behind these two families. But just a few days back, another incident took place in which five more soldiers died on the Line of Control in Poonch. The bigwigs started rushing off to the mecca of public votes/sympathy i.e. the newly bereaved families. In that melee, I saw a TV clip of one of the widows of the first case, ' What about me? There is still no road to our vllage, no memorial, nothing'. That single clip was rudely pushed aside the screen to make way for the new icons of public sympathy. This is India, meri jaan.
Should people die for her? In such a scenario, will it be ethical for me to encourage others to join the armed forces? People treat the army related views of an ex fauzi, as that of an expert. Should you belie that trust?
As for the officer community, they demand the moon from their subordinates but are not ready to demand even good boots from their bosses, for their men. They only push downwards, never upwards. The right thing would be for the officers to exhort their men to lay down their lives, and alongside, kick harder upwards if even a pin authorized to their men is not delivered. But that does not happen, even in one in a million cases.
If you are not ready to even risk your career, do you have the right to ask someone to risk his life? Generals will fight for hours over the fate of a fictitious 6 man Protective Patrol in a sand model exercise, but will not even read a complaint about thousands of their men, living and breathing, not getting rations and ordnance supplies as per the laid down scale or quality.
For such matters, Generals tend to get 'practical' and delegate the 'administrative matter' to some grade 1 or grade 2 staff officer. This being a reality, shouldn't they allow their men, too, to get 'practical' when the moment comes?
Aren't these guys being selfish and presumptuous?
I will not be intellectually dishonest. This product is not as good as made out to be and will not get my approval.
Do also see this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment