|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | SPECIALS | |||
|
ELECTIONS '98
|
|
|
|
How Readers reacted to Admiral J G Nadkarni's last column
Date sent: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:44:33 -0800 I disagree with Admiral Nadkarni. Armed services personnel, like members of any other organisation, must have the right to protest as both individuals as well as a collective. If they don't, then the armed services ought to change their definition of "mutiny" and bring their laws in line with modern organisational theory and practice. Human beings are not automatons and organisations cannot demand that they depersonalise themselves. Loyalty, valour, and sacrifice cannot be demanded. These values must be inspired. Woe to the country, organisation, and leadership that demands these values as a matter of right but disparages the individual's right to protest against alienation. Comparing service conditions in modern day armed services with those that existed in the past is both unnecessary and misleading. If service conditions were appalling, then what about work conditions in civilian factories in the early stages of the industrial revolution? Or what about work conditions on slave-driven plantations? Work conditions in the civilian sector too were degrading and only improved after the organisation of labour into unions and political parties. Obviously, armed forces in any society cannot function on the same principle. But they must be cognisant of fundamental human rights. It is simplistic to argue that it is nationalism and nationalism alone that inspires a country's youth to join the armed services. Individuals are driven by ideological, sociological, and material factors in pursuing different career paths. Data indicates that India' s armed forces no longer attract the "best and the brightest." That has been known for quite some time. But Nadkarni's article suggests that instead of tackling the situation, India's military leadership would rather retreat behind walls of arrogance, derision, and contempt. The "trade unionism" that was recently at display in the Indian Air Force was the consequence of bizarre policy, incompetent leadership, and sheer frustration on the part of the revolting officers. The spontaneity and width of the protest is an indication of the depth to which morale has plummeted. Instead of proffering an explanation to the crisis, the admiral is content with making sexist remarks such as men hiding behind their "wives's pallus." Nadkarni could serve the cause of the country better by providing a detailed narrative of the recent events, its impact on the Army and Navy, and policy recommendations to arrest the decline in the discipline and morale in the armed services. Gaurav Kampani
Date sent: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:58:56 -0800 Many defence officers are corrupt and the lower rank guys are discouraged at what they see. I personally know people in the Army and Air Force in Pune in the 1970s who were very, very corrupt. The NCOs see that nepotism, favouritism and lack of opportunity for the NCOs to become officers are all causes for discontent. Take the case of Mulayam Singh Yadav and his direct involvement in getting some of his pet friends promoted in the Army. Such interference has led to low morality in the defence service. The lower ranks are treated badly and it is the right time to revolt. The Pay Commission should have paid the NCOs more because the NCOs take more shit from everyone else. India's Armed Forces do not have a forceful general or its counterpart in the Navy or Air Force to emphasise the plight of the common soldier. Everybody is busy sucking up to their higher-ups in Delhi for their golden parachute retirements. First his men in war and first himself in peace has become the Armed Force motto.
Date sent: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:56:13 +0300 I cannot agree more with what the admiral states. The Forces are not made up of some senior divisional clerks who can go on a pen down or use the media to fight their battles, and parade their screaming wives around. Unfortunately, the chaos on the political front has not allowed the government to pay any attention to this rather dangerous incident and unless operated upon, the possibility of this cancer taking root needs to be attended by the BJP government. There are few good institutions left in India -- let us hope they continue as such and do not go the way of everything else in the last few years. S Dayanand
Date sent: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:50:53 -0800 The article captures the issue in a very correct perspective. Made enlightening and interesting reading.
Date sent: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:41:04 +0530 Admiral Nadkarni has expressed a typical serviceman's view by calling the stir in the Air Force a mutiny. Narrowly defined it may be and there is no doubt that the sacredness of command must be maintained. However, the answer is as the Royal Commission did in 1797 -- punish the transgressors severely, sack those officers under whose command the unrest took place as they have shown a woeful lack of leadership and this includes the air chief. Then sort out the problem within the parameters of the government's pay policy.
Date sent: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:31:32 +0530 Like all of Admiral Nadkarni's writings and indeed, much of his actions whilst he was at the helm of the Indian Navy, the article is full of the duck-and-weave variety of scholarship that has long characterised our country in general and our services in particular. The morality or otherwise of redressal of grievances by means other than those laid down by service regulations, must stand alongside morality or otherwise of bold leadership of the service in question. It is unbelievable that a service chief should be so downright dumb as to willfully split his service along vertically -- pilots versus non-pilots! Even worse, that he should then articulate personal views that vertically split even the flying Branch of the Air Force -- fighter pilots versus helicopter and transport pilots. That the government should do nothing about asking the CAS to resign forthwith is hardly surprising in a morally bankrupt country. That a former CNS should be unable to see the woods for the trees, is somewhat more disappointing, but, as has been said in the beginning, this too, is entirely consistent with the admiral's past writings and actions -- howsoever cloaked in fine turns of phrase, historical blankets, and even scholarship of a high order.
Date sent: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:58:07 -0600 Kudos to the admiral on explaining the vicissitudes of life in the armed services.
Date sent: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:31:28 -0600 Secularism does not mean atheism ! If you can hold a Bible or Gita in a court, why can't you say that you are Hindu? Also, the BJP is not a HINDU party. It is an Indian political party!!! They don't have any hidden agenda. It is the Congress and so-called secular (actually they should be called Anti-INDIA parties) who have sold India's interests for monetary kickbacks. I am really sick and tired of everybody blaming the BJP and RSS for the country's political mess. I will ask a few questions. Who has been ruling this country since Independence? How come there is still so much poverty among the masses, while the ruling party people has become so rich? Where did this money came from? Anil Manchanda Richardson, TX |
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
||