Some other ideas have been expressed by another Army Chief:
“A common streak that runs through the major part of the history of India is lack of nationalistic spirit and lack of unity”.15 …… “It has clearly come out that the internal threats to the unity and integrity of India are even more serious than the external threats. These are posed by secessionism, negative regionalism, religious fundamentalism, communalism, casteism, linguistic fanaticism and parochialism of different sorts, eating into the very core of our Nationhood. Insurgency, terrorism and violence, leading to considerable loss of life and destruction of property, are the manifestations of these. No effort should be spared to eliminate these. Needless to reiterate, while using essential force to control the situation, requisite political measures must be taken in time to tackle the root causes of the ailments.”1
Another view articulated by yet another Army Chief is:
In 1992, a remark made by the Army chief, General S.F. Rodrigues, that good governance of the country was also the Armys business, led to furore and debate in Parliament, but never a truer was said. It is a truism that a root cause of any insurgency is poor governance.
“…… India suffers from a weak strategic culture……. Most of our political leaders grew up conjuring the idea of a morally superior India; professing peace and harmony in a world where nations indulge in cut-throat competition. Value-based politics is morally superior. But, as we all know, that does not reflect the international realism. The ability to generate hard power, and the will and the ability to make use of that, is not our strong point. We tend to remain internalized, fixing each other rather than fixing outsiders. There is too much political infighting and too little consensus.”17
Thus, in order to create synergy between the political and military, General KV Krishna Rao opined:
“To emerge successful out of a serious crisis, no amount of stress is adequate that, maximum possible preparedness is vital. If a sensible policy of diplomacy is first followed, and when it fails military has to be used out of compulsion, it may be emphasized that both aspects require thorough preparation.”18
When the government struck the defence deal with A B Bofors of Sweden in 1986, it was General Sundarji, the Army Chief, who initially gave professional advice to procure a gun with an edge. His recommendation to buy the Bofors howitzers became controversial, when allegations of huge kickbacks started and the Indian Army was being made a scapegoat in the entire drama. It is the duty of the military to recommend weapons. But the weapons deal was primarily a political decision. It was the PMO that felt that the cancellation of the Bofors contract would jeopardise India’s security. As General Sundarji later said:
“I had nothing to do with the deal. I tried my best to scrap the deal when bribery charges came up. But politicians never listen to armymen.”19
In 1992, a remark made by the Army chief, General S.F. Rodrigues, that good governance of the country was also the Army’s business, led to furore and debate in Parliament, but never a truer was said. It is a truism that a root cause of any insurgency is poor governance. The Army, while combating insurgency has to continuously face this fact.
Please wait...
