(Courtesy South Asia Monitor-uploaded on 23 Dec14)
Vijay Diwas;India needs a national war memorial
For the past 43 years the Armed Forces of
India have been celebrating or commemorating the victory over Pakistan in 1971.
Laying wreaths at scores of war memorials set up by numerous Military establishments
around India, is a solemn and mandatory part of the celebration.
War memorials are meant to remind our
citizens of the sacrifices made by their soldiers. That, successive Governments
overlooked the need for a National War Memorial at Delhi is well known to
most of us. The present Government has made a commitment which appears to be
grand and hopefully we will see it materialise within their tenure of five
years. Nevertheless, damage has been done to the memory of warriors who have
lost their lives in several operations since Independence, both in peace and
war.
Existing Memorials have been erected and
maintained by the soldiers themselves
with the exception of those erected at Pune and Bengaluru. The former was
funded by sustained campaigns conducted by soldiers, citizens/activists along
with efforts made by the Indian Express group. The latter is a laudable effort
of Sri Rajiv Chandrashekhar MP, who has been championing the cause of the
Soldier for many years. The Pune memorial has even received the title of National
War Memorial! Such a title is flawed on many counts.
A National Memorial has to be created by
society through Governments, preferably in the Capital city and not merely by soldiers fighting for it in any city. In
the extant case, it is located like all other war memorials, on Military
property which is inaccessible to tourists
and visitors for most part of the year, save on occasions such as Vijay Diwas.
All the arrangements and invitations are issued by Military authorities and the
function is populated by the serving and retired soldiers and not the citizen
who wishes to pay his respects. Even ministers
or senior civil authorities avoid these functions as they are construed as pure
Military ceremonials or perhaps they do not care for the sacrifices of the
soldier due to compulsions of vote bank politics.
Unless the caring citizen who wishes to
pay his respects to the departed soldier has access to the memorial, such as
Rajghat at Delhi, war memorials will continue to remain out of reach of the
citizen. Every visiting foreign
head of state starts his visit by paying
respects to the Father of the Nation;
he will pay respects to the departed soldier too- not the unknown soldier but
the soldier whose name is inscribed in letters of gold on the walls surrounding
the memorial.
Most countries who have fought long wars
have realised the need to glorify the profile of the departed soldier so that
it remains etched in the conscience of the citizen and consequently the society
as a whole. By failing to do so on many pretexts including the one that
"Amar Jawan at Delhi is good enough", we have unwittingly relegated
the importance of the wars fought after independence.
Vijay Diwas is also an occasion to take
stock of the insensitivity displayed by the society as a whole to the plight of
the war wounded and disabled soldiers and equally of the war widows of
independent India. Why is it that the media or activists have remained silent
witnesses to the scores of court cases filed by elected Governments challenging
the legitimate claims of the soldier.
In most cases the highest court of India has ruled in favour of the soldier and
yet Governments have delayed the benefits which were long denied. This is a peculiar if
not deviant way of showing our appreciation to the soldier.
One reason could be that most, if not all
the wars fought since Independence, have not touched the citizens of India
barring those who live on the borders. People were willing to part with their
gold if the Government was in need of financial support to fight the war. Yet
when the Indian Government ordered our soldiers to intervene in Sri lanka and
we lost valuable lives to protect their freedom, our Prime Minister, on a visit
to Colombo a few years ago, declined to inaugurate a War Memorial dedicated to
Indian Soldiers which was built by the Sri Lankans in the prime property
adjoining their own War Memorial. The reason was as impious as coalition
politics.
In
comparison millions of lives were lost during WW1 and WW2 in UK,Europe,USA
,Soviet Union and Japan. Almost every family had lost a member and the Wars
lasted for years. One may conclude perhaps erroneously that only long wars
would sensitise our society to respect the needs of a soldier. Arthashastra contains references to the dangers to the society if soldiers are not well
cared for both in service and after retirement.
Both the politician and the bureaucrat are
products of our society. An 'uneducated' society would be oblivious to the justifiable needs of a soldier. If that
be so, how would we educate and sensitise the society in the first instance, so
that the by-product that enters governance-related structures is well equipped to deal with the travails and
tribulations of a soldier?
Given that long wars are unlikely between
nations and that terrorism-related and ideological/religious
skirmishes have the potential to inflict devastating damage and loss of lives,
we need to bridge the yawning gap between the soldier and the state or the
soldier and the society.
Making Military training a part
of the academic profile of every Indian may well be a solution.
