War - Chhod na Yaar ( Denounce war )

I am a retired army guy from the combat arms. Just saw the movie ‘War-Chhod na Yaar’. The reviews were good, though the movie does not do full justice to them.

But the movie does make a point – that there are many constituencies interested in seeing countries fight and soldiers die.  Of these, third party countries (as shown in the movie) are easy to single out and despise. The problem is with those who are on your side and proclaim themselves to be as patriotic as you are, or more. Their demand that you take on Pakistan looks so justified that you run the risk of getting lynched if you as much as question them. Some months back, Sushma Swaraj thundered, ‘Get me 10 Paki heads for every one of our soldier.’ Seeing her genuine anguish, I was sure someone of her close family would take up the challenge. At second level, I expected someone from the BJP party take up the wishes of their leader and make a suicidal bid to get her the Paki heads. But nothing of that sort happened. Then it dawned upon me that the people expected to run the gauntlet for her were the Indian army, not her relatives or political supporters. We should die and she should get the votes.

Don’t these politicians have a right to see the army do the task it is expected to? Sure, but only if they themselves do the task they are expected to.  Haven’t the army people taken an oath to die for their country? Sure, but so have the legislators taken an oath to serve the country.  And what about bureaucrats and others who have not taken any oath? Oh, God! Is the absence of a formal oath such a strong defence?

Dying is such a final sport that those engaging in it should be given the privilege to at least get the right spectators. Very few people understand what it means to be hit by several high velocity bullets after making the assault at 15,000 feet.

I would still grant these people the right to fight Pakistan ‘to our last fauzi’, if they sent their own sons to the army. If the loss of the fauzis were to also become their personal loss, they are entitled to this right. Buckingham palace will always have that right since Prince Philip was part of the contingent to Falkland and Prince Harry fought in Afghanistan. But what about the Indian political royalty? 

Even if the Indian political class will not send their sons to bleed for the country, how warm is the relationship between the government and the warrior class? Judging from the number of court cases between them, these two groups are more apart than India and Pakistan. Why, then, should we not be wary of their ‘patriotic demands’?

Towards the end, the movie ‘War – Chod na Yaar’ has another important message. It is that you, the people, can force your leaders. Recognise your strength and use it. Do send us to our deaths but only after giving peace a serious chance.

Bollywood versus Hollywood

I grew up on bollywood films. Right from 1960s when a decent seat in cinema was Re 1.60, while you could get close to the heroine in the front stalls for just 80 paise. Always believed that Bollywood was the ultimate on offer in movies.
But since about last four months, I have been seeing about half a Bollywood movie on TV every night.
Never seen a Bollywood movie after that.
A Bollywood movie is about a star with strong personal mannerisms. They crane their head at an impossible angle, raise and lower eyelids with close alignment with the neck movement, flail arms like windmills and walk in style, talk in style. The story is totally subservient to the star. Not so in Bollywood. Most of their actors look like normal humans that they really are and they simply support the story, rather than the other way round.
Since so few Indians can do the above mentioned antics, there are just a handful of them - maybe about 15 heros and 12 heroines in all. But Hollywood movies are doable with normal humans and therefore there are literally hundreds of heroes and heroines. In the last few months, I have hardly seen a Hollywood hero twice except Sylvester Stallone in the Rocky series - and I see one movie per night!
Bollywood movies have a more than predictable storyline. In all, there are probably 10 plots our guys can think of. In Hollywood movies, each movie has a story like nothing you've ever heard before.
The movie focus, too, is very revealing of the societies they represent. Bollywood movies are about our national pastime - love between a man and a woman. The main job of a woman is to get a man to look at her. Her primary sentiment is 'Tujhe dekhoon to mere tan se khushboo phuten' ( When I see you, my body start sending out sweet fragrances ). Even in a movie with theme of 'Satyagraha', the boy-girl angle is a must. Our movies represent dreams that you can escape into, something our harried society so badly needs. Bollywood movies are more about achievement and challenges - quite representative of their society.
I don't really blame our movie producers for all this. They are business, out to multiply their money. If a movie like Chennai Express gets to make so much of money, why should anyone make movies like Aarth and Massom?

Am I right in being so nasty?

I have frequently been criticized for openly stating that is not worth dying for this country and young men should think twice before joining the armed forces. Many say it is anti-national. That forced me to introspect deeply. My discussion with myself went something like this.
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.

God explained to myself

I'm a vocal non-believer in God. It has occasionally worried me - 'Am I missing some logic, just because of my intellectual arrogance?'. I recently found that missing piece while doing an 'assumption busting' exercise on my beliefs.
I believe that God can not exist, or is not worthy of praise, since he does not look after most of his children. You see, fathers are expected to look after their children and not stand judge to them. Also, they don't discriminate. God fails that test, miserably.
But it struck me recently that maybe I am making a quick, and fallacious, assumption. If he is not benevolent, it could be surmised that he is not a father. However, that doesn't imply that he can't exist? What if he is a cinema story writer?
A story writer is under no obligation to make each character come out smelling like roses. He has no interest in their sentiments or their welfare; they are a just a figment of his imagination.
Makes sense. Even if God is not actually not a story writer, he could well be. So, God not being a father doesn't close all options for his existence.
So, if you say that God is uninterested in the fate of individuals a la story writers, I can understand him. I can also grant him 'creator' status.
But, of course, I then see no reason to praise or please him. That rationale is inconsistent with the 'father' explanation of God.

How justified are fake encounters

Should fake encounters be permitted? Are they necessary in the legal and political environment of India?
Top, though tainted, Punjab cop ( KPS Gill ) is said to be in anguish ' Main is namard desh mein kyon paida hua ( Why did I get born in this country of neuter genders)', claiming that some of his brave police officers instrumental in quelling Punjab insurgency were later hounded by the state, for their illegal means to do so.
As an ex army officer with experience in Punjab and other insurgency ridden area, I admit that illegal killings are, at many times, an effective way and sometimes the only way. I also know that Punjab police indulged in unspeakable atrocities on people they suspected to be bad guys. Some of those guys were really bad guys, while others were absolutely innocent.
The question is not about what is the need of the hour. It is one of legitimacy.
The Indian citizenship enjoins, rather orders, us to follow the constitution. Of course, our desire is to kill the man who killed my relative. But, the constitution doesn't permit me to do so. Any police/army person seeking those rights is challenging the whole concept of a state funded force. KPS  was a paid employee of the govt of India, which has only one purpose - to uphold the constitution of India.
Either he accepts the constitution or gets out. Outside the constitution, lot of people use force to settle what they perceive as injustice. They are called dacoits.
Last night, I saw the movie entitled 'Mission Impossible - Ghost protocol'. Lovely movie. In that, a team of American agents were on a clandestine mission in USSR. Some cover was blown and the US president had to invoke the 'Ghost protocol', i.e. he decides that US will hereafter disavow the actions of this team. If the team members are caught, the US will not accept that they are American agents. So, now the decision to go ahead with the plan or not, is left to the team leader. He gets his guys together, explains the situation and says, 'You can opt out, now'. In case they decided to still go ahead, it was on their own free will, not as a compliance to orders.They knew they were uncovered. So did KPS.
In his press report, KPS Gill plays the anguished patriot and thinker - ' Had we lost control over the district, Punjab's secession would have become an inevitability. Had we lost Punjab, Kashmir would certainly have followed. And once this process of fission began, every linguistic, ethnic and cultural group would have raised the standard of revolt. Pakistan would have been celebrating this 50^th year of its independence through the realisation of its dream of a balkanised India - '. 
He must be told that he was only the police chief, not the PM of India. Even the PM of India can not take action based on his personal views but has to take the sanction of the cabinet.
Some people do take action on their personal beliefs. Revolutionaries are one of that lot. But they do not draw pay from the govt. When caught, they march up to the gallows singing, 'Vande-Matram' (I salute the mother land) , not 'Hai, main mar gaya' ( Oh, I am killed).
Do not expect the state to finance your personal projects.
In the movie 'A Wednesday', Naseer plays the role of a harried citizen who decides to take action to eliminate some dreaded terrorists. But he doesn't go to the govt with a scheme. He does it on his personal risk.
Here's another case. Adolf Eichmann was the main person in the holocaust against Hungarian Jews under the ( illegal ) orders of Hitler. On December 2, 1961, Eichmann was sentenced to death for crimes against the Jewish people and crimes against humanity. On May 31, 1962, the State of Israel carried out the only death sentence in its history on the man whose only defense was, "I was just following orders." 
So, if you decide to take action on illegal orders due to your sense of patriotism or whatever, outside of the legal sanction, go ahead but do not sound so anguished and righteous when caught. Sing 'Vande Matram' and climb the steps of the gallows.
Will someone please pass this to KPS.

Gen Timmy's resignation letter; the anti climax.

One of the most admired army generals is General Thimaya.  A charming man with a solid background. However, despite his good intentions and brilliance as a soldier, his one act started the downslide of the standing of the army with the bureaucrats and politicians.

As army chief in 1962, he was regularly pushed around by the brash Defence minister, Krishna Menon. His entreaties of the lack of military preparedness and wrong governemnt  policies towards China went completely unheeded. Moreover, he was shown no respect by Krishna Menon. As a last resort to protect the interests of the service and his personal esteem, he tendered his resignation to Mr Nehru.

That was the make-or-break moment. Few hours later in the day, he withdrew his resignation since 'Nehru had requested and assured him'. That was the break moment for the Indian army. The resignation of the Chief of the army became such a tame and manageable affair.

In a flash, the bureaucracy realized how easy it was to push the army and its Chief. All one needed to do was to feed the old General the old wine i.e. that soldiers were loyal sons of the motherland and simply can not let it down. The old geezer was sure to fall for the heady stuff. After that, you can kick the swine again tomorrow.
We all set a price on ourselves. The Chief put it too low. The rest of us followed the role model.

There has been no recovery since the fateful withdrawal of Timmy resignation letter.

' Ishq ke pehle kadam mein hi sambhal jaye to accha hain,
Paon fisla, to fisalta hi chala jata hain'

( It is best that the lurching step corrects itself in the first instance itself. Once it stumbles, it keeps on  stumbling.)

God must love stupid people - he made so many of them!

The problem with the concept of God  is twofold. It is illogical and is also dangerous.
The main problem is internal consistency. Which of these opposing beliefs do you accept?

• On one hand, they say that destiny is preordained. On the other, they exhort you to work hard so that you may change what is destined..
• On the one hand they say that God knows best, On the other, they reject what God's wisdom has decided for us and have a different wish list instead.
• On one hand they say that God is the loving, merciful father while on the other, we find him more cold, objective and punishing than a Supreme court judge.

Beyond internal consistencies, I find other disadvantages in accepting a concept of God and his omnipotence.

• Firstly, it engenders a belief that someone exists who can change your fate. Life doesn't have to be this way; there is someone who can change it. This belief shatters acceptability of reality in one stroke. And once we can envision a future different than what is, the present becomes repugnant. If the rising of the Sun in the East were not inevitable, we would have been very unhappy with it rising that way. But since we consider it inevitable, it does not merit attention any more. We just live with that fact and adjust accordingly.
• Being uncomfortable withe the present creates desire. The utility of desire itself is quite illogical because we don't know even know what will eventually be good for us. Here's an example. On any given day, several people get late in the traffic and throw tantrums on this loss of valuable time. But those who got late in reaching the World Trade Centre on 9/11 must have rejoiced later. What they had thought to be bad for them turned out to be real good. We simply don't know what is good/bad for us. This is so because we project our present needs in the future and desire something for that scenario. In this projection, we fail to realize that thousands of other co-actors of that scene wold have changed in that projection. In those changed circumstances, what is good for us can not be known now. So why not sit back and enjoy.

Peace and tranquillity can never come to a God believer because he believes that all that is happening will not happen if only one guy ( God) can be tamed. Or, so he thinks. Only later does he realize that he lost out on both counts.